PDA

View Full Version : Feminism / Effects and Destruction of the Family / Influence of Feminism on Germanic Culture



Pages : [1] 2

Ederico
Sunday, July 6th, 2003, 05:20 PM
How do you see Feminism?

Scáthach
Sunday, July 6th, 2003, 05:25 PM
to put it bluntly i see it as women who have bizarre ideas that they are ''oppressed'' seeking superiority over men on the premise that men already have superiority over women,i dont think equality comes into it all. i dont like them to be honest...

Milesian
Sunday, July 6th, 2003, 05:34 PM
At the risk of being "sexist", my view is that men and women are made different. It's obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes, so why pretend like they are the same.
I don't believe women are inferior to men or vice versa.
I believe they have evolved differently to tend to different aspects of life. Women are the one's biologically who concieve and give birth, so it's only logical that they have evolved to deal with that particular situation and are better suited to it.

In saying that I don't think every woman should be confined to the house. But it is still a big part of a woman's life and I think it should be properly acknowledged.
One gender isn't superior over another. They both have critical roles to play and one cannot do without the other (nor would I want to do without women :D )

I think many Feminists are actually anti-woman.
They want to deny everything that makes them women, things that should be celebrated. I think some of them just want to be men. Perhaps a sex change is what they really want. For others there is nothing like a good moan.

In saying all that, I do believe in being fair.
If a woman is doing the same job as a man but getting paid less purely because of her gender then that is obviously unfair.
But that's not feminism, that's just common sense and fair play.

So in conclusion- Feminists = :throwup

Siegfried
Thursday, July 24th, 2003, 04:10 PM
When woman and man are made 'equal', we will not have emancipated women; we will have perverted both sexes.
I find it repulsive when feminists claim motherhood 'holds a woman back'; how so? It only does so from a capitalist point of view (ie. a young child often prevents a woman from working); from a healthier perspective, it does not. The expression and surfacing of maternal instincts is a very natural aspect of the female pscyhe; die-hard feminists, who smear dirt on motherhood, are, in my opinion, the ones who are holding women back from something much more important than capitalism; self-expression.

Phlegethon
Saturday, July 26th, 2003, 10:51 AM
When woman and man are made 'equal', we will not have emancipated women; we will have perverted both sexes.
I find it repulsive when feminists claim motherhood 'holds a woman back'; how so? It only does so from a capitalist point of view (ie. a young child often prevents a woman from working); from a healthier perspective, it does not. The expression and surfacing of maternal instincts is a very natural aspect of the female pscyhe; die-hard feminists, who smear dirt on motherhood, are, in my opinion, the ones who are holding women back from something much more important than capitalism; self-expression.

Well, "feminism" has become kind of a catchword nowadays. Originally "feminists" made a lot of sense - and it is certainly true that until about 30 years ago being born female was a big disadvantage. By now I think things have changed completely and women are actually better off than men unless they have to compete on the job market and have children below the age of 14.

I have found that Alice Schwarzer, the pioneer of feminism in this country by now has become the most intelligent participant on talk shows. Of course everyone else probably got more stupid over the years, but I also noticed that Schwarzer realized that the times have changed and that the only repressive force is globalization/mondialism nowadays. And globalization does not have an exclusively male face anymore.

VilhelMina
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 06:04 AM
THE TRUTH ABOUT FEMINISM
© White Nationalist Baby/Family - © Women for Aryan Unity

By:Jessica - WAU California Probate USA

"Women's issues" are so contentious that it often seems easier to avoid them. Nonetheless, they are basic to all our lives, so open discussion is necessary. If the statements in this article offend you, then simply stop reading it.

The Feminist prejudice that women were morally superior to men reflect the social attitudes of the day passionately anti-male tract calling for the extermination of men.

The feminist movement is destroying traditional gender roles!

"Feminism" means so many different things that it appears to mean very little. Its advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. In casting off feminine reserve and modesty they seem to have learned intellectual shamelessness as well. Rather than damaging feminism, its incoherence offers an easy defense against criticism: whatever the complaint, the response is that it misses the mark because feminism is really something else.

The practical aspects of gender are no less universal than the symbolic. The ties among a man, a woman, and their children have always been fundamental, and dependent for reliable functioning on a generally settled division of responsibility among the parties and therefore between the sexes. More specifically, all societies have been patriarchal, with men mainly responsible for public concerns and women for domestic matters and the care of small children. Always and everywhere men, while exercising no general right of domination, have predominated in positions of formal authority.

The universality of these differences shows them to be rooted in biology and other permanent conditions of human life. It is hard to think of anything very different that would work, given the need for stable and functional families and therefore generally settled role distinctions able to stand up to the stresses and changes of life.

A system as complex and subtle as human life cannot be reconfigured in fundamental ways merely at will. Nonetheless, opposition to gender as a principle of social order--to what is called "sexism"--is what unifies the things called "feminism." Since the opposition is absolute and categorical, feminism is in no way reformist. It treats a fundamental and evidently necessary principle of all human societies, sex-role differentiation, as an oppressive arrangement that must be abolished at whatever cost.

The aim of feminism, therefore, is to create a new kind of human being in a new form of society in which the ties among men, women and children that have always existed are to be dissolved and new ones constituted in accordance with abstract ideological demands. In place of family ties based on what seems natural and customary, and supported by upbringing and social expectation, feminism would permit only ties based on contract and idiosyncratic sentiment, with government stepping in when those prove too shaky for serious reliance. There is no reason to suppose the substitution can be made to work, let alone work well, and every reason to expect the contrary. Feminism does not care about reason, however, or even about experience of the effects of weakened family life. It is in fact ideological and radical to the core. There can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally gets a feminist nowhere.

The harsh things that can be said about anarchism and communism can be said with yet more force about feminism, because what the latter seeks to eliminate touches us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other two ideologies, feminism can be presented as a lofty and necessary ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice. After all, things like gender that are implicated in all social life are necessarily implicated in all social injustice. Nonetheless, the practical implementation of feminism, especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to distinctions and patterns of authority people find natural, and like communism for ceaseless radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently for absolute bureaucratic control of everything. Both tendencies are thoroughly destructive, and their apparent mutual opposition does not render them harmless.

The result of the victory of feminism has been a combination of disorder and state tyranny cascading from America throughout the world, from the most immediate personal relationships to high culture and international politics.

Feminism has meant suspicion and hostility where mutual reliance is an absolute necessity. It has meant growing deceit, heartlessness and brutality in daily life, resulting in particular suffering for the weak. It has meant confusion and misery for the young, who have been deprived of stable family life and concrete ideals of adulthood. It has meant the destruction of local and popular institutions by ever more powerful and irresponsible state bureaucracies. It must therefore be opposed as a destructive fanaticism based on a gross and wilful misapprehension of human life.

It is not surprising that feminists, who misconstrue so much, misconstrue the nature of the opposition to them. Since their position requires a comprehensive and minute system of ideological regimentation they assume antifeminists must also be aspiring tyrants. They thus recreate their opponents in their own image.

In fact, to be antifeminist is simply to accept that men and women differ and rely on each other to be different, and to view the differences as among the things constituting human life that should be reflected where appropriate in social attitudes and institutions. By feminist standards all societies have been thoroughly sexist. It follows that to be antifeminist is only to abandon the bigotry of a present-day ideology that sees traditional relations between the sexes as simply a matter of domination and submission, and to accept the validity and history - of the ways in which human beings have actually dealt with sex, children, family life and so on. Antifeminism is thus nothing more than the rejection of one of the narrow and destructive fantasies of an age in which such things have been responsible for destruction and murder on an unprecedented scale. It is opening oneself to the reality of things.

Acceptance of the legitimacy and usefulness of sex roles is an exercise of ordinary good sense. Stable and functional families are necessary for a tolerable way of life, and they will not exist unless men and women each have something specific to offer that the other is entitled to rely on.

Further, the natural tendencies of the sexes are different, and life is happier when social institutions somehow reflect natural human tendencies. Nonetheless, what is in itself good sense may be quite radical from the point of view that is conventional in public at a particular time and place. Such is the state of antifeminism today. To reject feminist claims is to put oneself outside what is said to be the mainstream.

The power of feminism despite its evident irrationality shows the strength and pervasiveness of the institutions, interests and ways of thinking that support it. Its triumph has been part of the triumph of state and market over all other social powers, the culmination of a trend that has been sweeping all before it for centuries and become horrendously destructive. Government and business are feminist, ultimately because family life hems them in by establishing a principle of social order not reducible to money and state regulation. The media, the educational system, and even organized scholarship take their lead from government and business and are therefore feminist as well. No significant social authority takes an opposing view. Without exception the articulate and powerful benefit from absorption of the functions of the family by formal public institutions.

In the end feminism cannot win because it radically undermines any stable and productive ordering of private life. By disordering reproduction and childrearing it puts long-term social survival in question. It has done a great deal of damage, however, and will do much more before it destroys itself. The more explicit, articulate and successful its opponents the more damage can be prevented.



Sources:
Scientific American: "By the Numbers: The Decline of Marriage": December 1999.
Feminist Assault on Reasonableness - 2000
And Justice for All (Well, Not Exactly) - 1996
Cheerless Fantasies - 1989
Dissenting Women- Principled Opposition to Feminism
Gender Issues Research Center.
"The Feminist Flaw". - 1985

Agrippa
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:21 PM
Feminism is related to replacing collective spirit, folk, community with terms like individual freedom, gender issues and sexual discrimination.

European women should fight European men in this construction which doesnt accept the social and biological realities and the needs of the collective neither.

So you can use women against their community, against their men (of their folk), for the neoliberal ideology (Marxism as well) and foreign interests.

Phlegethon
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:28 PM
With a collapsing job market this trend can be reversed, though.

Agrippa
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:46 PM
With a collapsing job market this trend can be reversed, though.

Thats another problem. Women are cheaper workers, if educated even in higher levels. They are often more motivated and less organized in job and are like immigrants concurrence for family fathers.

This leads in a free market to lower salaries and more jobless males which in turn leads to more working women (because family cannot survive because of lower salaries or unemployed men).

So even women which doesnt want to work and get a men which wants family have often to work to get a decent flat or house and food. (yes, even if its about such basic things)

The neoliberal economy wants women in jobs not just because of their political abuse and ideological manipulation but for cheaper work and more consumer oriented individuals as well.

And our society is so stamped by emancipation and radical egalitarian ideas that this trend cant be reversed that easily. At least not as long a political turn is not in sight imo.

If you go down with the social budget as well it means that the neoliberal plutocrats dont even have to pay for this ruined families and districts.

This is something which is not just coming from politics (in the narrower sence) and education (kindergarten, school, university) but from advertising as well if not even more.

The working and hedomatic single woman is the ideal of many spots especially for the youth.

The irony is that in Europe with growing unemployment female work and single households are propagated more than EVER!
Thats the comination of an ideology which cannot be corrected by the establishment because it could harm the whole "egalitarian"-liberal ideology and our current economic trend. (ultraliberal economy)

Its the same with contraception. There were never less children in our Western societies but contraception is more advertised than ever.

The trend in direction of ultraliberal economy, "political correct" (terror on opinion and mind) and plural society will not be reversed by the current neoliberal establishment of plutocrats and system politicians.

Agrippa
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Extensive discussion and experimentation will be necessary to that end, things now impossible because of feminist laws and censorship.

In Germany almost women only which are religious oriented can speak about anti-feminist views open in the scientific community.

Women like Christa Meves which face the main problems of our current social norms.

If you read the feminist critiques on her, its really ugly. Of course she is not right in everything, but how she is attacked in public is just ugly.
I dont even want to think about men which would write similar things, they might have no future in the "scienitific" community any longer...

Its the same terror we experience if its about human biology, races and historical views as well.

Phlegethon
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 03:51 PM
There aren't too many nationalists who read Christa Meves. As a child psychologist and family therapist she at least knows what she is talking about - which is the difference between her and most politicians.

Agrippa
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 04:12 PM
There aren't too many nationalists who read Christa Meves. As a child psychologist and family therapist she at least knows what she is talking about - which is the difference between her and most politicians.

As I said she is not always right in detail (at least imo), but she has a very good understanding of the big picture and the political, ideological and economic interests behind certain theories and our current social reality.

I think many more nationalists/racists/collectivists should read her books and those of great ethologists like Konrad Lorenz and Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt.
Different views but with certain points in common.

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 09:20 AM
Feminism's Third Wave

May 23, 2003

[Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fiori3.html)]

Last Friday's article on date rape by Murray Rothbard in these pages brought back a lot of college memories (not many of them good). By the end of his essay Rothbard cut to the real motive of the feminists: the campus date-rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren't motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing men as rapists.

The only point I'd add is that the regulations the feminists were proposing applied only to men, not to the hordes of lecherous dikes teaching in "Wymyn's Studies" departments whose most prized occupational perk is brazen sexual harassment of young women with complete impunity.

What a difference ten years makes. The newest twist of feminism finds men guilty again, but in an exquisitely tortured way (e.g., Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Why There Are No Good Men Left). Taking their cues from Betty Friedan's Second Wave (the First Wave of feminism being suffrage), young women since the late 1960s have increasingly bought into the idea that building a career instead of a home and family are of central importance to their lives during their early twenties to mid-thirties (ironically their prime years for bearing children).

Today's young women thus climb the corporate heights, entering dream careers earning six- and even seven-figure incomes. They acquire beautiful sports cars, commodious homes, and the respect of hundreds to thousands of subordinates in hectic Palm-Pilot worlds.

Sometime in the midst of this material utopia, New Single Woman suddenly finds herself in an epic crisis: she's 35 to 40 and still unmarried with no prospects in sight and rapidly expiring eggs in her ovaries. This leads to a furious hunt for a hubby who's every bit as brilliant, gorgeous, sexy, hip, financially successful, and personally accomplished as she is and guess what? He's nowhere to be found. Ergo, "There are no good men left."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/whitehead.jpg

If you think this is a joke, it's not. It's feminism's Third Wave, where women run to expensive relationship consultants like Barbara DeAngelis (who's been divorced 4 times), join speed-dating groups, and post photos of themselves on Yahoo! Personals to few takers. What could be the problem? First, guests who arrive at the party five hours late can't legitimately complain that the buffet has been cleaned out. Gorgeous men (like women) go to the earliest and highest bidders. If you're a 35 to 40-year-old corporate spinster, it's time to give up on Brad Pitt, honey. If you want a hubby bad enough, you'll just have to settle for a...(gag!)...average mortal man. Sorry.

(What's interesting is that absurdly high standards – or inexplicably low ones as we'll see later – is the obvious diagnosis with most of these women, but it's never the diagnosis that our popular culture gives them. It's always, "Oh, you poor thing. You're so wonderful and men are just too stupid or mean to admit it.")

Feminism proclaimed that for women to be fulfilled they had to adopt the career ambitions of workaholic men, the sexual promiscuity of John F. Kennedy, and the cynicism of Gloria Steinem (the pre-married one, that is). Can you think of any demographic group other than women who would have bought into this prescription for complete disaster and then cried victim when the Bunker Buster of Inevitable Biology crashed through the roof and blew up in their faces? Think Wile E. Coyote. No, think of someone much dumber.

Women were designed by God for marriage and motherhood and deep down they have an innate desire for it, no matter how sublimated nature can be to social idiocies such as feminism. What's so remarkable about the feminist charade was how long a run it had before a few women caught on to it. It didn't even pass muster as a leftist ideology, focusing on material objectives such as money, prestigious jobs, and physical possessions. It was utopian ("You can have it all") but in the end really not much more than pseudo-intellectual hedonism.

There's a saying from some older culture to the effect that the quickest way to destroy a rival society is to ruin its women. It's a dictum undoubtedly coined by some man who probably didn't begin to grasp the stunning magnitude of the self-destructive instinct that is so much a part of Collective Woman. (These are the inexplicably low standards alluded to above.) While I have a great deal of sympathy for her family, no one will ever convince me that Laci Peterson didn't see an abundant number of red flags before marrying the creepy Scott. Sociopaths aren't made overnight.

Out here in California the Peterson case is being compared to the O.J. Simpson murders and yet an O.J. verdict is entirely possible if Peterson gets even a majority-female jury. Women on the Menendez jury almost got their wish to free the murderous Lyle and Erik just because they found them handsome. (One female juror actually expressed sympathy for the brothers "because they no longer had parents." Uh, the brothers no longer had parents because they murdered them, stupid!)

As for the Peterson case, forget the grisly discovery of the needle-nose pliers on Scott's boat with Laci's hair in them. Anyone with a brain knows that innocent men don't bleach their hair and beard and run off to San Diego with a load of cash and survival gear. And yet Scott gets dozens of love letters, cards, and flowers every day from women all over the country who want to marry him and have his baby because he's good-looking. It's not easy to imagine a similar phenomenon vis-à-vis men, as down in San Diego all Kristin Rossum ever got from men over the last two years were death threats for running off with her boss and fatally poisoning her husband. Ditto for even better-looking women such as Susan Smith and Pamela Smart.

The problem goes way beyond Laci Peterson, Nicole Brown Simpson, and the 36 women murdered by the handsome but thoroughly evil Ted Bundy. (Michaud and Aynesworth report that scores of beautiful blondes were vying for Bundy's attention at the July 1979 trial in Miami where he was first sentenced to death. Bundy's last wife Carole Boone married him on February 12, 1980, the day of his third death sentence for slitting the throat of 12-year old Kim Leach, mutilating her genitals with a knife, and stuffing her lifeless body under an abandoned hog shed. Incredibly, Boone believed in Ted's innocence until Ted himself finally dissuaded her right before his 1989 execution.)

Earlier this year many men were so taken with the beautiful and supposedly genteel star of The Bachelorette, Trista Rehn. Rehn, who eventually chose handsome firefighter Ryan Sutter as her husband, has to be glad her new hubby didn't look too close into her past. Some of the disturbing skeletons include, among heavy slutting with different men, a significant stint with a very creepy-looking tattooed ex-con. The man, with the ironic name of Brian Bachelor, bears an uncanny resemblance to the tattooed criminal wife beater Tommie Lee, whom the beautiful actresses Heather Locklear and Pamela Anderson both married and divorced.

Average men continue to be outraged by this perennial female adulation of either sociopaths or extremely good looking men who use them up and move on. They see no rationality in such a warped set of preferences. The key word here is rationality. The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it's emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that's the key. It's irrelevant that they offer no real future. In a nutshell, they're crass entertainment like ditzy afternoon soaps. (I know so many of you men were certain there was some stunningly profound answer to this question, but there isn't. Sorry for the letdown.)

All of this is exactly what decent men should wage a revolution against. They are the ones called upon to pick up the pieces of shattered relationships and foot an enormous bill as both stepfathers and taxpayers. Today, the staggering cost isn't just financial in terms of ready-made dads drafted to foot the bill for two or three of another man's kids (or thousands as taxpayers). The cost is emotional as well. Good men don't like to admit it – for fear of being pegged as wimpy – but off the record many express deep resentment at having to struggle to build sexual intimacy with women who have been sexually plundered by so many past partners.

My great interest is in the churches (Catholic and Evangelical alike) where it's an even sadder story in singles groups, where innocent, bookish, never-married men like my brothers who have been in the church since their teens, are perversely brought together with cynical, used-up, divorce-battered women still looking for either criminals or movie stars. The ones who finally wake up (usually in their 30s at the earliest) have nothing to offer these men as they either don't want or can't have any more children. (The age of 27 – not 40 as many women mistakenly think – is when a woman's fertility begins its rapid decline.)

The largest immediate hurdle is that our society is so steeped in feminist double standards that not even most men recognize them anymore. Can you ever imagine a book being written by a man (never mind published by a big New-York house such as Broadway) entitled Why There Are No Good Women Left? You can already hear the howls of indignation from Oprah, The View, and conservatives such as Joe Farah who recently cheered the cause of automobile murderer Clara Harris. (Thankfully Farah didn't express a desire to marry Harris. He'd have to be female to do that.)

Can you imagine Hollywood making a movie such as Shallow Hal (2001), only this time with two average-looking career women who discover that it's better to choose their mates on the basis of their personalities rather than their physical appearance? You can't, and it's not because today's women aren't superficial: indeed, most are now as bad as the worst men precisely because they've so insulated from criticism on that point. It's "sexism" or "misogyny" to point it out. Indeed, the most brazen female superficiality is now sold and encouraged as "female empowerment."

If there is ever going to be any restoration of sanity, it's decent men who have to lead the way back and first by understanding what all the upheavals of the 1960s are now costing them (not just the sexual revolution which turned today's dating women into prostitutes). Keep in mind that running after sociopaths while simultaneously claiming that "There are no good men left" is just the latest twist in this 40-year-old female Superscam – and the tip of the iceberg at that.

A good start would be to look at how the 52% female portion of the population got classified as a minority and thus eligible for unofficial affirmative action. A second interesting question is how the sex with the higher life expectancy got its own wing in most hospitals (along with children). A third angle would be a comprehensive study of the family court system to see how the average man's probability of winning custody of children stacks up to the average woman's. After that take a look at which demographic group is most fervently eroding the Second Amendment and leading the charge toward the full federal takeover of U.S. health and day care. (All of these latter horrors would never have been a reality in Canada without the decisive support of women at the ballot box.)

Maybe not with respect to marriage, but in terms of resistance to all this escalating nonsense, the question of where all the good men went is a valid one. To the decent men, if you think you're getting the shaft economically and socially now, just continue to sit back like a bunch of feminine cowards and let things continue to deteriorate. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Angela Fiori [send her mail (mailto:angela@againstthecrowd.com)] is an occasional contributor to AgainstTheCrowd.com.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/photos/angela.jpg

WarMaiden
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, 06:46 PM
WOW, wonderfully written i couldn't agree more!

Unity Is Strength!

Nordhammer
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Unveiling Feminism
By David N. Bass (01/19/04)

In her book “Women and Madness,” Phyllis Chesler perfectly illustrates modern feminism in her statement that, “Most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they marry and raise children.” In order to be “unique” and retain their “human self”, women must leave their homes and families for the office to work beside men. They must climb the corporate ladder, earn high incomes and exert heavy influence over others in order to obtain self-worth.

Chesler points out the fact that, at its root, feminism is a philosophy that bases a person’s value on success in the career world rather than on who he or she is as a human; on how tirelessly someone can pursue power and money, instead of on the inherent value of human life regardless of professional accomplishment. The modern feminist view holds that if you earn nothing, you are nothing.

How did such a materialist philosophy of self-worth come to be in America? Its history can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution. During that time, men left the home and migrated to the big cities to compete in the new industrial climate. Up until that point, most men had worked in agrarian settings near their wives and children, creating worth in the family homestead as opposed to worth in the corporate world. But when modern industry moved into American life, fathers left for the cities and mothers were left alone to care for the children. This was the first step toward establishing a system basing human worth on jobs and income.

When the Sexual Revolution swung into full gear during the latter half of the 20th century, a similar phenomenon occurred, one that contributed even more to American materialism and the family’s breakdown: women gradually began leaving the home. Public schooling in the form of glorifed child sitting made it possible for women to leave most childrearing responsibility to the care of the state, television and McDonalds.

These two events, men leaving the home during the Industrial Revolution and women leaving during the Sexual Revolution, energized feminism’s materialistic view of human self-worth. In less than a century, a sizeable portion of society shifted its concept of human dignity–not just for women, but for men as well–from accomplishments inside the home to accomplishments outside the home.

Ideas have consequences, and the consequences of feminist materialism have been disastrous. The 2000 census reports that traditional families account for only about one fourth of American households. Like feminist Linda Gordon said, “The nuclear family must be destroyed.” Can anyone doubt that Gordon’s hope is coming to fruition? Can anyone question that traditional families are going the way of the dinosaur?

Friedrich Engels, one of the fathers of communism, wrote in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: “The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry…this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” This is the key goal of both feminism and communism. Destroy the traditional family, and Western nations will crumble.

That certainly seems to be happening. Along with the decline of traditional families has come the decline in birth rates in Western nations. In Great Britain the fertility rate is only 1.6 children per woman; in many Balkan nations the birth rate has dropped to 1.2 children; fertility in Spain is the worst of any European nation at just over one child per woman. Such statistics prove beyond a doubt that Western societies are adopting the feminist philosophy that children are a hindrance to “the good life.”

We no longer look at children as God’s blessing, nor do we view a warm and loving family as a gift. Instead, we search for fulfillment in material possessions rather than relationships, in self-indulgence rather than self-sacrifice. Feminism has ripped the traditional family to shreds, all in the name of liberating women. But instead of liberation, feminism has promulgated a belief that has dramatically wounded our society, and healing that wound is not an easy task. But it is possible.

Recognizing the problem is the first step. As Dr. Margaret Levy, a surgeon and mother with children, wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “I am not a liberated woman. I am incarcerated in a world and lifestyle far more complex and complicated than my great-grandmother, raising her eleven children in an apartment in the Bronx, could have imagined.”

Freedom or incarceration? It’s a woman’s choice, isn’t it? Our society’s future is bright if we can bury the carcass of feminist materialism and once again view motherhood and professional homemaking as the two most important occupations of the human race.


David N. Bass is an eighteen-year-old home school graduate, a committed Christian, and a proud conservative. He is a writer for World Newspaper Publishing and a regular columnist at AmericanDaily.com, ARationalAdvocate.com, and RenewAmerica.us. He is also a contributing writer to many other on-line sites, including Tolkien-Movies.com. David is currently working on his first novel.

Northern Paladin
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 06:51 AM
Feminism it's robbing Western socities of their future generations.

The low fertility rates in Western Countries is as much of a threat to White Culture as immigration and multiculturalism is.

A question comes to mind

Have European countries recognized this threat and if so are they taking measures to remedy it?

Freja
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 08:49 AM
Feminism only builds new walls around us, instead of tearing down the old ones. Sure, I can vote, I can become a surgeon, a jugde, a pilot. But god forbid I stay at home and produce healthy, happy children! That would be really downgrading....

Here in Scandinavia, at-home-moms are looked upon as either lazy, stupid or suppressed, or all of the above.
I have no words to describe how depressing that is. :mad:

Oskorei
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 10:58 AM
Often I get the impression that feminists dont hate men. They hate men of the same race as their father. This also explains why there are more than one white feminist with Muslim boyfriends, and why they very rarely attack Islam (Islam is much more of a "patriarchy" then the West ever was). Or Judaism (even though a lot of feminist thinkers are jewish...).

cosmocreator
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 08:27 PM
I think something like this has to do with the feminist mentality too:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20041001_091901_5676

Marine Drive Golf Club controversy
October 01, 2004 - 6:19 am
By: Tammy Moyer/The Province

The BC Human Rights Tribunal is now being brought into the debate over the men's only lounge at the Marine Drive Golf Club. Thirty six female members signed a complaint. It was served to the club and six of it's directors on Wednesday. The brouhaha is over the Bullpen Lounge, which has been man's domain for the last 82 years.


Perhaps some man should lodge a complaint with the Human's Right Tribunal about Women's Only Gyms.

Oskorei
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 08:52 PM
I think something like this has to do with the feminist mentality too:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20041001_091901_5676

Marine Drive Golf Club controversy
October 01, 2004 - 6:19 am
By: Tammy Moyer/The Province

The BC Human Rights Tribunal is now being brought into the debate over the men's only lounge at the Marine Drive Golf Club. Thirty six female members signed a complaint. It was served to the club and six of it's directors on Wednesday. The brouhaha is over the Bullpen Lounge, which has been man's domain for the last 82 years.


Perhaps some man should lodge a complaint with the Human's Right Tribunal about Women's Only Gyms.

Earlier, many taxis in Sweden had a discount for women, so that they would take a taxi and dont get raped or robbed. But now, in the name of equality, this is termed discrimination, and is going to be banned. The world is mad. :suomut:

Nordhammer
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 12:28 AM
Often I get the impression that feminists dont hate men. They hate men of the same race as their father. This also explains why there are more than one white feminist with Muslim boyfriends, and why they very rarely attack Islam (Islam is much more of a "patriarchy" then the West ever was). Or Judaism (even though a lot of feminist thinkers are jewish...).

They do hate men, and they hate the limitations of their own sex. One feminist said that until they are able to remove the curse of childbearing they will never be free and equal. It's a bizarre mix of self-hate and hatred for men... I think it's mentally unhealthy to be this way, you life your life based on envy, bitterness, contradiction, and hating the one thing that matters the most: bringing life into the world.

Feminists, who seem to be mostly white women, usually led by Jewish women, dislike all men. But in our current political environment, white men are the scapegoat for all things evil, you are allowed to hate white men. Hating "minority" males is somewhat taboo because of the "racism" label. Actually it's specifically heterosexual white men, because you can also be called homophobic if you hate homosexual white men. Women tend to be very bound to social acceptance and norms, so they take the road of least resistance, that which is most safe and gives them social rank: the hatred of heterosexual white males. Even tho technically nonwhite males are more chauvanistic and oppressive than white European males, and thus deserve more hatred from women.

Nordhammer
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 12:33 AM
All of these ideas of "human rights" and "civil rights" is of Jewish origin. NS Germany gave the Jews their moralistic stepping stone to achieve their communist dreams to destroy Western nations. If you have your doubts please read Kevin MacDonald's work.

Freja
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 11:02 AM
One feminist said that until they are able to remove the curse of childbearing they will never be free and equal.

:eek: The CURSE of child-bearing? This must have been said by someone infertile... :rolleyes:

SouthernBoy
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 12:27 AM
I find that most women who identify as feminist are very ugly. If you look at some of the American Women's Rights pioneers you will see exactly what I mean.

cosmocreator
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 12:37 AM
I find that most women who identify as feminist are very ugly. If you look at some of the American Women's Rights pioneers you will see exactly what I mean.


Maybe too much testosterone in their system. :laugh:

Sword Brethren
Saturday, November 27th, 2004, 06:27 AM
I just read this right now, searching back old things on the forum as I have nothing else to do. Very well written I must say.

I am currently in college, I plan to get out in a few years and get into possibly law or business. So the thing is, say I'm 25 a few years down the road, fairly successful and ready to get married, why would I want a 40 year old ex-feminazi who is finally awake to the reality of life, but can't have kids, has had 20 different guys bed her, and has written 1/2 dozen books on "Why men suck".

I really wonder, are there any good women left out there? All I hear women moaning about at college is, "My career" or "Men don't take us seriously", or "Who wants children?", or "Blah blah blah..."

Death and the Sun
Wednesday, June 8th, 2005, 05:53 PM
Despite the resounding rejection of the European Constitution by French and Dutch voters, the fact is, old Europe still genuflects at the altar of socialism and collectivism. So it comes as no surprise that feminism has taken root there as readily as mushrooms sprouting on a pile of barnyard manure.

Karl Marx taught that if women desired to free themselves from the shackles of patriarchy, they first had to wrest control over the means of reproduction. Now birth rates in Europe have plummeted, choking off the inflow of young workers and imperiling the financial viability of the social welfare state.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0608roberts.html

Georgia
Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 01:28 PM
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_744.shtml


"You Don't Know Feminism"
By Mrs. Chancey
Jan 23, 2004, 15:27



As a woman, I do not understand how you can form a website based on such a disgraceful idea. Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, but your opinion lacks intelligence and is solely based on ignorance. Feminism is not about shunning the idea of being a housewife, etc. In fact it has nothing to do with that. It is simply a choice. For whoever wrote the article I was reading, how can you say that feminists basically look down on women who are housewives? I have never in my research, schooling, etc. heard such a ridiculous comment and criticism of feminism. I suggest that your website educate itself more on what feminism is all about before you contain ignorant articles on your website.

The quote above comes from one of many "Scorching Rhetoric" notes we've received here at LAF. One complaint we often hear is that we know nothing about feminism and that what we claim feminism stands for (or has stood for in the past) is not true. As will be obvious to anyone who takes the time to carefully read this site (particularly our Theme Articles (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/cat_index_13.shtml)), we do not seek to lump all those who call themselves feminists into the same category. Even feminists disagree about what feminism means (see "What Is Feminism?" (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_6.shtml)). You can no more stereotype feminists than you can stereotype all women. Just as there is no consensus within the Church about what constitutes a homemaker (sadly enough), there is no consensus within the feminist movement about what constitutes a true feminist. This can make it extremely difficult to nail down just what feminism is about and where the movement desires to take women and society in the future. But we can learn about the various objectives it has promoted and claimed as its own down through the decades.

Those who read widely and who have studied the feminist movement from its earliest roots to the present know that some of the most prominent women (and men) involved in the movement have been rabidly anti-homemaker. In fact, the more radical feminists of the 19th and 20th centuries wholeheartedly embraced Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which called for women to be pushed out of the home and into factories, since the labor of men and women must be made "equal" while capitalism and private property were abolished. Engels wrote, "The overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children" (The Origin of the Family, 1884). This view of the woman at home as some poor slave "reduced to servitude" and "a mere instrument for the production of children" is echoed over and over again in the writings of feminists who are now enshrined as patron saints of the women's movement. Let's allow them to speak for themselves:


"[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind...rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [b]eing a housewife makes women sick." ~ Sociologist Jessie Bernard in The Future of Marriage, 1982.

"Housewives [are] an endless array of 'horse-leech's' daughters, crying Give! Give! -- [a] parasite mate devouring even when she should most feed [and who has] the aspirations of an affectionate guinea pig." ~ Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relations Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution, 1898.

"A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism...the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable.... [W]oman's work within the home not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a 'career' for woman." ~ Simone de Beauvoir, [I]The Second Sex, 1949.

"[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry...not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self.... [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife." ~ Betty Friedan, [I]The Feminine Mystique, 1963.

"[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children...parasites." ~ Gloria Steinem, "What It Would Be Like If Women Win," Time, August 31, 1970.

"[The husband's work] provides for greater challenges and opportunities for growth than are available to his wife, [whose] horizons are inevitably limited by her relegation to domestic duties. [This] programs her for mediocrity and dulls her brain.... [Motherhood] can only be a temporary detour." ~ Nena O'Neill and George O'Neill, Open Marriage: A New Lifestyle for Couples, 1972.

"Women owe Frieden an incalculable debt for The Feminine Mystique.... Domesticity was not a satisfactory story of an intelligent woman's life." ~ Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, 1996.

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." ~ Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.

"[As long as the woman] is the primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being." ~ Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1969.

"[A]s long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed.... No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise 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, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.

"Feminism was profoundly opposed to traditional conceptions of how families should be organized, [since] the very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with the women's movement.... f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young.... If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, [I]Why We Lost the ERA, 1986.

All of this would be bad enough by itself, but the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s did not stop at verbal attacks against wives, homemakers, and mothers. They pushed relentlessly to change laws which both protected wives and mothers and which encouraged men to provide for their own families. They did not rest until they had triumphed through the elimination of the "family wage," the reduction of tax benefits for single-earner households, and the passage of "no-fault" divorce laws. Sociologist Jessie Bernard (quoted above), remarked that the "very deprivation of assured support as long as they live may be one of the best things that could happen to women" (The Future of Marriage, 1982). In other words, if men can walk away from marriage easily, leaving women with no support, women will be forced to take up careers whether or not they desire to do so. Carolyn Graglia explains this in her book, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (Spence Publishing (http://www.spencepublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewitem&invid=38), 1998):


"A primary factor contributing to the feminization of poverty has been the change to a system of no-fault divorce under which divorce is easily obtained, even when opposed by one of the parties, and men are often able to terminate marriages without providing adequate alimony or child support. The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women's movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and, often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women. The theory was that obliteration of all legal sex distinctions would ultimately be in the best interests of working women; those women, including homemakers, who wished to retain the benefits of protective legislation were never the women with whose rights the Project was concerned" (p. 295).
So, in the name of "all women," the feminist movement cavalierly did away with the very rights that guaranteed the wife peace of mind in her choice to remain at home and bring up her own children. Mary Ann Glendon, writing in Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (1987) states, "Divorce law in practice seems to be saying to parents, especially to mothers, that it is not safe to devote oneself primarily or exclusively to raising children." We don't need to recite long lists of statistics here, I trust, though they are readily available from the Census Bureau and other government entities, but in the past thirty years, divorce and abandonment have skyrocketed, leaving women the victims of poverty in far greater numbers than men. Instead of admitting culpability, feminists have moved on to push for taxpayer-funded daycare and greater welfare benefits for those mothers left in the lurch. Again, Carolyn Graglia:


"[F]eminists nevertheless often try to disclaim responsibility for no-fault's results. Liberationists of the 1970s blathered mindlessly about the oppressiveness of the family, exhorting women to break the chains of their confinement, to cease being parasites in their suburban havens, to cease holding husbands in marriages the men no longer wanted, and to set out on the road to true fulfillment and equality by finding some rewarding career. Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country and with the divorce revolution accomplished, feminists seek to absolve themselves of blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them. No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of the home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single parents by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating" (Domestic Tranquility, p. 296).
Now we live in a culture where the term "trophy wife" isn't just a joke and where men can abandon their wives and children as easily as they shuck off their dress shoes at the end of the day. Instead of deploring this development, women have been urged to become just as promiscuous and irresponsible as the men. Somehow, if we all descend to the lowest common denominator, we'll find happiness in the mess we've created. "There isn’t a venerable history of women celebrating promiscuity;" writes columnist Frederica Mathewes-Green (http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.6docs/14-6pg20.html). "f anything, women’s wisdom over the ages taught that emotional security was the precondition for sex being fun, and a wedding ring was the best aphrodisiac. But again, what did stupid old housewives know? Men called them prudish, so that’s what they were. Thirty years later women are still going morosely out into the night in dutiful pursuit of fun. And if it’s not fun, she presumes, it must be because something is wrong with her." So now those of us who reject the doctrines of the sexual revolution (which had their roots in the "free love" movement of Marxism in the 1840s and in Margaret Sanger's writings in the early 20th century) are expected to just go along with the "brave new world" the radical feminists created in the name of all women. We are not supposed to protest when tax laws are changed to favor double-income households that use state-funded daycare or when laws protecting widows and orphans are obliterated in the name of "gender equality" and "fairness."

Brian Robertson, in his book [I]Forced Labor: What's Wrong with Balancing Work and Family (Spence Publishing (http://www.spencepublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewitem&invID=484), 2002), notes, "Here it is that the fallacy of 'neutrality' in the tax system and providing women with a 'free choice about taking jobs' is laid bare. If government decides that it will no longer [through tax deductions] defray the cost entailed for families raising children, this does not so much allow mothers more freedom of choice in the matter of work as it compels them to seek paid employment outside the home to supplement insufficient family income" (p. 128). The feminists cannot have it both ways. They cannot with one hand sweep away the very protections that have guarded wives, mothers, widows, and orphans for centuries while at the same time insisting verbally that they are not against women making the choice to stay at home instead of getting into the career track. The "choice" to remain at home has now become a financially painful one for many families. But women hurt by the "advances" of feminism are told to sit down and shut their mouths, because, without feminism, we'd (supposedly) go back to some kind of Dark Age where husbands chain women to the house and treat their wives like parasitic slaves and sexual objects.

While feminists can claim women were "objectified" and "used" prior to the women's movement, we have only to look at the rampant pornography and astronomical rise in rape and abuse over the past forty years to see that something doesn't ring true here. Take a walk down the "Women's Studies" aisle at any bookstore today, and the contradictions will leap out at you in bold print. Titles like Whores and Other Feminists (which praises porn stars for their "liberation") share shelf space with The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. The feminist movement of today is splintered and schizophrenic. It includes conservative pro-lifers (http://www.feministsforlife.org/) and lesbian goddess worshipers. This is precisely why we at LAF have been careful to define exactly what it is about feminism that we oppose (again, see "What Is Feminism?" (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_6.shtml)). It must also be pointed out that not everything that is slapped with the "feminism" label belongs exclusively to the feminists. This leads us to yet another complaint we regularly receive from visitors. Here is one example:


"If you say that you are not a feminist than [sic] by saying that you mean that you dissagree [sic] with the three things mentions [sic] previously [education for women, financial equality, and laws against wife abuse]. And if you dissagree [sic] with those, than [sic] god help you. Are you saying that you would love to work in the same job as a man and gladly receive a lower salery [sic]? Are you saying that it is socially acceptable to rape, beat, sexually abuse women, or any person? Are you saying that not all humans should have equal rights?"
This is an unfortunate case of illogical argumentation run amok. The logical fallacy goes like this: "If Jane Doe is a feminist, then she is against wife abuse. Jane Doe is not a feminist, therefore she is not against wife abuse." In classical terms, this is called "denying the antecedent." We should be able to see at first glance that this line of argumentation will not hold water. We could just as foolishly argue, "If Jane Doe is a Christian, then she will give to the poor. Jane Doe is not a Christian, therefore she does not give to the poor." There are many fine people all over the world who give generously to the poor but who do not call themselves Christians. In the same vein, there are many of us out here who are most definitely against wife abuse, the sexual exploitation of women, and child abandonment (to name just a few causes) who are not feminists. Some folks who write us claim, "You are feminists and just won't admit it." But this is also illogical and doesn't bear under the scrutiny of history and common sense. Feminism has tried to plant territorial flags on "discoveries" it did not make. Being opposed to spouse abuse did not start with the feminists. Being in favor of fair inheritance and property ownership laws for women did not start with the feminists. Being opposed to rape and incest did not start with the feminists. As we've pointed out in our FAQs (http://pub32.bravenet.com/faq/show.php?usernum=2692425141&cpv=1), the Bible was already there (see "Myths of Feminism Exploded").

While there are many feminists out there who are most definitely not in step with the radical anti-male, anti-homemaking elements of the movement, they still need to understand that when they continue to use the word "feminism" to describe their beliefs, they are bringing along the historical and legal baggage that comes with the term. They should not be surprised when perfectly sane, intelligent women choose to reject feminism (even in its noblest forms). Yes, feminists have, indeed, pointed out real ills in the past (drunkenness, abuse, abandonment--particularly at the beginnings of the movement in the 19th century), but that does not mean the feminists of the 1960s or today have the cure for the disease. Asking a radical feminist to help put a stop to divorce laws that trample innocent women and children would be a little like asking an arsonist to help put out a raging house fire. Yes, there might be token "buckets of water" in the form of platitudes like, "We're not against women choosing to stay at home; we just want to be allowed to choose careers if we want" -- but that does nothing to alter the fact that the feminist movement (on the whole -- again, we aren't painting all feminists with the same brush) has harmed women, especially those who would prefer to remain at home as the primary caregivers for their children or even as help mates to their husbands when there are no children.

Today any woman who claims to oppose feminism is quickly stereotyped as narrow-minded, uneducated, and backwards. Feminists do not all wish to be lumped together, yet it seems to be kosher to force all non-career women into a suffocating "Stepford Wife" stereotype. Once again, Carolyn Graglia hits the nail on the head:


"Those who would defend anti-feminist traditionalism today are like heretics fighting a regnant Inquisition. To become a homemaker, a woman may need the courage of a heretic. This is one reason that the defense of traditional women is often grounded in religious teachings, for the heretic's courage usually rests on faith. The source of courage I offer is the conviction, based upon my own experience, that contemporary feminism's stereotypical caricature of the housewife did not reflect reality when Frieden popularized it, does not reflect reality today, and need not govern reality. Feminists claimed a woman can find identity and fulfillment only in a career; they are wrong. They claimed a woman can, in that popular expression, 'have it all'; they are wrong--she can have only some. The experience of being a mother at home is a different experience from being a full-time market producer who is also a mother. A woman can have one or the other experience, but not both at the same time. Combining a career with motherhood requires a woman to compromise by diminishing her commitment and exertions with respect to one role or the other, or usually, to both. Rarely, if ever, can a woman adequately perform in a full-time career if she diminishes her commitment to it sufficiently to replicate the experience of being a mother at home." (Domestic Tranquility, pp. 369-370)
Christopher Lasch has noted that, if the feminist movement was truly fair to all women and open-minded about the choices they make, it would not seek to marginalize wives and mothers: "A feminist movement that respected the achievements of women in the past would not disparage housework, motherhood or unpaid civic and neighborly services. It would not make a paycheck the only symbol of accomplishment.... It would insist that people need self-respecting honorable callings, not glamorous careers that carry high salaries but take them away from their families" (quoted in Forced Labor, p. 33). Our materialistic society today is so focused upon how much we are "worth" in terms of a paycheck that we have lost sight of what we are worth as human beings. Ironically, this is exactly what many early feminists wanted society to acknowledge: that women are just as important and just as vital to the human race as men. This is no breakthrough epiphany; it is a simple statement of fact: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27).

Both male and female together make up the image of God. Humanity is not complete without one or the other. Both are needed to display the full-orbed beauty of God's design. "He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created" (Gen. 5:2). It's that simple. "Mankind" is male and female. You don't have to be a feminist to affirm this. To then proclaim that man and woman were designed for complementary roles--not competing roles or overlapping roles--is not to say that one role is less important than or inferior to the other. We aren't talking about "yin and yang" here -- opposites locked in an eternal struggle. We are talking about mankind, male and female working in a beautiful union and communion that creates nourishing families, hospitable homes, genuine care for the poor, help for the widow and the orphan, justice for the truly oppressed. We cannot achieve this if we build upon socialistic foundations that insist all human beings must be treated the same no matter what. That kind of "equality" always tramples underfoot those who cannot keep up and ends up supporting the very tyrants who claim to want the best for the rest of us.

Feminism isn't the answer. It never was. Occasionally it has pointed out real evils. Every now and again it has done noble things. But, on the whole, it is built upon a foundation of radicalism that hurts the very women it claims to want to help. This doesn't mean every feminist is an evil man-hater. We've never painted feminists with that broad brush. But it would behoove those who want to claim the title of "feminist" to look carefully into the history of a movement that has done real damage to women and families in the name of "equality." It also wouldn't hurt to consider that the woman who chooses to reject feminism and remain at home is not a mindless doormat who has been robbed of her "core of self." I'll close with a quote from Jennifer Roback-Morse:



"Some women assume that child care is mind-numbing, spirit-killing drudgery, and that only work outside the home is fulfilling. These are not necessarily statements that women would come up with spontaneously, in the absence of feminist tutoring....It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that my two children needed me at home more than they needed anything my income would buy for them. It took even longer for me to realize that placing my intellect at the service of my family was a greater challenge than my ordinary life as a university professor. I had accepted far more feminist premises than I had realized." ("Why the Market Can't Raise Our Children for Us," The American Enterprise, May/June 1998)

Taras Bulba
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 07:06 PM
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=530

Alice Von Hildebrand on Feminism and Femininity

11/27/2003 - 8:00 AM PST

Says Women Can Escape a Trap by Imitating Mary's Strength and Humility

NEW ROCHELLE, New York, NOV. 26, 2003 (Zenit) - Women in the secularized world need to be reminded that fulfilling their maternal role is infinitely valuable in God's sight, says the wife of philosopher Dietrich Von Hildebrand.

Alice Von Hildebrand, author of "The Privilege of Being a Woman" (Sapientia) and a philosopher in her own right, shared how every woman can find supernatural strength in what feminism perceives as her weakness and look to Mary as a model of perfect femininity.

Von Hildebrand earned her doctorate in philosophy at Fordham University and is professor emeritus of Hunter College of the City University of New York.

Q: What inspired you to write this book?

Von Hildebrand: The poison of secularism has penetrated deeply into our society. It did so by stages. Men were its first victims: They became more and more convinced that in order to be someone they had to succeed in the world. Success means money, power, fame, recognition, creativity, inventiveness, etc.

Many of them sacrificed their family life in order to achieve this goal: They came home just to relax or have fun. Work was the serious part of their life.

Innumerable marriages have been ruined by this attitude. Wives rightly felt that they were mere appendixes -- a necessary relaxation. Husbands had little time for loving exchanges, as they were too busy. The children saw very little of their fathers. That wives suffered was not only understandable, but also legitimate.

Q: Why do women need to be convinced that it is good to be a woman?

Von Hildebrand: The amazing thing is that feminism, instead of making women more profoundly aware of the beauty and dignity of their role as wives as mothers, and of the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands, convinced them that they, too, had to adopt a secularist mentality: They, too, should enter the work force; they, too, should prove to themselves that they were someone by getting diplomas, competing with men in the work market, showing that they were their equals and -- when given opportunities -- could outsmart them.

They let themselves become convinced that femininity meant weakness. They started to look down upon virtues -- such as patience, selflessness, self-giving, tenderness -- and aimed at becoming like men in all things. Some of them even convinced themselves that they had to use coarse language in order to show the "strong" sex that they were not the fragile, delicate, insignificant dolls that men believed them to be.

The war of the sexes was on. Those who fell into the traps of feminism wanted to become like men in all things and sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. They became blind to the fact that men and women, though equal in ontological dignity, were made different by God's choice: Male and female he made them. Different and complementary.

Each sex has its strengths; each sex has its weaknesses. According to God's admirable plan, the husband is to help his wife overcome these weaknesses so that all the treasures of her femininity will come to full bloom, and vice versa.

How many men truly become "themselves" thanks to the love of their wives. How may wives are transformed by their husband's strength and courage.

The tragedy of the world in which we live is that we have become apostates. Many have abandoned the treasures given to us by revelation -- the supernatural.

Original sin was essentially an attack on the hierarchy of values: Man wanted to become like God, without God. The punishment was terrible: Man's body revolted against his soul. Today, this reversal of the hierarchy of values goes so far that Peter Singer denies man's superiority over animals, and that baby whales are saved while human babies are murdered.

The whole is topsy-turvy: Marriages break down; many do not even consider getting married; partnership lasts only as long as it satisfies one. Unnatural relationships so severely condemned by Plato are fashionable and claim their rights to be put on the same level as those that God has ordered.

Q: How can women's purported weakness be seen as a source strength?

Von Hildebrand: Granted that from a naturalistic point of view, men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive -- most great works in theology, philosophy and fine arts have been made by men. They are the great engineers, the great architects.

But the Christian message is that, valuable as all these inventions are, they are dust and ashes compared to every act of virtue. Because a woman by her very nature is maternal -- for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother -- she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them -- for maternity implies suffering -- is infinitely more valuable in God's sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.

When one reads the life of St. Teresa of Avila or St. Thérèse of Lisieux, one is struck by the fact that they constantly refer to their "weakness." The lives of these heroic women -- and there are many -- teach us that an awareness and acceptance of one's weakness, coupled with a boundless confidence in God's love and power, grant these privileged souls a strength that is so great because it is supernatural.

Natural strength cannot compete with supernatural strength. This is why Mary, the blessed one, is "strong as an army ready for battle." And yet, she is called "clemens, pia, dulcis Virgo Maria."

This supernatural strength explains -- as mentioned by Dom Prosper Gueranger in "The Liturgical Year" -- that the devil fears this humble virgin more than God because her supernatural strength that crushes his head is more humiliating for him than God's strength.

This is why the Evil One is today launching the worst attack on femininity that has ever taken place in the history of the world. For coming closer to the end of time, and knowing that his final defeat is coming, he redoubles his efforts to attack his one great enemy: the woman. It says in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman." The final victory is hers, as seen in the woman crowned with the sun.

Q: Why do you think women have moral power?

Von Hildebrand: The mission of women today is of crucial importance. In some way, they have the key to sanity -- the first step toward a conversion. For supernature is based on nature, and unless we go back to a natural soundness, the sublimity of the supernatural message will be lost to most of us.

Why do they have the key? Because their influence on men is enormous when they truly understand their role and mission. Again and again I hear priests say that they owe their vocation to their grandmother or mother.

St. Monica, in collaboration with God, brought back her wayward son to God. St. Bernard's mother, St. Francis de Sales' mother -- who was only 15 years older than he -- and St. John Bosco's mother were key factors in their spiritual way to holiness.

Q: How is Mary a model of femininity?

Von Hildebrand: Women have the key because they are the guardians of purity. This is already clearly indicated by the structure of their bodies, which chastely hides their intimate organs. Because their organs are "veiled," indicating their mystery and sacredness, women have the immense privilege of sharing the sex of the blessed one: Mary, the most holy of all creatures.

Feminism began in Protestant countries, for the plain reason that they had turned their backs on Christ's mother, as if the Savior of the world would feel deprived of the honor given to his beloved Mother.

Mary -- so gloriously referred to in the Apocalypse -- is the model of women. It is by turning to her, praying to her and contemplating her virtues that women will find their way back to the beauty and dignity of their mission.

Q: How did writing this book help you grow in appreciation of being a woman?

Von Hildebrand: Writing this book has been a privilege. It gave me a unique opportunity to meditate on the greatness of the woman's mission, following in the steps of the Holy Virgin.

Mary taught us two rules leading to holiness. One is: "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to thy word." This indicates that the woman's mission is to let herself be fecundated by grace -- holy receptivity. The second is: "Do whatever he tells you."

This is the holy program that the Church offers us. No doubt, if women understood this message, marriage, the family and the Church would overcome the terrible crisis affecting us. As the liturgy says, "God has put salvation in the hands of a woman."

Vingolf
Sunday, December 24th, 2006, 01:34 PM
Individualism is an ancient cultural trait among Germanics. Germanic women have always been independent, freedom-loving and strong-willed.

The Jews are, of course, aware of these facts - and take advantage of them. Radical feminism is like a deadly venom in our midst.

Examples? Take the Jewish feminist Linda Hirshman (http://www.gettoworkmanifesto.com/bio.htm), for instance.

She wrote the book "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World":


What does a retired feminist philosopher do? I was lying in bed watching “Sex and the City” (http://www.hbo.com/city/) one night in 2002, and Charlotte, the WASP Princess, was scheming to get her wedding announcement into The New York Times "Sunday Styles" section. Eureka! ... What is to be done? Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World is the answer to those questions. Get to Work paints a picture of the new stay at home moms, from the elite Brides of the Times to the most modest bloggermom to the anonymous women in the U.S. census. It traces the history of a movement that failed to address the most important question of the family and how the unchanged family prevents women from gaining access to social and economic power. It shows how the unjust family prevents women from getting to work.

So, why all this interest in Gentile "elite women (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10659)", you may ask.

Answer: This kind of Jewish activism results in changing the mental focus among Gentile (mostly Germanic) women from biological reproduction over to radical careerism. It may be considered as a Jewish ethnocentric strategy to eliminate or minimize reproduction potential among intelligent Gentile competitive elites, representing a threat to the hegemony of Jewish elites.

The role of Jewish avantgardes in the feminist-movement has been crucial, if not decisive, throughout the 20th century.

Vingolf
Wednesday, December 27th, 2006, 05:50 PM
Another example: Betty Friedan (Bettye Naomi Goldstein, that is).

She was active in Marxist and Jewish radical circles. She was leftist, feminist, educated as a psychologist and working as a journalist. In other words, a quite typical Jewish activist.

She wrote the bestseller The feminine mystique in 1963, which some people suggest was the impetus for the second wave of feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism), and significantly spurred the women's movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movement).

Friedan co-founded the US National Organization for Women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women), and wrote its statement of purpose with Pauli Murray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_Murray), the first African-American female Episcopal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopalian) priest. Friedan was its first president, serving from 1966 to 1970.

Friedan helped found NARAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America) (originally National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) in 1969 together with Bernard Nathanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson) and Larry Lader (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Lader&action=edit).

Vingolf
Wednesday, December 27th, 2006, 08:31 PM
An advocate of feminism and egalitarianism in Judaism, author Aviva Cantor has promoted Jewish activism for over 30 years. She was a co-founder of the Jewish Liberation Project in New York and an editor of its Jewish Liberation Journal. In 1976, she co-founded Lilith, an “Independent, Jewish & Frankly Feminist” magazine. ... Cantor’s work analyzes the double marginalization of being a Jew and a woman in a patriarchal society and advances a feminist agenda for improvement.


(Source (http://www.jwa.org/feminism/_html/JWA009.htm))

The chain of events resulting from this activity seems to be as follows:

1) disturb or undermine traditional demographic composition and family structures

2) minimize Gentile reproduction through careerism and feminism

3) promote multiculturalism and liberal immigration policy as a solution to the "demographic crisis"

4) more multiculturalism + multiracialism = less anti-Semitism + less Gentile racial consciousness

5) Checkmate!

Siegfried
Monday, March 26th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Why feminism 'could be bad for your health'

For years, feminists have fought for equality, believing it is the key to a better society.

Now researchers have found that parity between the sexes may be bad for your health.

A study in Sweden, arguably one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, discovered that men and women who are equal are more likely to suffer illness or disability.

Those who earn the same are also more likely to become unwell or suffer a disability.

[...]

The scientists, from the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, said a possible explanation for the link between equality and illness is that men's health may be adversely affected by a loss of what had been seen as traditional male privileges.

They suggested that women's health could be damaged by greater opportunities for risky behaviour as a result of increased income combined with the stress of longer working hours.

But the study, published in the journal Social Science and Medicine, also put forward the theory that equality has not yet been fully achieved in society and that these effects are part of a transitional process on the road to fairness.

Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444573&in_page_id=1770)

CharlesDexterWard
Monday, March 26th, 2007, 10:06 PM
Even scientists are now beginning to discover that the obsession with making things equal that aren't is an illness.

Gefjon
Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 08:59 PM
A few months ago, a woman from Nuts TV told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the reason thousands of young women chose to upload pictures of their breasts for free so that men could rate them on the Nuts website was because it was "empowering" to do so.

[---]

Ten years of girl power has coincided with the rise in what the journalist Ariel Levy has called "raunch culture" - a phrase describing how the sex industry has now become mainstream.

Perhaps no surprise that young women look at the images around them and conclude that, to be successful, they have to be sexy. They also often say that if they feel sexy, they feel confident.

Click for more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7150200.stm)

ladybright
Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 09:43 PM
What does this have to with feminism? Equal rights under the law, voting, being considered intectually and socially equal to men(not the same) not being expected to have sex with your boss, not having teacher grope you, being able to go to collage and practise medicine/law etc. That is the feminism I grew up with. That is the feminism I embrace. I chose to be a stay at home mom who bakes and considers my family my profession. I would not be anywhere so content and confident if I had not had the choices I have had.

If you want to take of your clothes that is fine with me. There is a certain charm to burlesque. But if you need to take them off to feel empowered then you are not empowered in my opinion. I think the Suicide Girls could be empowered depending on the individual. Turning something on its head can give you streangth. Thinking you have to make a particular choice to feel confident is not what I want for the current generation of young women. Making a commodity of yourself is a personal choice that I would hope people think about.

I am not familiar with NUTZ magizine but it sounds like one of those that is an insult to both men and women.

Elysium
Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 10:16 PM
I can't remember who said it or where but I believe it to be true.

"Feminism is the transition from the woman impressing the man, to the man seducing the man"

Feminism has just redefined the woman's role. Instead of being more of a dutiful servant to the family, the woman is more of a tool of pleasure. This is certainly not the case for me, and is partially the reason I have troubles finding a woman who is right since they're all modern-women, but I know for sure that the men who surround me only want to date to have sex.

Brynhild
Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 10:18 PM
Sexy and confident can be expressed in a variety of ways besides doffing your clothes. There's a lot to be said for leaving something to the imagination, and this is the ultimate reversal of feminism - playing into the hands of those (mainly men) who just exploit the sex market and make a fortune out of it.

If those girls think that particular act is empowering I have to wonder how many times they had in their lives when they were really allowed to think for themselves.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, December 23rd, 2007, 08:53 AM
Throughout history women have used this asymmetric advantage of theirs against men to make up for less physical strength, and the limitations imposed by child bearing and raising. Even amongst much of the animal kingdom we see this pattern.

Feminism was created by ugly/obnoxious women in order to give them more advantage in society by overturning the traditional, natural order.
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/dworkin_andrea_cp_7446684.jpg



So if this has anything to do with feminism, it is because feminism has gotten beyond the control of the original progenitors.

I don't see a problem with this anyways. If a woman feels fine with posing for such pics (no psychological damage), what's the harm?

Oresai
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 08:09 AM
Feminism arose at a time when in reality, women were fairly oppressed...the traditional role of a woman was far from valued, and by women essentially being classed as the property of men, they were often treated with extreme abuse and neglect. This, though, also reflects on the attitude of men at the time, with their own roles, which in the past had been that of the provider, and protector of, their women, which also entailed respect for her role in his and the children`s and kin groups lives, being forgotten or twisted.
I have never been a feminist...I`m heartily glad women can vote (I keep an amateur eye on politics because it filters down fairly quickly to affect me and mine) and that rape in marriage, for example, is now illegal in the UK.
But I think they went too far to the other extreme...the number of feminists I met who were simply man-haters, for whatever reason, on their personal crusades against men, following their own agendas under the socially accepted banner of `feminism`...well....

Men and women are not equal but neither is one gender `better` than the other...we compliment one another when placed in, and succeeding in, traditional roles. What one lacks, the other provides ;)
It`s a balance thing...
I love that women now have freedom of choice, to choose whether or not to work, or to raise children, to be single and self supporting, or to marry...the women before us rarely had that choice.
I love too that the traditional roles of women are enjoying a resurgance and becoming more valued than they were in my youth, when I was openly scorned..by other women!...for enjoying homemaking and raising my children.
I think in part that is down to the feminist movement. It`s just a pity there is that element in feminism which, imo, has little to do with the core beliefs of it, but is usually promoted by those women disenchanted for many reasons by men and seeking `revenge` for that, whether they know it or not.
In the workplace, here, women are still not equal..a woman doing the same job as a man does not automatically receive the same wage..and that is wrong.

In the end, I think feminism needs to rein itself in. There are some women, public figures, whom I think have done more harm than good to women`s rights..notably (my own personal opinion here) Margaret Thatcher, who embodied for many, the term `ballbreaker` in her "I can be the best man here" attitude. :|
But, I`ve seen the same thing in many causes, which start off with excellent intentions, do good work, then get out of control and become a free for all with individual agendas running the thing. Shame. :)

Anfang
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 03:18 AM
Phallocentric patriarchy is a disgusting import into our Volk.
Hail the Goddess and long live our Sisters our equals.

KOTZ!= is what I think of males telling Women what "they are".

Somewhere I heard that one did not say "Scatchagh", one screamed it.-
Further proof of how close the Celts are to Germanics!

Wolfwood
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, 07:07 PM
Feminism... touchy subject. In my mind there are two types of feminism.

The first type is just an excuse for my fellow women to complain about how oppressed they are and how they are treated to unfairly. (yet somehow they still expect a man to open the door for them, pay for dinner etc. and would object to being tackled in a friendly game of football) Of course they will not do anything to overcome this oppression other than talking about it and demanding special treatment. They'll also rain scorn on women who choose to stay home and raise the kids, which, in my opinion is one of the noblest and most important professions there is. I have nothing but respect for those that do it, be they male or female. (I added male because I had a full time stay at home parent but it was my father. I have always felt bad for kids who didn't have a stay at home parent because you just can't substitute that kind of attention and nurturing.)

Then there is the kind of feminism in which you just go out and do what you want to do, and you don't worry about it. If you want to stay at home, fine. If you want a career, fine. You just go and further yourself and your goals as much as possible. You don't go around looking for ways people are oppressing you. You just look for opportunities to be successful. You don't have to make this huge deal out of "girl power" because you naturally assume that you are equal to a man, and thus don't need to make a big deal about "girl power". You can take jokes and you can take adversity and not crumple up like a paper bag. You accept that you are different from men, that there are somethings that men are often better at. If you want to be better in those areas then you just work to improve yourself. You also accept that there are some things that women are often better at and that those are not "lesser" things. You don't expect women and men to act exactly the same because, yes, we are different. Oh yeah, and if a man opens the door for you you thank him politely, because he was showing you a courtesy and deserves only courtesy in return.

Personally I can't stand the first kind of feminist. I am positive that these women are actually deeply insecure and so they are just massively over-compensating. In reality, they are not helping anyone. I mean, if you honestly believe that you are the equal of a man, then its not really necessary to get all in lather about proving it to everyone now is it?

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 06:39 AM
Excellent article on the subject from a pro-Germanic intellectual quarterly, highly recommended reading:

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol7no2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf


Regarding OT discussion on this thread:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=110122


Facts cited in the above article:


child abuse is much more likely to occur in the fatherless homes now being created in unprecedented numbers. Sometimes it is perpetrated by the mother’s new boyfriends, but very often by the mother herself. HHS studies report that “children in mother-only households were three times more likely to be fatally abused [murdered] than children in father-only households. Females were 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse [murder] and 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children.”

This would certainly appear to be the case in the news story in the thread linked above.

Bridie
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 12:56 PM
Blaming the downfall of traditional family structures on feminism in general is getting a bit boring. The social evolution(s) that have led to changes in families are just not that simple.... not to mention that nothing much at all has really changed.... unless you want to reside in fantasy land and believe that the nuclear family idealised to such an exaggerated extent of 1950's USA is "traditional family structure".

Patrioten
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Blaming the downfall of traditional family structures on feminism in general is getting a bit boring. The social evolution(s) that have led to changes in families are just not that simple.... not to mention that nothing much at all has really changed.... unless you want to reside in fantasy land and believe that the nuclear family idealised to such an exaggerated extent of 1950's USA is "traditional family structure".A traditional family structure would be a father and a mother with x number of children and the parents of the father living together on the same property. The fact that grandparents no longer live on the same property as their children does not make single parent households or same sex households normal, which is the argument made here. Why would you want to attack the nuclear family structure? What is your motive? If you want to bring back the grandparents into the picture, I can understand it. I think it is wrongful to alienate the old generation from the new. But that would be a first in a discussion of this kind and so I'm going to guess that you are pushing for a rather different agenda. Which one is it?

Dagna
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 01:44 PM
The traditional Germanic family included grandparents living in the household. Our ancestors placed more importance on family, they considered caring for their elders important. I believe it was an expected fact that the children would care for their parents in old age.

I am a feminist if that means being for women to be given equal opportunities as men, but I am against the promotion of single parenthood households. A family should include at least a mother and a father. A young Germanic man needs his father as an example to follow.

Learn more here:
http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/everydaylife.html

The family; family was very important in Germanic society, old people were cared for until the day they died and it was considered natural to look after eachothers children.
An average woman got 6 to 7 children in her life, though not every child survived the harsh living conditions of that time because it was not exceptional that over half of the children died during famines, wars, and cold winters so people often chose to have as many children as they could support, another reason for having many children was that those children could care for their parents after they had grown up.

Bridie
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 02:28 PM
A traditional family structure would be a father and a mother with x number of children and the parents of the father living together on the same property.

Actually, if looking at housing trends (statistics) over the last couple of hundred years (in Western European/post colonist countries anyway), you would find that families always came in all shapes and sizes... in years past it was common for families to take in boarders for example, or to have staff living in the family home (often considered part of the family), for women to lose husbands through desertion or death and then to re-marry and have more children, to have step-children to add on to the brood, for men to lose wives through death or desertion and then to re-marry and have additional children, for extended family to live together, for couples to care for children that aren't their own, but whose parents have died or cannot any longer care for them themselves...

These things have not changed. This is the realistic traditional family structure. People who care for each other, living and working together.



The fact that grandparents no longer live on the same property as their children does not make single parent households or same sex households normal, which is the argument made here.
Single parent households are quite normal, but not ideal, for obvious reasons. But mostly, single parent households are rather a temporary transition. And still, a single parent household is preferable to one that contains both parents, but is wracked with abuse and anxiety.

I'm not even going to comment on homosexual couples. They should be locked up in insane asylums.

In any case, I didn't even read the arguments.... read them all before, and like I said, they are getting boring. Feminism is not responsible for the increase in single parent households... unless you want to directly credit feminism with women not tolerating abusive relationships anymore.... and feminism certainly isn't responsible for the advent of (homo)sexual deviancy.



Why would you want to attack the nuclear family structure?
I'm not attacking it Patrioten... just stating the facts. This family structure is actually somewhat unnatural and although idealised to ridiculous proportions in post-war English speaking countries (at least), it is actually far from being ideal. Just ask the millions and millions of stay-at-home mums in nuclear families if they think it is ideal to be so isolated from their extended families, other women and their community. You couldn't even begin to understand.



What is your motive? If you want to bring back the grandparents into the picture, I can understand it. I think it is wrongful to alienate the old generation from the new. But that would be a first in a discussion of this kind and so I'm going to guess that you are pushing for a rather different agenda. Which one is it?I don't know what you're going on about with "agendas" actually. I'm just stating facts, that's all.

If I was going to have any agenda, it would be for mums to have WAY more community support in the form of socially isolating, modern social structures making way for inclusive, ancient community structures. Bring back the old days of small, closely knit tribal communities that lived and worked together all day long... instead of singular women living in neat brick homes, tucked away from the rest of the world, while their husbands go off to work to lose themselves in a totally alien worlds, insulating themselves from the world of their families, and further disintegrating their relationships with wives that they can no longer relate to, nor understand.

SouthernBoy
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 02:40 PM
Blaming the downfall of traditional family structures on feminism in general is getting a bit boring. It is the cause. I'm sure blaming smoke on fire is getting a "bit boring" also. :D
I am a feminist if that means being for women to be given equal opportunities as men...Should women be allowed in combat?

Jäger
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Actually, if looking at housing trends (statistics) over the last couple of hundred years (in Western European/post colonist countries anyway), you would find that families always came in all shapes and sizes.
It's more about the proportions.
One should keep in mind that "traditional" marriage rules in general are something for the lower classes (eh every class except the elite).


These things have not changed.
They have changed tremndously.


This is the realistic traditional family structure. People who care for each other, living and working together.
No, this is a clan structure, family structure by definition demands a stricter biological approach.
In essence, your definition should also be in place for any human community (nation, tribe, etc.)


Single parent households are quite normal, but not ideal, for obvious reasons.
It is clear they are, but have the been always normal?


But mostly, single parent households are rather a temporary transition.
The "transition" being getting a step-parent which is still damaging.


And still, a single parent household is preferable to one that contains both parents, but is wracked with abuse and anxiety.
Hm, right now I agree, but in a healthy society, it would be better to not have engaged with such a person to begin with.


I'm not even going to comment on homosexual couples. They should be locked up in insane asylums.
Aye.


Feminism is not responsible for the increase in single parent households... unless you want to directly credit feminism with women not tolerating abusive relationships anymore...
Are you really implying that most women leave their husbands because he is abusing them?
It seems feminism just redefined the term abuse, and now we have woman who are so self-confident that they think they can decide anything on their own, and don't even listen to advice anymore and pick some asshole they want to spent their life with and end up regretting it (surprise), this is also the responsibility of feminism.
However, I agree, that feminism isn't the single cause for our mess we are in.


... and feminism certainly isn't responsible for the advent of (homo)sexual deviancy.
Not directly.


This family structure is actually somewhat unnatural and although idealised to ridiculous proportions in post-war English speaking countries (at least), it is actually far from being ideal.
I somewhat agree, however it depends a little on the definitions, there certainly should be an area for the core family, surounded by the extended family, so to speak.


If I was going to have any agenda, it would be for mums to have WAY more community support in the form of socially isolating, modern social structures making way for inclusive, ancient community structures. Bring back the old days of small, closely knit tribal communities that lived and worked together all day long... instead of singular women living in neat brick homes, tucked away from the rest of the world, while their husbands go off to work to lose themselves in a totally alien worlds, insulating themselves from the world of their families, and further disintegrating their relationships with wives that they can no longer relate to, nor understand.
Yep, men working all day far away from their families certainly is a serious problem.

Anfang
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 05:08 PM
The traditional Germanic family included grandparents living in the household. Our ancestors placed more importance on family, they considered caring for their elders important. I believe it was an expected fact that the children would care for their parents in old age.

I am a feminist if that means being for women to be given equal opportunities as men, but I am against the promotion of single parenthood households. A family should include at least a mother and a father. A young Germanic man needs his father as an example to follow.

Learn more here:
http://www.geocities.com/reginheim/everydaylife.html

The family; family was very important in Germanic society, old people were cared for until the day they died and it was considered natural to look after eachothers children.
An average woman got 6 to 7 children in her life, though not every child survived the harsh living conditions of that time because it was not exceptional that over half of the children died during famines, wars, and cold winters so people often chose to have as many children as they could support, another reason for having many children was that those children could care for their parents after they had grown up.


And for facing the real danger that having 7 kids in your life posed, a woman deserved just as much respect as a war hero.
When I think that my ex wife's mother produced 13 children I look at her with great respect. 13 germanic kids,,

To know than there are mysogynists out there who are misogynists because they are mysogynists not because they have any particular insights the rest of us do not have., really makes me sick They are allways the same ones. it is only them that make the all antiwoman observations.
They say that gay men hate women, and are far ore likely to betray a womans confidense or get her fired from a job etc, than hetero men. at least they did a survey here in the USA and hetero people say they think gay males hate women as a group than hetero men. Is it too much of a stretch to feel that perhaps men who are wife abusers , or continuously show their contempt for women in public forums may have homosexual
leanings? maybe. maybe not.At least I can think that.

QuietWind
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Facts cited in the above article:



This would certainly appear to be the case in the news story in the thread linked above.

I just wanted to point out that the facts from the article are those facts for the UK. In America they are somewhat different. Does anyone else have what the stats are for their country?

You can find more information here:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

You will find that in America, "one or both parents were responsible for 75.9 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities." And that "Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect ."

Anfang
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 06:30 PM
I just wanted to point out that the facts from the article are those facts for the UK. In America they are somewhat different. Does anyone else have what the stats are for their country?

You can find more information here:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

You will find that in America, "one or both parents were responsible for 75.9 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities." And that "Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect ."





Do you know what I am reminded of? France 1945/
Of those images I have seen on film of frech Women being beaten and worse by their own people, for having collaborated with the Germans many for dating german soldiers. The people wre screaming at them, shaving their hair
beating them. most of the abusers were men.

And i said to myself, "look at that, you beat ant injure these women because they were with german soldies of the Occupation, but you you brave men would not fight the german Soldiers to the End, You surrendered after 5 weeks. While Germany had a Volksturm you had a Fagsturm. Now you beat your own women."
Men as a gender have failed to be men enough to fight against the communists and all the other outside enemies that threaten the Volk, but these heroes here (not all the guys!) have just enough guts and energy to go online and excorriate women for things that really it was men's duty to take care of..

These misogynists re only projecting their own failures onto women, and refusing to take the responsability for the decline of the west.

Imperator X
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 08:21 PM
I am a feminist if that means being for women to be given equal opportunities as men.

Perhaps the original suffragettes had a legitimate struggle, but since then the ideology of Feminism has changed to simply: "My gender right or wrong."

Anfang
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 08:27 PM
Perhaps the original suffragettes had a legitimate struggle, but since then the ideology of Feminism has changed to simply: "My gender right or wrong."
So now you presume to be in the mind of every Woman who has a sense of self determination? There are women who are Volisch who are feminists and women who are fascist who are feminists, feminists means "for women".
Our world, through the influnce of the southern people has become so patriarchal that the balance has been ruined, and penis-thinking rules.
That is why we need our Gods back.

Imperator X
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 09:22 PM
penis-thinking rules.

Thanks for reminding me of one of the "Female Privileges"... Why is it that when a man lets his emotions compromise his rationality he's "thinking with his dick", but if a woman does the same thing she's "following her heart"? Never has a woman been accused of thinking with her clitoris.

Feminazis always point out that men are over-represented in positions of power etc, but men are also over-represented as prisoners, prisoners of war, battlefield deaths, deaths on the job, and the list goes on... Why don't the feminazis ever complain about that?

Oh, and another thing... If the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world (which it does), what's all the bitching about ?

I'm telling you dude, bashing your own gender doesn't score points with the ladies... They'll just find some bad boy who excites them, and then when they tire of him, or the guy lets down his guard and shows his emotions they'll throw him away... You should actually read both of those articles, they explain it perfectly.

I mean, you're divorced... Do you still really think women poop roses?!

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 09:33 PM
Women's rights are a sub-set of a greater body of liberal rights, all of which promote individual interests without effectively reconciling them with the ultimate end, our folk.


So now you presume to be in the mind of every Woman who has a sense of self determination?
Self-determination takes places within the free space left by duties and it is necessary in order to improve an individual's worth, but it is not an end in itself and certainly not a right.


There are women who are Volisch who are feminists and women who are fascist who are feminists, feminists means "for women".
Men and women form functional units. To be either "for women" or "for men" is illogical and highly damaging nonsense.

Anfang
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 06:10 PM
Women's rights are a sub-set of a greater body of liberal rights, all of which promote individual interests without effectively reconciling them with the ultimate end, our folk."



NO.
In fact when a society is infested with Phallocentricity like ours has, "Women's" rights in fact become the Volks' automatic seeking to balance the very Eastern and Southers influence that bedevil us. READ The the writings of Margarette Sanger, American feminist.--

This was all at a time when White men in power wese sucking up the
Christian doctrine of the more the merryer.



Facts about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood:

(Though much quoted herein is old, I will show later that Planned
Parenthood today vigorously upholds Sanger's philosophy.)

Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 <Negro Project>, "We do not want
word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and
the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever
occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [1]

Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research
Association, said, "There is a great danger that we will fail because
the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to
let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the
conference in Atlanta."[2] Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of
America hired a full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.[3]

The entire operation [Sanger's 1939 Negro Project] then was a ruse--a
manipulative attempt to get Blacks to cooperate in their own
elimination.

The project was quite successful. Its genocidal intentions were
carefully camouflaged beneath several layers of condescending
social-service rhetoric and organizational expertise. . . Soon
clinics throughout the South were distributing contraceptives to
Blacks and <Margaret's dream of discouraging "the defective and
diseased elements of humanity' from their 'reckless and irresponsible
swarming and spawning" was at last being fulfilled.>[4]*

In a 1926 speech at Vassar, Sanger said the nation needed to follow
the "drastic immigration laws" of 1924 with methods "to cut down on
the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home."[5]

In a March, 1939 letter, Margaret Sanger explained to Frank Boudreau,
director of the Milbank Memorial Fund: ". . . That is not asking or
suggesting a cradle competition between the intelligent and the
ignorant, but a drastic curtailment of the birth rate at the source
of the unfit, the diseased and the incompetent . . . . The birth
control clinics all over the country are doing their utmost to reach
the lower strata [the minorities] of our population . . ."[6]

To stop this "multiplication," Sanger could be harsh. Her book, <The
Pivot of Civilization>, has a chapter called "The Cruelty of
Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to
provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers." In other
words, Sanger wanted ethnic cleansing. Instead of helping the poor,
she considered them (particularly Blacks, Hispanics, and Jewish
immigrants) slum dwellers who would soon overrun the boundaries of
their slums and contaminate the better elements of society with their
inferior genes.

Throughout the 200+ pages of <The Pivot of Civilization> Sanger
called for the elimination of human weeds: "for the cessation of
charity, for the segregation of morons, misfits, and maladjusted,"
and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[7] In this
same book she argued that organized attempts to help the poor were
the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is
perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents."[8]

"Margaret Sanger is responsible, more than anyone else, for keeping
alive international racism. She played the attractive hostess for
racist thinkers all over the world. Organizing the First World
Population Conference in Geneva in 1926, she invited Clarence C.
Little, Edward A. East, Henry Pratt Fairchild, and Raymond
Pearl--all infamous racists."[9]

"In 1932, it [the <Birth Control Review>] outlined *Margaret's 'Plan
for Peace,' calling for coercive sterilization, mandatory
segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all 'disgenic
stocks.'*[10]* In 1933, the <Birth Control Review> published 'Eugenic
Sterilization: An Urgent Need' by Ernst Rudin, who was Hitler's
director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society
for Racial Hygiene.[11] And later that same year, it published an
article by Leon Whitney entitled, 'Selective Sterilization,' which
adamantly praised and defended the Third Reich's racial
programs."[12]

Margaret Sanger and former Planned Parenthood President Alan
Guttmacher were both listed in 1956 as members of the American
Eugenics Society, Inc.


"More children from the fit, less from the unfit --
that is the chief aim of birth control."
Margaret Sanger-


-----------------------------------------------------------

"Self-determination takes places within the free space left by duties and it is necessary in order to improve an individual's worth, but it is not an end in itself and certainly not a right."

No one said it was an individual right, at least I did not.
The "right" is within the folk, not outside of it. You dont seem to trust the soul of the part of our Volk who cook up the babies in their Aryan bellies and who have made every single Germanic that has ever lived. Well, nowadays it is hard to trust anyone, because we have become so infected with foreign thinking.---------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------


"Men and women form functional units. To be either "for women" or "for men" is illogical and highly damaging nonsense."
The real nonsense is presuming that the males are the ones to control these functional units by laying down "rules" for the other half of the Volk. That is the real nonsense.

A swastika is a spiral made angular.


-------------

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 07:51 PM
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit --
that is the chief aim of birth control."
Margaret Sanger-
This is a principle of proportionality, which does not mean much if total birth rates are geared towards extinction. An additional problem is that our women are rendered unfit through economically motivated cultural degeneracy, especially the most valuable ones. If they were simply genetically unfit, their failure to reproduce would not bother me at all.


You dont seem to trust the soul of the part of our Volk who cook up the babies in their Aryan bellies and who have made every single Germanic that has ever lived.
The bellies that made Germanics have for the most part turned to dust, while their living descendants, male and female, look for excuses to be irresponsible, worthless trash, which you are happy to provide.


The real nonsense is presuming that the males are the ones to control these functional units by laying down "rules" for the other half of the Volk.
I don't believe in democracy, male or otherwise. I am concerned about building a system that works efficiently in the environment we find ourselves in and the individual interests of both men and women are of zero importance to me beyond that.

beowulf wodenson
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 08:08 PM
I despise feminism and its proponents as a disease that has done most to wreck the family, natural sexual roles/relationships, and birthrate of Western man.
To me feminism means women trying to be men in roles they are biologically as well as culturally entirely unsuited for, totally against the natural, organic order of things that evolved over the milennia. I believe women are indeed "equal" in worth before the law, as human beings, etc. BUT NOT in social roles and in all occupations.
For example, I am an officer at a max-security men's prison. There are small, fat, 'women' there that have no business working in such an environment. Mine really is a "man's job"! Those females are simply not able to handle themselves in a physical conflict with inmates as necessary.
My wife is not a feminist but I still detect its taint in some areas, like pretty well any female born and raised in Western societies in the last 40 plus years.:thumbdown
The bull-lesbo hard-core feminists sicken me as wanna-be men that also hate men, especially naturally dominant, strong men.

Anfang
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 08:34 PM
"This is a principle of proportionality, which does not mean much if total birth rates are geared towards extinction. An additional problem is that our women are rendered unfit through economically motivated cultural degeneracy, especially the most valuable ones. If they were simply genetically unfit, their failure to reproduce would not bother me at all.'

We agree. You do not seem to get that. the only thing we do not agree on is your insistense that a patriarchal model for a future 'politic" is Germanic and desireable. Granted there are places where women have a propensity to seek peace where war is desireable, or sit idle when dynamic efforts are requiered, but that is another question.
You hold a position that starts with the Dogma that male leadership= Germanic leadership, and that is in error.


"The bellies that made Germanics have for the most part turned to dust, while their living descendants, male and female, look for excuses to be irresponsible, worthless trash, which you are happy to provide."

This is not true.

"I don't believe in democracy, male or otherwise. ", you write. Ok, so, Where have I made a case for democracy? Nowhere. It is your asumption that female leadership= democracy, male leadership = Germaniscism. Your assumption, not mine. I will give you a very simple story, which you may or may not be able to appreciate. Once my wife and I were walking down the street and a white anglo-saxon looking young guy, dirty and dressed very "punk rock" comes up to us and beggs, "Change?" She looks at him without stopping and says, "change you into what?". Who is a leader and who is dust in this situation?


"I don't believe in democracy, male or otherwise."

It seems to me that you believe in Phallocracy. I do not believe that this way of thinking will get us to where we want to go.That we have to educate people both male and female is a given.

" I am concerned about building a system that works efficiently in the environment we find ourselves in and the individual interests of both men and women are of zero importance to me beyond that."

The elemental basis for building such a system, and deciding who will be the people who decide the direction, is the Volkisch elemental genius. This is not
only to be found in males. A great leader can also be female. You hate that idea for reasons that you cannot make clear.


--------------------------------------------------------------

"Und Sie habt doch Gesiegt"

Anfang
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 08:47 PM
Yes but, the Warden of the prison that you work at, Your superior, who may be far more intelligent and educated than you, can be a woman, as it is not the warden's job to be wrestling with mutts in the bowels of the prison. In fact your job could be done by robots in the near future. I recomend watching the movie "Fortress", lol.

Lucky for you the robots won't be perfected /implemented for another 20 years or so.



I despise feminism and its proponents as a disease that has done most to wreck the family, natural sexual roles/relationships, and birthrate of Western man.
To me feminism means women trying to be men in roles they are biologically as well as culturally entirely unsuited for, totally against the natural, organic order of things that evolved over the milennia. I believe women are indeed "equal" in worth before the law, as human beings, etc. BUT NOT in social roles and in all occupations.
For example, I am an officer at a max-security men's prison. There are small, fat, 'women' there that have no business working in such an environment. Mine really is a "man's job"! Those females are simply not able to handle themselves in a physical conflict with inmates as necessary.
My wife is not a feminist but I still detect its taint in some areas, like pretty well any female born and raised in Western societies in the last 40 plus years.:thumbdown
The bull-lesbo hard-core feminists sicken me as wanna-be men that also hate men, especially naturally dominant, strong men. You know, like comrade Hillary Clinton :D


Dude, I say again, you're divorced. It is evident women don't poop roses like you assume.


So let me understand, you are assuming that I am assuming something?

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 09:06 PM
We agree. You do not seem to get that. the only thing we do not agree on is your insistense that a patriarchal model for a future 'politic" is Germanic and desireable. Granted there are places where women have a propensity to seek peace where war is desireable, or sit idle when dynamic efforts are requiered, but that is another question.
You hold a position that starts with the Dogma that male leadership= Germanic leadership, and that is in error.
You do not seem to understand that there is a world of difference between "Yahwe told me men should rule over women" and "The primary duty of a woman, defined by her biology, is to have children, which limits her ability to participate in other duties". Men and women are just pieces in a puzzle to me. I do not solve puzzles for the benefit of its pieces, I do it for the big picture. To approach a problem solely from the perspective of any particular piece is thoroughly disturbed and I cannot relate to that at all.


"I don't believe in democracy, male or otherwise. ", you write. Ok, so, Where have I made a case for democracy?

The real nonsense is presuming that the males are the ones to control these functional units by laying down "rules"
You claimed that I did. I would never allow "males" to lay down rules for such a system in any collective sense.


The elemental basis for building such a system, and deciding who will be the people who decide the direction, is the Volkisch elemental genius.
True, and it should be neither "men" nor "women".

Anfang
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 09:57 PM
Post above agreed to, over all.

"....... there is a world of difference between "Yahwe told me men should rule over women" and "The primary duty of a woman, defined by her biology, is to have children, which limits her ability to participate in other duties". Men and women are just pieces in a puzzle to me. I do not solve puzzles for the benefit of its pieces, I do it for the big picture."

I am glad you said limits and not "preclude".

" To approach a problem solely from the perspective of any particular piece is thoroughly disturbed and I cannot relate to that at all."

Of course.
Power is for the Volk and not for any individual. The Jews understand that from their perspective, that is the sourse of their success.

When I say "Who is the one who will decide, What is the best, the worst, the first, and the last?" - I mean that we are the ones who will decide. Wir mussen nich auseinander getrieben Sein.

The enemy has been colonizing our minds for a long time, wether we wish to accept that or not, so that, just as he gave us this desert religion and desert morality, they also created liberal feminism, which has nothing to do with our bewegung.

rainman
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 10:21 PM
Feminism= self deterimination for women. It is just another manifestation of the self centered modern philosophy.

Folkism= self determination of the group. Individuals put duty to family and community above selfish interests. This means men, women, children, younge, old, weak, strong etc.

You have to shed the self centered view of the world. The women should not pursue her own interests if it in conflict with the family or folk. Nor should men, or anyone else.

The self centered philosophy is why families fall apart. It's why men beat their wives or women beat their children of children don't care about parents and parents don't care about children.

You guys are looking at the wrong issue: it's selfishness.

Anfang
Friday, November 21st, 2008, 10:38 PM
Feminism= self deterimination for women. It is just another manifestation of the self centered modern philosophy.

Folkism= self determination of the group. Individuals put duty to family and community above selfish interests. This means men, women, children, younge, old, weak, strong etc.

You have to shed the self centered view of the world. The women should not pursue her own interests if it in conflict with the family or folk. Nor should men, or anyone else.

The self centered philosophy is why families fall apart. It's why men beat their wives or women beat their children of children don't care about parents and parents don't care about children.

You guys are looking at the wrong issue: it's selfishness.

Yes
And it is my thought that this selfishness is also to be found in hierarchies created which selfishly Empower males and deprive the Volk of the genius within Individual Women. If they are barefoot and pregnant they wont have time to go to the university, etc, right?



To my mind it is weakness .

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 03:42 AM
Feminism= self deterimination for women. It is just another manifestation of the self centered modern philosophy.

Folkism= self determination of the group. Individuals put duty to family and community above selfish interests. This means men, women, children, younge, old, weak, strong etc.

You have to shed the self centered view of the world. The women should not pursue her own interests if it in conflict with the family or folk. Nor should men, or anyone else.

The self centered philosophy is why families fall apart. It's why men beat their wives or women beat their children of children don't care about parents and parents don't care about children.

You guys are looking at the wrong issue: it's selfishness.


You do not seem to understand that there is a world of difference between "Yahwe told me men should rule over women" and "The primary duty of a woman, defined by her biology, is to have children, which limits her ability to participate in other duties". Men and women are just pieces in a puzzle to me. I do not solve puzzles for the benefit of its pieces, I do it for the big picture. To approach a problem solely from the perspective of any particular piece is thoroughly disturbed and I cannot relate to that at all.

You're not going to be able to get many people to not act in their own self interest. What you have to do is set up a system which guides peoples' self-interest behavior into something that is good for the group. In this case, the solution seems to be to remove the support system which enables family breakup, and most government interference in family/domestic issues in general. No court mandated division of assets, alimony, restraining orders, and that type of nonsense. In past times women relied on individual men for personal and economic security, today they have replaced that with a state apparatus which needs to be removed.

Anfang
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 05:03 AM
"You're not going to be able to get many people to not act in their own self interest. What you have to do is set up a system which guides peoples' self-interest behavior into something that is good for the group. In this case, the solution seems to be to remove the support system which enables family breakup, and most government interference in family/domestic issues in general. No court mandated division of assets, alimony, restraining orders, and that type of nonsense. In past times women relied on individual men for personal and economic security, today they have replaced that with a state apparatus which needs to be removed."

This "In past times women relied on individual men for personal and economic security"

Ha ha ha , No they relied on the Community and the Family. And yes since in ancient times often family wealth was inherited through the female line, Women of means were often wealthier than their hubands. But the jesus people changed that for the most part, did'nt they? I do not expect "Christians" to understand this, of course as the very nature of "jesus worship" is slavish. The thinking you exibit is "christian thinking". However: The liberal State's creation, a "state apparatus which needs to be removed." part is correct.


"You're not going to be able to get many people to not act in their own self interest. "

It was not evident that it was in West Germany's interest to absorb 17 million East Germans when the USSR collapsed, and by extension many Germans probably felt that they were going to sacrifice at least some of their economic well being. But to the German people's great credit, this was done.



--------------------------------------------------------------

Asked why she did not go on vacation to Spain with the rest of her family, Gertrude replied in her stentorial british accent, "Spain, no, too many Jews down there". He tried to tell the septagenarian that there really were no Jews in Spain to speak of....
"Well of course there are, they just call themselves 'Catolicos, Catolicos!"

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 09:09 AM
"It takes a village to raise a child" is an African proverb

Jäger
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 09:22 AM
You're not going to be able to get many people to not act in their own self interest. What you have to do is set up a system which guides peoples' self-interest behavior into something that is good for the group.
That is the way, what Hauke described is the destination.

Anfang
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 10:11 AM
"It takes a village to raise a child" is an African proverb


"It takes a Viking Couple to RAZE a village"
-Erk Blutaxte und Gunhild- ehespaar.















--------------------------------------------------------
" Ich bin kein Bauerntrampel!"

rainman
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 11:26 PM
Group interest is self interest. If my family and folk required me to sacrafice education for having children and that was healthiest for the group then I would do it. It isn't a means to suppress me. The folk are not in competition with one another (a modern mostly Jewish cultural concept of selfishness again) they are one group that work together for a common good.

Why would I go to college anyway? To better myself economically? The group helps each other. I do my duty, others do theirs. We are all fairly compensated for our duties (something unheard of in modern culture of greed and exploitation). Or maybe education is about bettering oneself. Well we educate each other as a family we have discussions and such. And we are guided by those in the community with the knowledge and expertise so I gain from someone elses education, and even besides that it is better to do something for the good of the family than what is good for self.

If I have a daughter, a wife, a sister, we are the same folk. My goal isn't to oppress her. That is the propaganda of the enemy speaking! The enemy says that men are leaders because of a desire to oppress. How many of you want to tear down your mothers, daughters and sisters? Give me a show of hands? I doubt any normal sane healthy person would want that. Studies have shown that men have larger brains and are wired for a different set of skills than women. This is why men tend to be the inventors, the leaders, the great business minds. Not because of a grand conspiracy against them. Women likewise are better at understanding others and a different set of skills.

A lot of feminist doctors have done study after study trying to "prove" that males are evil and proven the opposite. Like when they have raised women as boys. "well women are taught to be docile and to want to have kids". Well it never worked out. Boys raised as girls wanted to play with the toys boys play with and had boy personalities. It wasn't a bias of society but a natural thing. Same with women raised a boys. There are some masculine women and some feminized men but nature necessitate us to have seperate duties and abilities that complement each other not compete against each other.

The result of the lie of feminism is that now a man must work a full time job and a woman and they must give up having children to maintain the same lifestyle a man alone could provide for 30 or 40 years ago. Women are not better off. Let me let you in on a secret: our enemies lie to us not for our benefit but for their benefit. Trust your family and your true brothers and not the TV screen.

If you look at men they are generally stronger. Their brains are wired differently. Women are capable of giving birth. Thus to put it in simple terms you can understand when a man wins a weightlifting contest and say over and over again throughout history %98 of people who win weightlifting contests are men it isn't a conspiracy of men to oppress women. It arrises from natural differences of nature between men and women and b) how the hell is that oppressing a woman? If a mother tells a child what to do and is the leader is that because she wants to "keep the children down" and oppress them? or is it because it is a natural and logical thing to do which is in the best interest of everyone?

A lot of you all are too rooted in the mindset of enemy propaganda. Though I would caution against allowing them to manipulate you with folkish ideals like the communists did. We are rooted in these group concepts through the nuclear family and tribalism (small groups where everyone knows everyone). Self sacrafice and duty are noble concepts but don't let a large state or nation abuse those ideals either. In a group where everyone knows each other one is able to weed out the parasites and undesirables. That's why our enemies like to hide in large cities and/or transient populations. Though as tribes and families we can form together in lager groups. Through trial and error we learn which tribes/families cannot be trusted and so on.

Anfang
Sunday, November 23rd, 2008, 10:51 PM
Group interest is self interest. If my family and folk required me to sacrafice education for having children and that was healthiest for the group then I would do it. It isn't a means to suppress me. The folk are not in competition with one another (a modern mostly Jewish cultural concept of selfishness again) they are one group that work together for a common good.

Why would I go to college anyway? To better myself economically? The group helps each other. I do my duty, others do theirs. We are all fairly compensated for our duties (something unheard of in modern culture of greed and exploitation). Or maybe education is about bettering oneself. Well we educate each other as a family we have discussions and such. And we are guided by those in the community with the knowledge and expertise so I gain from someone elses education, and even besides that it is better to do something for the good of the family than what is good for self.

If I have a daughter, a wife, a sister, we are the same folk. My goal isn't to oppress her. That is the propaganda of the enemy speaking! The enemy says that men are leaders because of a desire to oppress. How many of you want to tear down your mothers, daughters and sisters? Give me a show of hands? I doubt any normal sane healthy person would want that. Studies have shown that men have larger brains and are wired for a different set of skills than women. This is why men tend to be the inventors, the leaders, the great business minds. Not because of a grand conspiracy against them. Women likewise are better at understanding others and a different set of skills.

A lot of feminist doctors have done study after study trying to "prove" that males are evil and proven the opposite. Like when they have raised women as boys. "well women are taught to be docile and to want to have kids". Well it never worked out. Boys raised as girls wanted to play with the toys boys play with and had boy personalities. It wasn't a bias of society but a natural thing. Same with women raised a boys. There are some masculine women and some feminized men but nature necessitate us to have seperate duties and abilities that complement each other not compete against each other.

The result of the lie of feminism is that now a man must work a full time job and a woman and they must give up having children to maintain the same lifestyle a man alone could provide for 30 or 40 years ago. Women are not better off. Let me let you in on a secret: our enemies lie to us not for our benefit but for their benefit. Trust your family and your true brothers and not the TV screen.

If you look at men they are generally stronger. Their brains are wired differently. Women are capable of giving birth. Thus to put it in simple terms you can understand when a man wins a weightlifting contest and say over and over again throughout history %98 of people who win weightlifting contests are men it isn't a conspiracy of men to oppress women. It arrises from natural differences of nature between men and women and b) how the hell is that oppressing a woman? If a mother tells a child what to do and is the leader is that because she wants to "keep the children down" and oppress them? or is it because it is a natural and logical thing to do which is in the best interest of everyone?

A lot of you all are too rooted in the mindset of enemy propaganda. Though I would caution against allowing them to manipulate you with folkish ideals like the communists did. We are rooted in these group concepts through the nuclear family and tribalism (small groups where everyone knows everyone). Self sacrafice and duty are noble concepts but don't let a large state or nation abuse those ideals either. In a group where everyone knows each other one is able to weed out the parasites and undesirables. That's why our enemies like to hide in large cities and/or transient populations. Though as tribes and families we can form together in lager groups. Through trial and error we learn which tribes/families cannot be trusted and so on.


No rainman, no.
The more that I think about it the more I realize that some things are a pure matter of Blood and Volk Memory. I really feel at home with North West germanics. These thoughts and the 'writings of feminists doctors" do not even come into my mind.
When the Spanish dominated the Low Countries, they were surprised by the way in which the Dutch acted, and wrote that it was not normal, that women could say whatever they wanted in public to men as equals , and that men and women acted like "gentlemen conversing together". Gee what a scandal.
Talking particularly to Americans, but also to people who are not from the area that I feel at home in, is not smooth sometimes.
In my family, when we had large picnicks for bithdays or such,my Grandmother would come out of the house after the women had almost (remember German timing) finished cooking, and standing in her blue derss with little flowers all 178 cm of her would bellow..."we need some strong men to carry the picknick tables
and benches out here", and automatically all boys and men went and did it in 2 minutes. My aunt owned a commercial fishing boat. When they brought us fish (for free) She would carry the whole box by herself. My other aunt worked on her family farm. She drove tractors and bailed hay while having 5 kids. My Grandma, the one who I mentioned before was a Nurse for the Reichswehr "Red Cross" in WW1. She volunteered at 19 years of age. The first guy she was going to marry was killed in France.

You are talking in very simplistic terms as far as I can see.

"The result of the lie of feminism is that now a man must work a full time job and a woman and they must give up having children to maintain the same lifestyle a man alone could provide for 30 or 40 years ago. Women are not better off. Let me let you in on a secret: our enemies lie to us not for our benefit but for their benefit. Trust your family and your true brothers and not the TV screen."

If you had the benefit of vsiting my house you would not find a TV. You *would* find books, and very spartan furnishings.
and some very old artifacts.On my terrace you would find 55cm tall wrought iron Runes welded. Oh, and a big picture of a Leopard 2 firing.:D


You talk about the lies of the media, which is of course a machine for manufacturing lies, but yet you speak about feminism as if you were familiar
to you, as if you were an expert on the subject. Did it ever occour to you that the aspects of feminism that you abhor and know about are the aspects that that very media has allowed to become popular and flourish? No, of couse not.

"If I have a daughter, a wife, a sister, we are the same folk. My goal isn't to oppress her. That is the propaganda of the enemy speaking! The enemy says that men are leaders because of a desire to oppress. How many of you want to tear down your mothers, daughters and sisters? Give me a show of hands? I doubt any normal sane healthy person would want that. Studies have shown that men have larger brains and are wired for a different set of skills than women. This is why men tend to be the inventors, the leaders, the great business minds. Not because of a grand conspiracy against them. Women likewise are better at understanding others and a different set of skills. "

When an individual has power, they are tempted to abuse that power unless there is a counterbalancing force. In Viking times a woman could divorce a man for being abusive and cart off whatever she brought into the marriage and the small children, then she could re-marry. *This* is what our ancestors did. You cannot make up something else. Now you decry the advent of feminism but do not call for the Norms of our Germanic ancestors

"Sudies have shown...." Brain size ? please,source this. I can surely source that Girls in the USA score higher than boys
on the SAT exams, That Women in The Usa Army score higher on their exams.
male Gorrilas have larger brains than female gorrilas, yet 90% of all the gorrilas that have been able to learn human language and communicate through sign language are female. Anthropologists have theoized that female humans possibly developed language first and then though males, and that i fact the male hunter brought in as little as 20% as compared to gathering which was the female "role".

Imperator X
Sunday, November 23rd, 2008, 11:01 PM
I can surely source that Girls in the USA score higher than boys on the SAT exams

If this is true, then how come people claim that the SATs are biased towards males?

Anfang
Sunday, November 23rd, 2008, 11:11 PM
There is proof that many Scythian warriors were female, They were an indo European people. There are Contemporary Roman reports of Germanic Women in battle shooting Arrows at the Romans from armored "Wagon-towers" and Jumping out Quickly to fight with swords and then running to the wagons again". It did not seem to do anything fnegative to their reproductive abilities as the Germans kept multiplying. But then again, that was North West Germania... or as far as the Romans could go Northwest;).

Jäger
Monday, November 24th, 2008, 07:40 AM
There are Contemporary Roman reports of Germanic Women in battle shooting Arrows at the Romans from armored "Wagon-towers" and Jumping out Quickly to fight with swords and then running to the wagons again".
Which contemporary sources?

beowulf wodenson
Monday, November 24th, 2008, 10:43 PM
[quote=Anfang;910432]Yes but, the Warden of the prison that you work at, Your superior, who may be far more intelligent and educated than you, can be a woman, as it is not the warden's job to be wrestling with mutts in the bowels of the prison. In fact your job could be done by robots in the near future. I recomend watching the movie "Fortress", lol.

Lucky for you the robots won't be perfected /implemented for another 20 years or so.

quote]

Ha. The typical prejudice of the ignorant. :D Though a ways off topic here,the wardens at all but one of the prisons in this system are men that have done their time "in the bowels of the prison". The women promoted have not. Usually PC type appointments.
Our warden that just retired after 30 years' service started out as a C.O.
Despite your evident prejudice towards corrections officers, who else do you think keeps your hide safe from the riff-raff locked away from society, IE keeps them locked away from you?
A robot does not have the situational awareness and critical thinking capacity to evaluate the "games" and situations that present themselves daily in a max-security prison, to keep the peace in a potentially very dangerous environment, all the while hamstrung by bureaucrats and judges. R2-D2's welcome to it if he can swing it! You got to be a sentient human being to respond to the misbehavior of other men, the understanding of human nature no machine will ever have.
Think you could handle it inside those walls, 'Anfang'? :P
I am myself actually moderately well-educated, holding a university bachelor's degree which should serve me well towards promotion to other positions within this dept. or other areas. I have taught at the high school level in past lives.....I'd rather deal with convicts than modern teens any day!
That said, my point remains there are fundamental "man's jobs" that females have no business near.

Haereticus
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008, 05:12 PM
... If I was going to have any agenda, it would be for mums to have WAY more community support in the form of socially isolating, modern social structures making way for inclusive, ancient community structures. Bring back the old days of small, closely knit tribal communities that lived and worked together all day long... instead of singular women living in neat brick homes, tucked away from the rest of the world, while their husbands go off to work to lose themselves in a totally alien worlds, insulating themselves from the world of their families, and further disintegrating their relationships with wives that they can no longer relate to, nor understand.

Just reading this now. You absolutely hit the nail on the head. Social isolation and family disintegration are probably THE biggest core problems in our modern culture. That, transient populations and urban anonymity which is part of the same foul recipe which blights our lives and our development.

Anfang
Wednesday, November 26th, 2008, 05:10 PM
[quote=Anfang;910432]Yes but, the Warden of the prison that you work at, Your superior, who may be far more intelligent and educated than you, can be a woman, as it is not the warden's job to be wrestling with mutts in the bowels of the prison. In fact your job could be done by robots in the near future. I recomend watching the movie "Fortress", lol.

Lucky for you the robots won't be perfected /implemented for another 20 years or so.

quote]

Ha. The typical prejudice of the ignorant. :D Though a ways off topic here,the wardens at all but one of the prisons in this system are men that have done their time "in the bowels of the prison". The women promoted have not. Usually PC type appointments.
Our warden that just retired after 30 years' service started out as a C.O.
Despite your evident prejudice towards corrections officers, who else do you think keeps your hide safe from the riff-raff locked away from society, IE keeps them locked away from you?
A robot does not have the situational awareness and critical thinking capacity to evaluate the "games" and situations that present themselves daily in a max-security prison, to keep the peace in a potentially very dangerous environment, all the while hamstrung by bureaucrats and judges. R2-D2's welcome to it if he can swing it! You got to be a sentient human being to respond to the misbehavior of other men, the understanding of human nature no machine will ever have.
Think you could handle it inside those walls, 'Anfang'? :P
I am myself actually moderately well-educated, holding a university bachelor's degree which should serve me well towards promotion to other positions within this dept. or other areas. I have taught at the high school level in past lives.....I'd rather deal with convicts than modern teens any day!
That said, my point remains there are fundamental "man's jobs" that females have no business near.

I did say "may be" not is.
It is off topic so I will not dwell on it much you should see the movie "Fortresses". I think you would like it. Robots do not need to be R-2 D-2s . The prison itself can be the robot. prisoners can be herded by machines and shocked when they will not comply. Enough electricity and they will comply. a liberal society will not let these prisons exist yet. The other option is to outsource prisoners to china, where they would also comply. Much cheaper . Of course I am against this, as I do not want to give more money to the chinese. If Germany can build Automated car factories and japan can, a prison with a minimum of personel is completely possible.
Technology is changing things. The "muscle difference" between women and men becomes less significant.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, December 6th, 2008, 03:47 AM
Feminist= A Trotskyite that happens to be a female.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, December 6th, 2008, 05:21 AM
Anfang

Technology is changing things. The "muscle difference" between women and men becomes less significant.

Interesting Anfang has finally said something I can agree with. I will agree with you there, but at the same time that technology, might not be as female friendly as you might think. And I guarantee you that the people controlling it will not be friendly to Germanic people. Whither they be male or female.

In this case it would be an advantage for women to attempt to work with men in an attempt to build a common and secure future, as opposed to looking on from outside as Asians and most likely Arabs forge ahead into the brave new world.

Agrippa
Wednesday, July 14th, 2010, 02:22 PM
YouTube- Bill Maher vs Feminism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98&feature=player_embedded)


The half-Jewish Maher is a good one, his "documentary" about religious idiocies, Religulous (2008):
Religulous (2008) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/)

...was great too.

He's absolutely right about many things and I like his humour generally speaking, even if it's somewhat rough at times.

Actually, what he describes is to large degree the results of Cultural Marxism:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=127191

Anselm
Wednesday, July 14th, 2010, 09:26 PM
He has good insight. "Not hurting someone's feelings is more important than telling the truth." I like him a lot.

Zogbot
Thursday, July 15th, 2010, 08:06 AM
You like this Jew who would have you all hanged. Modern descendants of Aryans have some weird characteristics, for sure.

Niall Noigiallach
Thursday, July 15th, 2010, 08:44 AM
He has good insight. "Not hurting someone's feelings is more important than telling the truth." I like him a lot.
Ugh.

Anyways for proper arguements against Feminists and Leftism definately check out these guys.

http://www.youtube.com/user/pinegrove33#g/u
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHappyMisogynist#g/u

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 15th, 2010, 09:22 AM
Bill Maher is filth. It's very sad to see people settling for listening to the least objectionable jew. Yes, he was hand picked for those who would agree with some of his observations, but then he puts a certain spin on them that leaves us as hopeless as before. He's still a jew trying to define the world for us. How nice of him. We are obviously not bright enough to do it for ourselves.

:thumbdown

Agrippa
Thursday, July 15th, 2010, 09:52 AM
Bill Maher is filth. It's very sad to see people settling for listening to the least objectionable jew. Yes, he was hand picked for those who would agree with some of his observations, but then he puts a certain spin on them that leaves us as hopeless as before. He's still a jew trying to define the world for us. How nice of him. We are obviously not bright enough to do it for ourselves.

:thumbdown

That's true, but I guess we all have to think for ourselves and distinguish between different aspects.

Also I agree that he can be considered what I call a "rational Leftist", but Leftist nevertheless, yet this rational aspects are good and useful and I like them for the sake of it and easy communication.

There are not too many people from anywhere I can agree upon in every respect and talking about comediens and film makers, a limited proportion is at least more than what I can say about many others.

Point is, he was right with his "documentary" and this show, rest, well, nobody is beyond criticism and because of his attitude in other fields I mentioned deliberately that he is a half-Jew, just so that people can register that aspect too.

Here a video which makes his position on Zionism clear (somewhat visible in Religulous too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrm3VDE2p2Y&feature=player_embedded

As I said, think for yourself and there are not too many people out there, in the public media, which make anything valuable or good to watch - even real fun to watch, so I take what I get, but always keep eyes open.

And it's always a good thing, beside the fun, especially if talking to people which are not right wing, if you can refer to somebody like Bill Maher or George Carlin for a legitimate but humorous criticism.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 15th, 2010, 10:13 AM
The problem is not with the intelligent who can rationally pick apart what he's saying. The problem is with the masses who cannot. The cultural product of this loudly voiced point of view is what concerns me... how many young males see this and become convinced that this is just how things are? After all, there are no proper societal constructs allowed to stand as an example for the young, and somehow these same young males seem brainwashed against watching older movies and television which might give them the right idea.

Freedom of speech for the jew... freedom to shut up and die for the rest of us.

Anselm
Thursday, July 15th, 2010, 05:12 PM
Here a video which makes his position on Zionism clear (somewhat visible in Religulous too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrm3VDE2p2Y&feature=player_embedded

Having seen that, I retract that, "I like him a lot."

Agrippa
Friday, July 16th, 2010, 05:48 PM
Having seen that, I retract that, "I like him a lot."

I don't like him neither, but I like some of his works ;)


watching older movies and television which might give them the right idea.


Seriously, how much older movies are in any way really recommendable, without limitations I mean, so that you can say: "Everything is good and nothing needs to be commented" - ?

Television in particular was a corrupted tool almost from the start and never confuse Conservatism of the US 50's or even Pseudo-Conservatism being anything good for - in a certain way they are often just more naive, but bring on a similar destructive message, just better disguised and not as open.

Yet there are modern series and movies I think of being as good as those of the past or even better...

What you can learn from Hollywood is just how to make easy profits and brainwashing and audience the same time, without this audience even knowing anything about what's happening and becomes less and less independent thinking, while thinking of itself as being "the most independent generation..."

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, July 16th, 2010, 06:07 PM
Well, there was a rather severe point of departure in the early 70s where the head jew in charge eliminated the rural themed light comedy shows like Andy Griffith and replaced them with leftist swill like All in the Family. Pro-White culture to anti-White culture almost in the blink of an eye. It makes a difference who your heroes are, and the jew knows it.

Anselm
Friday, July 16th, 2010, 06:09 PM
Well, there was a rather severe point of departure in the early 70s where the head jew in charge eliminated the rural themed light comedy shows like Andy Griffith and replaced them with leftist swill like All in the Family. Pro-White culture to anti-White culture almost in the blink of an eye. It makes a difference who your heroes are, and the jew knows it.

The Andy Griffith Show! Now that's an amazing show. It's still hilarious and touching.

Caledonian
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010, 03:27 AM
My views of how feminism can stuff it elaborated by somebody else that explains it more eloquently than myself. Enjoy! :) :D



Contemporary Anglo feminism is fraught with the same values as its historical context. Key themes include:

• Racism
• Classism
• Elitism
• Hypocrisy
• Repression
• Inconsistency
• Intolerance

Anglosphere feminism wants the best of all possible worlds: rights without responsibilities; privileges without obligations. As we have seen, Anglo-American feminism emerged among upper class English women in the late Nineteenth Century. It embodies all the faults associated with that type.

Virginia Woolf – Racist

Virginia Woolf is universally proclaimed as the radical proto-feminist icon among modern Anglo-American feminists:

Virginia Woolf, the most splendid modern writer, told us over and over how awful it was to be a woman of creative intelligence. She told us when she loaded a large stone into her pocket and walked into the river; and she told us each time a book was published and when she went mad – don’t hurt me for what I have done, I will hurt myself first, I will be incapacitated and I will suffer and I will be punished and then perhaps you need not destroy me, perhaps you will pity me, there is such contempt in pity and I am so proud, won’t that be enough? (Dworkin 1983: 45)

This ridiculous passage presents Woolf as victim – when a cursory glance at her background and attitudes shows her clearly to be a victimiser. Like most modern Anglo feminists, Wolff was racist, classist and elitist.

Astonishingly, Woolf is actually considered some sort of revolutionary ‘radical’ by the Anglo feminist establishment. Let’s see just how ‘radical’ she was, brimming over with philanthropic thoughts for her fellow-men. On Sat 9th Jan 1915, Woolf gave full vent to her eugenic and classist beliefs:


On the towpath we met & had to pass a long line of imbeciles. The first was a very tall young man, just queer enough to look twice at, but no more; the second shuffled, & looked aside; & then one realised that every one in that long line was a miserable ineffective shuffling idiotic creature, with no forehead, or no chin, & an imbecile grin, or a wild suspicious stare. It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed (Woolf, 1979: 13).

On May 17th 1925 Woolf describes her instinctive reaction to non-white people:

...passing a nigger gentleman, perfectly fitted out in swallow tail & bowler & gold headed cane; & what were his thoughts? Of the degradation stamped on him, every time he raised his hand & saw it black as a monkey's outside, tinged with flesh colour within (Woolf, 1981: 23).

There is also a sickening anti-Semitic outburst in a Feb 1940 diary entry, which for reasons of good taste is not included here.

These outrageous views should not surprise us. They (or attenuated versions of them) are endemic in modern Anglo feminism. Those who consider Anglo-American women to be morally superior (and a large number do) should consider these statements carefully. As John Carey and others have shown, the Modern movement in literature and the arts was characterised by rabid racism and elitism (Carey: 1992). Anglo-American feminism hails from the same patrician culture and embodied similar values from its inception. For example, many early feminists were racists and eugenicists (Nathanson and Young, 2001).

Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) was the daughter of Julia Jackson Duckworth of the Duckworth publishing family, and Leslie Stephen, a literary critic. She grew up at the family home at Hyde Park Gate. Her mother died when she was a teenager. When her brother Toby died in 1906, she had a prolonged mental breakdown.

In 1912 she married the political theorist Leonard Woolf (not a farm hand or labourer, take note) and published her first book, The Voyage Out in 1915. With To the Lighthouse (1927) and The Waves (1931) Woolf established herself as a leading modernist. She developed innovative literary techniques in these works to find an alternative to ‘patriarchal’ views of reality. Of course, it never occurred to her, that patrician, privately-tutored women’s experiences are equally irrelevant to the vast majority of women. An excerpt from ‘Mrs Dalloway’, one of Woolf’s most challenging works, underlines the rarefied patrician tone:

What a surprise! In came Richard, holding out flowers. She had failed him, once at Constantinople; and Lady Bruton, whose lunch parties were said to be extraordinarly amusing, had not asked her (Woolf, 2000: 129).

A Room Of One's Own (1929) is Woolf’s piece de resistance, at least for Anglo feminists. This is seen as a proto-feminist ‘statement’ describing how a woman’s creativity can blossom when she has financial and personal independence. Here we can see the early, eccentric lines of modern Anglo-American feminism: a narrow preoccupation with elite experience, sexual repression and gendered isolation. Moreover, Wolff was a fanatical upholder of her traditional ‘privileges’ as a patrician female even while she clamoured for new ‘rights’.

Other highlights of her career include Three Guineas (1938), which examined the necessity for women to strive for their own history and literature. Orlando (1928), a rambling fantasy novel, traced the polymorphous career of an androgynous protagonist from the Elizabethan court to 1928. Woolf was also a prolific essayist, publishing some 500 essays in periodicals and collections.

After a final attack of insanity she loaded her pockets with stones and drowned herself near her Sussex home on March 28, 1941.

The prevailing theme of modern Anglo-American feminism – that women are united by gender above all other considerations, especially class – begins with Woolf and her acolytes. This essential problem still hinders Anglo feminism: In one breath, they want responsibility and autonomy. The next moment, they cling to their traditional prejudices like limpets. Vast contradictions riddle their arguments.

The greatest absurdity in Anglo feminism is its arrant class blindness. In lectures, books and articles, contemporary Anglo feminists continually conflate international bridge-playing females with char-women and five-dollar call-girls as if they all shared common interests. As we have said elsewhere, Anglo-feminism is rather like nationalism or racism, an attempt to inveigle disenfranchised women into subordinating their claims as an oppressed class in favour of an arbitrary gender link with their oppressors. It is faux revolt.

Contemporary feminists claim that disenfranchised males are just as much ‘oppressors’ as men from Andover or Eton. Can the patrician origins of Anglo feminism explain this absurd position?

Because early Anglo feminists were all upper class (indeed, most still are) they knew nothing about mainstream social experience. ‘Ordinary’ women never entered their thoughts, except as objects of domestic labour. ‘Ordinary’ men were mere beasts of burden. Consequently, their ideas were absurdly skewed: while claiming to be ‘revolutionaries’ they unthinkingly retained their traditional prejudices.

These characteristic contradictions can be seen in all subsequent Anglo feminists: Greer (a ‘revolutionary’ who hates working class women); Dworkin (a ‘revolutionary’ who favours censorship); Hite (a ‘revolutionary’ who ardently supports monogamy); Paglia (a ‘revolutionary’ who accepts men are biologically superior); Julie Burchill (a racist, nationalist ‘revolutionary’). Of course, all ‘liberal’ Anglo feminists remain committed to such bourgeois anachronisms as marriage to wealthy men and the protective platitudes of organised religion. These absurd inconsistencies have a long pedigree, dating back to the earliest origins of Anglo feminism, exemplified by the classist, racist Woolf.

Whatever they say, Anglo feminists are natural allies of the authoritarian right. The key lines of Anglo feminist thought were set when Anglo-Saxon society was still pre-democratic and the broad masses little better than serfs. Hence arrogant elitism pervades this brand of feminism, something quite absent from the partnership feminism of Continental Europe. Since Anglo men have begun to reject the Anglobitch for women with traditional virtues, this intolerance has reached feverish levels (‘Oh, those China/Hispanic/Russian Dolls!’).

Andrea Dworkin Deconstructed

Dworkin is one of the most prolific Anglo feminist writers. Her work illustrates amply the follies of feminist thought. In Right Wing Women, she writes:

It is white women who have become who have become poor and extraneous with old age; they are taken from mainstream communities where they are useless and dumped in nursing homes. It is important to keep them away from those eager, young, middle-class white women who might be demoralized at what is in store for them once they cease to be useful (Dworkin: 1983:155).

This ridiculous conflation of the degrading treatment meted out to the elderly in modern society with feminist issues is pernicious and insulting. Dworkin seems to think that elderly males are being feted with steak and champagne while elderly females eat bread and water. Perhaps her distorted views reflect the fact that, their numbers thinned by overwork, unequal divorce settlements, military service and general vilification by the Anglo-American cultural establishment, too few men survive into old age for a meaningful picture of post-work male experience to be drawn.

It is in her discussion of the Sixties and the rise of the Anglo-American feminist movement that the true flaws in her thinking are revealed:

The sixties in the United States, repeated with different tonalities throughout Western Europe, had a particularly democratic character. One did not have to read Wilhelm Reich, though some did. It was simple. A bunch of nasty bastards who hated making love were making war. A bunch of boys who liked flowers were making love and refusing to make war. These boys were wonderful and beautiful. They wanted peace. They talked love, love, love, not romantic love but love of mankind (translated by women: humankind). They grew their hair long and painted their faces and wore colorful clothes and risked being treated like girls. In resisting going to war, they were cowardly and sissies and weak, like girls. No wonder the girls of the sixties thought that these boys were their special friends, their special allies, lovers each and every one (Dworkin, 1983: 89).

Firstly, let us put things in perspective, here. The Sixties’ counterculture did not embrace everyone, especially in Anglo Saxon cultures. It was overwhelmingly an upper middle class phenomenon. Most people – the poor, routine white-collar workers, the traditional middle class – were entirely unaffected by countercultural values. Secondly, American males in this counterculture were never at risk of going to war. As members of the elite, and thus educated and privileged, they all had college deferments. Finally, most women (‘girls of the sixties’) were entirely contemptuous of men who rejected traditional masculine gender roles. Women who embraced the counterculture were overwhelmingly upper middle class and completely unrepresentative of the female population as a whole.

Dworkin reveals this prejudice in the following passage:

They decried the stupidity of their mothers and allied themselves on overt sexual terms with the long-haired boys who wanted peace, freedom, and fucking everywhere. This was a world vision that took girls out of the homes in which their mothers were dull captives or automatons and at the same time turned the whole world, potentially, into the best possible home (Dworkin, 1983: 90).

In assuming that all women were cocooned ‘in the home’ Dworkin reveals her bourgeois and wildly unrepresentative origins. In truth, the vast majority of women have always worked. In the Sixties and before, those women who could afford not to work were middle class women, period. Yet here she assumes that such women were the norm: they may have been so in the women’s movement, but certainly not in society at large.

But it is when she moves on to the reasons why women rejected the sexual revolution that unpleasant realities stand revealed:

In the sexual-liberation movement of the sixties, its ideology and practice, neither force nor the subordinate status of women was an issue. It was assumed that--unrepressed--everyone wanted intercourse all the time (men, of course, had other important things to do; women had no legitimate reason not to want to be fucked); and it was assumed that in women an aversion to intercourse, or not climaxing from intercourse, or not wanting intercourse at a particular time or with a particular man, or wanting fewer partners than were available, or getting tired, or being cross, were all signs of and proof of sexual repression. (Dworkin, 1983: 92).

Tellingly, Dworkin does not elaborate on why ‘a particular man’ should be so offensive to a woman’s sexual sensibilities. A good guess might be because he was working class, uneducated, black, or in some other way offensive to the ingrained sexual elitism of the Anglobitch. This was surely the real reason why Anglo women rejected the sexual revolution: it was too revolutionary for them.

The sexual revolution, in order to work, required that abortion be available to women on demand. If it were not, fucking would not be available to men on demand. Getting laid was at stake. Not just getting laid, but getting laid the way great numbers of boys and men had always wanted--lots of girls who wanted it all the time outside marriage, free, giving it away. The male-dominated Left agitated for and fought for and argued for and even organized for and even provided political and economic resources for abortion rights for women. The left was militant on the issue (emphasis mine). (Dworkin, 1983: 95)

As well it might be. After all, equality relates as much to sexual as to economic matters. Dworkin’s italicised phrase is eerily significant: giving it away free. Fundamentally, this is what Dworkin finds problematic about the sexual revolution: as an Anglobitch, giving sex away free is almost a crime. For her, sex is something to be used as a weapon to injure or manipulate men, not a sacrament of freedom.

The men refused to change but even more important they hated the women for refusing to service them anymore on the old terms--there it was, revealed for what it was. The women left the men--in droves. The women formed an autonomous women's movement, a militant feminist movement, to fight against the sexual cruelty they had experienced and to fight for the sexual justice they had been denied (Dworkin, 1983: 96-7).

The women left in droves because authentic liberation left them cold. Being Anglo females, and thus sexually elitist, they felt better than black men or poor men, and consequently did not want to have sex with them. And the women in the main did not form an autonomous women’s movement – they moved on to marry business tycoons, movie moguls and the like – in other words, they turned away from radicalism back to traditional Anglobitch sexual parasitism because it suited them better than ‘free love’. Jane Fonda is a stellar example of a ‘radical’ Anglo feminist who saw fit to marry a string of millionaire media moguls rather than street sweeps (Ted Turner, founder of CNN, being a prime example).

They discovered the utter irrelevance of their own individual, aesthetic, ethical, or political sensitivities (whether those sensitivities were characterized by men as female or bourgeois or puritanical) in sex as men practiced it. The sexual standard was the male-to-female fuck, and women served it--it did not serve women (Dworkin, 1983: 91-92).

In truth, it did not serve Anglo women’s deep rooted sexual elitism. That is the plain and simple truth of the matter. To her credit, Dworkin does make some attempt to address this, even identifying the keystone of Puritanism in Anglo-American female attitudes:

Noxious male philosophers from all disciplines have, for centuries, maintained that women follow a biological imperative derived directly from their reproductive capacities that translates necessarily into narrow lives, small minds, and a rather mean-spirited Puritanism (Dworkin, 1983: 13).

Interestingly, Dworkin is blind to the cultural specificity of female ‘mean-spirited Puritanism.’ After all, French, Swedish or Japanese men do not excoriate females for Puritanism, as men in the Anglosphere do: they have no need to. French, Swedish or Japanese women are not mean-spirited puritans: Anglo American women are. Not once is the stilting influence of Anglo culture mentioned in any of Dworkin’s writings, yet it is the sole cause of these differences. To make such an admission would be to concede the establishmentarian nature of Anglo feminism, however: and this is something Dworkin cannot endure.

Dworkin also famously advocated a universal ban on pornography. Her position, predictably, was that pornography ‘causes’ rape (Dworkin, 1990). Unfortunately, no evidence has ever been presented to prove this. Additionally, countries with high levels of pornographic liberation have relatively low rates of sex crime and high rates of female representation in politics:

The facts about pornography are depressingly few. Some experiments have been carried out with students, but it is difficult to find any incontrovertible connection between pornography and, say, violence against women (Pickstone, 1996: 210).

Of course, the Anglo feminist hatred of pornography is merely a modern expression of the Puritans’ hatred of art and beyond that, life itself. Puritans detested the sensual grace of stained glass and free-spirited, quasi-pagan carvings adorning Old English churches. The glow of visual freedom disgusted their frigid sensibilities: so they smashed it. In the same way, Anglo feminists loathe pornographic depiction of the beautiful human form, however stylised or elegant: hating the sensual world and life itself, they feel obliged to ban it. Swedish feminism is about advancing women’s rights: Anglo feminism is about restoring New England Puritanism. Modern Anglo feminist ‘art’ presents bloated female bodies menstruating or defecating, degrading the female form to its basest level. The ideological conviction underpinning this ‘art’ is a Puritanical loathing of physical life.

Dworkin also famously argued that sexual intercourse itself was a patriarchal ‘crime’ against women (Dworkin, 1997). The penetrative, possessive nature of the activity is, in her view, indistinguishable from rape itself.

However, intercourse is not a social phenomenon, loaded with political value: it is merely the means by which most land animals reproduce their kind. Male spiders and mantids are often devoured by the female during intercourse. How, then, can the sexual act itself be automatically an act of male oppression? Again, the greater female involvement in young-bearing merely reflects the biological fact that the female’s body houses and nurtures the young, not that of the male. It is not a social construction but the expression of physiological necessity. The same gender-distinction is true for almost all land animals. It is not a function of oppressive patriarchy but, like intercourse, an organically predestined and unavoidable reality. Only those with an insane rage against reality itself could label intercourse and its products as patriarchal tyranny. Clearly, the views of radical Anglo-American feminists are more than ridiculous: they are frequently psychotic.

Despite their frequent lapses into dementia, some of Dworkin’s ideas can actually enrich the Anglobitch thesis. In Right Wing Women (1983) she claims conservative women hate homosexuals because homosexuals inherently threaten their sole biological function with superfluity. In exactly the same way, foreign women threaten the Anglobitch and are detested and feared by the latter for this reason.

As an interesting postscript, if we turn to consider what the broad masses of people were experiencing in the vaunted Sixties extolled by ‘radical’ feminists, the picture is invariably completely different to the model presented as a norm by writers like Dworkin. The entire ‘if you can remember the Sixties you weren’t there’ routine unthinkingly extolled in books, films and documentaries founders completely when we consider accounts of the period referring to mass experience, not just that of urban sophisticates:

He also became a familiar figure at Gloucester’s ‘Private Shop’ – its one licensed outlet for sex aids and pornography and so on. The Private Shop also used to be close to Cromwell Street. It used to be on Barton Street for several years. But the pressure of public opinion eventually moved it to the outskirts of the city. The move was resisted by Darker Enterprises, the shop’s owners. But in 1987 they finally gave in and moved to a premises on St Oswald’s Road, part of the South Wales-Birmingham ring road, well away from the town centre. The Private Shop now occupies a cabin in the cattle market (Burn, 2001: 158).

So, in a large English town we have one licensed sex shop to indulge the Sixties ‘wave’ of liberation. ‘Public opinion’ forcefully drives the Sex Shop to the outskirts of the city. Finally, the business is effectively closed, shrinking to a seedy, marginalized venue where coarse men trade and butcher cattle. It is difficult to see much liberation in this sordid saga: rather, sexuality plainly retains its illicit, pariah nature right through the 1960s into the modern era. These events briskly debunk the myth of Swinging London: plainly, British people in the provinces remained completely untouched by events in the metropolis. And this distinction was maintained in the Anglo-American world throughout the Sixties into the contemporary era.

A Few Good Men: Anglo Feminism and the Mythical ‘Man Shortage’

Let us consider the dust-jacket blurb on the back of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s ‘Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman’ (2003):

‘A double revolution is at work in modern American love. A revolution in higher education has created the most independent generation of young women in history, and a revolution in mating has created a prolonged search for Mr Right. Through extensive research and interviews, Whitehead documents the new social climate in which the demands of work, the rise of cohabitation, the disappearance of courtship, and the exacting standards of educated women are leading them to stay single longer and to find the search for a mate even harder when the time is right.’

This ‘man shortage’ has been a staple of Anglo-American pop-feminism since the early Seventies. Whitehead admits early on there is in fact no ‘man shortage’ at all: among American 30-34 year olds, there are four never-married men (30%) for every three never-married women (20%) (Whitehead, 2003: 10). Indeed if we accept Whitehead’s figures, there is obviously a ‘woman shortage’, confounding her whole thesis. Yet the rest of the book skirts this fact, focussing on such red herrings as cohabitation and the decline of courtship.

The only obvious solution to this conundrum is that white, middle-class women reflexively dismiss men of low socio-economic status as potential mates, giving them the false impression there is a ‘man shortage’. At a deeper level, it is obvious that middle-class, post-feminist white women retain traditional expectations of ‘marrying up’ in the midst of their new rights and freedoms. Traditional female privileges have been squared with new rights to create impossible expectations: and this is the broad error of Anglo-American feminism. It is an unstable conceptual hybrid, completely unworkable in practice.

Sex is the pivotal female weapon for manipulating men, and it is not in women’s interests to ever yield their power of sexual barter. Women will always ration sex to the highest bidder, whatever rhetoric of ‘liberation’ they care to espouse. Indeed, so ingrained is the female expectation of marrying a male of high income and status that men without resources are literally transparent to them. When ‘a shortage of men’ is translated correctly as ‘a shortage of men with more wealth than most women’ the true, vulpine values of post-feminist Anglo-American women are revealed.

Of course, a genuine feminist revolution would have ensured that women became indifferent to male income and other trappings of ‘patriarchy’. However, in the Anglosphere the retention of Puritanism with its attendant ‘Pedestal Syndrome’ neutralised any such possibility, allowing the Anglobitch to square her new rights with archaic expectations and privileges.


Nina Farewell: Spokesperson for the Ugly Sex

Nina Farewell’s The Unfair Sex views all males as stooges, cads and fools:

No genuine full blooded male is trustworthy (Farewell, 2004: 11)

This onerous book, published in 1953, is invaluable in that it probes Anglobitch attitudes and values, without the distorting filter of Sixties liberal rhetoric. Here we see the true Anglobitch attitudes towards sex, men and relationships:

Do not fall into a careless attitude of self-confidence in the foolish belief that you have no Mating Instinct, or that if you have, yours is under perfect control. As resolutely as you defend yourself from Man, you must defend yourself from the enemy within (Farewell, 2004: 51)

Made giddy by the altitudes of abstract discussion, flustered by his continual praises, she mechanically echoes his every word, oblivious of where he is leading her. Suddenly she finds herself agreeing as he scoffs at the conventions, the taboos, the restrictions that strive to strangle the Man-Woman relationship…

…She is no petty bourgeoise, no, no. She is a pseudo-intellectual noodle who will trade her birthright for a brief moment of cerebral glory (Farewell, 2004: 68).

Note that female sexual favours (and all associated benefits) are viewed as a ‘birthright,’ a license to status, wealth and privilege. Female sexuality is entirely economized, commercialized and disassociated with pleasure or humanity. In a psychological sense, it seems bizarrely divorced from the persona of its ‘possessor’, rather like an inanimate possession such as a Porsche, bungalow or potted plant. We are reminded of the hysteria that beset Anglo women in the absurdly puritanical Victorian era. Never was the link between female sexuality and objective economic factors in the Anglo-American context more self-apparent than in this polemic.

Farewell is especially keen to stress the dangers that seethe forever in foreign lands:

Even girls who speak several languages fluently are susceptible and easily won by men of other lands. Perhaps these linguistic young ladies think differently, when they converse in an alien tongue (Farewell, 2004: 102).

This is a telling insight into the problems of Anglo-American culture. Since the limits of language are the limits of thought, behaviour and its limits are inevitably shaped by linguistic factors. The entire Anglo-Saxon cultural ensemble hinges on language above all else (due to its dour Reformation origins).

Anglo females are supremely mono-dimensional. This mono-dimensionality is the key to the Anglobitch personality. It can be tersely described as a narrow urge to barter sex (or the promise of sex) in return for material advantage. The entire mind, personality and presentation are narrowly geared to this purpose: since language limits a person’s conceptual horizons, it is only to be expected that discoursing in another language will allow new concepts and behaviours to infiltrate the subject’s mindset. Anglo females who learn foreign languages are invariably softened and improved by the experience, whether or not they engage in erotic discussions with foreign males. It would seem that the English language embodies a particular value system that reinforces the Anglobitch mentality.

It is known that Anglo females are encouraged in polite and passive forms of speech:

Other writers have probed more deeply than this rather random selection of instances, and have argued that girls may be encouraged to use a more deferential and hesitant form of language than men. Some evidence suggests they may experience subtle pressure to use more ‘proper’ variants of language than men, as part of a general social pressure to render themselves more socially correct because they are women (Downing, 1980:109).

Most European languages have a defined distinction between intimate and official forms (the sie/du distinction) and it is inviting to think that confusion over this issue is what facilitates an unaccustomed ‘openness’ among Anglo-American females speaking a foreign tongue. Discourse in English, with which they are intimately familiar, allows them to retain the manipulative initiative viz a viz the studied nuances of speech. They can effortlessly maintain the well-attested ‘wall’ against intimacy and sexual abandon that defines all their interactions with men. Foreign speech throws them off balance into a maelstrom of intimate, expressive humanity entirely alien to Anglo-American females.

Indeed, this may be a universal phenomenon and could partly account for the apparent pliability of foreign women to Anglo males. Although this substantially derives from the cultural factors discussed in Anglobitch, it is to be observed that males all over the world extol the warmth of foreign women over their own (no doubt with good reason). Even the Anglobitch has her aficionados, especially in the Latin world.

Also, the Anglo female, in speaking an alien tongue, automatically discards the conceptual shackles associated with her usual role. Her conception of social reality - its values, rehearsals and assumptions - are embedded in the English language. When speaking an alien tongue she has no recourse to traditional concepts of sexual manipulation typical of Anglo culture. Notions like ‘taking’, ‘prick-teasing’ or ‘possessing’ are not embedded in foreign tongues, at least not in terms readily formulated by the Anglobitch. Without psychological recourse to these terms and the manipulative concepts that underpin them, she is bereft of conceptual defences to her natural instinct toward physical intimacy.

In particular, the Anglobitch association between sex and class is confounded by discourse in foreign tongues. The equations normally clicking away at the back of her mind (wherein she objectifies men as disposable meal-tickets, as mere resources to be manipulated by the promise of sex) are dispelled by the novelty of speaking in an alien vernacular. Language is a conceptual ensemble embracing attitudes and values as much as vocabulary and grammar. The Anglobitch is thus shorn of the conceptual weapons she habitually uses to manipulate men when deprived of her native tongue. This is ultimately why engaging in conversation with foreigners throws her off-balance into the arms of unaccustomed passion.

Consider also that foreigners seldom express themselves verbally alone: their speech is augmented by gestures, postural changes and, most of all, by touching. Touching in Anglo Saxon culture (especially England) is comparative rare, with connotations of close intimacy entirely alien to Latins (or indeed, anyone else). The stiff, formal undertone of the culture inhibits any kind of sensual self-expression. English people have the largest physical comfort zone in the world. This well-observed difference between puritanical Anglo Saxons and other peoples renders the Anglobitch susceptible to unfamiliar physical overtures from foreign males, which disorientate her and expose her to sexual infiltration.

Let us return to Farwell’s exegesis:

Flirting is the royal road to matrimony. It is the means by which you can so possess a man that he will crave more and more of you – and, in fact, all of you – which, of course, you are much too clever to give, except in exchange for a wedding ring (Farewell, 2004: 163-4).

The official sanction of Marriage highlights the link between Anglo-American cultural authority and Anglobitch privileges – which we shall now consider in greater detail.

The Circle Closes

The US Government has recently taken steps to prevent American men from marrying foreign women. In the US, at least 60% of marriages fail, with the woman receiving the lion’s share of all financial proceeds. By contrast, marriages between American men and foreign women are far more successful, with a lower divorce rate (15% at most). The titular reason for this ban is that several foreign women have been murdered in such marriages (the vast confirmed total of three since 1995). Even the 1999 INS (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service) report that underpinned the legislation admits that less than 1% of abuse cases can be clearly attributed to the international mail order bride industry (USCIS 2007). Hence this excuse holds no water since, proportionally, far more American women are murdered within abusive relationships. But statistical realities count for little when Anglo-American feminism needs to prevent the ‘Bountification’ of American men:

Such tragedies make for powerful headlines and fine political oratory, and in January, with Washington State, Missouri, Texas, and Hawaii all having already passed laws aimed at protecting foreign brides, President Bush signed the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, or IMBRA. Under the new law, which a marriage broker is challenging in court, IMBs (International Marriage Bureaus) falling under U.S. jurisdiction would be required to provide prospective brides with detailed information on any client requesting their information, including a search of federal and state sex-offender registries and a copy of the client’s stated marital and criminal background (Garin, 2005).

IMBRA is part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and the signature legislation of an official feminist organization rather worryingly called ‘Legal Momentum’. Their whole opposition to foreign dating agencies hinges on the argument that international brides are subject to violence, exploitation and abuse by ‘violent’ and ‘dysfunctional’ American husbands. The only scientific study of foreign marriages conducted by Dr Robert Scholes for the INS in 1999 discredited these assumptions: men who seek foreign brides are typically highly educated, professionally successful, socially adept and politically conservative (USCIS 2007). They desire a traditional marriage, with a lower Divorce risk. All studies unwillingly concede that such men do not fit the stereotype of a lonely, abusive alcoholic routinely trotted out by Anglo feminists. And most mail-order brides are evading poverty and exploitation: emigration to the United States typically represents escape from feral males, prostitution and violence.

Of course, the real feminist animus against foreign marriages lies elsewhere. Simply put, those who frame such legislation know perfectly well that Anglo-American women are no longer acceptable marriage partners for solvent males. They also know that, given a choice, large numbers of American men would marry traditionalist foreigners rather than American women:

A few of the men paired off in animated, earnest conversations about life, marriage, women. “I’m not going to spend every bit of my life in America,” one was saying. “Because I am sick and tired of being blamed for everything – the white man, you’re all responsible for everything. And American women are just rude, obnoxious. I won’t marry another American woman. I won’t do it. I’ll stay single first.” (Garin, 2005)

With no rational reason for the ban, we must conclude that the US authorities are dimly becoming aware that American men prefer foreign womanhood to the Anglobitch. But why should this be such a problem to them?

Throughout this study we have generally accepted that the Anglobitch phenomenon is somewhat ‘accidental’, having been shaped by chance historical events. Here, however, we have clear proof of Anglo-American political authorities actively seeking to maintain the Anglobitch’s stranglehold. The authorities in Anglo-America are ‘on the run’: their misguided policies have alienated men to such an extent that they now resort to coercion, lies and other terror tactics to ‘ration’ men’s relationships away from traditional foreign women towards Anglobitches alone. And Anglo feminists themselves are central to this agenda: they recognize that expanding the erotic choices of males across the Anglosphere will weaken their own monopoly on sex, overthrowing the puritanical social contract and truly liberating men for the first time. The whole Anglobitch sense of entitlement, contempt and casual misandry – in short, ‘the pedestal syndrome’ – faces imminent obliteration. Is it any wonder that Anglo feminists now stoop to underhand tactics to fight the influx of foreign brides?

Another strand in the feminist assault on international dating agencies is the unsubstantiated claim that they informally traffic sex-workers into the country (Naraya, 1995). Even this specious argument is motivated by self-interest. Anglo-American women derive their privileges from sex being ‘rationed’: if sex lost its scarcity value their accustomed pedestals would be removed. This explains the feminist hysteria about ‘sex-trafficking’: their concern is not for the women trafficked as sex workers, but losing their own privileged status. All the rhetoric about international dating agencies exploiting the power disparities between rich and poor or men and women is just a smoke-screen to maintain this status. Anglo feminism in any case has a long history of racism and elitism, which utterly discredits feminist statements on these issues.

Mila Glodava and Richard Onizuka’s study, Mail Order Brides: Women for Sale (1994) is often cited by the authorities as a ‘scholarly’ source of justification for IMBRA. This feminist polemic’s contribution to the debate largely focuses on how foreign dating agencies create ‘unrealistic’ romantic aspirations for the participants. Well, if that were the case (and it is by no means proven, only asserted) why not ban the whole of the Anglo-American media? Michael Medved shows that the American film industry has a consistent preoccupation with the upper-middle class, libertines and ‘young people’ – a wildly unrepresentative sample of the American population, at best (Medved, 1993). American TV shows seldom depict the average middle or working class family: enormous emphasis is placed on the fabulously rich and impossibly beautiful, alternative sexual lifestyles, wealthy career criminals and, of course, ‘young people’. The elderly, the poor and the conventional are conspicuous by their near total absence. All these media products surely erect far more ‘unrealistic expectations’ than the most imaginative foreign dating agency: why, then are they not banned? Or do the Anglo-American authorities like to pick and choose their ‘unrealistic’ objects of censure?

Speaking of arrant hypocrisy, the United States prides itself as the world’s most consistent capitalist nation. If American men choose a foreign bride over an Anglobitch, is this not merely capitalist freedom of choice? Why should capitalism be allowed to operate in the field of consumer goods, but not in bride-selection? If a consumer prefers a Porsche over a Ford Mercury, that is his privilege as a free consumer. Why should his elective autonomy be compromised when choosing a wife?

Aside from a reflexive desire to defend the existing order, is there any practical reason for the U.S. authorities’ rabid opposition to foreign dating agencies?

Divorce is part of a redistributionist economic policy enacted against Anglo-American men. Men who undergo divorce essentially have to sign over 70% of their assets to the female. In this manner, most wealth in the US has passed into women’s hands. In a very real sense, the Anglobitch and the institutions that support her are an underhand taxation policy that takes wealth from the hardworking and astute and gives it to the idle and spendthrift. In itself, this should have little economic impact, in that wealth would ultimately be redistributed by taxation anyway. However, Divorce prevents males from ever achieving financial independence, guaranteeing their indebted labour for life. Divorced males are the most prone to ill-health, suicide and abbreviated longevity. This is little wonder, as they are essentially highly productive, indentured slaves. This is the difference made by Divorce to the Anglo-American economy, shackling men to support needless over-consumption and over-production on the part of parasitic ex-partners.

Hence the Anglobitch issue is economic as much as it is cultural or political. Anglo-American Governments must necessarily inhibit the sexual or marital options open to males in order to sustain themselves. A sharp drop in the Divorce rate would have enormous repercussions on the US economy and its rapacious ethos of ‘infinite growth’.





Citations


Dworkin, Andrea (1983): Right Wing Women: The Politics of Domesticated Females. The Women’s Press Ltd., London.

Dworkin, Andrea (1997): Intercourse, Free Press, US.

Farewell, Nina (2004): The Unfair Sex, Icon Books, UK

Available from United States Customs and Integration Services: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1 a/?vgnextoid=9ba5d0676988d010VgnVCM1000004 8f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM1000 0045f3d6a1RCRD [accessed 5th May 2007].

Glodava, Mila, and Richard Onizuka (1994) Mail-Order Brides: Women for Sale. Fort Collins, Colorado: Alaken, Inc.

Woolf, Virginia, edited by Anne Olivier Bell (1979): The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Vol. I: 1915-1919, Harcourt.

Woolf, Virginia, edited by Anne Olivier Bell (1981): The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Vol. 3: 1925-1930, Harvest/HBJ Book.

Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe (2003): Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman. Broadway Books, NY, USA

Pickstone, Ibid

Woolf, Virginia (2000): Mrs Dalloway, Penguin, UK.

Burn, Gordon (2001): Happy Like Murderers. Faber and Faber, UK.

Carey, John (1992): The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1800-1939. Faber and Faber.

Dworkin, Andrea (1990): Pornography: Men Possessing Women. E P Dutton; Reprint edition., US

Narayan, Uma (1995) Male-Order Brides: Immigrant Women, Domestic Violence, and Immigration Law. Hypatia, 10:1 (Winter): 104-120.

Garin, Kristoffer A Garin (2006): A Foreign Affair, Harper’s Magazine, June 2006.


http://www.anglobitch.com/Ignorant.htm

Caledonian
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010, 03:29 AM
The New Dawn: A Refutation of Marxist-Feminism


Preface


Feminism is intimately allied with Left-liberal politics. The heavy treatment left politics has received at the hands of others might lead one to think that a refutation such as this is unneccessary . I do not agree: left politics still exerts a hold on the imaginations of the weak and the gullible, a hold that must be challenged if the ideal of pure capitalism is ever to be realized.

There are many good things in left politics – these coalesce around opposition to military coercion of disenfranchised males by the military-industrial complex. Libertarians must nod in approval at left-liberalism’s perennial opposition to war profiteering, conscription and other manifestations of plutocratic villainy. However, there are weaknesses even there: the denial of female complicity in such crimes, for example. Nonetheless, left liberalism’s basic stance is the right one and points towards the minimal interference by the military-industrialized State in the lives of individuals beloved of all libertarians. However, this respect for individual liberty is nothing if not extended into economic matters, also. To be free from the horror of conscription is fine, but to be also free of taxation is even finer.

The Flaws of Meta Theory


Left politics reveals its greatest conceptual weaknesses when it shows its hand as an all-explanatory (meta) theory. Marxism originated as a theory of 19th century economics. As an explanation of this conceptual field, it has comparative strength due to the empirical, a posteriori relationship of the theory to its referent. The greatest problems the left has faced arises from its attempts to explain other areas – ‘human nature’, gender differences, Third Wave society, the actual (as opposed to idealised ) working class, and so on. The reason for this is that it does not enjoy an a posteriori, empirical relationship with these fields as it did with 19th century economics. Consequently, Marxism/liberalism adopts a wholly prescriptive, a priori attitude to these areas which is easily refuted by empirical observation. This is because its views on those matters do not themselves arise from observation, but prescription carried from another conceptual field.

A tired but ever effective example would be gender differences. Marxism avers gender differences are largely a matter of socialization and that if economic relations between the sexes change then women cease to be sexually coy and stop objectifying men economically. This thesis has been roundly refuted by experience, for in an age where most women have attained economic independence they clearly remain sexually interested only in high status males. This remains as true of feminists as of other women. The consequential low birth rates and social instability are everywhere apparent. This is a perfect example of the dangers inherent in applying observations developed in one conceptual field (economics) to another (human biology). What emerges is theory that cannot be sustained by empirical observation except by blind, willful denial of brute fact – the simple case in left-liberalism’s attempt to explain ubiquitous female sexual bigotry.

The Mirror of Contradiction


A second major problem is left politics’ tendency to reflect pre-existing concepts intimately associated with the Capitalism they are trying to refute. The main one of these is obviously Christianity – in fact, left politics is essentially secular neo-Christianity. The central underlying concept of Marxism – collectivist Utopianism – owes itself entirely to the Judeo-Christian world-view. It is self-contradictory therefore when Marxists talk about religion being ‘the sigh of the oppressed creature’ – when their own viewpoint is essentially identical to that of the major Western religions. Other examples would be elitism, more particularly the spurious notion that the ‘educated’ middle class elite ‘know best’ or deference to women, both of which are central to traditional capitalist ideology.

How, though, does this feed back into Marxism itself, damaging its potential as a revolutionary organization? Well, the marginalized, middle class nature of contemporary left politics provides a clue. An organization is hardly likely to inspire the disenfranchised masses if it reflects the agencies of their daily oppression. The alienated working class will not follow those it hates in daily life. But pragmatic considerations aside, the ideological repercussions are also troubling.

In reality, the association of a revolutionary organization with the ideas of the existing Establishment discredits that movement in the eyes of the disenfranchised, and may even alienate them from its positive aspects. This is certainly the case in contemporary Britain, where left politics is despised as middle class hypocrisy by the broad masses of society and bloodlust, parochialism and violence are the counter-norm.

On top of this, holding establishmentarian views prevents the revolutionary party mounting effective opposition to the existing system – it is like trying to drown an ocean. For example, one middle class female activist declared after a run-in with the Police that she ‘felt sorry’ for them. Can a revolution be built from such sentiments?
More disturbingly, in the end establishmentarian radicalism becomes the establishment. This has surely occurred among the British left, for whom activism is merely a smokescreen for brokering over-paid jobs in the caring professions and opposing legitimate working class concerns about the diminution of their life opportunities due to ill-planned immigration policy. In this form, left-politics has become the active enemy of the working class. It has no legitimate foothold among them and ultimately despises and fears them. In this corrupt form it is purely integrated into capitalism as a recognition device and career ladder for the middle class.

However, these elements have always been present in left politics. Marx himself was a racist fanatic, eugenicist and anti-Semite. It is now known that Hitler used Marx to shape many of his policies, revealing a rhetorical, establishmentarian core to ‘revolutionary’ politics from its very inception. I would aver that the complete failure of left politics to change anything despite ruling half the world for most of the 20th Century derives from this. By contrast, Anarcho-Capitalism has wrought enormous changes despite occupying the peripheral world of art and literature. This is because libertarianism represents a cleaner break with the pre-existent cultural establishment.

Flat Wrong


Marxism has in many ways shown itself to be flat wrong in its predictions for society. For example, Marxism has always posited a pivotal status for religion in the pantheon of oppressive institutions. Yet religion is dead in the West and capitalism has never been more triumphant. If religion were as important as it stands in Marxist interpretation, its demise should have dealt a signal blow to capitalism. That it did not suggests that Marx was quite wrong in attaching such importance to it. In fact, organized religion is now almost exclusively an elite/middle class subculture, demolishing the Marxist interpretation of it almost totally.

Also, the emergence of institutions like the Welfare State was completely unlooked for in Marxism, and could never have arisen in a true capitalist society.


A New Order


Following on from the last point, society has clearly changed so much from the dark satanic mills of 19th Century Europe that Marxism is now meaningless as a tool of socio-economic interpretation. For example, 80% of corporate wealth now derives from knowledge, not from manufactured goods. The manual working classes are now too few in number and too economically marginal to effect social change. Their labor is simply no longer pivotal to the maintenance of capitalism. This was not so when Marx lived. Then, the manual working class composed some 80% of the workforce. Strikes, Unions and the other weapons of organized labor could bring a country to its knees. Now, they constitute only 20% and their power has diminished accordingly. In fact, society now is so wealthy that it can afford to keep large sections of the population unemployed. It is indeed more profitable to do so. These people are not starving or unhappy: in fact, most seem to prefer such a life to the humdrum, badly paid jobs that would undoubtedly be their lot. Maybe we are in fact quite close to the Marxist ideal, in that most middle class people do not mind supporting this group.

The increasing irrelevance of other archaic political forms (conservatism, socialism, fascism, parliamentary politics) seems to confirm the view that we now dwell in a totally distinct social paradigm to the one in which these ideologies arose.

Hive Minds


All evidence seems to refute the notion that the working class are becoming more aware of their situation and thus more prone to revolution. Large proportions of the lower class have taken mass psychic leave of reality, explaining all phenomena in terms of extra-terrestrials and other media-shaped fantasies (25% of Americans think their country is run by extra-terrestrials, for example). This mass delusion is quite distinct from simple false consciousness and relates to the new social paradigm of post-processor society.

Better Alternatives


There are alternative explanations of things that are better than Marxism! Sociobiology is one of these. Sociobiology is a completely paradigm or conceptual model distinct from Marxism. It explains far more than Marxism does, though.
The profit motive isn’t the ultimate meta-theoretical motive for humans. Sex is. Men acquire wealth in order to get sex. Plutocrats start wars to eliminate low status men and thus enhance their own reproductive potential. In other words, the Marxist dynamic is undercut by a deeper, all pervasive motive explanation. Since this is so, Marxism is also undercut as a meta-theory as it cannot accommodate the fact that there are social phenomena that stand outside Marxist analysis.

Too Lenient


Left politics isn’t extreme enough! This might seem a strange objection in any critique of Marxism, but it is surely true. This half-heartedness reveals its bourgeois reformist undercurrent. Take, for example, the case of rape – nowhere in orthodox leftist or left anarchist literature is rape lauded as a revolutionary force. Yet it surely can be – women are and view themselves as sexual possessions of the elite – and off-limits to low status men or men of ‘inferior’ racial stock – Jewish, black, Asiatic or whatever. What then could be more revolutionary than the rape of such women? US serial killers often rape and kill with conscious knowledge that such activity is revolutionary in that social context. Black activists also view rape of white women in such terms. Even Wilhelm Reich, vaunted father of sex-politics never saw women as the sexual fascists they are. This is an astonishing omission by the left in a culture where women act on the front line of plutocrat oppression of men via sexual manipulation. It surely reveals the half-hearted reformism at the heart of left-wing revolutionary overtures. In fact, the bourgeois ‘intelligentsia’ seems to suffer a general blind spot when it comes to analysing women and their behaviour – a by-product of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism and the inane deference associated with it – views that must be challenged if real social change is to occur.

The bold experiment of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the Seventies reveals a good deal about how to conduct an authentic revolution. In many ways, Pol Pot was way ahead of Marx and his occidental practitioners; and his dynamic work in Cambodia can offer the contemporary Left a great deal of inspiration. The revolutionary Left failed in the West because it did not expunge all elements of the pre-existing bourgeois culture, which persisted as residual memes in the post-revolutionary situation. This meant that counter-revolutionary forces always ‘hobbled’ the revolutionary enterprise at every turn, preventing a true revolution in mass consciousness and ultimately bringing down the revolution. In Cambodia, the revolution was total: the edifices of imperialism were renamed as ‘House Number 1’ or ‘K2’, redefining them in a totally new light. Liquidation of the bourgeois quasi-intelligentsia is the backbone of any true revolution, in that the quasi-intellectual classes guard the memes of the old, imperialist/Capitalist order in the post-revolutionary situation. Even mass murder represented a decisive break with the past, eschewing religious, bourgeois assumptions about the sanctity of life. Interestingly, Pol Pot is universally derided by the contemporary hard Left, revealing their stale, reformist and reactionary agendas.

Given that contemporary capitalism now differs from Marx's 19th Century model, with most wealth being generated by knowledge, not manual work, and classes being defined by attitudes, consumption patterns and other subjective traits, Pol Pot’s unique Cambodian Communism also reveals how a meaningful modern revolution must be managed. Instead of eschewing the psychological aspects of class, Pol Pot boldly embraced them: every member of the new Cambodian society was made to write a biography of him or her self. The illiterate were encouraged to tell their life story vocally for transcription. By analysing the writer’s style, assumptions and expectations, the Khmer Rouge were able to identify counter revolutionary sentiments and ruthlessly eradicate reactionaries. Unlike traditional occidental Marxism (which mislabels bourgeois Doctors and Lawyers ‘working class’ because Marxism’s presiding concepts have been obviated by economic change), Khmer Communism was as valid and contemporary as a modern Focus Group. In this subjective focus, as elsewhere, Pol Pot was ‘right on the money’.

Capitalism? Where?


The left are barking up the wrong tree. There is no true capitalist state in existence for them to criticize. The existing ‘capitalist’ societies are a mix of socialism, paternalistic/hereditary elitism and plutocratic oligarchy. In other words, true capitalism – anarcho capitalism – does not exist. Institutions like schools, the BBC, the State, the Army, the welfare state – are nothing to do with capitalism. In truth most ‘capitalist’ societies are socialist dictatorships. The left are in fact inveighing against the reality of their own ideology, not capitalism as such. In a true capitalist society income tax would be reduced to that needed to provide a minimal defensive army and a minimal police force. Schools would be abolished. The State would be abolished. The citizenry would be allowed to bear arms to defend themselves at all times. Murder would become commonplace, for little cause. People could have any kind of sex they wanted.

That is capitalism – not the Plutocratic Oligarchy we sicken under.



http://www.anglobitch.com/Marx.htm

Caledonian
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010, 03:32 AM
In the Genes:

The Anglo 'Goddess Cult'



"We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality"'



- Lord Macauley (British Politician)



Anglo culture not only loathes and despises men, it sets women atop pedestals and deifies them. While men are the perpetual target of the trash media, vilified as animals, rapists and morons, women’s travails are the subject of a near continual violin concerto from all Anglo media outlets. When the Anglo media pretends to traditional conservatism (a position an intrinsically homosexual culture can never attain) it singularly assails the masculine imago, chipping the patriarchal edifice in favour of ‘touchy-feely’ feminist sentiment. Anglo Saxons are simply incapable of true conservatism: their conservative simulacra consist of latent homosexual overtures to round-faced, unmanly scions of unearned privilege.

Above all, the latent homosexual Anglo culture deifies women in a cloud of candy-floss. In recent years, this deranged tendency has reached psychotic proportions, culminating in the neo pagan cult of Lady Diana Spencer. After her death, British politician Gordon Brown seriously wondered whether the anniversary of her death should be declared a national holiday. Prime Minister Tony Blair dubbed her ‘The People’s Princess’. Some responses surpassed even this. One man told the BBC that he cried more at Diana’s funeral than at his own father’s (Wheen, 2004: 205). (Of course, any man, even one’s own father, is less worthy than a woman to the Anglo Saxon hive mind).

The press switched instantly into beatification mode:

Icons do not die. Diana’s afterlife is only just starting. Forever frozen at the height of her beauty, Diana, like Marilyn, that other troubled goddess, will not age. She will continue to glow, forever young, forever vital, in the hearts of those she touched (Moore, 1997).

When philosopher Anthony O’Hear dared to suggest the extravagant public and media grief lacked any sense of proportion, he was labelled ‘a rat-faced little loser’ for his pains.

In every respect, Diana Spencer was unremarkable. Francis Wheen writes:

At the time of her engagement to Prince Charles in 1981 she was just another dim, round-faced Sloaney girl of the kind you could see on almost every street in Pimlico, Kensington or Earl’s Court, clad in the unprepossessing uniform that prompted some observers to liken her, cruelly but accurately, to a stewardess from Air Bulgaria (Wheen, 2004: 200).

Her looks were unremarkable, for one thing: she was a typical pudgy, simpering girl of the British patrician class. As she aged, her proboscis lengthened to equine proportions although her eyes continued to lack any spark of sentience. If she worked in a supermarket she would pass unnoticed. Yet the Anglo media (both British and American) routinely described her as ‘the world’s most beautiful woman’.

Diana was also intellectually and morally undistinguished. Considering the enormous advantages she grew up with, to leave school without qualifications is almost an achievement - yet she managed it. Clearly a dullard of sauropod proportions, had she hailed from a working class background she would no doubt have emerged from state education to spend the rest of her life as a jobless single mother on a housing project. Days before her death she was lolling around on the yacht of her pudgy ‘playboy’ boyfriend, Dodi Al Fayed (a perfect clone of Fantasy Island’s Tattoo: Ricardo Montalban was the only missing ingredient in this tropic idyll). She conducted other affairs before this, of course, but we will refrain from boring the reader with them. Whatever, she was certainly no St Theresa of Avila in the morality stakes.

Yet despite these mediocre attainments, Diana was consistently hailed as a paragon of intellect, virtue and physical perfection, a Gloriana for the modern age. This demented claptrap has often been described as part of a burgeoning culture of sentiment. However, from the standpoint of the Anglobitch thesis, the Diana cult is part of a long-standing Anglo American tendency to put women on pedestals by simple dint of their gender.

Of course, as we have seen all along this tendency arose in response to the latent homosexuality and puritanical repression that characterises Anglo Saxon culture. It is certainly not new: the English have a long-standing obsession with sentiment stretching back centuries, a close corollary of their cultural effeminacy. Sentiment is unmanly, matriarchal, hysterical: this is why Anglo Saxons are so drawn to it. Reason, intellect, and the spirit of the Enlightenment have never taken popular root in the Anglo enclave. Today, they are persona non grata: reasoned analysis is the preserve of ‘rat-faced losers’. Of course, this is why Anglo Saxon feminists can talk so freely about imaginary female losses in wars, imaginary female inventors and explorers: when Reason has been driven from its rightful throne, no rational critique of any claim is possible.

The funeral of Lady Diana was a ludicrous affair. The dubiously talented Elton John belted out a tuneless paean to the iced Princess. The British tabloid press once viciously targeted this performing dwarf for his dubious sexuality. But, as Hitler averred, ‘the memory of the masses is very feeble’: so now he led the lamentations in that hall of Kings, his hair weave as wobbly as his notes. An orgy of snivelling: seldom did contemporary Anglo culture look so sickly and debased. The invert warbled in the darkness and the dead-eyed masses sang along.

The fanfare over Diana revealed certain core aspects of Anglo-American culture that contribute markedly to the Anglobitch phenomenon. First among these is the culture of insincere sentiment, a phenomenon arising from schizotypal Anglo-American separation of thought and emotion. Second is the broadly ‘feminine’ cast of the Anglo Saxon mass mind, strongly inflected by self-abnegating collectivism. Finally, the sordid episode highlighted the disturbing streak of homosexuality that undercuts Anglo-American culture.

If we consider the history of Anglo-Saxon culture, we can see that these are perennial traits, not recent innovations. In the late Eighteenth Century, this culture of Anglo-Saxon sentiment first began to blossom. In turn, this rapidly burgeoned into the characteristic Anglo-Saxon Romanticism associated with lax parenting, sentimentality, drooling collectivism and effeminate deference to unearned privilege. This Victorian porage remains the dominant influence on contemporary English culture but its essential characteristics can readily be discerned in earlier epochs.

In some respects, the Anglo-Saxons resemble an oriental people, with a characteristic ‘feminine’ mindset. They are prone to hysterical outbursts, to unthinking deference to tradition and unearned privilege, to the deification of ephemeral material effigies (cars, property and most of all women), unmanly modes of life like homosexuality and an infantile tendency to deny any reality that contravenes these ingrained values. Though this is especially true of the lower class, it characterises all social classes to some extent. The bovine character of the English was amply demonstrated by their compliance with ridiculous orders during the First World War. Officers would defer to official idiocy, condemning thousands of men to death for no gain. English soldiers lost all motivation when their officers were killed, cowering aimlessly in the nearest shell-hole:

Lord Northcliffe once fatuously boasted that the British soldier had a greater sense of initiative than the German, thanks to the British traditions of individualism and team sports. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, it was the largely amateur British army which was characterized by excessive rigidity in its command structure and a culture of unthinking obedience below the NCO level – and when NCOs were incapacitated, of unthinking inertia (‘If you knows of a better ‘ole…’) (Ferguson, 1999: 310).

Above all, Anglo Saxons (especially the English) have a feminine, self-subordinating attitude to received opinion. This is partly why they have offered so little resistance to the rise of the Anglobitch.

Though culture exerts an influence uniquely its own on a society’s membership, could these characteristic traits derive from non-cultural sources? Could they be inscribed on the genes of Anglo Saxons?

One particularly interesting line of discussion in Stephen Pinker’s The Blank Slate concerns an experiment conducted on American Southerners and American Northerners. The Southerners experienced abrupt physical change when ruffled and insulted by a stooge:

Students from Northern states laughed him off, but students from Southern states were visibly upset. The Southerners had elevated levels of testosterone and cortisol (a stress hormone) and reported lower levels of self-esteem (Pinker, 2002: 328).

Pinker argues that such a marked difference in physical response cannot be traced to culture. He notes that Northerners are descended from English farmers while Southerners descend from Scots-Irish immigrants. British Scots-Irish life has always been dominated by blood feuds, ethnic sectarianism and other violent behaviours, traits also characteristic of the American South:

The American South has long had higher rates of violence than the North, including a tradition of duelling among “men of honor” such as Andrew Jackson. Nisbett and Cohen note that much of the South was originally settled by Scottish and Irish herdsmen, whereas the North was settled by English farmers. Also, for much of its history the mountainous frontier of the South was beyond the reach of the law. The resulting Southern culture of honor is, remarkably, alive at the turn of the twenty-first century in laws and social attitudes. Southern states place fewer restrictions on gun ownership, allow people to shoot an assailant or burglar without having to retreat first, are tolerant of spanking by parents and corporal punishments by schools, are more hawkish on issues of national defense, and execute more of their criminals (Pinker, 2002: 328).

Perhaps Anglo-Saxon males are so relaxed about the Anglobitch phenomenon because they are innately more placid, accommodating and collectivist.

Anglo Saxon culture certainly seems to embody this 'feminine' collectivism. Common English sentiments like ‘whistle while you work,’ ‘keep your chin up’ or ‘don’t make a scene’ embody this deferential mentality. The cult of Lady Diana is another manifestation of this femininity, along with a general tendency to set women on pedestals and accept degraded status.

The countless military conflicts between the Celts and Anglo Saxons also embody this schism between Celtic individualism and Anglo collectivism. In the sixth century wars between Romanised Britons and the Anglo Saxon invaders the Celts were better soldiers: better led, with more advanced equipment and tactics (Barber, 2004). At first they triumphed against the stolid Anglo-Saxon and Jutish federation: but having won, they turned on each other to settle blood feuds (in true Celtic fashion) and the campaign ultimately went against them (Morris, 1973). Again, the better individual motivation of his troops enabled Robert de Bruce to gradually reduce English presence in Scotland by capturing their castles until even the lethargic Edward II had to intervene (Scott, 1999). Due to a lack of competent leadership, this characteristically homosexual English King was then trounced at Bannockburn. During the British Jacobite rebellions of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, internal dissent and a lack of clear purpose invariably caused the militarily more skilled Celtic cause to founder.

Nor is this entirely a matter of ancient military history. Even today the highly individualised Scots exploit the cowed nature of the feminised English masses to monopolise the top British positions in politics and the media without popular demur. This is no less true in the United States, where Celtic Scots-Irish names dominate political life.

The innate tendency of Anglo males to mildness of response has not only contributed to their marginalisation but also to the Anglobitch phenomenon itself. Had they mustered determined resistance when Anglo feminists first squared rights with privileges the current degraded condition of Anglo-American society could have been averted. This is the perennial problem for ‘nice guys’: the essential baseness of human nature brushes them aside.

Feminism presents no problem to patriarchal peoples like the Celts, Arabs or Japanese because their innate ‘warrior outlook’ stifled its claims from the outset. In Japan females enjoy few rights and little status. This may be unduly harsh, but these patriarchal peoples have maintained their cultural integrity far more effectively than Anglo-Americans.

Anglo feminism has, like Hitler’s Germany, expanded by marching across undefended borders. Where determined resistance should have been organised from the first, Anglo-American males have been feeble ‘nice-guys’, retreating to their next entrenched position without firing a shot. Indeed, they have eagerly colluded with the enemy, hastening their own destruction (Koch and Smith, 2005).

The whole sordid tale of Anglo feminists’ breathless advance from ‘rights’ to wholesale dominion of the media, education and politics has been well told by Farrell, Amneus and Hoff-Sommers. Cultural context has seldom been raised as an excuse for this effortless conquest. Yet, given the unusual pliancy of Anglo males, such domination was always likely. Like the affable Northerners in Pinker’s experiment, Anglo-Saxon males just “laugh off” women taking 80% of their wealth in unjust Divorce settlements; “laugh off” being vilified in the media; “laugh off” being denied access to their children; “laugh off” anti-male discrimination in public spaces, education and before the law. This easy-going attitude is complicit in the rise of the Anglobitch and her venomous agenda. It also explains why Anglo males have meekly surrendered to the sickly cult of sentiment recently fostered by homosexuals and feminists.

That the Anglobitch phenomenon might have arisen due to the quiescence of Anglo-American males is difficult enough for conservative Masculinists to accept. If this quiescence is genetically ingrained it is truly disturbing, as it implies that no resistance to the Anglobitch phenomenon can emerge in Anglo-Americana. This is a distinct possibility: and it shifts the onus of resistance onto non-Anglo males with more vigorous self-defensive instincts. In the future we may see an open Kulturkampf over the Anglobitch issue between Anglo-Americans and more traditional societies. Indeed, this theme may already be discernable in the ongoing conflict between militant Islam (the emerging ‘Eurabia’) and the Anglo-American bloc.

The Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington claims that future world conflicts will revolve around cultural differences (Huntington, 1998). Western economies have everything to gain by transforming Eurabian women into consumers: Muslim men have everything to lose. Thus the stage is set for a titanic cultural struggle that will take decades to unfold, and whose outcome is uncertain. Eurabian women are the key to victory: if the West can subvert them before the superior Islamic birth-rate swamps all resistance, the Anglo-American bloc can achieve world hegemony. Otherwise the Anglosphere will founder, its economic growth stalled and social viability torn by internal contradictions.

http://www.anglobitch.com/Ladydi.htm

Caledonian
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010, 03:37 AM
The Mangina


What is a Mangina? Across the Anglosphere, everyone is acquainted with these limp excuses for men; in their eyes, women can do no wrong – they consider all women paragons of unassailable virtue, liberation and intellect. Indeed, these spineless pussies are usually more vociferous in their misandry and gynophilia than Anglo feminists.

Given their prominence in Anglo-American feminism, and their implacable resistance to our pan-Anglosphere resistance movement, the Anglo Mangina merits some analysis.

Far from being some kind of some enlightened, sympathetic modern figure, the Mangina is in fact a deeply conservative representative of traditional Anglo-Saxon attitudes. Unfortunately, this tradition is puritanical; consequently, the Anglo Mangina presents his absurd feminist opinions as some kind of 'revolutionary' agenda, when they are in fact the apotheosis of Anglo Tradition (as such). For his whole ‘women on pedestals’ agenda is Anglo to its backbone; and hearkens back centuries, to the puritan revolution of the late Seventeenth Century. Now, since Puritanism is at core an aversion to sensual pleasure, it gives women the tacit belief that, as ‘owners’ of sex in a repressive social context, they are entitled to ‘privileged’ treatment. This, of course, is why Anglo women are so singularly aloof, arrogant, and entitled; and why they seek to augment their new-found rights with traditional Anglo privileges (typically with great success).

Hence, by setting women atop Pedestals of Entitlement, the Anglo Mangina is in fact merely reinforcing the existing social order and its hegemonic assumptions, not coherently challenging them. Of course, masculinity is in short supply across the Anglosphere; the distinctive matriarchal nature of the Anglo-American hegemonic infrastructure ensures this, since males must defer to women in order to gain reproductive access. The Anglo Mangina closely conforms to this desultory archetype, debasing his male identity for the stilted promise of sexual favours. Again, the arrant hypocrisy of his position is paramount; for women have retained their pre-feminist sexual conservatism to manoeuvre our Mangina thus, confounding his principle assumption that feminism ‘changed’ them in some way.

I n all respects, then, our Anglo Mangina is an absurd anachronism; he is a faux revolutionary wholly entrapped in what he claims to oppose.


http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2008/08/anglo-mangina.html

Roderic
Thursday, September 23rd, 2010, 06:47 PM
In the United States women are, I think for the first time in history, gaining real power. Often nations have had queens, heiresses, and female aristocrats. These do not amount to much. Today women occupy positions of genuine authority in fields that matter, as for example publishing, journalism, and academia. They control education through high school. Politicians scramble for their votes. They control the divorce courts and usually get their way with things that matter to them.
If this is not unprecedented, I do not know of the precedent. What will be the consequences?

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Feminization.shtml


The Feminization of America

by Dr. William Pierce

I always have been very fond of women -- perhaps too much sometimes. I always have enjoyed their company greatly. I have really worshipped feminine beauty. I have admired and respected women when they have served their purpose in the life of our people, as much as I have admired and respected men who have served their purpose.
Having said this I must tell you now that I believe that a great part of the present pathology of our society can be ascribed properly to its feminization over the past century or two, to its loss of its former masculine spirit and masculine character.

http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs9710a.html


If you wonder why we are being overrun with illegal immigrants, why America is hated by Muslim fundamentalists, why we are losing wars with much smaller and weaker adversaries, look no further. It's all because of the feminization of the men of America that has been promoted by the NWO for decades now. The gender the politicians, Hollywood, and the media use as the ideal person has changed from someone who is a strong moral male to a weak and submissive female personality. They portray strong men as ignorant brutish bullies, while the 'educated' and 'enlightened' male is shown as someone who is sensitive and nurturing, even openly homosexual.

http://nstarzone.com/F.html


YouTube - William Pierce on Feminism 1/3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRvLZxHFmXc)

YouTube - William Pierce on Feminism 2/3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtCHDvxurm8)

500 Internal Server Error (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxPgtGi-9A4)

Zogbot
Thursday, September 23rd, 2010, 07:18 PM
Giving the average man and woman the vote was a grave mistake. People weren't ready for it and are now self-destructing.

Ocko
Thursday, September 23rd, 2010, 07:30 PM
The coming poverty will put genderroles to test. We will see, whether women are really that strong.

They are given those positions because of 'rights', not really of accomplishements. (I do think a lot of women have talents though I believe it is better done in other areas than traditional male areas).

Genderroles are destroyed because it weakens a nation as a whole.

I know if you are a strong male who doesn't bend to women's desires that you are pretty much attractive to women. The instinct is an area the brainwashing doesn't get to too easily.

If you have to learn to be strong in a cultural environment which promotes the opposite, you become real strong. Good news is, when you learn it, there is not much competition for you.

So see it as an opportunity. Any threat met with strength will only make you stronger.

There is a growing number of men who figure that out and form groups to share their knowledge. That might be a healthy reaction to it. Robert Bly is just one among many.

I think as a nationalist you have to use those things.

Fyrgenholt
Thursday, September 23rd, 2010, 07:31 PM
There's nothing wrong with women gaining real power. There is something wrong with males becoming feminised, however. Masculinity is lessening in the 21st century.

Roderic
Friday, September 24th, 2010, 02:54 PM
Today women are men with vaginas and men are women with penises.

This obsession with egalitarianism is unnatural, men and women are different and have different attributes it is impossible to exist true equality.

We need women that like to be women with a natural behavior for the female gender and men that like to be men with a natural behavior for the male gender.

Accepting the differences and living with them is more important than the desire to be equal wich leads to gender fights.

We already know from where these ideas originated.

http://sdjewishworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/commentary-women-of-the-wall-pioneering-true-egalitarianism-in-judaism/

http://www.long-sunday.net/


And where are the feminists when we talk about blacks raping white women?


Rape Statistics

• Near all forcible rapes (99%) involved female victim.
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• Females were the large majority of victims in incidents of forcible fondling (82%).
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• In the later juvenile years (ages 14 to 17), the female victimization rates are at least 10 times greater than the male rates for similar age groups.
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• Overall, 23% of sexual assault offenders were under the 18 and 77% were adults.
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• Nearly all the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%).
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• Most (70%) of the sexual assaults reported to law enforcement occurred in the residence of the victim, the offender, or the residence of another individual. Young victims were generally more likely to be victimized in a residence than were older victims. The age of the victim was strongly relate to where the assault occurred.
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• The year in a male's life when he is most likely to be the victim of a sexual assault is age 4.
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• The risk of being the victim of forcible rape increased dramatically form age 10 to age 14, where it peaked.
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• Over two-thirds (67%) of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies, were juveniles (under the age fo 18 at the time of the crime). More than half of all juvenile victims were under age 12. That is, 33% of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement were ages 12 through 17 and 34% were under age 12. Most disturbing is that one of every seven victims of sexual assault ( or 14% of all victims) reported to law enforcement agencies were under age 6.
-Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

• 4 in 10 child victims of violence suffered either a forcible rape or another injury.
-BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991.

• About 80% of rape victims were under age 30--about 1/2 of these were under age 18. Victims younger than 12 accounted for 15% of those raped, and another 29% of rape victims were between 12 and 17.
-National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

• For nearly 90% of the youngest victims of rape, those younger than 12, the offender was someone known to them.
-National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

• 94% of child rape victims under the age of 12 were abused by a family member or an acquaintance/friend.
-The Arizona Rep. 3/30/97.

• Victims of rape were about evenly divided between whites and blacks: in about 88% of forcible rapes, the victim and offender were of the same race.
-National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

• Just over 40% of the rapists were age 30 or older, while 1 in 8 was under age 18. In 9 out of 10 rapes in which the offender was under 18, so was the victim.
-National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

• Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes.
- U.S. Department of Justice.

• In 1996, 307,000 women were the victim of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
[National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997.]

• Between 1995 and 1996, more than 670,000 women were the victim of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
[National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997.]

• In 1996, only 31% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials - less than one in every three.
[National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997.]

• Approximately 68% of rape victims knew their assailant.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• One of every four rapes take place in a public area or in a parking garage.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• 29% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• 68% of rapes occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• At least 45% of rapists were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• In 29% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• 75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

• In 1995, local child protective service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse; of these, 75% were girls. Nearly 30% of child victims were between the ages of 4 and 7.
- Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Child Maltreatment, 1995.

• Approximately one-third of all juvenile victims of sexual abuse cases are children younger than 6 years of age.
- Violence and the Family. Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential
Task Force on Violence and the Family, 1996.

• According to the Justice Department, one in two rape victims is under age 18; one in six is under age 12.
- Child Rape Victims, 1992. U.S. Department of Justice.

• About 81% of rape victims are white; 18% are black; 1% are of other races.
- Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.

• While 9 out of 10 rape victims are women, men and boys are also victimized by this crime. In 1995, 32,130 males age 12 and older were victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
- National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.

• Teens 16 to 19 were three and one-half times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
- National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.

• Those with a household income under $7,500 were twice as likely as the general population to be victims of a sexual assault.
- National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996

http://www.yellodyno.com/html/rape_stats.html

YouTube - The War on Our Women 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkIJRswFkzM&feature=sub)

YouTube - The War on Our Women 2/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNrfyPMwe0&feature=sub)

hyidi
Friday, September 24th, 2010, 03:08 PM
The feminist caused a low birth rate from our people, cause of the feminists,women believe that child bearing is second nature to a working carrier.

Caledonian
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 03:12 AM
If you were a woman reading this magazine 40 years ago, the odds were good that your husband provided the money to buy it. That you voted the same way he did. That if you got breast cancer, he might be asked to sign the form authorizing a mastectomy. That your son was heading to college but not your daughter. That your boss, if you had a job, could explain that he was paying you less because, after all, you were probably working just for pocket money.

It's funny how things change slowly, until the day we realize they've changed completely. It's expected that by the end of the year, for the first time in history the majority of workers in the U.S. will be women — largely because the downturn has hit men so hard. This is an extraordinary change in a single generation, and it is gathering speed: the growth prospects, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are in typically female jobs like nursing, retail and customer service. More and more women are the primary breadwinner in their household (almost 40%) or are providing essential income for the family's bottom line. Their buying power has never been greater — and their choices have seldom been harder.

It is in this context that the Rockefeller Foundation, in collaboration with TIME, conducted a landmark survey of gender issues to assess how individual Americans are reacting. Is the battle of the sexes really over, and if so, did anyone win? How do men now view female power? How much resentment or confusion or gratitude is there for the forces that have rearranged family life, rewired the economy and reinvented gender roles? And what, if anything, does everyone agree needs to happen to make all this work? The study found that men and women were in broad agreement about what matters most to them; gone is the notion that women's rise comes at men's expense. As the Old Economy dissolves and pressures on working parents grow, they share their fears about what this means for their children and their frustration with institutions that refuse to admit how much has changed. In the new age, the battles we fight together are the ones that define us.

A Quiet Revolution
In the spring of 1972, TIME devoted a special issue of the magazine to assessing the status of women in the throes of "women's lib." At a time when American society was racing through change like a reckless teenager, feminism had sputtered and stalled. Women's average wages had actually fallen relative to men's; there were fewer women in the top ranks of civil service (under 2%) than there were four years before. No woman had served in the Cabinet since the Eisenhower Administration; there were no female FBI agents or network-news anchors or Supreme Court Justices. The nation's campuses were busy hosting a social revolt, yet Harvard's tenured faculty of 421 included only six women. Of the Museum of Modern Art's 1,000 one-man shows over the previous 40 years, five were by women. Headhunters lamented that it was easier to put a man on the moon than a woman in a corner office. "There is no movement," complained an activist who resigned her leadership position in the National Organization for Women two years after it was founded. "Movement means 'going someplace,' and the movement is not going anywhere. It hasn't accomplished anything."
(Read TIME's 1972 cover story "Where She Is and Where She's Going.")

That was cranky exaggeration; many changes were felt more than seen, a shift in hopes and expectations that cracked the foundations of patriarchy. "In terms of real power — economic and political — we are still just beginning," Gloria Steinem admitted. "But the consciousness, the awareness — that will never be the same."

So it's worth stopping to look at what happened while we were busy ending the Cold War and building a multicultural society and enjoying the longest economic expansion in history. In the slow-motion fumblings of family life, it was easy just to keep going along, mark the milestones, measure the kids on the kitchen door and miss the movement. In 1972 only 7% of students playing high school sports were girls; now the number is six times as high. The female dropout rate has fallen in half. College campuses used to be almost 60-40 male; now the ratio has reversed, and close to half of law and medical degrees go to women, up from fewer than 10% in 1970. Half the Ivy League presidents are women, and two of the three network anchors soon will be; three of the four most recent Secretaries of State have been women. There are more than 145 foundations designed to empower women around the world, in the belief that this is the greatest possible weapon against poverty and disease; there was only one major foundation (the Ms. Foundation) for women in 1972. For the first time, five women have won Nobel Prizes in the same year (for Medicine, Chemistry, Economics and Literature). We just came through an election year in which Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Tina Fey and Katie Couric were lead players, not the supporting cast. And the President of the United States was raised by a single mother and married a lawyer who outranked and outearned him.

It is still true that boardrooms and faculty clubs and legislatures and whole swaths of professions like, say, hedge-fund management remain predominantly male; women are about 10% of civil engineers and a third of physicians and surgeons but 98% of kindergarten teachers and dental assistants, and they still earn 77 cents on the dollar compared with men. They are charged higher premiums for health insurance yet still have greater out-of-pocket expenses for things as basic as contraception and maternity care. At times it seems as if the only women effortlessly balancing their jobs, kids, husbands and homes are the ones on TV.

Now the recession raises the stakes and shuffles the deck. Poll after poll finds women even more anxious than men about their family's financial security. While most workers have seen their wages stall or drop, women's earnings fell 2% in 2008, twice as much as men's. Women are 32% more likely than men to have subprime mortgages, leaving them more vulnerable in the housing crisis. The Guttmacher Institute found that the downturn has affected the most basic decisions in family life. Nearly half of women surveyed in households earning less than $75,000 want to delay pregnancy or limit the number of children they have. At the same time, women are poised to emerge from the downturn with even greater relative economic power as the wage gap narrows. A new survey by GfK Roper for NBC Universal gives a whole new meaning to the power of the purse: 65% of women reported being their family's chief financial planner, and 71% called themselves the family accountant. According to a Mediamark Research & Intelligence survey, they make 75% of the buying decisions in American homes. Together, women control more wealth than ever in history.

Progress is seldom simple; it comes with costs and casualties, even challenges about whether a change represents an advance or a retreat. The TIME survey provides evidence of both. At the most basic level, the argument over where women belong is over; the battle of the sexes becomes a costume drama, like Middlemarch or Mad Men. Large majorities, across ages and incomes and ideologies, view women's growing role in the workforce as good for both the economy and society in general. More than 8 in 10 say mothers are just as productive at work as fathers or childless workers are. Even more, some 84% affirm that husbands and wives negotiate the rules, relationships and responsibilities more than those of earlier generations did; roughly 7 in 10 men say they are more comfortable than their fathers were with women working outside the home, while women say they are less financially dependent on their spouse than their mother was.

This is not to say there's nothing left to argue about. More than two-thirds of women still think men resent powerful women, yet women are more likely than men to say female bosses are harder to work for than male ones. Men are much more likely to say there are no longer any barriers to female advancement, while a majority of women say men still have it better in life. People are evenly split over whether the "mommy wars" between working and nonworking mothers are finally over.

But just as striking is how much men and women agree on issues that divided them a generation ago. "It happened so fast," writes Gail Collins in her new book, When Everything Changed, "that the revolution seemed to be over before either side could really find its way to the barricades." It's as though sensible people are too busy to bother bickering about who takes out the garbage or who deserves the corner office; many of the deepest conflicts are now ones that men and women share. Especially in the absence of social supports, flexible work arrangements and affordable child care, it's hardly surprising that a majority of both men and women still say it is best for children to have a father working and a mother at home. Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood; more men than women identified marriage as "very important" to their happiness. Women no longer view matrimony as a necessary station on the road to financial security or parenthood. The percentage of children born to single women has leaped from 12% to 39%. Whereas a majority of children in the mid-1970s were raised by a stay-at-home parent, the portion is now less than a third, and nearly two-thirds of people say this has been a negative for American society.

Among the most confounding changes of all is the evidence, tracked by numerous surveys, that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy. No tidy theory explains the trend, notes University of Pennsylvania economist Justin Wolfers, a co-author of The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. "We looked across all sectors — young vs. old, kids or no kids, married or not married, education, no education, working or not working — and it stayed the same," he says of the data. "But there are a few ways to look at it," he adds. "As Susan Faludi said, the women's movement wasn't about happiness." It may be that women have become more honest about what ails them. Or that they are now free to wrestle with the same pressures and conflicts that once accounted for greater male unhappiness. Or that modern life in a global economy is simply more stressful for everyone but especially for women, who are working longer hours while playing quarterback at home. "Some of the other social changes that have happened over the last 35 years — changes in family, in the workplace — may have affected men differently than women," Wolfers says. "So maybe we're not learning about changes due to the women's movement but changes in society."

All the shapes in the puzzle are shifting. If there is anything like consensus on an issue as basic as how we live our lives as men and women, as lovers, parents, partners, it's that getting the pieces of modern life to fit together is hard enough; something has to bend. Equal numbers of men and women report frequent stress in daily life, and most agree that government and businesses have failed to adjust to the changes in the family. As the Old Economy dissolves before our eyes, men and women express remarkably similar life goals when asked about the importance of money, health, jobs and family. If male jobs keep vanishing, if physical strength loses its workplace value, if the premium shifts ever more to education, in which achievement is increasingly female, then we will soon be having parallel conversations: What needs to be done to free American men to realize their full potential? You can imagine the whole conversation flipping in a single generation.

It's no longer a man's world. Nor is it a woman's nation. It's a cooperative, with bylaws under constant negotiation and expectations that profits be equally shared.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-2,00.html#ixzz10VHWCFEw








http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-1,00.html

Caledonian
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 03:27 AM
Although it is not Susan Pinker’s intention in writing it, reading her excellent book The Sexual Paradox: Troubled Boys, Gifted Girls and the Real Difference Between the Sexes cannot help but further reinforce my view that modern feminism in the 21st century is simultaneously illogical, unnecessary, and evil.

First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different. Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.


Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.

The feminist insistence that women behave like men and make as much money as men do may not be the sole reason for women’s rising levels of dissatisfaction with life; a greater incidence of divorce and single motherhood may also contribute to it. At any event, the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny. Men’s happiness has not declined in the last 35 years, because there has not been masculinism; nobody has insisted on the radical notion that men are women, although, as Christina Hoff Sommers documents, this may be happening in our current war against boys. For anyone who is looking for an effective antidote to modern feminism, I highly recommend Danielle Crittenden’s 1999 book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Women.



P.S. Thanks to Charles Duncan for alerting me to the Stevenson and Wolfers article.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

Caledonian
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 03:49 AM
The fact that the average American working woman earns only about 8o% of what the average American working man earns has been something of a festering sore for at least half the population for several decades. And despite many programs and analyses and hand-wringing and badges and even some legislation, the figure hasn't budged much in the past five years.

But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).
(See TIME's special report on the state of the American woman.)

Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. "These women haven't just caught up with the guys," says Chung. "In many cities, they're clocking them."

Chung also claims that, as far as women's pay is concerned, not all cities are created equal. Having pulled data on 2,000 communities and cross-referenced the demographic information with the wage-gap figures, he found that the cities where women earned more than men had at least one of three characteristics. Some, like New York City or Los Angeles, had primary local industries that were knowledge-based. Others were manufacturing towns whose industries had shrunk, especially smaller ones like Erie, Pa., or Terre Haute, Ind. Still others, like Miami or Monroe, La., had a majority minority population. (Hispanic and black women are twice as likely to graduate from college as their male peers.)
(See the top 10 female leaders.)

Significantly, the conditions that are feeding the rise in female wages — a growing knowledge-based economy, the decline of a manufacturing base and an increasing minority population — are dominant trends throughout the U.S. "This generation [of women] has adapted to the fundamental restructuring of the American economy better than their older predecessors or male peers," says Chung. While the economic advantage of women sometimes evaporates as they age and have families, Chung believes that women now may have enough leverage that their financial gains may not be completely erased as they get older.

The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.

As for the somewhat depressing caveat that the findings held true only for women who were childless and single: it's not their marital status that puts the squeeze on their income. Rather, highly educated women tend to marry and have children later. Thus the women who earn the most in their 20s are usually single and childless.

The rise of female economic power is by no means limited to the U.S., nor necessarily to the young. Late last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that for the first time, women made up the majority of the workforce in highly paid managerial positions. The change in the status quo has been marked enough that several erstwhile women's advocates have started to voice concerns about how to get more men to go to college. Is there an equivalent to Title IX for men?

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Caledonian
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 04:14 AM
I'll post more links later. This thread will be a ongoing project of mine as a sort of collage if you will in discerning the inadequacies of modern feminism.

My biggest problem with feminism to which I detest it is that women want all the benefits and privileges of being a man but want none of the risks,isolation, or disadvantages when it concerns being a male to which they wish to take no part of all the while they have no problem taking advantage of what dominantly used to be male positions in society.

Women want all the benefits of being a woman along with all the benefits when it concerns being a man but want none of the risks, challenges, and hardships that men constantly face because they are male.

Women want the best of both worlds and they want men to merely to allow this without dissent despite that such a social political spectrum causes extra stress on men themselves at their own expense.


What's even more interesting is how feminists advocate the neutrality of the sexes but when it concerns the cultural roles and obligations of men there is no neutrality at all but instead only the oppressive cultural metanarratives and standards that men are forced to live under everyday just for them to be accepted as men in society to which feminists ignore entirely.

It is these blatant double standards to which I have come to loathe feminism.

Paradigm
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 04:36 AM
I'll post more links later. This thread will be a ongoing project of mine as a sort of collage if you will in discerning the inadequacies of modern feminism.

My biggest problem with feminism to which I detest it is that women want all the benefits and privileges of being a man but want none of the risks,isolation, or disadvantages when it concerns being a male to which they wish to take no part of all the while they have no problem taking advantage of what dominantly used to be male positions in society.

Women want all the benefits of being a woman along with all the benefits when it concerns being a man but want none of the risks, challenges, and hardships that men constantly face because they are male.

Women want the best of both worlds and they want men to merely to allow this without dissent despite that such a social political spectrum causes extra stress on men themselves at their own expense.


What's even more interesting is how feminists advocate the neutrality of the sexes but when it concerns the cultural roles and obligations of men there is no neutrality at all but instead only the oppressive cultural metanarratives and standards that men are forced to live under everyday just for them to be accepted as men in society to which feminists ignore entirely.

It is these blatant double standards to which I have come to loathe feminism.

The problem with "feminism" is there are so many different schools of thought within it that many different views of it appear. Not all feminist have the same view. You have libertarian feminist, and anti-capitalist feminist, you have anti-male feminist, and feminist who have no hate towards anyone. Specifically what someone means when they say feminist can mean many things, especially someone from outside such circles. Eventually there is a stereotype of what or who a feminist is, and this stereotype can work negatively for people who are getting into feminism.

My girlfriend is a feminist, and I agree with a lot of what I have read. I agree that modern culture is a sexist, hateful culture that doesn't show much respect for women. I agree that we think in a language, and through language we sub-consciously can put forth sexist views. Not only do I agree with the female side of this on why they detest all these things, I also find a lot of sexist things in what would be a male oriented way, and I feel that a lot of what they are against is what men should be standing up against also. When a culture (I'll use this loosely, maybe "sub-culture" or "counter-culture" is more appropriate) objectifies women, not only does it treat women like an object, it puts an idea in a mans head that they are objects.

Such things as porn are as damaging to women as they are to men. They breed negative effects on both sexes.

There are a lot of things that feminist can see and point out and have a problem with. After a while I began to do the same with ads directed towards men that would portray us as sex objects the same way ads for women would just portray them as some unintelligent creature who's only use is for fucking (bluntly put).

Whether or not you want to agree with feminism on a whole, there is a lot to be learned from it.

Caledonian
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 05:00 AM
The problem with "feminism" is there are so many different schools of thought within it that many different views of it appear. Not all feminist have the same view. You have libertarian feminist, and anti-capitalist feminist, you have anti-male feminist, and feminist who have no hate towards anyone. Specifically what someone means when they say feminist can mean many things, especially someone from outside such circles. Eventually there is a stereotype of what or who a feminist is, and this stereotype can work negatively for people who are getting into feminism.

My girlfriend is a feminist, and I agree with a lot of what I have read. I agree that modern culture is a sexist, hateful culture that doesn't show much respect for women. I agree that we think in a language, and through language we sub-consciously can put forth sexist views. Not only do I agree with the female side of this on why they detest all these things, I also find a lot of sexist things in what would be a male oriented way, and I feel that a lot of what they are against is what men should be standing up against also. When a culture (I'll use this loosely, maybe "sub-culture" or "counter-culture" is more appropriate) objectifies women, not only does it treat women like an object, it puts an idea in a mans head that they are objects.

Such things as porn are as damaging to women as they are to men. They breed negative effects on both sexes.

There are a lot of things that feminist can see and point out and have a problem with. After a while I began to do the same with ads directed towards men that would portray us as sex objects the same way ads for women would just portray them as some unintelligent creature who's only use is for fucking (bluntly put).

Whether or not you want to agree with feminism on a whole, there is a lot to be learned from it.



The problem with "feminism" is there are so many different schools of thought within it that many different views of it appear. Not all feminist have the same view. You have libertarian feminist, and anti-capitalist feminist, you have anti-male feminist, and feminist who have no hate towards anyone. Specifically what someone means when they say feminist can mean many things, especially someone from outside such circles. Eventually there is a stereotype of what or who a feminist is, and this stereotype can work negatively for people who are getting into feminism.


Whether there be many different kinds of feminism or not they all have general underlying beliefs within them where the similarities all converge in a singular transparent ideal.


My girlfriend is a feminist, and I agree with a lot of what I have read. I agree that modern culture is a sexist, hateful culture that doesn't show much respect for women.

Is that so? So you think men get more respect than women and therefore have it better?

How's that exactly?




I agree that we think in a language, and through language we sub-consciously can put forth sexist views.

First you must define sexism. What is sexism?



Not only do I agree with the female side of this on why they detest all these things, I also find a lot of sexist things in what would be a male oriented way, and I feel that a lot of what they are against is what men should be standing up against also.

Really? So I suppose you believe in the elimination of all patriarchial culture for one that is more matriarchal in contrast.

How is that any better?

I personally think the west is becoming a matriarchal nightmare.



When a culture (I'll use this loosely, maybe "sub-culture" or "counter-culture" is more appropriate) objectifies women, not only does it treat women like an object, it puts an idea in a mans head that they are objects.

Just like how women objectify men viewing them to be objects?

What? Do you really believe that they don't objectify us as well?




Such things as porn are as damaging to women as they are to men. They breed negative effects on both sexes.

Well the women who make alot of money doing it would care to disagree....


Whether or not you want to agree with feminism on a whole, there is a lot to be learned from it.

Your opinion not mine.

I suppose you believe in the neutrality of the sexes.

First ask yourself if that is possible and then ask if it is desirable.

I personally find the idea of being a castrated male metaphorically and mentally speaking in a culture of sexual neutrality to be unappealing.

Paradigm
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 06:08 AM
Whether there be many different kinds of feminism or not they all have general underlying beliefs within them where the similarities all converge in a singular transparent ideal.

Which is?


Is that so? So you think men get more respect than women and therefore have it better?

How's that exactly?

Do men get more respect? Depends how you define "respect". Women get objectified in the media in many ways, do you not agree? Take a look at modern culture, a good example is MTV.


First you must define sexism. What is sexism?

What is feminism?

Sexism can be a lot of things. My defining view of sexism is the objectification and dehumanization of a sex without reason. This can be cultural or political and have many forms. When someone constantly refers to a woman/girl as a "bitch" (not in a negative sense like "she's acting like a bitch", but casually like it's the woman's name), it's a sexist remark. When someone only treats men like ignorant macho sex toys, it's a sexist way of thinking.


Really? So I suppose you believe in the elimination of all patriarchal culture for one that is more matriarchal in contrast.

How is that any better?

I personally think the west is becoming a matriarchal nightmare.

I never hinted towards such an idea, and how you pulled that out of what I said is beyond me. What I was plainly talking about is the sexism towards both men and women. Sexism towards men is just as rampant as women. I see many ads that just treat men like a sex object, and they get aired (take most Axe commercials for example, or shows like Jersey Shore where the guy is just seen as a piece of meat).


Just like how women objectify men viewing them to be objects?

What? Do you really believe that they don't objectify us as well?

Again, I'm talking about sexism on BOTH SIDES. I don't see feminism as just some female persuasion. It involves both sexes. Men and women both get objectified. This shouldn't be news to anyone. A man can like a woman only for her looks just as a woman can only like a man for his. The same problems happen to both sexes.


Well the women who make a lot of money doing it would care to disagree....

I'm sure both men and women in the porn industry who are conditioned to think that way would disagree, but I've seen documentaries on the porn industry. Not everyone likes it. You think some girl who's crying get throat fucked actually wants to be like that? Their spirit and will has been broken, and this type of negative influence breeds to where you have males who see this at a young age and begin to think it's acceptable behavior, they in turn objectify women as sex objects.

Ever wonder how a woman who has many sexual partners is called a whore and slut, but a guy who has many sexual partners is glorified? It's the same shit.


Your opinion not mine.

I suppose you believe in the neutrality of the sexes.

First ask yourself if that is possible and then ask if it is desirable.

I personally find the idea of being a castrated male metaphorically and mentally speaking in a culture of sexual neutrality to be unappealing.

Neutrality? In what way? Men and women vary in many ways, we are very different, but there's a balance between us.

I'm not asking if it's possible or desirable. It's not what I'm referring to.

No one is making any reference to a metaphorical castrated male in a sexually neutral culture.

Caledonian
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 06:35 AM
Which is?



Do men get more respect? Depends how you define "respect". Women get objectified in the media in many ways, do you not agree? Take a look at modern culture, a good example is MTV.



What is feminism?

Sexism can be a lot of things. My defining view of sexism is the objectification and dehumanization of a sex without reason. This can be cultural or political and have many forms. When someone constantly refers to a woman/girl as a "bitch" (not in a negative sense like "she's acting like a bitch", but casually like it's the woman's name), it's a sexist remark. When someone only treats men like ignorant macho sex toys, it's a sexist way of thinking.



I never hinted towards such an idea, and how you pulled that out of what I said is beyond me. What I was plainly talking about is the sexism towards both men and women. Sexism towards men is just as rampant as women. I see many ads that just treat men like a sex object, and they get aired (take most Axe commercials for example, or shows like Jersey Shore where the guy is just seen as a piece of meat).



Again, I'm talking about sexism on BOTH SIDES. I don't see feminism as just some female persuasion. It involves both sexes. Men and women both get objectified. This shouldn't be news to anyone. A man can like a woman only for her looks just as a woman can only like a man for his. The same problems happen to both sexes.



I'm sure both men and women in the porn industry who are conditioned to think that way would disagree, but I've seen documentaries on the porn industry. Not everyone likes it. You think some girl who's crying get throat fucked actually wants to be like that? Their spirit and will has been broken, and this type of negative influence breeds to where you have males who see this at a young age and begin to think it's acceptable behavior, they in turn objectify women as sex objects.

Ever wonder how a woman who has many sexual partners is called a whore and slut, but a guy who has many sexual partners is glorified? It's the same shit.



Neutrality? In what way? Men and women vary in many ways, we are very different, but there's a balance between us.

I'm not asking if it's possible or desirable. It's not what I'm referring to.

No one is making any reference to a metaphorical castrated male in a sexually neutral culture.



Which is?



Feminism refers to political, cultural, and economic movements seeking greater, equal, or, among a minority, superior[1] rights and participation in society for women and girls. These rights and means of participation include legal protection and inclusion in politics, business, and scholarship, and recognition and building of women's cultures and power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

This is the official reasoning behind feminism. It is this part of feminism that I do not mind in that I do view women to need the same benefits of law and protections like anybody else where I believe they should have a voice like anybody else when it concerns society in that it is impractical to refuse it to them.

However than there is this form of feminism as well:


Some feminists argue that men cause and benefit from sexism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Antifeminism

Then there are those feminists who take things a little bit further from the original meaning of feminism first started out as in which they decree that men are the originators of oppression where any sort of intolerance or tyranny is from men alone where men are to blame for the current affairs of human existence where women themselves are innocent bystanders caught up in the conflict of men where women have nothing at all to do with instigating such polarities.

Then again there is also institutional feminism that has made it's ways into public society where women are offered many systematic special protections, privileges, and opportunities where in comparison no system specifically devoted to men exist at all thus creating a disparity for men in contrast to women who often enough go ignored where women come to embrace a false sense of entitlement based upon their sex.

Pretty soon that systematic form of special protections, privileges, and opportunities within institutions masqueraded by collective feminism for women where the other sex has none at all in comparison taking form in all aspects of society becomes a institutional form of social inequality in of itself where the interests of one sex is uplifted where the interests of the other sex become marginalized.


Do men get more respect? Depends how you define "respect". Women get objectified in the media in many ways, do you not agree? Take a look at modern culture, a good example is MTV.

No more and no less than men do.


Sexism can be a lot of things. My defining view of sexism is the objectification and dehumanization of a sex without reason. This can be cultural or political and have many forms. When someone constantly refers to a woman/girl as a "bitch" (not in a negative sense like "she's acting like a bitch", but casually like it's the woman's name), it's a sexist remark. When someone only treats men like ignorant macho sex toys, it's a sexist way of thinking.

Is a world without sexual prejudice possible and is it desirable?

I would say no to both questions.

Whatever sex you are there are going to be interests of your own to which you are going to have some sort of prejudice over the other sex especially when they don't live up to and facilitate your own sex's ideals whether it be collectively or personally.

Women show sexual prejudice against men all the time and why they make a big deal out of it when men have their own form I do not know why.


I never hinted towards such an idea, and how you pulled that out of what I said is beyond me. What I was plainly talking about is the sexism towards both men and women. Sexism towards men is just as rampant as women. I see many ads that just treat men like a sex object, and they get aired (take most Axe commercials for example, or shows like Jersey Shore where the guy is just seen as a piece of meat).

Men often enough are treated as material objects or what I like to call walking talking piggy banks as the prejudice against the male sex is that of what a male has and what a individual male is worth.

When it concerns prejudice via cultural stereotypes I often enough do wonder how much biology plays into this with culture formulating them.

At any rate total equality of the sexes translates into the complete neutralization of the sexes because that's the only way total equality could occur.

Both perceptions are flawed not to mention impossible and if total equality is impossible what then is there to aspire towards?


Again, I'm talking about sexism on BOTH SIDES. I don't see feminism as just some female persuasion. It involves both sexes. Men and women both get objectified. This shouldn't be news to anyone. A man can like a woman only for her looks just as a woman can only like a man for his. The same problems happen to both sexes.

If it involved both sexes it wouldn't be called feminism, would it?

Feminism strikes me as a word or label that seems to only be concerned with femininity.


The same problems happen to both sexes.

Agreed. Ideally in a ideal world those sort of things wouldn't happen but being that we don't live in a ideal world they are going to keep on happening nonetheless.


I'm sure both men and women in the porn industry who are conditioned to think that way would disagree, but I've seen documentaries on the porn industry. Not everyone likes it. You think some girl who's crying get throat fucked actually wants to be like that? Their spirit and will has been broken, and this type of negative influence breeds to where you have males who see this at a young age and begin to think it's acceptable behavior, they in turn objectify women as sex objects.

Let me just say that I wish we lived in a world without the vulgarity of porn but in a world of sexual repression where our societies are often enough repressed the porn industry is a consequence of such a sad sorry pathetic state of things.

I'd like to imagine a world without porn but given the current repressed emotions, instincts, and sexual feelings of this society I don't see that happening anytime soon as the porn industry facilitates a outlet for such repressions.


Not everyone likes it.

Then perhaps they should find another field of work.

Unless they are a sex slave I do not believe they are encouraged by gun point to do porn.



Their spirit and will has been broken, and this type of negative influence breeds to where you have males who see this at a young age and begin to think it's acceptable behavior, they in turn objectify women as sex objects.

I would argue that men have always objectified women as such where porn has only magnified somthing that which has always been there to begin with when it concerns the nature of men.

Just like women have always held their own objectifications of men and how today's highly materialistic culture magnifies the nature of women.


Ever wonder how a woman who has many sexual partners is called a whore and slut, but a guy who has many sexual partners is glorified? It's the same shit.

Actually that tide is changing considering that today's modern liberated woman is deemed independent and in self control for sleeping with multiple sexual partners as some sort of explementary form of female prowess.

Sex and the city a great example of how women who sleep around have started to become glorified.

As a male I personally am monogamous and I don't believe in sleeping around.


Neutrality? In what way? Men and women vary in many ways, we are very different, but there's a balance between us

Balance?

Paradigm
Saturday, September 25th, 2010, 03:46 PM
Feminism refers to political, cultural, and economic movements seeking greater, equal, or, among a minority, superior[1] rights and participation in society for women and girls. These rights and means of participation include legal protection and inclusion in politics, business, and scholarship, and recognition and building of women's cultures and power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FFeminism)

This is the official reasoning behind feminism. It is this part of feminism that I do not mind in that I do view women to need the same benefits of law and protections like anybody else where I believe they should have a voice like anybody else when it concerns society in that it is impractical to refuse it to them.

You must take into consideration there is more than one wave of feminism. That different feminist have different political/social/economic goals. On the side of libertarian feminism (or for most feminist in general) they are not seeking political or economic superiority. It's an end to corruption based on sex. (Yet, what I'm making can be disputed by let's say some other schools of feminism.)


However than there is this form of feminism as well:


Some feminists argue that men cause and benefit from sexism; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Antifeminism (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FFeminism%23Antifeminis m)

Then there are those feminists who take things a little bit further from the original meaning of feminism first started out as in which they decree that men are the originators of oppression where any sort of intolerance or tyranny is from men alone where men are to blame for the current affairs of human existence.

In a way I agree that men have created and benefited from sexism in some ways, but those ways are a double-edged knife that are harming both sexes, and the gains are trivial.


Then there is institutional feminism that has made it's ways into public society where women are offered many systematic special protections, privileges, and opportunities where in comparison no system specifically devoted to men exist at all thus creating a disparity for men who often enough go ignored where women come to embrace a false sense of entitlement based upon their sex.

This is no different than the Civil Rights Act. Political privileges should be done away with completely. It's not the kind of equality in which most feminist strive for, it's another use of politics to make a special privilege.

Like I said above there are variations and different waves of feminism. You can't just lump the entire realm of feminism in one lot and say it's all the same.


Is a world without sexual prejudice possible and is it desirable?

I would say no to both questions.

Whatever sex you are there are going to be interests of your own to which you are going to have some sort of prejudice over the other sex especially when they don't live up to and facilitate your own sex's ideals whether it be collectively or personally.

Women show sexual prejudice against men all the time and why they make a big deal out of it when men have their own form I do not know why.

Men often enough are treated as material objects or what I like to call walking talking piggy banks as the prejudice against the male sex is that of what a male has and what a individual male is worth.

When it concerns prejudice via cultural stereotypes I often enough do wonder how much biology plays into this with culture formulating them.

At any rate total equality of the sexes translates into the complete neutralization of the sexes because that's the only way total equality could occur.

Both perceptions are flawed not to mention impossible and if total equality is impossible what then is there to aspire towards?

What you have in mind as equality is probably what I'm not referring to. My stance is that no one's equal as people. We are all different. What I'm against is sexual prejudice and bias on both sides, and a disrespect and misunderstanding of the sexes. Nor am I for any neutrality of the sexes. I need to make this very clear I'm not trying to bring the sexes down to atomized individuals. I'm addressing the sexism towards both sexes.


If it involved both sexes it wouldn't be called feminism, would it?

Feminism strikes me as a word or label that seems to only be concerned with femininity.

In today's world it involves everyone. There's just as much negative influence, bias, and sexism towards men as there is towards women.


Agreed. Ideally in a ideal world those sort of things wouldn't happen but being that we don't live in a ideal world they are going to keep on happening nonetheless.

Let me just say that I wish we lived in a world without the vulgarity of porn but in a world of sexual repression where our societies are often enough repressed the porn industry is a consequence of such a sad sorry pathetic state of things.

I'd like to imagine a world without porn but given the current repressed emotions, instincts, and sexual feelings of this society I don't see that happening anytime soon as the porn industry facilitates a outlet for such repressions.

That's why things like feminism educate those who don't know what's really going on. I'm not expecting a perfect world, but to try your best to shape it on how you would prefer to see it.


Then perhaps they should find another field of work.

Unless they are a sex slave I do not believe they are encouraged by gun point to do porn.

The porn industry and sexual slavery could be a whole topic in itself. What I've seen (for documentaries) might surprise you.


I would argue that men have always objectified women as such where porn has only magnified something that which has always been there to begin with when it concerns the nature of men.

Just like women have always held their own objectification of men and how today's highly materialistic culture magnifies the nature of women.

These stereotypes misrepresent how we are. Both sexes objectify each other in negative, materialistic, sexual aspects. We become conditioned to see it that way from what's around us.


Actually that tide is changing considering that today's modern liberated woman is deemed independent and in self control for sleeping with multiple sexual partners as some sort of explementary form of female prowess.

Sex and the city a great example of how women who sleep around have started to become glorified.

As a male I personally am monogamous and I don't believe in sleeping around.

The thing is that the girls I know don't think like this. It's a misrepresentation of their sex.


Balance?

You could say each of us has a part the other doesn't. We have similarities and differences, and they both connect. (There's no pun intended for any of that...)

SaxonPagan
Sunday, September 26th, 2010, 01:52 AM
Feminism is one of the more pernicious facets of Marxist idealogy and I simply tend to ignore it altogether. It's just become a stick with which to beat the Germanic male and is not entertained by males in most (if not all) other societies.

Regarding my personal experiences with feminists, I have to say that I've usually found them to be an exceedingly ugly bunch and maybe this contributes to them being so anti-male, which is in practice what feminism translates into! Strangely, many feminists imitate the worst aspects of male behaviour and one of these (as they perceive it) is to be aggressive, bossy and domineering, although of course in feminist jargon they call it "assertiveness" ;)

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that feminism actually had little to do with looking or acting feminine. This is typical of Marxist double-speak, which has produced a whole raft of other misnomers such as the self-contradictory "positive discrimination" and the extended definition of “racism” to include such things as religion and skin colour.

You usually find that feminists buy into the full package and become obsessed with all the other "-isms" as well, although many of them do eventually grow out of it!

EQ Fighter
Sunday, September 26th, 2010, 06:00 AM
Feminism is one of the more pernicious facets of Marxist idealogy and I simply tend to ignore it altogether. It's just become a stick with which to beat the Germanic male and is not entertained by males in most (if not all) other societies.

Regarding my personal experiences with feminists, I have to say that I've usually found them to be an exceedingly ugly bunch and maybe this contributes to them being so anti-male, which is in practice what feminism translates into! Strangely, many feminists imitate the worst aspects of male behaviour and one of these (as they perceive it) is to be aggressive, bossy and domineering, although of course in feminist jargon they call it "assertiveness" ;)

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that feminism actually had little to do with looking or acting feminine. This is typical of Marxist double-speak, which has produced a whole raft of other misnomers such as the self-contradictory "positive discrimination" and the extended definition of “racism” to include such things as religion and skin colour.

You usually find that feminists buy into the full package and become obsessed with all the other "-isms" as well, although many of them do eventually grow out of it!

I would say that Feminism is Marxist social engineering, and ironically it is generally Mangina Males that spend their time defending it.

Pretty funny is it not?
That you have Marxist Mangina men that are the ones that created it in the first place. Intelligent women do not back such BS, because they do not see themselves as Un-Equal. Although I will say that I have encountered a few Jewish Hags, who get glee in seeing if they can turn the more stupid white women against white men. And they also really freak out when they encounter a women that does not follow their BS. Very Hilarious situation I must say. :D

The Fact is Feminist are not really the problem, they are a result of mangina men. Alpha Wimps I would say.

The Last Part of her Argument

4eZjYZd1IHA

Or explained out in more detail By Paul Elim.

fUgp5jAFfpA

Caledonian
Sunday, September 26th, 2010, 06:29 AM
To EQ Fighter:

That Paul Elim guy was very elegant in what he said I think.

That very cute middle age woman in the other video asked why men don't go out to retake authority in securing the world around them.

It's quite simple why we don't especially not individually.

It's simply become illegal to do so where any action on our part comes with risk of jail, prison, and the destruction of our very lives in what we have worked for ourselves.

Also no man is going to do anything individually by himself with individual risk to himself especially when all those around him are indifferent to the point that no appreciation is made for him.

Such is the Orwellian world of control we live in.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, September 26th, 2010, 05:32 PM
To EQ Fighter:

That Paul Elim guy was very elegant in what he said I think.

That very cute middle age woman in the other video asked why men don't go out to retake authority in securing the world around them.

It's quite simple why we don't especially not individually.

It's simply become illegal to do so where any action on our part comes with risk of jail, prison, and the destruction of our very lives in what we have worked for ourselves.

Also no man is going to do anything individually by himself with individual risk to himself especially when all those around him are indifferent to the point that no appreciation is made for him.

Such is the Orwellian world of control we live in.

Well I think her solution to the problem is a bit of wishful thinking on her part. But she is right about the fact the MEN have given over control to women.

I dont think we should expect a women to really hierarchy among men that have evolved for centuries, especially when even most men don't understand them beyond the very minimum of the so called "Chane of Command".

But what is worse I will add my own take on it. At this point we have the worst sort of the Leadership In western world. Because the women that generally take these "Alpha" positions are generally Semitic feminist scum such as Elena Kagan, and such trash as Janet Reno.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTNZfDChZdsVgmbipy1nW pgT68wkeqYCehQqwF_CoBYyssCsc&t=1&usg=__qrRj0r_Y1kDBfhSKh93w0h1FBdY=

What is even worse then this is the western power base is about to in my opinion be replace by an eastern one, say Iran, China, Russia. Which was probably their intentions all along.

Fyrgenholt
Sunday, September 26th, 2010, 06:00 PM
Today feminsm is about much more than intellectually countering institutionalised sexisms. Today, feminism, focused upon social constructionist theory, is about the deconstruction of gender roles. It is this to which I object. Gender roles are important and they didn't burst on to the scene through a bunch of 19th century 'white male' oppressors, rather, they developed over thousands of years of evolutionary social change as a means to benefit our survival.

Caledonian
Monday, September 27th, 2010, 04:11 AM
Feminism is one of the more pernicious facets of Marxist idealogy and I simply tend to ignore it altogether. It's just become a stick with which to beat the Germanic male and is not entertained by males in most (if not all) other societies.

Regarding my personal experiences with feminists, I have to say that I've usually found them to be an exceedingly ugly bunch and maybe this contributes to them being so anti-male, which is in practice what feminism translates into! Strangely, many feminists imitate the worst aspects of male behaviour and one of these (as they perceive it) is to be aggressive, bossy and domineering, although of course in feminist jargon they call it "assertiveness" ;)

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that feminism actually had little to do with looking or acting feminine. This is typical of Marxist double-speak, which has produced a whole raft of other misnomers such as the self-contradictory "positive discrimination" and the extended definition of “racism” to include such things as religion and skin colour.

You usually find that feminists buy into the full package and become obsessed with all the other "-isms" as well, although many of them do eventually grow out of it!

Agreed. One cannot forget that the underpinning of feminism came from it's precursor of Marxism.


Today feminsm is about much more than intellectually countering institutionalised sexisms. Today, feminism, focused upon social constructionist theory, is about the deconstruction of gender roles. It is this to which I object. Gender roles are important and they didn't burst on to the scene through a bunch of 19th century 'white male' oppressors, rather, they developed over thousands of years of evolutionary social change as a means to benefit our survival.

And that's what I exactly meant earlier when I discussed how the goal of feminism is the neutrality of the sexes or better still to use your terminology the complete deconstruction of gender roles.

Caledonian
Monday, September 27th, 2010, 04:21 AM
aVxoNOvMj00

ww4e6HOXxJU


oMzcMATRGmE

Fyrgenholt
Monday, September 27th, 2010, 07:25 PM
And that's what I exactly meant earlier when I discussed how the goal of feminism is the neutrality of the sexes or better still to use your terminology the complete deconstruction of gender roles.

Yes, more than that, too. It's about the deconstruction of gender divisions and boundaries.

:thumbdown

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 12:54 AM
VOu_BszChIE

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010, 06:20 AM
VOu_BszChIE

Like the Video says, women generally start the violence, and because men generally out weigh women and are larger the women is the one to gets hurt.

Then you have the flip side of the situation of the, gutless alpha males in the political systems, who's only concerned is to look good to the public.

I would like to point out though that most of these Alphas, assuming they are not lesbian women, would piss in their pants if they were say in the other mans shoes.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010, 01:06 PM
Well done, EQ Fighter. Too many men have been wrongly accused of domestic violence for far too long when it was never their fault in the first place and never initiated any physical violence towards women. At the end of the video, the woman exulting in the presumably staged attack on the young man by the young woman in the park says it all. Men have as much right to defend themselves against violence as anyone else.

NorWest
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010, 11:54 PM
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 05:38 AM
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

Great Article!
Seems to be pretty much on target.
What I would say is wrong about it though, is that there are no unhappy men with the current system.

Also there is a lack of connecting Feminism, with Bolshevism, which is essentially where it originated in the first place.

In the end what I think we will end up with in the western world, is more or less what has happened in Russia. That being a female population that vastly outnumber the males and one in which the men have simply checked out of the system and said "The Hell With It".

Personally though I think the west will get it worse because 1)Slavs always had a "Traditionalism" in their culture which never really died out. 2) Slavic women never really fully bought into feminism.

Caledonian
Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 07:48 AM
Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?

Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is. I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with. What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.

This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist. As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well. As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.

Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.



The Cultural Thesis

The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below (click to enlarge), which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.

As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.

At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia? A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.

Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.

This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon. This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.

The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

The Four Sirens : Four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women. Others have presented versions of the Four Sirens concept in the past, but I am choosing a slightly different definition of the Four Sirens :

1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges of hypergamy.

2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of irresponsible behavior onto men and children.

3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce, as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.

Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended). Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.

4) Pro-female social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.

These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions. Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them. Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.

Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.

We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :

1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.

Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Indian civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.

In an 'at will' employment arrangement between a corporation and an employee, either party can terminate the contract at any time. However, instead of a few weeks of severance, imagine what would happen if the employer was legally required to pay the employee half of his or her paycheck for 20 additional years, irrespective of anything the employee did or did not do, under penalty of imprisonment for the CEO. Suppose, additionally, that it is culturally encouraged for an employee to do this whenever even minor dissatisfaction arises. Would businesses be able to operate? Would anyone want to be a CEO? Would businesses even form, and thus would any wealth be created, given the risks associated with hiring an employee? Keep these questions in mind as you read further.

So why are 90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?

Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. What makes attorneys different from, say, engineers or salespeople, is that a) they know precisely how to lobby for changes to the legal system, bypassing voters and the US constitution, that guarantees more revenue for them, and b) what benefits them is directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular. When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could, the outcome is catastrophic.

The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy. Indeed, the man has to pay even if the woman has an extramarital affair, possibly even being ordered to pay her psychiatric fees. Bogus claims by 'feminists' that women suffer under divorce are designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce. Defenders of alimony insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce. I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men. How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality?

http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

Caledonian
Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 07:51 AM
In rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time. But it gets worse; much worse, in fact.

Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well. So the man loses his children and most of his income even if he did not want divorce. But even that is not the worst-case scenario.

The Bradley Amendment, devised by Senator Bill Bradley in 1986, ruthlessly pursues men for the already high 'child support' percentages, and seizes their passports and imprisons them without due process for falling behind in payments, even if on account of job loss during a recession. Under a bogus 'deadbeat dads' media campaign, 'feminists' were able to obscure the fact that women were the ones ending their marriages and with them the benefit that children receive from a two-parent upbringing, and further demanding unusually high spousal maintenence, much of which does not even go to the child, from a dutiful ex-husband who did not want a divorce, under penalty of imprisonment. So the legal process uses children as pawns through which to extract an expanded alimony stream for the mother. Talk about a multi-layer compounding of evil. The phony tactic of insisting that 'it is for the children' is used to shut down all questions about the use of children as pawns in the extortion process, while avoiding scrutiny of the fact that the parent who is choosing divorce is clearly placing the long-term well-being of the children at a very low priority.

So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money. If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery. Sometimes, the children are not even biologically his.

This one-page site has more links about the brutal tyranny that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children. What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. As a result, the word 'marriage' should not even be used, given the totality of changes that have made the arrangement all but unrecognizable compared to its intended ideals. Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%, and all of us know a man who either committed suicide, or admits seriously considering it during the dehumanization he faced even though he wanted to preserve the union. Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty. There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US, even if he did not want out of the marriage, did not want to be separated from his children, and did not want to lose his job. Any unsuspecting man can be sucked into this shadow state.

Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and 'feminist' organizations over the past quarter-century. If Western society is to survive, these revenues should be chopped down to a tenth of what they presently are, which is what they would be if the elements that violate the US Constitution were repealed.

Marriage is no longer a gateway to female 'companionship', as we shall discuss later. For this reason, as a Futurist, I cannot recommend 'marriage', as the grotesque parody that it has become today, to any young man living in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. There are just too many things outside of his control that can catastrophically ruin his finances, emotions, and quality of life.

At a minimum, he should make sure that having children is the most important goal of his life. If not, then he has insufficient reason to enter this contract. If this goal is affirmed, then he should conduct research by speaking to a few divorced men about the laws and mistreatment they were subjected to, and attend a few divorce court hearings at the local courthouse. After gaining this information, if he still wants to take the risk, he should only marry if he can meet the following three conditions, none of which can substitute either of the other two :

1) The woman earns the same as, or more than, he does.

2) He has a properly done pre-nuptial arrangement with lawyers on each side (even though a pre-nup will not affect the worst aspect of divorce law - 'child support' as a cloak for stealth alimony and possible imprisonment).

3) He is deeply competent in the Venusian Arts, and can manage his relationship with his wife effortlessly. More on this later.

There are still substantial risks, but at least they are somewhat reduced under these conditions. If marriage is a very important goal for a young man, he should seriously consider expatriation to a developing country, where he ironically may have a higher living standard than in the US after adjusting for divorce risk.

So, to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are :

•a) No fault asset division and alimony, where the abandoned spouse has to pay if he earns more, even if he did not want a divorce, and even if he is a victim of abuse, cuckolding, or adultery. There are rare instances of high-earning women getting caught in this trap as well.
•b) Women marrying after having 5 or more sexual partners, compared to just 0-1 previously. This makes it harder for the woman to form a pair bond with her husband.
•c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
•d) Child custody is almost never granted to the man, so he loses his children on a 'no fault' basis.
Traditional cultures marketed marriage with such punctilious alacrity that most people today dare not even question whether the traditional truths still apply. Hence, hostility often ensues from a mere attempt to even broach the topic of whether marriage is still the same concept as it once was. Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even articulate, and condemn his request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men with an eye on self-preservation are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage. By many accounts, 22% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for even just 20% of men to marry?

Women are far more interested in marriage than men. Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of fertility much quicker than men. This creates great stress among the single female population. In the past, the steady hand of a young woman's mother and grandmother knew that her beauty was temporary, and that the most seductive man was not the best husband, and they made sure that the girl was married off to a boy with long-term durability. Now that this guidance has been removed from the lives of young women, thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospects with men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate. The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities. Women often protest that a high number of sexual partners should not be counted as a negative on them, as the same is not a negative for men, but this is merely a manifestation of solipism. A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."

The big irony is that 'feminism', rather than improving the lives of women, has stripped away the safety nets of mother/grandmother guidance that would have shielded her from ever having to face her Wile E. Coyote moment. 'Feminism' has thus put the average woman at risk in yet another area.

The Venusian Arts : The Four Sirens and the legal changes feminists have instituted to obstruct beta men have created a climate where men have invented techniques and strategies to adapt to the more challenging marketplace, only to exceed their aspirations. This is a disruptive technology in its own right. All of us know a man who is neither handsome nor wealthy, but consistently has amazing success with women. He seems to have natural instincts regarding women that to the layperson may be indistinguishable from magic. So how does he do it?

Mars is the God of War, while Venus is the Goddess of Love. Study of combat is thus known as the Martial Arts, while the study of attraction, seduction, and romance is known as the Venusian Arts, as coined by Mystery, a pioneer in the field. Detractors with a vested interest in the present status quo are eager to misrepresent what the Venusian Arts are, but as a definition :

The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.

The subject is too vast for any description over here to do it full justice, but in a nutshell, the Internet age enabled communities of men to share the various bits of knowledge they had field tested and refined (e.g. one man being an expert at meeting women during the daytime, another being an expert at step-by-step sexual escalation, yet another being a master of creating lasting love, etc.). The collective knowledge grew and evolved, and an entire industry to teach the various schools of 'Game' emerged. Men who comprehended the concepts (a minority) and those who could undertake the total reconstitution of their personalities and avalanche of rejections as part of the learning curve (a still smaller minority) stood to reap tremendous benefits from becoming more attractive than the vast majority of unaware men. While the 'pick-up artist' (PUA) implementation is the most media-covered, the principles are equally valuable for men in monogamous long-term relationships (LTRs). See Charlotte Allen's cover story for The Weekly Standard, devoted to 'Game'.

Among the most valuable learnings from the body of knowledge is the contrarian revelation that what women say a man should do is often quite the antithesis of what would actually bring him success. For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, where being dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona. An equally valuable lesson is to realize when not to take a woman's words at face value. Many statements from her are 'tests' to see if the man can remain congruent in his 'alpha' personality, where the woman is actually hoping the man does not eagerly comply to her wishes. Similarly, the 'feminist' Pavlovian reaction to call any non-compliant man a 'misogynist' should also not be taken as though a rational adult assigned the label after fair consideration. Such shaming language is only meant to deflect scrutiny and accountability from the woman uttering it, and should be given no more importance than a 10-year-old throwing a tantrum to avoid responsibility or accountability. Far too many men actually take these slurs seriously, to the detriment of male rights and dignity.

Success in internalizing the core fundamentals of the Venusian Arts requires an outside-the-box thinker solidly in the very top of Maslow's Hierarchy, and in my experience, 80% of men and 99.9% of women are simply incapable of comprehending why the skills of the Venusian Arts are valuable and effective. Many women, and even a few pathetic men, condemn the Venusian Arts, without even gaining a minimal comprehension for what it truly is (which I have highlighted in red above), and how it benefits both men and women. Most of what they think they know about the Venusian Arts involves strawmen, a lack of basic research, and their own sheer insecurity.

For anyone seeking advice on the Venusian Arts, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief. Nice guys can finish first if they have Game.

http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

Caledonian
Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 07:53 AM
'Feminism' as Unrestrained Misandry and Projection : The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of 'feminists' reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favorable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression.

Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that are blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.

Despite my acute ability to detect and deconstruct leftists, I was unprepared for the level of unhinged lunacy that 'feminism' had sunk to, which revealed itself in late 2008 when Sarah Palin emerged onto the national scene. Here was a woman who actually achieved all the aspirations that feminists claim to value : a highly successful career as a Governor and VP candidate, a large number of children, a loving marriage to a supportive yet ruggedly masculine husband, and an attractive appearance despite being in her 40s. If anything, she should be hailed as a superb role model of a woman from modest origins who has managed to 'have it all'. Yet, the feminist reaction to her was quite the opposite, as she attracted far more hate from lefto-feminists than the woman-stoning Taliban, or child-raping Roman Polanski ever could. What is a parody so outlandish that even The Onion may not write it is actually true. In one shot, 'feminism' was revealed as being not just different from its stated goals, but perhaps the most extreme pillar of leftism in existence today. This is because it is far less challenged than any other subsect of leftism.

As it is profitable to claim victimhood in this age, a good indicator is whether any condemnation by the supposedly oppressed of their oppressor could be similarly uttered if the positions were reversed. We know that what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said about whites could not be said by a white pastor about blacks, and we see even more of a double standard regarding what women and men can say about each other in America today. This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalize any level of evil against their perceived oppressors.

Go to any major 'feminist' website, such as feministing.com or Jezebel.com, and ask polite questions about the fairness of divorce laws, or the injustice of innocent men being jailed on false accusations of rape without due process. You will quickly be called a 'misogynist' and banned from commenting. The same is not true for any major men's site, where even heated arguments and blatant misandry are tolerated in the spirit of free speech and human dignity. When is the last time a doctrinaire 'feminist' actually had the courage to debate a fair woman like Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, or Christina Hoff Somers on television?

Ever-tightening groupthink that enforces an ever-escalating narrative of victimhood ensures that projection becomes the normal mode of misandrist thought. The word 'misogynist' has expanded to such an extreme that it is the Pavlovian response to anything a 'feminist' feels bad about, but cannot articulate in an adult-like manner. This reveals the projected gender bigotry of the 'feminist' in question, which in her case is misandry. For example, an older man dating women 10 years younger than him is also referred to as a 'misogynist' by the older bitterati. Not an ageist, mind you, but a misogynist. A man who refuses to find obese women attractive is also a 'misogynist', as are gay men who do not spend money on women. The male non-compliance labeled as 'misogyny' thus becomes a reaction to many years of unopposed misandry heaped on him first, when he initially harbored no such sentiments. Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog.

There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that blatantly declares that violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phonecall. No due process is permitted, and the man's Constitutional rights are jettisoned. At the same time, half of all domestic violence is by the woman against the man. Tiger Woods' wife beat him with a blunt weapon and scratched his face, only to be applauded by 'feminists' in a 'you go girl' manner. Projection can normalize barbarism.

Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped. The Duke Lacrosse case was a prominent example of such abuse, but hundreds of others occur in America each year. The laws have been changed so that a victim has 1 month to 'decide' if she has been raped, and such flexibility predicatably leads to instances of a woman reporting rape just so that she does not have to tell her husband that she cheated on him (until it becomes profitable to divorce him). 40% of all rape accusations are false, but 'feminists' would rather jail scores of innocent men than let one guilty man get away, which is the exact opposite of what US Constitutional jurisprudence requires.

But, unimaginably, it gets even worse. Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded. Men see cuckolding as the ultimate violation and betrayal, yet there is an entire movement among 'feminists' to enshrine a woman's right to commit adultery and use the resources of her husband to dupe him into thinking the child is his. These misandrists even want to outlaw the right of a man to test the paternity of a child.

So, to review, if a woman has second thoughts about a tryst a few days later, she can, without penalty, ruin a man financially and send him to prison for 15 years. 'Feminists' consider this acceptable. At the same time, even though men consider being cuckolded a worse fate than being raped, 'feminists' want to make this easier for a woman to do, by preventing paternity testing. They already have rigged laws so that the man, upon 'no fault' divorce, has to pay alimony, to a woman who cuckolded him.

This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the evil of Nazi Germany, Al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein. Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today. The laws of a society are the DNA of that society. Once the laws are tainted, the DNA is effectively corrupted, and mutations to the society soon follow.

Shaming Language and Projection as a Substitute for Rational Debate : As discussed previously, any legitimate and polite questions about the fairness of anti-male realities in the legal system and media are quickly met with Pavlovian retorts of 'misogynist' and 'loser'. Let us deconstruct these oft-used examples of shaming language, and why misandrists are so afraid of legitimate debate.

Contrary to their endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals. Every day, we see men willing to defend women or do favors for them. There is infinitely more chivalry than misogyny exhibited by the male population. On the other hand, we routinely see anti-male statements uttered by 'feminists', and a presumption that all men are monsters guilty of crimes committed by a small number of people of the same gender. When well-known 'feminists' openly state that 90% of the male population should be exterminated, the unsupported accusation of 'misogyny' is a very pure manifestion of their own misandric projection.

On the second charge of being a 'loser who cannot get laid', any observation of the real world quickly makes it obvious that men who have had little experience with women are the ones placing women on pedestals, while those men who have had substantial sexual experience with women are not. Having sex with a large number of women does not increase respect for women, which is the exact opposite of the claim that 'feminists' make. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolised into love for these particular 'feminists'.

That misandrists are so unchallenged is the reason that they have had no reason to expand their arsenal of venom beyond these two types of projection. Despite my explanation of this predictable Pavlovian response, the comments section will feature misandrists use these same two slurs nonetheless, proving the very point that they seek to shout down, and the very exposure they seek to avoid. My pre-emption will not deter them from revealing their limitations by indulging in it anyway. They simply cannot help themselves, and are far from being capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner.

Men, of course, have to be savvy about the real reason their debate skills are limited to these two paths of shaming language, and not be deterred. Once again, remember that this should be taken no more seriously than if uttered by a 10-year-old, and there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with. They wanted equality, didn't they?

'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examples for children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.

One glaring example of misandry backfiring is in the destruction of marriage and corresponding push of the 'Sex in the City/cougar' fantasy. Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. Coyote moment. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them. 'Feminism' sold them a moral code entirely unsuited to their physical and mental realities, causing great sadness to these women.

But most importantly, 'feminists' devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areas of male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) and told women to go duplicate male results under the premise that this was inherently better than traditional female functions. Telling women that emulating their mothers and grandmothers is less valuable than mimicking men sounds quite misogynistic to me, and unsurprisingly, despite all these 'freedoms', women are more unhappy than ever after being inflicted with such misogyny.

So how did the state of affairs manage to get so bad? Surely 'feminists' are not so powerful?

Social Conservatives, White Knights, and Girlie-Men : It would be inaccurate to deduce that misandrists were capable of creating this state of affairs on their own, despite their vigor and skill in sidestepping both the US Constitution and voter scrutiny. Equally culpable are men who ignorantly believe that acting as obsequious yes-men to 'feminists' by turning against other men in the hope that their posturing will earn them residual scraps of female affection.

Chivalry has existed in most human cultures for many centuries, and is seen in literature from all major civilizations. Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents. The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union. The girl herself was not the primary audience of the chivalry. as the sexual attraction of the girl herself was rarely aroused by chivalry, as the Venusian Arts have shown.

Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathing notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today, despite the modern reality that a woman's sexual decisions are no longer controlled by her parents, and are often casual rather than locked in matrimony. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same, and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them. This is why we see peculiar agreement between supposedly opposed 'social conservatives' and 'feminists' whenever the craving to punish men arises. A distressingly high number of men actually support the imprisonment of innocent men for false rape accusations or job loss causing 'child support' arrears merely because these 'men' don't want to risk female disapproval, incorrectly assuming that fanatically vocal 'feminists' represent the official opinion of all women. These men are the biggest suckers of all, as their pig-headed denial of the Venusian Arts will prevent them from deducing that excess agreeability and willingness to do favors for the objects of their lust are exactly the opposite of what makes women sexually attracted to men. No woman feels attraction for a needy man.

For this reason, after lunatic 'feminists', these pedestalizing White Knights are the next most responsible party for the misandry in Western society today. The average woman is not obsessively plotting hate crimes against men, she merely wants to side with whoever is winning (which is presently the misandrists). But pedestalizing men actually carry out many dirty deeds against other men in the hopes of receiving a pat on the head from 'feminists'. Hence, the hierarchy of misandric zeal is thus :

Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman.

For reasons described earlier, even a declaration that many men are bigger contributors to misandry than the average woman will not deter 'feminists' from their Pavlovian tendency to call articles such as this one 'misogynist'.

Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.

Why There is No Men's Rights Movement : At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it?". Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value). White Knights also join in the chorus of shaming other men since they blunderously believe that this is a pathway to the satiation of their lust. So an unfairly ruined man is faced with the prospect of being shamed by women and a large cohort of men if he protests about the injustice, and this keeps him suffering in silence, leading to an early death. We have millions of fine young men willing to die on the battlefield to defend the values enshrined in the US Constitution, but we don't see protests of even 100 divorced men against the shamefully unconstitutional treatment they have received. The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizing immoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Men being too afraid to be the 'squeaky wheel' even when they have lost their children and their present and future assets is a major contributor to the prevailing status quo. Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas.

Any serious movement has to start a think tank or two to produce research reports, symposiums, and specific policy recommendations, and the few divorce lawyers who were compelled by their conscience to leave the dark side have to be recruited as experts. Subsequently, televised panel discussions have to be conducted at top medical, business, and graduate engineering schools (where young men about to embark on lucrative careers are approaching marriage age, but know nothing about the law), documentary films have to be produced, prominent victims like Mel Gibson, Paul McCartney, Hulk Hogan, and Tiger Woods have to be recruited as spokesmen, and visibly powerful protests outside of divorce courts have to be organized. In this age of Web 2.0 tools and with the Tea Party protests providing an excellent template, all this should be easy, particularly given how quickly leftists groups can assemble a comparable apparatus for even obscure causes.

Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. 'Something is better than nothing' is the most generous praise I could possibly extend to their efforts, and this article I am presenting here on The Futurist is probably the single biggest analysis of this issue to date, even though this is not even a site devoted to the subject. Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.

http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

Caledonian
Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 07:55 AM
The Economic Thesis

Ceilings and Floors of Glass : Misandrists shriek about a supposed 'glass ceiling' of pervasive sexism that explains why 50% of the CEOs of major corporations are not women. What is never mentioned is the equally valid 'glass floor', where we see that 90% of imprisonments, suicides, and crippling occupational injuries are of men. If these outcomes are the results of the actions or choices of men who suffer from them, then is that not the same reason that determines who rises above the 'glass ceiling'? The inability of misandrists to address these realities in good faith tells us something (but not everything) about the irrational sense of entitlement they have.

One of the most dishonest myths of all is the claim that 'women earn just 75% of men for the same job'. Let me dispense of this myth, in the process of which we will see why it is profitable and seductive for them to broadcast this bogus belief.

It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do. It is also true that 22-year-olds earn less, on average, than 40-year-olds. Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination?

If women truly did earn less for doing exactly the same job as a man, any non-sexist CEO could thrash his competition by hiring only women, thus saving 25% on employee salaries relative to his competitors. Are we to believe that every major CEO and Board of Directors is so sexist as to sacrifice billions of dollars of profit? When the 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' of a nun congregation wrote to TJ Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, that his company should have more women in its Board of Directors, Rodgers replied with a letter explaining why the pursuit of profit could not accommodate such political correctness. That a nun congregation pays a recession-proof salary to someone as a 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' is itself an example of a pampered existence, and I was unaware that convents were now advancing secular Marxist beliefs.

Furthermore, women entrepreneurs could hire other women and out-compete any male-dominated business if such a pay gap existed, but we do not see this happening in any country in the world. Market forces would correct such mispricings in female compensation, if they actually existed. But they do not, and those who claim that they do are not just advertising an extreme economic illiteracy, but are quite happy to make similarly illiterate women angry about an injustice that does not exist. I notice that women who actually are/were CEOs of publicly traded companies never claim that there is a conspiracy to underpay women relative to their output.

I am willing to pass laws to ensure that 50% of all Fortune 500 CEOs are women (despite the accelerated turnover this would create in the ranks of the Fortune 500), if we also legally mandate that 50% of all imprisonments are of women, and 50% of the jobs that involve working with heavy machinery, being outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals are also occupied by women. Fair is fair. Any takers?

The 'Mancession' and the 'Sheconomy' : I would be the first to be happy if the economic success of women were solely on the basis of pure merit. For many of them, it is. But far too much has been the result of not market forces or meritocracy, but political graft and ideology-driven corruption.

In the recent recession and ongoing jobless recovery, the male unemployment rate continues to be much higher than the female unemployment rate. If this was simply due to market forces, that would be fine. However, 'feminist' groups have lobbied hard to ensure that government stimulus funds were steered to boost female employment at the expense of assistance for men. The leftist Obama administration was more than eager to comply, and a forcible transfer of wealth was enacted, even though it may not have been the best deployment of money for the economy.

Maria Shriver, a woman who has the most fortunate of lives from the vast wealth earned first by her grandfather and then by her husband, recently published 'A Woman's Nation : The Shriver Report', consisting of gloating about how women were now outperforming men economically. The entire research report is full of all the standard bogus feminist myths and flawed statistics, as thoroughly debunked here, as well as the outright sexism of statements like 'women are better managers' (imagine a man saying the reverse). Furthermore, the report reveals the typical economic illiteracy (evidenced by, among other things, the ubiquitous 'women are underpaid' myth), as well as belief that businesses exist to act as vehicles of social engineering rather than to produce a profit.


All of this bogus research and organized anti-male lobbying has been successful. As of today, the male unemployment rate is worse than the female unemployment rate by an unprecedented chasm. The 'mancession' continues as the US transitions to a 'sheconomy', and among the millions of unemployed men, some owe prohibitive levels of 'child support' despite not being the ones wanting to deprive their children of a two-parent household, landing in prison for lack of funds. Furthermore, I emphasize again that having 10-30% of the US male workforce living under an effective 70% marginal tax rate will kill their incentives for inventing new technologies or starting new companies. It is petty to debate whether the top federal income tax bracket should be 35% or 39.6%, when a slice of the workforce is under a 70% tax on marginal income. Beyond the tyranny of this, it also costs a lot of taxpayer money to jail a growing pool of unemployed men. Clearly, moving more and more men out of a tax-generating capacity and into a tax-consuming capacity is certainly going to do two-fold damage to governmental budgets. The next time you hear someone say that 'the US has the largest prison population in the world', be sure to mention that many of these men merely lost their jobs, and were divorced against their will. The women, in the meantime, are having a blast.

The Government Bubble : While public sector vs. private sector workforce distribution is not highly correlated to gender, it is when the focus is on women earning over $100,000 or more. This next chart from the Cato Institute shows that when total compensation (wages + benefits) are taken into account, the public sector has totally outstripped the private sector this decade. Has the productivity of the typical government employee risen so much more than that of the private worker, that the government employee is now paid twice as much? Are taxpayers receiving value for their money?

It goes further. The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men, but are collected by women (due to women living 7 years longer than men on average). That is not troubling by any means, but the fact that women consume two-thirds of all US healthcare, despite most of this $2.5 Trillion annual expenditure being paid by men, is certainly worthy of debate. It may be 'natural' for women to require more healthcare, since they are the ones who give birth. But it was also 'natural' for men to finance this for only their wives, not for the broader community of women. The healthcare profession also employs an immense number of women, and not just in value-added roles such as nursing, but even in administrative and bureaucratic positions. In fact, virtually all government spending except for defense and infrastructure, from Medicare to Obamacare to welfare to public sector jobs for women to the expansion of the prison population, is either a net transfer of wealth from men to women, or a byproduct of the destruction of Marriage 1.0. In either case, 'feminism' is the culprit.

This Cato Institute chart of Federal Government spending (click to enlarge) shows how non-defense expenditures have steadily risen since 1960. The decline in defense spending, far from being a 'peace dividend' repatriated back to taxpayers, was used to fund more social programs. No one can seriously claim that the American public receives better non-defense governance in 2010 than in 1960 despite the higher price, and as discussed earlier, most of this increase is a direct or indirect result of 'feminism'. When state and local government wastage is added to this, it would appear that 20% of GDP is being spent just to make the government a substitute for the institution of Marriage, and yet still has not managed to be an effective replacement. Remember again that the earnings of men pays 70%-80% of all taxes.

The left has finally found a perfect Trojan Horse through which to expand a tyrannical state. 'Feminists' can lobby for a transfer of wealth from men to women and from private industry to the government, while knowing that calling any questioner a 'misogynist' will silence him far more effectively than their military fifth columnist, environmentalist, and plain socialist brethren could ever silence their respective opponents. Conservatives are particularly vulnerable to such shaming language, and most conservatives will abandon their stated principles to endlessly support any and all socialism if it can be packaged as 'chivalry', the opposition to which makes one a 'misogynist'. However, there is reason to believe that tax collection in many parts of the US, such as in states like CA, NY, NJ, and MA, has reached saturation. As the optimal point has already been crossed, a rise in tax rates will cause a decrease, rather than an increase in revenue, and the increase in Federal tax rates exactly one year from today on 1/1/2011 is likely to cause another recession, which will not be so easily transferred to already-impoverished men the next time.

When men are severed from their children with no right to obstruct divorce, when they are excluded from the labor market not by market forces but rather by social engineering, and when they learn that the society they once believed in and in some cases joined the military to protect, has no respect for their aspirations, these men have no reason to sustain such a society.

The Contract Between the Sexes : A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out a comfortable existence by working for two months out of the year. The reason that a man might work hard to earn much more than he needs for himself is to attract a wife amidst a competitive field, finance a home and a couple of children, and ultimately achieve status as a pillar of the community. Young men who exhibited high economic potential and favorable compatibility with the social fabric would impress a girl's parents effectively enough to win her hand in marriage. The man would proceed to work very hard, with the fruits of his labor going to the state, the employer, and the family. 80-90% of a man's output went to people other than himself, but he got a family and high status in return, so he was happy with the arrangement.

The Four Sirens changed this, which enabled women to pursue alpha males despite the mathematical improbability of marrying one, while totally ignoring beta males. Beta males who were told to follow a responsible, productive life of conformity found that they were swindled.

This superb article explains how men who excelled under the societal rules of just two decades ago are often left totally betrayed by the rules of today, and results in them refusing to sustain a society heavily dependent on their productivity and ingenuity. Rather than restate the case, go over and read that article, from which I will quote a few sentences.

"The media is now denouncing Sodini as a monster, which he is, but he is a monster that could only be spawned by a monstrous society. The sort of society that could send a hardworking, honest man down the path of insane, murderous rage is not only a society that will not survive, but doesn’t deserve to."

"A man like George Sodini, who listened to his cultural elites and followed their dictates to the letter only to get swindled, had no reason to love America. In fact, he had every reason to lash out at the society that screwed him over and make its denizens feel some of the pain that they had inflicted on him."

"You could stop this madness tomorrow by refusing to follow your vaginas straight into the arms of scumbags, and actually live up to your claims of wanting nice guys – but I doubt you will. You’ve made your bed, ladies – now sleep in it."

Women believed that they could free themselves from all their traditional obligations (only to find, amusingly, that they are unhappier now than they were then), while men would still fulfill all of their traditional obligations, particularly as bankrollers of women and protectors of women. Needless to say, despite the chivalry ground into men, eventually, they will feel that chivalry requires a level of gratitude that is not forthcoming.

To see what happens when the role of the husband and father is devalued, and the state steps in as a replacement, look no further than the African American community. In Detroit, the average home price has fallen from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. The auto industry moved jobs out of Detroit long before 2003, so the decline cannot be attributed to just industrial migration, and cities like Baltimore, Oakland, Cleveland, and Philadelphia are in scarcely better shape. For those who believe that this cannot happen in white communities, have a look at the white underclass in Britain. The lower half of the US white population is vulnerable to the same fate as the black community, and cities like Los Angeles are perilously close to 'Detroitification'.

Additionally, people seem to have forgotten that the physical safety of society, particularly of women, is entirely dependent on ratio of 'aggressor' men to 'protector' men staying below a certain critical threshold. As more men get shut out of the labor market, crime becomes an alternative. Even highly educated men who feel betrayed can lash out, and just about every shooting spree and every recent terrorist attempt in the West was by men who were educated and had good career prospects, but were unloved.

While professional men will certainly never resort to crime, what they could resort to is an unwillingness to aid a damsel in distress. More men will simply lose interest in being rescuers, and this includes policemen who may also feel mistreated by the prevailing misandry. Safety is like air - it is only noticed when it is gone. Women have a tremendous amount to lose by creating a lot of indifferent men.

Patriarchy works because it induces men and women to cooperate under their complementary strengths. 'Feminism' does not work, because it encourages immoral behavior in women, which eventually wears down even the durable chivalry of beta men, making both genders worse off. It is no secret that single motherhood is heavily subsidized, but it is less understood that single spinsterhood is also heavily subsidized through a variety of unsustainable and unreciprocated means. The default natural solution is for the misandric society to be outcompeted and displaced.


Population Displacement : So we have arrived at a society where 'feminists' feel that they are 'empowered', 'independent', and 'confident', despite being heavily dependent on taxes paid mostly by men, an unconstitutional shadow state that extracts alimony and 'child support' from men, an infrastructure maintained by men, technologies invented by men, and a level of safety that men agree to maintain. So exactly what has society received from this population of women who are the most privileged class of humans ever to have lived?


Let us take a hypothetical example of three 20-year-old single women, one who is an urban lefto-'feminist', one who is a rural conservative, and one who is a devout Muslim. The following table charts the parallel timelines of their lives as their ages progress in tandem, with realistic estimates of typical life events. When people talk about falling birth rates in the West, they often fail to account for the additional gap caused by having children at age 23 vs. at age 33. As the table shows, a 1:1:1 ratio of three young ladies takes only 40 years to yield a 12:4:0 ratio of grandchildren. Consider, also, that we are already 20 years into this 40-year process, so each of these women are 40 years old today.

So how do we estimate the value society will ultimately receive from organizing itself in a manner that young women could choose a life of bar-hopping, shopping for $300 purses, and working as government bureaucrats to make the government a more complete husband substitute? If the sight of a pitiful 60-year-old Code Pink harpy lecturing 12 Muslim adolescents that 'gender is a social construct' seems amusing, then let us move on to the macro chart. This world map(click to enlarge) shows how many children under the age of 15 existed in the major countries of the world in 2005 (i.e. born between 1990 and 2005), in proportion to the country with the most children. Notably, Mexico and the US have the same number of children, while Pakistan and Bangladesh each have about as many as all of Western Europe. While developing countries are seeing their fertility rates converge to Western levels, the 1990-2005 births already seal certain realities. Needless to say, if we move time forward just 15 years, the proportions in this chart reflect what the proportions of adults aged 20-35 (the female reproductive years) will be per nation in the year 2025. Even the near future belongs to those who show up.

Lefto-'feminists' will be outbred and replaced very quickly, and rural American conservatives will be the only resiliently youthful population among all the world's white ethnicities. The state that lefto-'feminists' so admire will quickly turn on them once the state calculates that these women are neither producing new taxpayers nor new technologies, and will find a way to demote them from their present 'empowered' position of entitlement. If they thought having obligations to a husband was such an awful prospect, wait until they have obligations to the husband-substitute state.

The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation



We earlier examined how the Four Sirens of Feminism unexpectedly combined and provided women with choices they never could have dreamt of before. Some women made positive contributions to society, but quite a few let misandry and unrestrained greed consume them, and have caused the disastrous situation we presently see. Technology always causes disruption in the status quo, always creating new winners and losers with each wave. In centuries past, Gloria Steinem would be a governess and Mystery would be a court jester.

The title of this article is not the 'Misandry Crisis' or even 'The War on Misandry'. It is 'The Misandry Bubble', because the forces that will ensure the demise of the present mistreatment of men are already on the horizon. So allow me to introduce the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation as a coalesence of many of the forces we have discussed, which will shred the present, unsustainable hierarchal order by 2020 :

1) The Venusian Arts : Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man. Whether he uses it to become a fully immersed pick-up artist, to create a soulmate bond in a lifelong monogamous marriage, or even to engage in only infrequent yet efficient trysts with women, a man is free from the crushing burdens that uninitiated beta men are capitulating under.

When a man learns that there is no reason for him to buy a $50,000 car, $20,000 ring, $50,000 bridezilla festival, overpriced house contrary to any logical financial analysis, or a divorce lawyer to save him from ruin even though he was the victim of spousal abuse, there is no greater feeling of liberation and jubilation, equating to a windfall of $2 Million for all objective and subjective purposes. When a man realizes that reducing his income by half will now have little detriment to his sexual prospects, he can downsize to an easier job with a shorter commute and lower stress. When a man learns that appeasing a woman is the exact opposite of what he should be doing during the process of romancing and seducing her, that entire humiliating gauntlet of rituals can be jettisoned.

The ecstasy of two or even three concurrent relationships with women of substantially above average beauty are quite attainable to a man who has scaled the summit, which further deprives the hapless betas (again, male attractiveness to women is zero-sum in a way that female attractiveness to men is not). Thus, while 80% of men have no intellectual capacity to grasp and master the Venusian Arts, if the number of solid practitioners even begins to approach 20%, multiple parasitic beasts, from female moochers to the tax-swilling state to the corrupt real-estate and divorce lawyer industries, can be effectively starved.

2) Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020 : What of the 80% of men who cannot conceptualize the Venusian Arts? Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, near-slavery, and occasional thoughts of suicide? Thankfully, these poor souls will experience a satisfactory release through technology, just like women did through technologies such as contraceptive pills, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners.

For a number of reasons, Internet pornography is substantially more addictive to the male brain than the VHS cassette or 'Skinimax' content of the 1990s. When yet another generation of technology diffuses into the market, the implications will be profound enough to tear the current sexual market asunder.

I have written in the past about how haptic, motion sensing, and graphical technologies would elevate video games to the premier form of entertainment by 2012. 3-D/holographic images with haptic interfaces and sufficient AI will make rudimentary 'virtual sex' a technology available to many men well before 2020, but by 2020 we will see this cross certain thresholds that lead to a dramatic market impact far greater than contraceptive pills and Internet pornography combined. A substantial portion of the male population will drift into addiction to virtual sex without even realizing it.

For those (mostly women) who claim that the VR sex of 2020 would not be a sufficient substitute for the real thing, that drawback is more than superceded by the inescapable fact that the virtual woman would be made to be a 10/10+ in appearance, while the real women that the typical beta male user has access to would be in the 4-7 range. Real 10 > VR 10 > Real 7, which effectively makes it useless to claim that a virtual 10 is not as good as a real 10 (under 1% of all women), when the virtual 10 is really competing with the majority of women who are 7s and lower. Women are largely unaware how vastly different the male reaction is to a 10 relative to a 7, let alone to women of even lower scores. As single men arrive home from work on Friday evening, they will simply default into their VR immersion, giving a whole new meaning to the concept of 'beta testing'. These sequestered men will be conspicuously absent from the bars and nightclubs that were the former venues of expenditure and frustration, causing many establishments to go out of business. The brains of these men will warp to the extent that they can no longer muster any libido for the majority of real women. This will cause a massive devaluation in the sexual market value of most women, resulting in 8s being treated like 5s, and 35-year-old women unable to attract the interest of even 55-year-old men. The Wile E. Coyote moment for women will move a few years ahead, and the alphas with Venusian Arts competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.

Another technology making advancements in Japan is that of lifelike female robots. While I do not believe that 'sexbots' will be practical or economical relative to software/gaming-derived solutions, the Japanese nonetheless continue to make surprising progress. Competition between technologies is always productive for the consumer.

Some 'feminists' are not blind to the cataclysmic sexual devaluation that women will experience when such technologies reach the market, and are already moving to seek bans. Such bans will not be possible, of course, as VR sex technologies are inseparable from broader video game and home theater technologies. Their attempts to lobby for such bans will be instructive, however.

Another positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute - the capacity to make a man feel loved. Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage. This necessity could lead to a movement of pragmatic women conducting a wholesale repudiation of misandry masquerading as 'feminism' that has created this state of affairs, and thus will be the jolt that benefits both men and women.

3) Globalization : The Third Horseman is a vast subject that contains many subtopics. The common theme is that market forces across the world eventually find a way around legislative fences constructed in any one country :

a) Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the War on Terror will be indirect yet valuable allies in the 'War on Misandry'.

b) Expatriation : While America continues to attract the greatest merit and volume of (legal) immigrants, almost every American man who relocates to Asia or Latin America gives a glowing testimonial about the quality of his new life. A man who leaves to a more male-friendly country and marries a local woman is effectively cutting off a total of three parasites in the US - the state that received his taxes, the potential wife who would take his livelihood, and the industries he is required to spend money on (wedding, diamond, real estate, divorce attorney). Furthermore, this action also shrinks the number of available men remaining in America. The misandrists who project their pathology outward by calling such men 'misogynists' are curiously troubled that these same men are leaving the US. Shouldn't 'feminists' be happy if 'misogynists' are leaving? We thus see yet another example of 'feminists' seeking to steal from men while not providing them any benefit in return.

The more unfair a place becomes, the more we see talented people go elsewhere. When word of US divorce laws becomes common in India and China, this might even deter some future taxpayers from immigrating to America, which is yet another reason the government is losing money to misandry.


c) Medical Tourism : The sum total of donor eggs + IVF + surrogacy costs $150,000 or more in the US, but can be done in India for just $20,000 at top-quality clinics that are building a strong track record. While most customers of Indian fertility clinics are couples, there have been quite a few single men opting to create their own biological babies this way. While this avenue is not for everyone, the ability to have a child for $20,000 (and even two children in parallel with two different surrogates in a two-for-one bundle deal for $35,000) now exists. The poor surrogate mother in India earns more than she could earn in 10 years in her prior vocation of construction or housecleaning. It is a win-win for everyone involved, except for the Western woman who was priced out of the market for marriage to this man.

Medical tourism also prices the US healthcare system out of contention for certain procedures, and the US healthcare system employs a large number of women, particularly in administrative and bureaucratic roles that pay them over twice what they could make in the private sector. Such women will experience what male manufacturing workers did a generation earlier, despite the increasinglly expensive government bubble that has kept these women's inflated salaries safe for so long.

So as we can see, the forces of globalization are far bigger than those propping up the current lop-sided status quo.

4) Male Economic Disengagement and Resultant Tax-Base Erosion : Earlier passages have highlighted how even the most stridently egomaniacal 'feminist' is heavily dependent on male endeavors. I will repeat again that there will never, ever be a successful human society where men have no incentive to aspire to the full maximum of their productive and entrepreneurial capabilities.

The contract between the sexes has been broken in urban America (although is still in some effect in rural America). The 'progressive' income tax scale in the US was levied under the assumption that men who could earn 10 times more than they needed for themselves would always do so, for their families. A man with no such familial aspirations may choose an easier job at lower pay, costing the state more than he costs himself. Less tax revenue not just means fewer subsidies for single mothers and government jobs for women, but less money for law enforcement. Less tax revenue also means fewer police officers, and fewer court resources through which to imprison men. The 'feminist' hypergamous utopia is not self-financing, but is precariously dependent on every beta man working at his full capacity, without which the government bubble, inseparable from the misandry bubble, collapses. Misandry is thus mathematically impossible to finance for any extended period of time. A state with a small government is far more sustainable than a state seeking an ever-expanding government, which then cannot be financed, and descends into a mass of contradictions that is the exact opposite of what the statists intended. See the gangster capitalism that dominates contemporary Russia.

These Four Horsemen will all converge at the end of this decade to transfer the costs of misandry from men onto women, and on 1/1/2020, we will assess how the misandry bubble popped and the fallout that women are suffering under for having made the mistake of letting 'feminists' control their destiny. Note that I did not list the emergence of any Men's Rights Movement as one of the Four Horsemen, as this is unlikely to happen for aforementioned reasons.

For those who dispute the Four Horsemen (I'd like to see their track record of predictions to compare against my own), women had their Four Sirens, and now it is men's turn to have theirs. Keep the Four Horsemen in mind throughout this decade, and remember what you read here on the first day of 2010.

Who Should Care?

As we leave a decade where the prime threat to US safety and prosperity was Islamic terrorism and enter a decade where the prime threat is misandry, anyone concerned with any of the following topics should take heed :

•Anyone with a son, brother, nephew, or mentee entering marriage, particularly without the partial protection of a pre-nuptial agreement. As described earlier, he can be ruined, separated from his children, and jailed in a manner few would suspect could happen in any advanced democracy. The suicide rate of divorced men is shockingly high.
•Anyone who agrees that a civilization where most adults are part of two-parent families will always outcompete and displace a civilization where a large portion of adults are not leading two-parent families.
•Anyone with minor grandchildren, nieces and nephews, or great-grandchildren. The divorce laws incentivize using children as pawns during divorce, and no serious thinker can dispute the trouble that haunts the children of divorce for years thereafter. 'Feminists' concoct bogus research about the role of the father being superfluous, but observation of real-world examples proves otherwise.
•Anyone who owns an expensive home in a community of families. The growing aversion of men for marriage will create fewer new families, and thus fewer buyers for those homes. I remind everyone that if they have 20% equity in their home and an 80% mortgage, even a 20% decline in home prices is a 100% decline in your equity, which might be all of your net worth. Detroit, the first major US city to see a loss of beta male employment prospects, saw the average home price drop from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. A decline smaller than this would devastate the net worth of remaining home owners, and can happen in any community of single-family homes. If you own a home, your net worth is inseparably tied to the formation and preservation of two-parent families.
•Anyone concerned about rising crime. 70% of African American children are born to single mothers, and the number among white children is approaching 30%. Furthermore, the 'mancession' will eventually ensure that the only means of survival for many men is to form gangs and take valuables by force. Unloved men, who in the past would have been paired with wives, are easy for both gangs and terrorist organizations to recruit.
•Anyone concerned about the widening federal and state budget shortfalls and medicare/healthcare costs, for which the state continues to insist on raising taxes rather than cut spending. Fewer men choosing to work the long hours needed to earn high incomes will break the model of the top 10% paying 75% of taxes, and more men being jailed for alimony arrears, not being good enough in bed, or defending himself from spousal violence will drain tax coffers. It costs $60,000 a year to maintain a prisoner.
•Anyone who thinks the US Constitution is a valuable document. 'Innocent until proven guilty' does not apply in many areas of feminist-heavy law. The previously discussed shadow state is using 'feminism' to conduct all sorts of horrible tyranny against innocent men, which greatly compromises America's ability to claim that it is still the land of the free.
•Anyone concerned about national security. As more men feel that this society is betraying him, fewer will risk their lives in the military only to find that divorce lawyers have been persuading his wife to leave the marriage while he is deployed. Coming home from one battlefield only to be inserted in another is a shameful betrayal of our finest young men. Furthermore, I have already mentioned how British men are turning to Islamic courts in the hopes avoiding ruin at the hands of British misandrist laws. Quite a few men may conclude that Islam offers them more than their native society that has turned against their gender, and will act towards self-preservation.
•Any woman who was appalled by the treatment of Sarah Palin, and who is troubled by the words and actions of self-proclaimed 'feminists' today. If you believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you should worry about what 'feminists' are courting by kicking a friendly dog too many times.
•Lastly, anyone with a young daughter or sister, who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry, where the costs of crazed 'feminism' are soon going to be transferred away from men and onto women, even if she had no interest in this doctrine of hate. As stated in the Executive Summary at the start, 'feminists' are leading average women into the abyss.

I could list even more reasons to care, but the point is clear. The biggest challenge of the decade is summarized before us.

Conclusion



I am just an observer, and will not become an activist of any sort, although, as described earlier, being an 'inactivist' in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi is also powerful. As a Futurist, I have to predict things before they become obvious to everyone else. Regular readers know of my track records of predictions being accurate, and heed my words when I say that the further inflation and subsequent precipitous deflation of the misandry bubble will define the next American decade. So here, on the first day of the '201x' decade, I am unveiling the article that will spawn a thousand other articles.

As mentioned at the top, what you have just finished reading is the equivalent of someone in 1997 predicting the entire War on Terror in vivid detail, including the eventual victory in key fronts and situation in 2010 where America is sufficiently in control that the War on Terror is no longer nearly the threat it was during the recently concluded decade. The level of detail I have provided about the collapse of the Misandry Bubble will unfold with comparable accuracy as when I predicted the real estate bubble two years beforehand, and the exact level the stock market would bottom at, 6 months before the fact. I know a bubble when I see one, and misandry will be the, um, 'mother' of all bubbles. Bet against my predictions at your own risk.

I have maintained that the US will still be the only superpower in 2030, and while I am not willing to rescind that prediction, I will introduce a caveat that US vitality by 2030 is contingent on a satisfactory and orderly unwinding of the Misandry Bubble. It remains to be seen which society can create economic prosperity while still making sure both genders are treated well, and the US is currently not on the right path in this regard. While I had no doubt that the US would eventually gain the upper hand in the seemingly unwinnable War on Terror, I am less confident about a smooth deflation of the Misandry Bubble. Deflate it will, but it could be a turbulent hurricane. Only rural America can guide the rest of the nation into a more peaceful transition. Britain, however, may be beyond rescue.

I personally am an Indian-American, and have lived in India for a few years. My exposure to India helped me see an alternative view, however flawed, of ancient societal structure, which made it easier to deduce exactly what is ailing America. If my views on gender dynamics are unwelcome in the country of my birth (the US), and if the costs of misandry asphyxiate the US economy to the extent that India is a greener pasture, I will leave my homeland and immigrate to India, where a freedom of speech exists that may no longer exist in America. Remarkably, the reverse was true just 20 years ago. For those misandrists who say 'good riddance' with great haste, remember that blogging can still be done from overseas, and your policy of making the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes that your utopia requires depends on that top 1% agreeing to not take their brains and abscond from Western shores.

I want to extend my thanks to Instapundit, Dr. Helen, Kim du Toit, The Spearhead, and many others for their support of this article.


http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

Alfadur
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 03:55 PM
Feminism has been probably one of the most debated subjects on Skadi. So I think it deserves its own topic, instead of derailing a dozen other topics. The thing is, this thread is for the women here.

What do you think of the ''women's liberation'' and ''gender equality'' concepts? What about women having a career? What's your opinion on feminism in general, and even if you dislike it, do you think they make any valid points?

As a male nationalist, I obviously despise the whole feminist movement (and I think it's negatively impacted the birthrates in Germanic countries). And I'm sure almost all of the guys on Skadi think the same as me.
That's why this is a thread for the ladies, so I can see their opinions too (and if they differ from the male ones). The guys here are welcome to add one or two comments later on, but if there's more male posts than female, I'll have the mods close the thread.

Goomer
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 04:05 PM
Feminism has been probably one of the most debated subjects on Skadi. So I think it deserves its own topic, instead of derailing a dozen other topics. The thing is, this thread is for the women here.

What do you think of the ''women's liberation'' and ''gender equality'' concepts? What about women having a career? What's your opinion on feminism in general, and even if you dislike it, do you think they make any valid points?

As a male nationalist, I obviously despise the whole feminist movement (and I think it's negatively impacted the birthrates in Germanic countries). And I'm sure almost all of the guys on Skadi think the same as me.
That's why this is a thread for the ladies, so I can see their opinions too (and if they differ from the male ones). The guys here are welcome to add one or two comments later on, but if there's more male posts than female, I'll have the mods close the thread.

I will add my two cents after a few of the European, Canadian, or Aussie ladies have posted first.

My suspicions are that the American women in here may be a little different overall in their viewpoints....that's why I'm shutting the heck up for now:)

hyidi
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 04:07 PM
As a male nationalist, I obviously despise the whole feminist movement (and I think it's negatively impacted the birthrates in Germanic countries). Like wise! I do not support feminist

My IMHHO, I do feel that the Feminism movement had made western European men (feel) weak(er) The conclusions is that western European men will not stand up for there country / land and women!

Put western men and culture next to Islam men/culture and Asian men/culture and you see great differences!

Asian men/Islam men will fight for there land and women; these days Western European men don't! My conclusion is that the feminists killed the western European mans spirit of being real men!

A European man feels he is no longer needed,so he has given up! our women need to support our men like how other women support there man kind!

hyidi
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 04:10 PM
My suspicions are that the American women in here may be a little different overall in their viewpoints....that's why I'm shutting the heck up for nowYou're so cute groomer girl! lol

American ladies are aloud to voice there opinions too!

Germaid
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 05:11 PM
Difficult to answer. It depends on your definition of feminism. I often read posts by men here saying it's one of the roots for our demise. Unfortunately they don't give any details what they regard as bad feminism. So I'm really interested in a male definition of feminism as a basis for further discussion.

For me there are two forms of feminism:

1. Good feminism

I grew up in a rural region where the classic male and female roles were (and still are) dominating. Therefore the classic roles - man as breadwinner and women as housewife and mother - are normality to me. I mean it's pretty obvious, these classic roles are given by nature: women have children and men - who are usually stronger and more robust - are there to protect their family and to make sure they survive. Well, this is how it used to be. As we no longer live in caves and find ourselves in much better circumstances today, the roles have changed, it's necessary to adapt to new environments. Signs of good feminism for me are:

- equal rights: education, vote, work without your husband's permission etc.
- a tolerable degree of independence: many marriages don't last forever, so I think it's good when women don't give up their jobs completely and also have their own money.

All in all nothing too fancy. I just don't want women to be oppressed, I prefer two equal persons more or less on par with each other. This cannot be wrong?

2. Bad feminism

- women acting like men (disgusting)
- masculine women (often lesbians)
- women refusing to have children (career ladies)
- women thinking they can boss their partners around
- ridiculous male behaviour (getting drunk in public...)
- women who want equal rights but refuse equal duties
- hardcore-feminists like Alice Schwarzer in Germany. In her dreamland all men are castrated douchebags catering to every whim of their women and bowing down in obedience (idiotic).
- WORST OF ALL: feminized men who think this is normal and have lost their natural authority long ago


So, what are your thoughts?

EQ Fighter
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 05:37 PM
Difficult to answer. It depends on your definition of feminism. I often read posts by men here saying it's one of the roots for our demise. Unfortunately they don't give any details what they regard as bad feminism. So I'm really interested in a male definition of feminism as a basis for further discussion.



The Closest I could come to a Definition is Female Bolshevism. Or maybe Female Collectivism. I have heard them referred to as the "Femborg" lol which would be taken from Star Trek.

Anyway you get the idea.

This was lead here in the US by such individuals as Betty Goldstein otherwise known as Betty Friedan, who has been admitted to be a Communist Sympathizer and who her own husband admitted that most of her books were political lies.

1) women have always had jobs in societies, except for a brief period here in the US in the 1950's post WW2 when the man could earn enough money to support a full time wife. Thanks to Leftist BS movements in the 1960's that was pretty much destroyed and led us to where we are today.


"Good Feminism" I would say ended in 1900's when it was at that time connected to the Male Workers movements. Past that it became a tool of manipulation by powered elites.

My Opinion is women should ditch the term "Feminism" entirely and distance themselves form the skags connected to the left, because I assure you "Rights" is no the direction they are headed.

As far as Pay Rates and so forth.
I would say that Fair Pay, and such I would agree that women have financial rights and so forth, that has never been my problem with them.

Alfadur
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 06:52 PM
Thank you for the good replies. Please, keep them coming.

I'm an anti-feminist myself, but I do believe women should be able to work and have equal pay with men. It's the aforementioned Judeo-feminism that I really hate, because it has turned women against men.

Akasha
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Difficult to answer. It depends on your definition of feminism. I often read posts by men here saying it's one of the roots for our demise. Unfortunately they don't give any details what they regard as bad feminism. So I'm really interested in a male definition of feminism as a basis for further discussion.

For me there are two forms of feminism:

1. Good feminism

I grew up in a rural region where the classic male and female roles were (and still are) dominating. Therefore the classic roles - man as breadwinner and women as housewife and mother - are normality to me. I mean it's pretty obvious, these classic roles are given by nature: women have children and men - who are usually stronger and more robust - are there to protect their family and to make sure they survive. Well, this is how it used to be. As we no longer live in caves and find ourselves in much better circumstances today, the roles have changed, it's necessary to adapt to new environments.

Signs of good feminism for me are:
- equal rights: education, vote, work without your husband's permission etc.
- a tolerable degree of independence: many marriages don't last forever, so I think it's good when women don't give up their jobs completely and also have their own money.

All in all nothing too fancy. I just don't want women to be oppressed, I prefer two equal persons more or less on par with each other. This cannot be wrong?

2. Bad feminism

- women acting like men (disgusting)
- masculine women (often lesbians)
- women refusing to have children (career ladies)
- women thinking they can boss their partners around
- ridiculous male behaviour (getting drunk in public...)
- women who want equal rights but refuse equal duties
- hardcore-feminists like Alice Schwarzer in Germany. In her dreamland all men are castrated douchebags catering to every whim of their women and bowing down in obedience (idiotic).
- WORST OF ALL: feminized men who think this is normal and have lost their natural authority long ago


So, what are your thoughts?

OK.. all the points in your "Good feminism" section sounds nice, but i just have to point out that sexual orientation has nothing to do with feminism. Furthermore, does not working women’s refuse to have children, but most often have a goal in their life and choose not to because our society is built that way.

We are NOT just cows that bring life to this world, we have other interest also.

What we all should try to achieve is some sort of harmony where it’s ok to be different and not expected to do all that is considered traditionally.

Extremism is never good regardless of what direction it takes.

To be strong, or proud of what I am has nothing to too with the feminism our society suffer from.

Lady Vengeance
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 08:50 PM
Hmmm...it does say Feminazi on my profile, even though it's semi-sarcastic (and no, I don't hate all men - I'm even dating one! :P).
I actually believe in total gender equality, and have been called "a feminist" before on this forum. And I'll stand for that. FYI, I'm not even using the term ''feminism'' to describe the lefty political movement, but the rise of powerful women through what was a meritocratic society. If I decide to have a career, I don't expect to be mollycoddled by anyone, but no one's got the right to stop me either (go ahead and try! ;)). And yeah, I'll accept that a real meritocracy would have more men in political power than women. That's just nature, I suppose.

Meh...the whole meritocratic ideal has gone to shit. Most women (and men) are like spoiled kiddies in our ultra-materialist culture. Yelling and wearing stupid slogans, instead of doing anything of value.



We are NOT just cows that bring life to this world, we have other interest also.
Leave that attitude to the MENA Morons and assorted woman-hating Muslims. Our men are better than that.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 09:18 PM
We are NOT just cows that bring life to this world, we have other interest also.

This is abundantly clear from our birthrates, and I believe our destruction as a people stems directly from the fact that so many women have been indoctrinated to think in this way (yes, this mantra gets repeated by almost every western woman in one way or another. I've heard it a million times.)


Extremism is never good regardless of what direction it takes.

Who is to judge what is extremism in an indoctrinated society? We live in an extremist society... I consider it an extreme view to have become brainwashed into societal self-destruction. Feminism is the cancer that is doing this to us.

I really don't give a damn about sucking up to women in order to get them to sleep with me, so I'll tell it straight right now. If one is a feminist, one is the antithesis of being a Germanic Preservationist. Feminism is the death of us. You think you were brainwashed by your families into being "breeding machines" or "chattel" before? Well now you are brainwashed by the enemy into causing the Germanic people to die out. I couldn't care less about feminist women... in my eyes you are traitors, whether you realize it or not, and the sooner you wake up to the fact and address it in a positive manner, the better.

feisty goddess
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 10:18 PM
Well the reason men wanted to prevent women from getting any power in society was for this very reason. Women are capable of holding jobs and being as independant as men, but when this happens it does upset the balance of things and can destroy a group of people. The thing that Germanic preservationists have to understand is that there are some primitive aspects of collectivism that we should move beyond and some that are helpful to our individual well being.

We as humans are wired to be collectivists, it's just the way it is, but because of superflous intelligence in comparison to other species, we have separated ourselves from our natural groups that make us live fuller, happier, and more successful lives. This is where Ayn Rand got things wrong, she claimed that a racial group claiming superiority were simply evil collectivists, and this is wrong. She simply didn't understand eugenics. Back then peoples beliefs were very crude and one sided because they didn't have science, but now people have gone into the opposite direction and lost touch with reality.

We need the group for some things, human beings need emotional support and if we didn't have fundamental differences in the way the races think then why would there be racism/segregation? Ayn Rand claimed that racism was just a product of collectivism, but come on, does she really believe that blacks are biologically/genetically as capable as being intelligent as whites and asians? While I believe most collectivism is herd mentality and something that should be done away with, I think some is not and is vital for people to be happy and productive because human beings are naturally wired with certain collective needs, like being with people of their own ethnicity.

I actually believe that the racial and gender equality we have now is simply reverse collectivism. Anytime you have collectivism, you will never be able to get rid of it completely because there will always be people trying to survive and make up for it, so it will be collective group vs. collective group. In culturally homogenous countries there is less collectivism because you have people who are similar and there aren't as many groups trying to defeat each other to survive and there is more room for the individual.

Unfortunately this is what modern feminism is, reverse collectivism and in some countries such as France, really a lot like slavery. When you make men and women compete for each other, the results are devastating, and we have a depressing color and gender blind society with a dying birthrate even more "collectivist" and anti-individualist than when things started.

Feminism served it's purpose in getting rid of petty unnecessary sexism but it's totally gone too far and has turned things upside down and I'm talking about for the individual, not for the collective group. It has done things to the group that effect the individual. It is better for society to progress at its own rate even if it means it is a little more primitive for longer because pushing for big changes right away just leads to extreme imbalance later on.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, July 8th, 2011, 11:34 PM
Hmmm...it does say Feminazi on my profile, even though it's semi-sarcastic (and no, I don't hate all men - I'm even dating one! :P).
I actually believe in total gender equality, and have been called "a feminist" before on this forum. And I'll stand for that. FYI, I'm not even using the term ''feminism'' to describe the lefty political movement, but the rise of powerful women through what was a meritocratic society. If I decide to have a career, I don't expect to be mollycoddled by anyone, but no one's got the right to stop me either (go ahead and try! ;)). And yeah, I'll accept that a real meritocracy would have more men in political power than women. That's just nature, I suppose.

Well, while I do like the ideal of a meritocracy, and admire your spunk, it must be argued that it would be best for our people if those with merit and spunk would reproduce. And for a woman, reproduction is, shall we say, a more involved undertaking than it is for a man. And it is essential. I was just thinking of Hanna Reitsch and Amelia Earhardt.. two attractive and courageous women of merit... whose courage and merit (and good Germanic genes) died with them. What a tragedy!

We must not allow feminism to exclude reproduction in our society. We must not allow feminism to cause women to delay their childbearing until they are 40, either. This is killing us as a people.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 12:38 AM
We as humans are wired to be collectivists, it's just the way it is, but because of superflous intelligence in comparison to other species, we have separated ourselves from our natural groups that make us live fuller, happier, and more successful lives. This is where Ayn Rand got things wrong, she claimed that a racial group claiming superiority were simply evil collectivists, and this is wrong. She simply didn't understand eugenics. Back then peoples beliefs were very crude and one sided because they didn't have science, but now people have gone into the opposite direction and lost touch with reality.

I would say that in the late 1800's and through the 1900's during a time that everything was made by hand, the only way to achieve any form of prosperity was by collectivism. And it is also true that women and also children really were a cheap form of slave labor.

Rand was right in the since that she did not see “Femininity” as a source of weakness, more she did not see “Masculinity” as a form of violence, but as a source of constructive Heroism. She would probably say that woman build culture and men build infrastructure in a society. Without those two elements you cant have a functional society.

As far as “Womens Liberation goes” It is less a function of Feminist Politicians, than it is the simple fact that toward the end of the century technology changed the peoples work habits, and opened up new opportunity for women that had not existed before. Which I will point out was invented by men.

The real problem with Feminism is it views “Masculinity” entirely in the form of the negative, or as the “Warrior” as opposed to the “Builder”. IE Destructive Masculinity vs Constructive Masculinity.

When women get over the Violence thing then they can really love and appreciate guys for what they are, and what they should be.

So in essence if men build the building that society lives in, then women should build the Culture which will reside inside. Without both you have a dead society.

Which leads us to the next point.


Well the reason men wanted to prevent women from getting any power in society was for this very reason. Women are capable of holding jobs and being as independant as men, but when this happens it does upset the balance of things and can destroy a group of people. The thing that Germanic preservationists have to understand is that there are some primitive aspects of collectivism that we should move beyond and some that are helpful to our individual well being.

I sort of disagree here on this point.

because what a woman is paid for a job or what she has as an individual does not limit MY Personal Freedom. It is only when she turns this into a weapon that there is a problem. IE feminism.

So in fact a women can have power without being an aggressor, against men or destroying her family or society. One might make the case that this is the woman with the real power as opposed to the sort of dyke type Feminist who try and place herself in mens roles.

I would say white culture is dying because white women or the ones that are most vocal have abandoned it. White men on the other hand have continued to build infrastructure that is increasingly being taken over by nonwhites.

At this point though I would say that we are seeing non white men begins to take over that infrastructure and use it to their own ends. At this point it will no longer be a white culture but it will be a foreign culture using the structure of whites for their own purposes.

hyidi
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 12:53 AM
It does have everything to do with women being in power that is destroying our cultures and peoples!

Look at the Islam community! There men are the bosses and women are second but look how enrich in culture they are and look at there births rates of Muslim women!

Western society use to be run like Islam in the late 1800's and early 1900's (men were the bosses,women are home makers that produced more than 7 kids) and as a race of humans we were the most powerful,now we are weaker than Asians and Islam/Muslims!

My personally experiences,what is so attractive bossing you're man around? As a women I love being told what to do by my man (if I had one)

I cringe when my mum bosses my father around,it is not normal and caused by this feminist crap!

Northern Paladin
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 01:47 AM
For women feminism is a liberation men can not budge for over a centry it will be the end of civilization it has destroyed.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 02:09 AM
It does have everything to do with women being in power that is destroying our cultures and peoples!

Look at the Islam community! There men are the bosses and women are second but look how enrich in culture they are and look at there births rates of Muslim women!

Western society use to be run like Islam in the late 1800's and early 1900's (men were the bosses,women are home makers that produced more than 7 kids) and as a race of humans we were the most powerful,now we are weaker than Asians and Islam/Muslims!

My personally experiences,what is so attractive bossing you're man around? As a women I love being told what to do by my man (if I had one)

I cringe when my mum bosses my father around,it is not normal and caused by this feminist crap!


Well I don't think women should boss men around. I also don't think men should try and rule over women with an Iron Fist.

As far as prosperity goes I think womens prosperity is tied to the productivity of men, because the physical product of the world is tied to the productivity of men. Women who understand this have a good family and and wealthy environments for their children.

I see it here in Texas as both trailer trash white women and Africans devoice their husbands simply to get on welfare. They move themselves to the bottom of the income scale, where Mexican Women stay married, have working husbands, $40,000 HUV's, and $100,000 houses.

What is even more striking is most of the dress nice and look classy, where as you have white trailer trash culture which is pretty much the product of culture war. The women wear sweat pants, and the men are living in a camper in the back yard.

The problem I have with Feminist women is not only that they have NO respect for men, they also have no respect for themselves as women ether.

I'm not saying that a women has to be a super model, but that she be a confident and respectful individual. Feminist are in a word Slobs, who hate men, hate themselves, and do not want to take responsibility for their lives, or anyone else's.

This is an a fact of what socialism teaches, as gospel truth, and a major part of their ideology.

I will say that is seems that many Scandinavian women have a major problem getting past their own ego, and have a major problem issuing any sort of love, respect to her husband's Ego. Which is unfortunately necessary for a relationship. The problem is it seems these women want to rest on laurels, [such as beauty] and claim "Oppression" anytime they are called to task.

Anytime the suggestion that they have responsibilities to a husband or kids, the response is a stupid response such as " I am not my Husbands servant" or "Down with the Patriarchy" Bla! Bla! Insert stupid feminist canned remark here. Granted this does not apply to all of them.

I think Western Civilization had way more potential than Islamic Society, had we in the 1960's rationally dealt with some of these issues.

I still think the Germanic Society has more potential than Islamic Society, but granted it will be a far harder struggle than is would have been then.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 02:16 AM
For women feminism is a liberation men can not budge for over a century it will be the end of civilization it has destroyed.

Feminism is made possible by men. Without stupid men, feminism would have crashed and burned on takeoff.

And yes the new Islamic society will put an end to it. And they will inherit the Infrastructure that was intended for white children. Who by that time will be living as second class citizens.

hyidi
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 02:27 AM
Feminism is made possible by men. Without stupid men, feminism would have crashed and burned on takeoff.

Actually it was the women by holding up signs and demanding that women should be allowed to vote,women should able to work ect.... The average man (at that time) try-ed to stop this!

I am all for women doing a man's job providing men can give birth and raised children! But men can not reproduce by carrying young in the womb! It's as simple as that!

The western society ,we are now back-wards!

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 02:38 AM
Actually it was the women by holding up signs and demanding that women should be allowed to vote,women should able to work ect.... The average man (at that time) try-ed to stop this!

I am all for women doing a man's job providing men can give birth and raised children! But men can not reproduce by carrying young in the womb! It's as simple as that!

The western society ,we are now back-wards!

I think the key word is "Average Man"
That pretty much excludes the Elites who make policy in countries.

It was these same idiots and their wives that invited the Multicultural Policy in.

Yes Western society is Backwards, and massively screwed up.

feisty goddess
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 03:12 AM
I sort of disagree here on this point.

because what a woman is paid for a job or what she has as an individual does not limit MY Personal Freedom. It is only when she turns this into a weapon that there is a problem. IE feminism.

So in fact a women can have power without being an aggressor, against men or destroying her family or society. One might make the case that this is the woman with the real power as opposed to the sort of dyke type Feminist who try and place herself in mens roles.

I would say white culture is dying because white women or the ones that are most vocal have abandoned it. White men on the other hand have continued to build infrastructure that is increasingly being taken over by nonwhites.

At this point though I would say that we are seeing non white men begins to take over that infrastructure and use it to their own ends. At this point it will no longer be a white culture but it will be a foreign culture using the structure of whites for their own purposes.

You misunderstood me. I was saying that women competing against men can destroy a group or culture and that the men understand this instinctually and try to prevent it, sometimes in irrational or primitive ways. This is the bad collectivism. It's almost kind of like homophobia in a sense (they are afraid homosexuality will come into the group and corrupt it, so they do everything they can irrational or not to keep it away).

When the men and women from the same culture compete against each other it heightens the standards women have for men and there aren't as many babies produced, it's just as simple as that. Without women promoting the culture we have the color blindness and all that.

It's a bit hard to articulate, but my point was that we're collective creatures gifted with superflous intelligence so there is a point where the individualism has to stop, but it is in our nature to seek it out. So if you have bad irrational collectivism that stimulates this anti-social instinct in people, then you will have destruction of the group, which ultimately comes back to the individual, you. So there will be more loss of Germanic culture and influence, which limits the happiness of the Germanic individual if the women and men of that group are continually turned against each other through feminism. So in a sense, irrationality is the source of the problem both with the feminists and the misogynists.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 04:00 AM
You misunderstood me. I was saying that women competing against men can destroy a group or culture and that the men understand this instinctually and try to prevent it, sometimes in irrational or primitive ways. This is the bad collectivism. It's almost kind of like homophobia in a sense (they are afraid homosexuality will come into the group and corrupt it, so they do everything they can irrational or not to keep it away).

When the men and women from the same culture compete against each other it heightens the standards women have for men and there aren't as many babies produced, it's just as simple as that. Without women promoting the culture we have the color blindness and all that.

It's a bit hard to articulate, but my point was that we're collective creatures gifted with superflous intelligence so there is a point where the individualism has to stop, but it is in our nature to seek it out. So if you have bad irrational collectivism that stimulates this anti-social instinct in people, then you will have destruction of the group, which ultimately comes back to the individual, you. So there will be more loss of Germanic culture and influence, which limits the happiness of the Germanic individual if the women and men of that group are continually turned against each other through feminism. So in a sense, irrationality is the source of the problem both with the feminists and the misogynists.

Ok sorry!
I think I see your point.
Yes I can see how Irrational Collectivism could destroy a civilization.

So Yes I agree, if the entire system is affected then the individuals are likewise affected.

I think that is where people who are objective are necessary.
I think if we had more people who agreed to that then we would have a more coherent and society. :thumbup

Ælfrun
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 04:07 AM
I loathe feminism. Feminists have ruined everything about Germanic culture. Because of those radical feminists, women wanting equal status of men has made my life miserable. I am expected to work like a man, I am expected to go to war, I am expected to do labor intensive jobs that I am not suited for. This also has a negative affect on our children. We are losing our culture because people are bringing in nannies to raise their children which are not teaching our children our ways.

To top everything off, I am still expected to hold domestic duties. I cannot just stay home and raise my children and keep to the house. Chivalry is also gone for the most part and gender roles have been reversed if not destroyed. Life was so much simpler before the radical feminists.

feisty goddess
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 04:38 AM
I loathe feminism. Feminists have ruined everything about Germanic culture. Because of those radical feminists, women wanting equal status of men has made my life miserable. I am expected to work like a man, I am expected to go to war, I am expected to do labor intensive jobs that I am not suited for. This also has a negative affect on our children. We are losing our culture because people are bringing in nannies to raise their children which are not teaching our children our ways.

To top everything off, I am still expected to hold domestic duties. I cannot just stay home and raise my children and keep to the house. Chivalry is also gone for the most part and gender roles have been reversed if not destroyed. Life was so much simpler before the radical feminists.

I just wish that it was socially acceptable to stay in the comfort of my home and have children from a young age but also be able to pursue what I want on the side without being discriminated against. I wish it was ok not to be interested in the same things men are. If you don't work and have a lot of kids you're labeled as a worthless birthing machine. People who have very good incomes but are not rich are expected to either adopt children from other countries or give it away to charity or the government. Having only your own children is considered greedy and worthless.

Goomer
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 04:59 AM
I just wish that it was socially acceptable to stay in the comfort of my home and have children from a young age but also be able to pursue what I want on the side without being discriminated against. I wish it was ok not to be interested in the same things men are. If you don't work and have a lot of kids you're labeled as a worthless birthing machine. People who have very good incomes but are not rich are expected to either adopt children from other countries or give it away to charity or the government. Having only your own children is considered greedy and worthless.

Er, I guess you haven't heard of the Duggars? They have 20 or so of their own children. They're American....and quite famous now.

feisty goddess
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 05:11 AM
Er, I guess you haven't heard of the Duggars? They have 20 or so of their own children. They're American....and quite famous now.


Well I didn't mean I would want to have that many, but if you have more than two you're usually looked down upon, what do you think of that? What does being famous have to do with what I'm talking about? You know just because an octomom is famous doesn't mean that society approves of stay at home moms and traditional nuclear families. And when I say "young" I don't mean a teenager.

You liberals have to come up with the most ridiculous diversions to a topic to hide your stupidity.

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 05:24 AM
I just wish that it was socially acceptable to stay in the comfort of my home and have children from a young age but also be able to pursue what I want on the side without being discriminated against. I wish it was ok not to be interested in the same things men are. If you don't work and have a lot of kids you're labeled as a worthless birthing machine. People who have very good incomes but are not rich are expected to either adopt children from other countries or give it away to charity or the government. Having only your own children is considered greedy and worthless.

Yeah, but consider the source.. the people who think this way are either the enemy or are brainwashed by the enemy. Do what you know is right for yourself and your posterity and to hell with those jerks.. tell them you are happy and when you are dead your children will survive you and when they are dead there will be nothing left of them but a bunch of extra plastic crap made in China they have used as an illusion of actually having lives. Actually feel sorry for them, because when they are 80 and have to go live in a home, no one will care.. no one will be there.. and some negro nurse will probably put a pillow over their faces one night and that will be the end of their family... forever. Pretty sad, these brainwashed ones.

Goomer
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 06:09 AM
Well I didn't mean I would want to have that many, but if you have more than two you're usually looked down upon, what do you think of that? What does being famous have to do with what I'm talking about? You know just because an octomom is famous doesn't mean that society approves of stay at home moms and traditional nuclear families. And when I say "young" I don't mean a teenager.

You liberals have to come up with the most ridiculous diversions to a topic to hide your stupidity.

So, resorting to insults is supposed to elevate your *superior* status as a *non-liberal?*

I think not. It just makes you look rude and uncouth. I certainly was not insulting you in any way.....and therefore find your retort somewhat uncalled for.

The Duggar's generally have positive approval from the public at large, and this is why I brought them up...even if they are an extreme case of the definition *large family*

Goomer
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 06:14 AM
There are a fair number of European ladies on Skadi....it surprises me not to have seen any of them (there is one lady who has replied).

I do believe my own stance on feminism is going to be a little different in part due to my own generation being only one generation removed from the original feminists of the 1960s. But, am waiting for more replies....particularly from the ladies of NW Europe.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 06:15 AM
I just wish that it was socially acceptable to stay in the comfort of my home and have children from a young age but also be able to pursue what I want on the side without being discriminated against. I wish it was ok not to be interested in the same things men are. If you don't work and have a lot of kids you're labeled as a worthless birthing machine. People who have very good incomes but are not rich are expected to either adopt children from other countries or give it away to charity or the government. Having only your own children is considered greedy and worthless.

You know there is no reason that with the way computer technology is progressing that you could not have a sort of cottage industry at home and be able to take care of Kids as well.

Maybe some sort of Ebay Business or what have you.
You see more and more women these days doing that sort of thing.

Women before the industrial Revelation always had cottage industry that is where the term came from.

And If I were you I would ignore what others think, because it is what YOU think that is important. It is YOU that will make it happen if you want it, not other people.

As far as "Greedy and Worthless" tell them this is America not the USSR, if they don't like it they know where the Airport is. :thumbup
LOL!

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 06:21 AM
There are a fair number of European ladies on Skadi....it surprises me not to have seen any of them (there is one lady who has replied).

I do believe my own stance on feminism is going to be a little different in part due to my own generation being only one generation removed from the original feminists of the 1960s. But, am waiting for more replies....particularly from the ladies of NW Europe.


Look to the start of the thread.
Kungen av Norden the starter though is male and apparently from Sweden.

Germaid
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 09:57 AM
OK.. all the points in your "Good feminism" section sounds nice, but i just have to point out that sexual orientation has nothing to do with feminism. Furthermore, does not working women’s refuse to have children, but most often have a goal in their life and choose not to because our society is built that way.

We are NOT just cows that bring life to this world, we have other interest also.

What we all should try to achieve is some sort of harmony where it’s ok to be different and not expected to do all that is considered traditionally.

Extremism is never good regardless of what direction it takes.

To be strong, or proud of what I am has nothing to too with the feminism our society suffer from.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say women are supposed to be breeding cows popping out a dozen of children. I had 2-3 children in mind, which is a moderate number in my opinion and certainly doesn't qualify the female as a breeding machine. Women do have the same skills and intelligence as men, of course they can work and have a career and contribute to our society. A professional career is very important in my opinion, I was actually referring to typical career worshippers. These women never even think of children, all they are interested in is their job, money, prestige etc. and when they consider having a child, it's usually too late. I know several women who did this and they all regret their decision now.

I'm certainly not anti-feminist, in fact I favour equal couples, but at the same time I also support traditional roles (adjusted to our modern times). There is not only black or white, there is also a very large grey zone in between.


Well, while I do like the ideal of a meritocracy, and admire your spunk, it must be argued that it would be best for our people if those with merit and spunk would reproduce. And for a woman, reproduction is, shall we say, a more involved undertaking than it is for a man. And it is essential. I was just thinking of Hanna Reitsch and Amelia Earhardt.. two attractive and courageous women of merit... whose courage and merit (and good Germanic genes) died with them. What a tragedy!

We must not allow feminism to exclude reproduction in our society. We must not allow feminism to cause women to delay their childbearing until they are 40, either. This is killing us as a people.

Exactly! Working and being a mother at the same time must be possible. Western women are usually very well educated and professionally trained, so why "waste" these skills only at home? I can only speak of Germany, but here it is very difficult to combine job and family for women. We don't have a good day-care system, their opening times are ridiculous and very worker-unfriendly (like 8-12 or only noon to early evening).

The first child at 40 is a bit late for my taste, but I don't think you can reverse this trend. It has become very common to have some form of career first and then - when women realize they won't achieve as much as men in the job - have children. I think the ideal age is between 30 and 35, though the best biological age is teenager years to mid-twenties, I suppose.
Fortunately women are fertile much longer than they used to be, so I don't see a big problem with "older" mothers.


It does have everything to do with women being in power that is destroying our cultures and peoples!

Look at the Islam community! There men are the bosses and women are second but look how enrich in culture they are and look at there births rates of Muslim women!

Western society use to be run like Islam in the late 1800's and early 1900's (men were the bosses,women are home makers that produced more than 7 kids) and as a race of humans we were the most powerful,now we are weaker than Asians and Islam/Muslims!

My personally experiences,what is so attractive bossing you're man around? As a women I love being told what to do by my man (if I had one)

I cringe when my mum bosses my father around,it is not normal and caused by this feminist crap!

Women being in power doesn't automatically mean our destruction. They can very well be in power and be feminine at the same time - if they want. The problem is that in order to get in power, women need to adopt certain masculine features as they aren't taken seriously otherwise.

I refuse to accept Islamic society as my role model. All Muslims are the enemy! I most certainly do not want our women to have no rights and to be dominated completely by men who are uneducated filthy apes. These customs can stay where they are, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or other stinking hellholes!!!

Why don't you cringe when your father bosses your mother around? It's the same only vice versa. If he obeys, it's his own fault. I wouldn't want my husband to give me gruff orders and I must do as I'm told. It's not so hard to order someone around nicely. If you love your partner, you'll obey because you want to make him happy and not because you feel it's some kind of duty. An this is certainly also true the other way around. It's all give and take.



I just wish that it was socially acceptable to stay in the comfort of my home and have children from a young age but also be able to pursue what I want on the side without being discriminated against. I wish it was ok not to be interested in the same things men are. If you don't work and have a lot of kids you're labeled as a worthless birthing machine. People who have very good incomes but are not rich are expected to either adopt children from other countries or give it away to charity or the government. Having only your own children is considered greedy and worthless.

True, it's the same here. Women who are full-time mothers are unfortunately not taken very seriously. But I think if you just do what you want and live in accordance with your belief, your way of living will become credible and authentic to others. Most people are just not used it or they only know bad examples of "breeding machines". Or they are simply envious? There are not many who can afford to live only on one income, I guess this also plays a role.

hyidi
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 10:43 AM
All Muslims are the enemy!
Agreed! Islam is a barrack culture!


I most certainly do not want our women to have no rights and to be dominated completely by men. These customs can stay where they are, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or other stinking hellholes!!!
In the late 1800's early 1900's, the western culture was exactly that! And it proved to be really working so well for our people!
Our women were breeding enough for our people to populate the European countries,USA,Australia and even NZ with Europeans only .
The only reason why our people failed is when we try-ed to kill each other in WWI and WWII causing loads of European deaths and causing so many Europeans to leave Europe! what else came with this was the new age working women that do not want to breed anymore causing our births rate to founder,was the feminists!
This came to the conclusion on making some of the new decisions on non-white migrants to make up for the lost of European women not having babies!

This is why in the 1960's the first mass African migrations entered Britain for the exact reason I just mentioned! So many Britain's left Britain for the new world and the remainder of Britain's did not want to reproduce!

Hamar Fox
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 11:22 AM
The modern incarnation of feminism is pure capitalism. According to feminists, 'freedom' is defined by having a career, being a wage slave. That's pretty high on the 'double-think' scale. I don't even fully understand the language of feminism -- women should have the 'right' to work, as though it were some form of privilege, and not the least desirable thing imaginable. I had a career-type job once (as opposed to a humble one), and I also had near-terminal cancer. Honestly, I think having near-terminal cancer was more enjoyable. So basically, feminists fought for women to dedicate their lives to something that, at least to me, is worse than cancer :shrug

Needless to say, anyone who's struggling to decide between a family and a career is an absolute system-serving moron. Luckily for the system, though, that's most people.

Edie
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 12:28 PM
The real problem with Feminism is it views “Masculinity” entirely in the form of the negative...

I disagree in a way. While you are correct that 'masculinity' is posited as the enemy, in that it is caricatured and attacked by feminism as an overt and recognisable symbol of supposed oppression, the ideal of masculine achievement inheres still in their perception of sexual equality and the feminine achievement it enables. Much like the colourless society advocates, they hold up white male pursuits as the pinnacle of human development and in so doing stigmatise the traditional realms of the very people they purport to advance. They are the worst enemies of women and and in all probability the group of people that hates them the most. They will beat around a dummy of 'the patriarchy' that they have made but in reality, they don't hate it at all: they would keep its structure intact and change only its ownership. Because feminist thinking does not allow for an organic and necessary harmony between the sexes; it only reinforces and intensifies the idea of competition that it created until the natural order is destroyed completely.

Feminism in its current incarnation is a tissue of contradictions. Many logical thinking women are loath to associate with it because of their support for the kind of equality that actually means something: an equal valuation of the two sexes' different abilities and essential contributions to society.

Thusnelda
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 01:39 PM
There are a fair number of European ladies on Skadi....it surprises me not to have seen any of them (there is one lady who has replied).
As an European Germanic I can only emphasize what Ælfrun and Germaid already said: That Feminism is a wicked ideology used to destroy our cultures, our families and the natural order between men and women. It also hurts us women (instead of "helping" us as liberals claim) because it tries to turn us into something we aren´t - men with different private parts.

Genders are different and with the gender come specific inborn advantages and disadvantages, also different capabilities. :) We deserve to be equally treated to men (we aren´t lower or of minor worth, like the monotheistic religions preach) and many ancient Germanic cultures lived up to that virtuality, more so than other ancient cultures, but that doesn´t mean we can or should do all things equally to men. There´s a difference between equal treatment on the same eye level (while respecting and recognizing the natural differences between the genders) and feminism with claims that "gender" is just a social attribute which is learnt and imposed on people.

I think "feminism" is just one of the many ideological components of cultural marxism, and cultural marxism is warfare against healthy European societies and cultures. :thumbdown

Lady Vengeance
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 02:33 PM
Look at the Islam community! There men are the bosses and women are second but look how enrich in culture they are and look at there births rates of Muslim women!
Muslims are human trash, especially the males. Their religion is sick. As a Swede, I see NOTHING to envy about their "rich culture".

I'd rather die than watch Europe turn into a white version of Saudi Arabia.



Western society use to be run like Islam in the late 1800's and early 1900's
No, it wasn't. It was far from ideal for us women, but it was nowhere near the depravity of Islam. It's a bit insulting to European men that you're comparing them to MENA Morons who put burkas on their wives.

hyidi
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 02:51 PM
Muslims are human trash, especially the males. Their religion is sick. As a Swede, I see NOTHING to envy about their "rich culture".

I'd rather die than watch Europe turn into a white version of Saudi Arabia.


No, it wasn't. It was far from ideal for women, but it was nowhere near the depravity of Islam. It's a bit insulting to European men that you're comparing them to MENA Morons.


Alright, I won't bother anymore with you. ;)

You don't understand! I hate Muslims and the Islamic religion!

Has any other member here seen any of my posts say I love Muslim culture / religion/ and Muslims them selfs???
I would like to know cause Lady V thinks I love Muslims for some reason!

The feminist movement is foundering our population growth!
European women are having one or no babies at all,that is not enough to keep our culture running! (One of My female ancestors had 12 children back in the last century,and most European women had more than 5 children)
Today, I see plenty of European couples opting to have dogs as there children! ( REPLACEMENT OF HAVING KIDS) OH LORD!

Our men are weak and confused; our military is full of women that should be at home taking care of children socializing at lunch with other women ect....

I do understand it may well be these hi tech conception that is doing bad damage to our baby population; while Muslim women never used such a thing cause it is against there religion!
Abortions too! loads of European women do this,Muslims women don't!

All I can see that we are dying, and we started to dye when Feminists kicked in!

I agree women in the western world should be 1st class citizens like men but we do have to draw a line at some point!

Alfadur
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Thanks for sticking to the topic, and for keeping the ad hominems to a minimum.

Oh, and I think there's a bit too much testosterone in the thread. More women's opinions would be welcome.


Muslims are human trash, especially the males. Their religion is sick. As a Swede, I see NOTHING to envy about their "rich culture".

I'd rather die than watch Europe turn into a white version of Saudi Arabia.

I think Vonss just worded her argument the wrong way. I'm sure she hates Islam like the rest of us.

That said, I agree with Lady Vengeance on this point - we have nothing to gain by imitating the family values of the savage, parasitic, desert-dwelling Muslims.

If anything, modern feminism should focus on combating the Muslim Arabs.

feisty goddess
Saturday, July 9th, 2011, 11:17 PM
I will say that not all women are of the nurturing archetype and a career should be open to them for this reason. Some women are born knowing they want to be mothers (like me) and some are not. I think the worst thing is trying to intimidate someone else into living their life a certain way. If you study astrology a little bit you will see what I mean. There are just some women in life meant to be nurturing mothers and some meant to be workaholics.

You have to separate the feminist ideology from the people. The fire signs are very goal-oriented, want to win, and go after what they want for example. Someone whose sun sign is one of these will get less happiness from married life and in being indoctrinated with the feminist ideology will likely try to never let reproduction interfere with her career or whatever. Not brainwashed by the feminist ideology, she would likely have a few kids and slow down a bit. These are intelligent individuals with good eugenics but feminism has taught them irrationaly that its not ok to slow down and be a woman. I am softy and emotional and I like to nurture and care for others because I'm a cancer, so naturally I am going to want a traditional role.

Modern feminism is a collective group, so you can see that really collectivism is the problem, not women wanting rights to use their skills and talents or whatever.

Ælfrun
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 03:22 AM
As an European Germanic I can only emphasize what Ælfrun and Germaid already said: That Feminism is a wicked ideology used to destroy our cultures, our families and the natural order between men and women. It also hurts us women (instead of "helping" us as liberals claim) because it tries to turn us into something we aren´t - men with different private parts.

Genders are different and with the gender come specific inborn advantages and disadvantages, also different capabilities. :) We deserve to be equally treated to men (we aren´t lower or of minor worth, like the monotheistic religions preach) and many ancient Germanic cultures lived up to that virtuality, more so than other ancient cultures, but that doesn´t mean we can or should do all things equally to men. There´s a difference between equal treatment on the same eye level (while respecting and recognizing the natural differences between the genders) and feminism with claims that "gender" is just a social attribute which is learnt and imposed on people.

I think "feminism" is just one of the many ideological components of cultural marxism, and cultural marxism is warfare against healthy European societies and cultures. :thumbdown

It is true that Feminism is an ultimate destruction.
If you look at other cultures, like East Indians and Muslims, you can see that they have no problem making children and keeping their culture going. They seem to not have been impacted by feminism.
Germanic women are made to feel guilty for promoting our culture and keeping it alive. We do not have to have male domination as men should respect women and treat us as equals and nothing less. One of my favorite quotes is "Behind every good man is a GREAT woman" :D

EQ Fighter
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 05:41 AM
Well you can pound a square peg into a round hole, but nether the peg or the hole will ever be the same after.



I disagree in a way. While you are correct that 'masculinity' is posited as the enemy, in that it is caricatured and attacked by feminism as an overt and recognisable symbol of supposed oppression, the ideal of masculine achievement inheres still in their perception of sexual equality and the feminine achievement it enables.
Much like the colourless society advocates, they hold up white male pursuits as the pinnacle of human development and in so doing stigmatise the traditional realms of the very people they purport to advance. They are the worst enemies of women and and in all probability the group of people that hates them the most.

I agree!
I would say that they are envious of the system, and therefore hate the men, but at the same time want to BE them. More or less a type of accomplishment Lesbianism. They also see traditional or feminine women as losers, or characterize them as “Weak” in spite of the fact that probably most of the “Traditional” women survived environments that would have killed modern feminist brats. I find that part quite hilarious, and even more so coming from generation Y people.

Fact is traditional women did not see themselves as “Weak” or less than men, but as upholding society both through their family and by loving their husbands.

So it might be said that a Feminist women is a Feminist because she cant hack it as a woman, so she attempts to be a man, but ultimately she finds she does not fit into the male world ether so then charges all the male world with oppression, and finds male counterparts in the political realm which have always been the bottom of the barrel of the male world.

Fact is Feminist miss the main point, that being that female strength does not come from physical strength or from outside external factors, and they are jealous of those factors that men exceed at.

Women who are not feminist do not see those as their number one assets, and see their internal character as how they want to be viewed. Their strength is not based on a phony Facade of competing with external male strength. But from internal soalish qualities stemming from their own character as human beings.

One of the saddest facts for men I think is that most post feminist modern women even though many of them are pretty on the outside, they really lack the internal beauty, class and intelligence of women from past generations. Which explains a lot of the major lack of respect that modern men have for them.

Although I would say most generation Y men would not know how to deal with a real woman, because most of them see women as “Bros” with different plumbing that they can have sex with. It really is a degenerate generation.




They will beat around a dummy of 'the patriarchy' that they have made but in reality, they don't hate it at all: they would keep its structure intact and change only its ownership. Because feminist thinking does not allow for an organic and necessary harmony between the sexes; it only reinforces and intensifies the idea of competition that it created until the natural order is destroyed completely.

Granted and now what we have is the lowest of the male population and the lowest of the female population in a sort of androgynous partnership called global government.



Feminism in its current incarnation is a tissue of contradictions. Many logical thinking women are loath to associate with it because of their support for the kind of equality that actually means something: an equal valuation of the two sexes' different abilities and essential contributions to society.

Ok yes that is really a good assessment of the situation.
Thanks for your Post it seems to be one of the most thought through ones I have seen yet.

I think you have a what I will call a crust of women who intuitively have always know that feminism is bunk, and a few more that have thought about it and can vocalize it, but largely most people are NOT thinkers in this society, they are followers. And most do what the media tells them.

Paradigm
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 06:17 AM
I'm essentially a male feminist, but I don't align myself with the feminist movement (for varying reasons I won't bother to explain). I've written a good deal on feminism and what it means to me, and I consider my brand of feminism "spiritual feminism", because it's not like other strands I've read about. I've found feminism to very positive on me, on actually knowing who I am and how to reach who I am in the midst of the modern world. There's generally a knee-jerk reaction (by males) because they don't understand what feminism is, and generally only know about 2nd wave feminism, but they are conditioned by 'society' with artificial standards on both how women and men supposed to act. There's a lot of focus on the women's side of feminism, which is understandable, but I started looking at it in my own perspective, dealing with the things that I have a problem with that men are conditioned to deal with, on how we supposed to act, be, look like, feel, prefer, think, etc. I have a balance of masculine and feminine, and I don't let outside forces dictate who I am in this aspect. My girlfriend also has a balance of masculine and feminine. Yet, people are conditioned to be one way or the other without having the ability to choose. From a feminist aspect I've written on such things as spirituality, sex, porn (in a negative context), masculine/feminine roles of men, the modern world and artificial standards, and even criticized modern feminists who are stuck in a defunct paradigm which is the opposite spectrum of what they fight.

I suggest Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy on a good starting and thorough book on today's feminism. Some members of this board may find themselves surprised to agree with a feminist talking about today's rise of raunchy feminism in a negative aspect.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 06:40 AM
I'm essentially a male feminist, but I don't align myself with the feminist movement (for varying reasons I won't bother to explain). I've written a good deal on feminism and what it means to me, and I consider my brand of feminism "spiritual feminism", because it's not like other strands I've read about. I've found feminism to very positive on me, on actually knowing who I am and how to reach who I am in the midst of the modern world. There's generally a knee-jerk reaction (by males) because they don't understand what feminism is, and generally only know about 2nd wave feminism, but they are conditioned by 'society' with artificial standards on both how women and men supposed to act. There's a lot of focus on the women's side of feminism, which is understandable, but I started looking at it in my own perspective, dealing with the things that I have a problem with that men are conditioned to deal with, on how we supposed to act, be, look like, feel, prefer, think, etc. I have a balance of masculine and feminine, and I don't let outside forces dictate who I am in this aspect. My girlfriend also has a balance of masculine and feminine. Yet, people are conditioned to be one way or the other without having the ability to choose. From a feminist aspect I've written on such things as spirituality, sex, porn (in a negative context), masculine/feminine roles of men, the modern world and artificial standards, and even criticized modern feminists who are stuck in a defunct paradigm which is the opposite spectrum of what they fight.

I suggest Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy on a good starting and thorough book on today's feminism. Some members of this board may find themselves surprised to agree with a feminist talking about today's rise of raunchy feminism in a negative aspect.

From my experience the "Male Side of Feminism" is pretty much bunk to get male support for a non functional ideology.

This is also the reason why Feminist as well a Marxist are constantly revising the "Facts" or in the case of Communist the "History".

Paradigm
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 06:50 AM
I don't see feminism not so much as an ideology, but more of just the way I live. It's something that flows with me, not something that's systematic. I don't expect to get male support as much as female support, but if I do more power to them and myself. Thing is, I focus on different aspects, which is why I refer to it as "spiritual feminism". There are a lot of feminist with bias party politics, and they can be narrow minded and support a more modern aspect of feminism (I've taken some criticism as well as praise for my feminist views from feminist). If you want I can post something I've written so you can get an idea from where I'm coming from what with what I'm talking about.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 07:08 AM
I don't see feminism not so much as an ideology, but more of just the way I live. It's something that flows with me, not something that's systematic. I don't expect to get male support as much as female support, but if I do more power to them and myself. Thing is, I focus on different aspects, which is why I refer to it as "spiritual feminism". There are a lot of feminist with bias party politics, and they can be narrow minded and support a more modern aspect of feminism (I've taken some criticism as well as praise for my feminist views from feminist). If you want I can post something I've written so you can get an idea from where I'm coming from what with what I'm talking about.

Well people can pretty much believe anything they want I would say. As far as what Feminism stands for, it came straight out of Bolshevism and Marxism, that is verifiable.



I don't expect to get male support as much as female support, but if I do more power to them and myself.

LOL!
Yes I have noticed that, and you are not the first.

Paradigm
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 07:10 AM
A small collection (http://defunctparadigm.tumblr.com/post/5567035906/answering-thoughts-on-porn) of things I've written on feminism.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 07:16 AM
A small collection (http://defunctparadigm.tumblr.com/post/5567035906/answering-thoughts-on-porn) of things I've written on feminism.

LOL!
Ok man Ill be sure to book mark that site.

Alfadur
Sunday, July 10th, 2011, 05:03 PM
Let's not have a testosterone overload, shall we? I just noticed that the entire last page has been guys posting.

Gray
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 12:03 AM
Well let me just say one thing: when I visited Sweden last summer, I couldn't help but notice that Swedish men really have been absolutely pussy-whipped by their women in every sense.

I swear, it was like some of them were neutered or something. I mean, I really have never seen anything like it anywhere else. I mean, they arrested that champion bodybuilder solely on the basis that he had big muscles!
I guess Swedish men aren't allowed to have muscles. Who knows, maybe eventually they'll make it illegal to be a man in Sweden and the country will become the German edition of the the island of Lesbos or something.

But hey, you can't completely blame them for being so whipped by those girls, because from personal experiance, a lot of them really are as attractive as they're stereotyped to be.

Ælfrun
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 12:39 AM
Well let me just say one thing: when I visited Sweden last summer, I couldn't help but notice that Swedish men really have been absolutely pussy-whipped by their women in every sense.

I swear, it was like some of them were neutered or something. I mean, I really have never seen anything like it anywhere else. I mean, they arrested that champion bodybuilder solely on the basis that he had big muscles!
I guess Swedish men aren't allowed to have muscles. Who knows, maybe eventually they'll make it illegal to be a man in Sweden and the country will become the German edition of the the island of Lesbos or something.

But hey, you can't completely blame them for being so whipped by those girls, because from personal experiance, a lot of them really are as attractive as they're stereotyped to be.

Well like I mentioned before, Feminism has reversed gender roles, where men stay at home and act more "womanly" in society. I think this may have brought out "metrosexuals" and the "gay" movement as well.

Gray
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 01:48 AM
Well like I mentioned before, Feminism has reversed gender roles, where men stay at home and act more "womanly" in society. I think this may have brought out "metrosexuals" and the "gay" movement as well.

I think all that stuff kinda goes hand in hand if you know what I mean.

Goomer
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 04:44 AM
I haven't really given my thoughts on feminism in here yet.....so it seems now is as good a time as any.

I am 44...this means I am older than pretty much almost ALL of the other regular female posters on here. I mention age because I think the age of a woman has impact on her opinions about this particular topic.

I remember growing up when a woman's place was still basically considered inside the home. It all hit home one day when a neighbor presented me (I was about 10 at the time) with an ethical dilemma and asked me to figure out why it was a dilemma:

The story went something along the lines of a little child who had been severely injured in a car crash with his father and brought into the OR....only to have the surgeon say *I can't work on this patient....he is my son*

My neighbor (a lady about my mom's age at the time) asked me WHY was this a problem? And you know what? I could not answer her, or figure out why there was a problem. My analysis of it in retrospect is: I was simply of the generation still when it did not even OCCUR to me that the surgeon in question would have been the boy's Mother.

Opportunities for women were just beginning to take hold when I was a child. So, I have a recollection of a different time....and this is why my views on feminism are not going to be as harsh as most of the younger ladies on here......

I am grateful for feminism and for the opportunities it has afforded women. In my human sexuality course in college, we were shown a marriage contract circa 1900....the wife was considered PROPERTY of the husband and could not function in ANY way outside of him! She had no rights.

While I cannot speak for anyone else, every day I consider myself fortunate not to live in a time like the early 1900s. No Thanks. I am also grateful we women can vote and speak our minds, and be taken seriously.

Ok. Now....with all of that said......I recognize that feminism isn't always good. Empowering women by giving them greater opportunities should not have to require the emasculation of men as a whole. Men are every bit as essential and needed as women are.

I like the idea of both men and women being free to engage in the occupation of their choice....and spend time caring for their children without being questioned on the basis of gender.

In the US, women have more choices than men. Here is why: Most women basically have the choice to either pursue a career or stay at home with kids......but men do NOT have this choice overall....and often feel enslaved because they have NO choice but to ALWAYS provide.

I don't think that's especially fair. Not all men are cut out to be the providers....and not all women are cut out to be June Cleaver.

I would like to see a society that empowers both genders to engage in activities that highlight their unique abilities. On the most part, this ends up working out that women will usually be the nurturers...and men will usually be the providers....but there is wiggle room....and no one should be penalized for NOT falling into the *norm* expected for their gender.

*Whew* Sorry it was so long.:)

EQ Fighter
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 06:08 AM
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1099595


Well let me just say one thing: when I visited Sweden last summer, I couldn't help but notice that Swedish men really have been absolutely pussy-whipped by their women in every sense.

I guess Swedish men aren't allowed to have muscles. Who knows, maybe eventually they'll make it illegal to be a man in Sweden and the country will become the German edition of the the island of Lesbos or something.

I think they more or less have. (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1099595)

Yeah, they are about the most Fem-centric society on earth.
This is one of the reasons I'm finding it harder and harder to feel sorry for them regarding the Muslim Influx. It more or less seems they have earned this as a society. Granted maybe I should not pass judgment on an Entire Society. In any case I would not want to be a swede in 50 years maybe less.



But hey, you can't completely blame them for being so whipped by those girls, because from personal experience, a lot of them really are as attractive as they're stereotyped to be.

I would think that no matter how good a person looks that is going to wear off after about 30 minutes.

And if she lacks personal integrity, and other important character traits as a human being, then whats the point.

Edie
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 09:43 AM
Opportunities for women were just beginning to take hold when I was a child. So, I have a recollection of a different time....and this is why my views on feminism are not going to be as harsh as most of the younger ladies on here......

I don't think that the women here are harsh on feminism in its purest form, the honourable feminism of the WSPU, for example, but as an ideology it has steadily detached itself over the last century from what it started out as. It has gone from an idea which inspired women to fight for rights that we ought to have as members of civilised societies to an aggressive pseudo-ideology that throws up such gems as: "All penetrative sex is rape"; "All men despise women"; "Child rearing is a waste of potential". It has been pseudo-intellectualised to the point of nonsense. I consider myself a feminist, but I always have to qualify it by making it clear that I'm not that kind of feminist, and people know what I mean. I want women to be able work should they want to and be paid properly for it, or to raise a family and not be sneered at by 'feminists' who hate women and men alike -- people who are just misanthropic and lacquer their natural inclination to be that way with an intellectually respectable ideology.

I understand that there is a new generation of feminists who reject its militant seventies interpretation, and that gives me hope that a more natural feminism can take its place in society and endow women with an understanding of their own worth as women; and moreover, as people with necessary interdependent connections to other people, who don't need to tie themselves up in some paranoid war against the rest of the world.

Wulfram
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 12:22 PM
I don't think that the views of the women here are harsh on feminism in its purest form, the honourable feminism of the WSPU, for example, but as an ideology it has steadily detached itself over the last century from what it started out as.

The most vocal opponents here have stated that feminism is evil, period. They said nothing of its "purest form". As far as I can tell they condemn it no matter what form it takes.


It has gone from an idea which inspired women to fight for rights that we ought to have as members of civilised societies...

Starting roughly with the suffragette movement once can easily see the steady decline of the original Germanic woman from what she had been for centuries.

What is so wrong about the old "oppressive" system? You can make a comparison between what Germanics were before feminism, and what Germanics have become since then. Before we were a people still on top of the world. Since then we have become among the lowest.

The only way they could destroy the original successful patriarchy was to destroy the original female first. Why send an army when all one has to do is subvert the women? The subversion of men (the metrosexual) naturally followed.

As soon as Germanic women were given rights to act as men do they began to ask for more of them. As a result most of our women are so independent they have lost all sense of that original community that bonded our people together.

If the original system meant keeping the woman in the home, away from the workplace then so be it, because that was a formula that could not be beaten for keeping our people strong. And it was, before feminism came along and convinced woman she was oppressed and imprisoned by her natural place as homemaker.

This "purest form" of feminism you speak of was the very ideal responsible for leading to the extreme feminism you claim to oppose. Without those early "purists" then eventual lunatics like Germaine Greer could not possibly have come into existence. The extremists could not have gotten to where they are today without the "pure form" of feminism being created first.


...to an aggressive pseudo-ideology that throws up such gems as: "All penetrative sex is rape"; "All men despise women"; "Child rearing is a waste of potential".

These are just the inevitable mutated versions of "Woman should have the right to work alongside man".

You give a person the extended right to moan then eventually they will get bored and create more outlandish excuses to complain about.


It has been pseudo-intellectualised to the point of nonsense.

It was ALWAYS pseudo-intellectualized.


I consider myself a feminist, but I always have to qualify it by making it clear that I'm not that kind of feminist, and people know what I mean.

You are that kind of feminist. Whether you espouse the "softened" version or the extreme, they are both the same poison.


I want women to be able work should they want to...

The woman's place is in the home. That is work enough.

Your ancestors of a hundred years ago did not go out and seek "careers". They had one within the household, which in turn was within the Germanic community, which assisted in keeping it healthy and powerful.

Hamar Fox
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 01:10 PM
Your ancestors of a hundred years ago did not go out and seek "careers"

The genius of capitalist ideology was to latch the female ego to wage slavery. The modern woman feels incomplete, 'unfulfilled', now unless she dedicates 9 hours a day, 5 days a week , for the rest of her life to performing the same mundane, meaningless and pointless routines so she can increase the wealth of some vacuous corporation, just one among a million of vacuous corporations in our vacuous materialistic society. 'Happiness', and more importantly 'success', are defined as 'material excess' or 'firing power'. 'Strength' is defined as 'being a c word'. We now see the most revolting of women calling themselves 'strong' and 'powerful' by virtue of their sheer inner ugliness. Why? Because this attitude prevails in business relations. It's a mindset every would-be successful capitalist needs to cultivate.

They've traded wholesale any kind of slavery to the 'patriarchy' for slavery to capitalism and materialism. Never underestimate the masses' inability to think outside of the box. What's obvious to you and me -- that material pursuits are a joke and a complete waste of time -- isn't obvious to most people. They 'get' when they're 65 what we've 'got' since we were about 10. They really are that dense. And, of course, by then they've already wasted their life. Of course, this also goes for careerist men, who are also filth.

Edie
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Feminism as you see it is merely a branch of a larger cultural deterioration; to attack it in isolation is folly. The only pragmatic way to effect the kind of change -- or regression, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way -- that you are gunning for is to alter the general cultural value placed on capitalism and congruent notions like feminism and individualism. However, some ideas have simply taken root and and it may even be beneficial for your ideal society to incorporate their better aspects instead of rejecting them wholly.


The most vocal opponents here have stated that feminism is evil, period. They said nothing of its "purest form". As far as I can tell they condemn it no matter what form it takes.

Actually, if you read over this thread you will find posts like this one from feisty goddess:

"I will say that not all women are of the nurturing archetype and a career should be open to them for this reason. Some women are born knowing they want to be mothers (like me) and some are not. I think the worst thing is trying to intimidate someone else into living their life a certain way. If you study astrology a little bit you will see what I mean. There are just some women in life meant to be nurturing mothers and some meant to be workaholics. "

So it is not all unmitigated hatred of the novel idea that women could be autonomous beings with desires of their own (or perhaps, as has been argued, desires with roots in materialist conditioning -- but desires nonetheless and not the less worthy for having been manipulated into existence).


It was ALWAYS pseudo-intellectualized.

No, it started out as a movement for enfranchisement in recognition of a woman's very humanity, developing in tandem with other such movements, and was hijacked and given an extensive rhetoric by Marxist academics. The idea of equality was recognised in ancient Germanic societies but had been denied for centuries by an inherently hierarchical Christianity which at the time of workers' rights agitations had already begun to lose its stranglehold in Europe. So if anything, feminism, in its purest sense, was merely a return to natural Germanic ideas of female worth.


You are that kind of feminist. Whether you espouse the "softened" version or the extreme, they are both the same poison.

To believe any ideology to be made up of one monolithic mass of like-thinking people is rather simplistic. I see feminism as having a base in the enfranchisement movement and many different branches which have grown over time. To argue that feminism is 'poison' no matter its form is to argue that women should never have campaigned to be able to vote, and there is a blockheaded finality to that opinion that I see no point in challenging.

Not all feminists think like like Germaine Greer (who was never especially credible), even if they do work within the same school of thought. This can be seen for example in works such as that Paradigm referenced in one of his posts (which, interestingly, you did not respond to).

All of the related ideologies which invited in the rot stem ultimately from Enlightenment ideas of individualism and the secular state. To reject them is necessarily to reject those, and the logical conclusion to such a stance is that the supreme form of social organisation for Germanics is a religiously based collectivism controlled exclusively by the church. Even as an atheist I can see a certain utility in religion for maintaining a specific social order, but it is simply not enough for me to want it to have any influence on a governmental level. Maybe you can make a convincing argument for that, as it naturally flows from your stated beliefs. The realist knows that we will not return to religiosity (if indeed our countries remain our own) because we have evolved to the point where religion exists in the private sphere as a cultural and not a political practice. Thus, to bring our societies close to what you believe to be the ideal, there are certain necessary concessions that must be made to the enshrined (but indeed, somewhat fallacious) concept of individualism that we have today.

Wulfram
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 07:30 PM
Feminism as you see it is merely a branch of a larger cultural deterioration; to attack it in isolation is folly.

It isn't a mere branch but one of the larger roots. It is not the only destructive ideology I have attacked here.


The only pragmatic way to effect the kind of change -- or regression, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way -- that you are gunning for is to alter the general cultural value placed on capitalism and congruent notions like feminism and individualism.

I'm not a modern intellectual, Edie, so could you please re-write this for the layman to understand. ;)


Actually, if you read over this thread you will find posts like this one from feisty goddess:

"I will say that not all women are of the nurturing archetype and a career should be open to them for this reason. Some women are born knowing they want to be mothers (like me) and some are not. I think the worst thing is trying to intimidate someone else into living their life a certain way. If you study astrology a little bit you will see what I mean. There are just some women in life meant to be nurturing mothers and some meant to be workaholics. "

She is your only example? Where are the others?

There was no such thing as “intimidation” in the old days because women were not forced to become homemakers. That is typical feminist indoctrination. They welcomed their role as homemaker, stay at home mother, while the man went out and supported it.

The Germanic female knew her place from the time she could understand the role her mother played, which was to find a husband at a young age and immediately begin producing babies. The success of that household depended on how strong the mother was within it. She was the foundation of that home.

Feisty uses a typical feminist approach here by claiming that women lived their lives in fear unless they did what was expected of them. Such thoughts were never natural to a Germanic female.

Feminists, without ANY evidence to prove it, claim that women were miserable for centuries because they were not expected to venture out the home and were shouted down if they dared to speak of "desires". That is utter BS. Women had plenty enough rights within the Germanic community. It was only natural for her to find utter happiness in the home she tended, otherwise Germanics would have died out centuries ago. If one home contained a miserable woman then it would reflect on the others.

Feminism came along and told her to venture beyond her natural habitat and seek jobs like men do, or even worse, seek a life without family or children. As I stated before, when this happened our communities immediately began to crumble, because the female was not there as much, if at all, to maintain the home as she had done for centuries before.


So it is not all unmitigated hatred of the novel idea that women could be autonomous beings with desires of their own (or perhaps, as has been argued, desires with roots in materialist conditioning -- but desires nonetheless and not the less worthy for having been manipulated into existence).

Again, forgive my inability to interpret, but if I rewrite your above statement will you confirm that it is what you were implying?:

Using Feisty’s quote to imply they all indeed think like I do(or should think like I do), its not complete hatred of feminism(novel idea) that women could be independent from the Germanic community with this unnaturally implanted need to leave the home and enter the work force, convinced she can do anything a man can(desires).

You argue that a woman should be independent enough to seek out WHATEVER desire she should please herself with, which includes leaving her rational role of homemaker to set out into the world away from the Germanic community?

That is hardcore feminism no matter how pretty a bow you tie on the top of it.

For myself I feel that a woman can be autonomous, but within the home and the Germanic community.
She can have desires, if they be within the same community, and only if they benefit the home, her husband, or her children. The healthy home will in turn produce healthy members, who will move on to contribute to the community themselves, thus achieving a harmonious society of people.

Feminism helped to destroy this once well-established society, which was doing just fine even before your own idealized "purer" version sank its fangs into it.


No, it started out as a movement for enfranchisement in recognition of a woman's very humanity, developing in tandem with other such movements, and was hijacked and given an extensive rhetoric by Marxist academics.

Marxist academia was responsible for its creation all along. You can trace versions of feminism back many centuries, but one thing that sticks out is how overwhelmingly constant they all have been. Feminism has never changed, no matter how much you think you follow a version that was somehow corrupted by "marxists".

Again, you imply that feminism was needed because the Germanic community was making the women within it miserable and not allowing her to fulfill her "desires". These "desires" were eventually implanted to convince her that she was supposed to have extra-curricular activities outside the home, which she was never meant to have. The result being today's horrific feminist controlled society.


The idea of equality was recognised in ancient Germanic societies but had been denied for centuries by an inherently hierarchical Christianity which at the time of workers' rights agitations had already begun to lose its stranglehold in Europe.

The traditional role of the pre-christian woman remained. Just like the church borrowed numerous elements from our Pagan ancestors so too did the Germanic female community retain her strong maternal sense from Pagan female society. If she hadn't then Germanics would never have remained a great people.


So if anything, feminism, in its purest sense, was merely a return to natural Germanic ideas of female worth.

Can you provide evidence that women in ancient Germanic societies sought careers outside of the community, or had "desires" other than being homemakers?


To believe any ideology to be made up of one monolithic mass of like-thinking people is rather simplistic.

If extreme feminism is the rule then they do indeed all think like one monolithic mass, which includes deniers such as yourself who think they adhere to a more "innocent from". You still haven't proven to me how or when exactly did marxism subvert the original "pure" form.


I see feminism as having a base in the enfranchisement movement and many different branches which have grown over time.

Branches extending from the same trunk, shedding the same leaves as all the others, leaving a mess to be raked up.


To argue that feminism is 'poison' no matter its form is to argue that women should never have campaigned to be able to vote, and there is a blockheaded finality to that opinion that I see no point in challenging.

But you did take the time to insult me, which usually means that my opponent simply is unable to answer the challenge presented before them.

If feminism achieved a woman's right to vote, seek careers, then exactly WHAT ELSE has it done for the Germanic female community? Who cares if the "pure" from achieved these things if nothing else beneficial was done afterward, except allow spoiled greedy feminists to make in into the monster it is today.
Your 'pure" form was not pure enough to stop this, and is still doing nothing to redirect these feminazi's back to your own idealized version.

What has become of Germanic women since these goals were achieved?
Would you say they have become a healthy group or a sick one?
For you to blame marxists for hijacking your "pure" version bears no proof since they were the ones who created it, or perfected it.


Not all feminists think like like Germaine Greer (who was never especially credible)

She was credible enough to help induce women to behave even more nastily than the generation of feminists before her. She has influenced feminists after her to continue her work to degrade our Germanic institutions.

All feminists are built from the same mold as she was. Again, you claiming that your softened version is not what feminism is all about is BS. The monster that feminism has become could not have been made possible without the original "pure" form being invented first.
I say your pure version is the original one to blame. Today's freakish feminist is indeed found in the "original" ideology you revere.


All of the related ideologies which invited in the rot stem ultimately from Enlightenment ideas of individualism and the secular state.

Feminism was bound to destroy its victims entirely on its own, and has. You still insist that it was hijacked by other ideologies when it had its origins with the same devils who devised the Enlightenment(Early form of communism).


To reject them is necessarily to reject those, and the logical conclusion to such a stance is that the supreme form of social organisation for Germanics is a religiously based collectivism controlled exclusively by the church.

I had a feeling you would bring the religious aspect into this sooner or later.
I do not support a church-based ideology either. Germanic women maintained the tradition of homemaking which they inherited from the ancients. So much so that it was able to survive the onslaught of the church. You cannot blame other things for what feminism had a heavy hand in implementing on its own.


Even as an atheist I can see a certain utility in religion for maintaining a specific social order, but it is simply not enough for me to want it to have any influence on a governmental level. Maybe you can make a convincing argument for that, as it naturally flows from your stated beliefs.

Eh? Where did I ever say that we need a religious based system to maintain the health of our people?
Are you implying here that if we just all adhere the original "pure" form of feminism that our society would be healthy?
It was always the same thing propagated by the same people, not hijacked. It was never subverted when it was subversion defined to begin with.

feisty goddess
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 08:29 PM
[QUOTE=Ronan;1104278]

She is your only example? Where are the others?

There was no such thing as “intimidation” in the old days because women were not forced to become homemakers. That is typical feminist indoctrination. They welcomed their role as homemaker, stay at home mother, while the man went out and supported it.

The Germanic female knew her place from the time she could understand the role her mother played, which was to find a husband at a young age and immediately begin producing babies. The success of that household depended on how strong the mother was within it. She was the foundation of that home.

Feisty uses a typical feminist approach here by claiming that women lived their lives in fear unless they did what was expected of them. Such thoughts were never natural to a Germanic female.

Feminists, without ANY evidence to prove it, claim that women were miserable for centuries because they were not expected to venture out the home and were shouted down if they dared to speak of "desires". That is utter BS. Women had plenty enough rights within the Germanic community. It was only natural for her to find utter happiness in the home she tended, otherwise Germanics would have died out centuries ago. If one home contained a miserable woman then it would reflect on the others.

[QUOTE]

My my my look who forgot to read the whole post. :D You hate feminism so much, yet it's you're specialty? ;) :P

Where in my post does it suggest that women lived their lives in fear? I DID NOT suggest such a thing, what I said had nothing to do with that, your assumptions are utterly preposterous. All I was talking about was a woman's ability to get a job and use her skills before feminism without being discriminated against.

I believe personality tendencies are inborn and not all women like to nurture, most do but not all and we don't want people having kids who don't want to be mothers. I'm not a feminist and I'm not a puritan, I'm all for a completely free society that has no sexism and favors the individual. A career should be available to ambitious women who are not interested in being mothers, but there should be no politically correct way to live your life. When there is truly no sexism in the culture, these women would actually end up being more likely to have a few kids later in life than none at all. Why adopt a strict patriarchy when these people will just keep trying to push for their rights?

And when I say sexism keep in mind I am referring more to the job market and the feminization of men.

Edie
Monday, July 11th, 2011, 10:55 PM
Ronan, I don't want this to develop into a tedious rhetorical ping-pong game which neither of us can really win because we each have our ideological standpoints from which we're not willing to budge. So I'll boil it down to this: feminism is here now, no matter what Machiavellian plan brought it forth. It has done its work and it's unlikely to be eradicated from Western society completely. All you can hope for is a major cultural shift that makes staying home and raising a family a desirable choice for women. Still, not all women will make that choice and since forced parenthood is likely to be a disaster for everybody involved, such women should be enabled to contribute to society in their own, non-biological ways. Anything else is effectively slavery and people will see it as such in today's world, even if they wouldn't have in the past. You have to make concessions to the world that we have now.

I would like to add, though, that this --


But you did take the time to insult me

-- is not quite accurate. I did not insult you, I insulted an opinion only, that you may or may not hold.

Uberman
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 04:34 AM
Though I believe women should be free to choose how to live their lives, women should use their freedom to choose to stay home and have children, raise their children, and build our culture. To do otherwise is selfish because for every woman who chooses not to have children, another woman must have more than 4, just to keep our population steady, not to mention how many she would have to have just to maintain our share of the population realative to other people.
While I don't believe in the government's use of force to cause social change, we all have an obligation to society that is dependent on our gender, as unfair as it may be that we cannot choose our gender, or the responsabilities that it entails. Men should feel just as much pressure to fight and risk death for the defense of their people. And men must feel the constant pressure to earn money to support their families. So life is just as unfair for men. I would rather stay home and raise the kids than work the rest of my life, but that is not my responsability, as dictated by my gender.

And where do Feminists get the idea that men's work is more valuable than women's work? Certainly our cultures are not dying, and our countries aren't being taken over for lack of money. What we need more is children, and well raised children, at that. During the first 9 crusades, men's role just might have been as important as the Women's for the defence of our way of life. Unfortunately the 10th crusade can only be fought by the women of both sides. All the men can do is implore our women to take up the banner of their people and use their unique abilities to save our people.
Though it's been a long time since we've really tried, I truely believe our women can be more fertile, and better at promoting our cultures than the Muslims. We must prove that free women can out-compete the slave-women of the Muslim cultures.

Vindefense
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 04:49 AM
They welcomed their role as homemaker, stay at home mother, while the man went out and supported it.

The "stay at home" mother was a product of the Industrial Revolution and ironically the same cause that allowed her to be the happy homemaker, made the need for large families obsolete.


here was no such thing as “intimidation” in the old days because women were not forced to become homemakers.

A women was the property of her father could be given at will to further his political or economic ambitions without regard to her will. Seems a bit un-natural since Nature has designated the female as best suited to select her mate, especially since she must bear the pain of it all.


The Germanic female knew her place from the time she could understand the role her mother played, which was to find a husband at a young age and immediately begin producing babies.

What if she was to reject being a baby factory? Is she no more an individual than her husband? Has she not thoughts, desires, ambitions, goals?

Yet still we see clearly that beyond all the scapegoatism, History speaks for itself and while the ease is in pointing to the effects of the Feminist era it is much harder to come to terms with the causes of it. So, we reduce the cause of Feminism to propagandists and provocateurs and conspirators while ignoring the legitimate complaints that women had and did in fact act upon.

But, let us assume that women are mindless creatures without genuine desires, thrown to and fro and easily manipulated by fancy catch phrases and catchy slogans. If our women are as weak willed as this suggests, from such a womb, what could they bring forth other than a race of followers?

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 06:16 AM
What if she was to reject being a baby factory? Is she no more an individual than her husband? Has she not thoughts, desires, ambitions, goals?


Lenten Vindefense!

I realize you are a Mangina Man, but come on.
Lets get some NEW Material here.
"Baby Factory"
LOL! Jeese!
:thumbup

Also you Never answered my challenge as to what YOU were doing to help the young boys in the various school systems and society who are having to endure the effects of Feminism?

I guess that would mean YOU are one of those "White Knights" that only come out of the wood work when the crowed is behind him and he can pretend to be a hero.

Or when he thinks a women will pat him on the head ans say "Good Boy".

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 06:26 AM
I don't think that the women here are harsh on feminism in its purest form, the honourable feminism of the WSPU, for example, but as an ideology it has steadily detached itself over the last century from what it started out as.


Yes I think the problem with calling it "Feminism" is about the same as Nationalist calling themselves NAZIS.

It is a term that has alot of bad connotations to it and ideological baggage, and probably does not fit the modern situation.


The Feminist of say the 1900's if you have it were not fighting as much against men as against a upper class elitists, who viewed not only women but working class men, and pretty much everyone other then their class as subclass citizens.

That more or less changed with the Marxist, who took over not only Feminism but also pretty much every rights movement they could exploit to their own ends.

Which brings us to today.

Hamar Fox
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 08:34 AM
What if she was to reject being a baby factory? Is she no more an individual than her husband? Has she not thoughts, desires, ambitions, goals?


It might help if people's (read: not just women's) desires and ambitions weren't quite so laughable. I don't believe the majority can think for themselves. Whatever desires and goals they think they have are merely imbibed from their cultural surroundings. With that in mind, I couldn't really care less whether they realise their goals. It'd be like caring if a wind-up toy keeps walking in the direction you set it, or trips up and starts walking into the ground. It was going nowhere special in the first place, and certainly nowhere of its own volition.

But anyway, like I said, the (possibly calculated) mistake of feminism was to portray the lot of the average working man as desirable. If this wasn't a deliberate ruse by the capitalist system, then it displays a level of stupidity pretty much beyond comprehension. But regardless, by mistake or machination, this idea continues to resonate throughout mainstream feminism as strong today as ever. Most feminist discourse revolves around such oh-so varied issues as average pay, maternity leave, discrimination in the workplace etc. The common theme here is obviously work, 'wage-slavery'. The implication is obviously that happiness is in the workplace. Obstacles to a woman's happiness and freedom are whatever bars them from fully serving the capitalist system and enjoying its full material benefits. The near-exclusive focus on workplace issues suggests this (along with the abortion rights) is pretty much all that matters. The painting of working men's lives as 'desirable' and 'free' has created an entire "Woo, let's serve the system so we can be free and independent!" generation of moronic women who genuinely live and breathe work.

Feminism has destroyed critical thinking about capitalism by portraying itself as critical thinking. By identifying itself with capitalism, in true 1984 style serving the system, for women, becomes critical, non-conformist, and revolutionary. Opposing the system is by extension anti-critical, 'antiquated', conformist. Feminism fills moronic women's 'revolutionary view’ quota, and they have no energy left to think outside the box on a second issue (not that feminist thought is thinking outside the box, by any stretch, mind you), and certainly not one that contradicts the first.

But, as I've said before, I support equal rights for women: voting, divorce, pay etc. Fine, whatever. But as an actual ideology beyond the securing of basic legal rights, it's pure trash.

Wulfram
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011, 03:03 PM
The "stay at home" mother was a product of the Industrial Revolution and ironically the same cause that allowed her to be the happy homemaker, made the need for large families obsolete.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution women did not seek careers. The traditional Germanic woman stayed in the home, first as a child being raised by her parents, and then as a mother. She never went directly from her parents home to that of an independent woman striking out on her own, away from the community. Please provide evidence that she was not happy with this arrangement.


A women was the property of her father could be given at will to further his political or economic ambitions without regard to her will.

You think the modern, independent Germanic woman has done a better job at choosing a proper, racially correct mate? :oanieyes

Race-mixing is at an all time high and will steadily get worse, and this is all due to the fact that a woman, as well as a man, have been given the right to choose their mates. That job should be for their racially correct father, or other elder.


What if she was to reject being a baby factory? Is she no more an individual than her husband? Has she not thoughts, desires, ambitions, goals?

Of course she is an individual. I would want nothing less in a woman myself. But being a "baby factory" WAS part of her individuality, for centuries. The traditional Germanic female would have never described this crucial role in such a manner. She would have naturally felt proud as a woman who could produce a large amount of babies to not only help the blood of her family survive, but help the community stay strong and healthy.


So, we reduce the cause of Feminism to propagandists and provocateurs and conspirators while ignoring the legitimate complaints that women had and did in fact act upon.

With the monstrous result that you see today. Again, YOU have decided to speak for centuries of Germanic women, claiming that they had these same modern "legitimate complaints" that so many feminists moan on about. Please provide proof that my ancestors were miserable, a list of what you feel these complaints were and I can guarantee they all have their origin in feminist ideology. Before this our women accepted their roles with the kind of pride most feminists will never understand or feel.


But, let us assume that women are mindless creatures without genuine desires, thrown to and fro and easily manipulated by fancy catch phrases and catchy slogans. If our women are as weak willed as this suggests, from such a womb, what could they bring forth other than a race of followers?

I never said they did not have genuine desires, only that false desires were implanted by feminism, one of which includes convincing them to leave the home and seek a career. But I also feel that the man should be just as bound to his community/home as well. For him to seek a career or independence has also been just as disastrous for my own sex as well.

Women basically "freed" themselves from a successful formula that had been followed by Germanics for centuries. But this independence was nothing more than a ruse to ensnare them with an ideology that was designed to separate them from their traditional desires. That ruse was feminism, which came along and corrupted the original formula and convinced women that being exclusively homemakers denied them the right to be a real woman.

In my opinion, the young women romping around today having mindless sex and trying to pretend like they are men are the true slaves, and this could not have been made possible without feminism IN ALL ITS MANY FORMS. Another poster here has stated that feminism was at one time a harmless, beneficial concept that was hijacked by marxism. When I asked for evidence of this my request was naturally ignored. I informed said poster that feminism was a creation of marxism all along, which also went unanswered. Would anybody else here have proof contrary?

Turin son of Hurin
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 06:26 AM
I think that men should stop commenting on this thread.

A male moderator should only step in and nudge it back on the course of racial preservation when nesessary, because left to their own devices women will conform this thread to text book university individualist, my happiness comes first mantra.

If a rabid ant-feminist like myself can refrain from commenting, surely all you pedestrians can keep out of it. I really haven't seen one single male comment on this thread worth a pinch of s**t.

And thankyou feisty goddess and vonss (or whatever your called now)for being born with a functioning brain and prioritising german preservation with it.
You misunderstood me. I was saying that women competing against men can destroy a group or culture and that the men understand this instinctually and try to prevent it, sometimes in irrational or primitive ways. This is the bad collectivism. It's almost kind of like homophobia in a sense (they are afraid homosexuality will come into the group and corrupt it, so they do everything they can irrational or not to keep it away).

When the men and women from the same culture compete against each other it heightens the standards women have for men and there aren't as many babies produced, it's just as simple as that. Without women promoting the culture we have the color blindness and all that.

It's a bit hard to articulate, but my point was that we're collective creatures gifted with superflous intelligence so there is a point where the individualism has to stop, but it is in our nature to seek it out. So if you have bad irrational collectivism that stimulates this anti-social instinct in people, then you will have destruction of the group, which ultimately comes back to the individual, you. So there will be more loss of Germanic culture and influence, which limits the happiness of the Germanic individual if the women and men of that group are continually turned against each other through feminism. So in a sense, irrationality is the source of the problem both with the feminists and the misogynists.

I think that men should stop commenting on this thread.

A male moderator should only step in and nudge it back on the course of racial preservation when nesessary, because left to their own devices women will conform this thread to text book university individualist, my happiness comes first mantra.

If a rabid ant-feminist like myself can refrain from commenting

Turin son of Hurin
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 06:27 AM
I think that men should stop commenting on this thread.

A male moderator should only step in and nudge it back on the course of racial preservation when nesessary, because left to their own devices women will conform this thread to text book university individualist, my happiness comes first mantra.

If a rabid ant-feminist like myself can refrain from commenting, surely all you pedestrians can keep out of it. I really haven't seen one single male comment on this thread worth a pinch of s**t.

And thankyou feisty goddess and heidi xx (or whatever your called now)for being born with a functioning brain and prioritising german preservation with it.
You misunderstood me. I was saying that women competing against men can destroy a group or culture and that the men understand this instinctually and try to prevent it, sometimes in irrational or primitive ways. This is the bad collectivism. It's almost kind of like homophobia in a sense (they are afraid homosexuality will come into the group and corrupt it, so they do everything they can irrational or not to keep it away).

When the men and women from the same culture compete against each other it heightens the standards women have for men and there aren't as many babies produced, it's just as simple as that. Without women promoting the culture we have the color blindness and all that.

It's a bit hard to articulate, but my point was that we're collective creatures gifted with superflous intelligence so there is a point where the individualism has to stop, but it is in our nature to seek it out. So if you have bad irrational collectivism that stimulates this anti-social instinct in people, then you will have destruction of the group, which ultimately comes back to the individual, you. So there will be more loss of Germanic culture and influence, which limits the happiness of the Germanic individual if the women and men of that group are continually turned against each other through feminism. So in a sense, irrationality is the source of the problem both with the feminists and the misogynists.

hyidi
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 08:28 AM
I am fully aware that many women would might want to keep this a secret.

Maybe we should do a poll for us women? Our age and how many babies we had produced. We can calculate on the average native Europeans birth rate compared to the women that lived in the non-feminist era!
We could every compare it to Muslim birth rate of today!

My status-I had failed! with my age and birth rate,it is not good news.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 09:07 AM
I really haven't seen one single male comment on this thread worth a pinch of s**t.


You didn't read my comments?

Turin son of Hurin
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 09:24 AM
sorry Hamar. I like all your comments. except the one about all women being lesbians(in another thread) . I thought that was a little out there.

actually I was just annoyed at all the male intervention when the women were surprisely doing a great job. And I'm a misogynist bastard if there ever was one. I suppose mainly just Biff and that male feminist were clogging it up too much.The chicks are really on this one. At new saxon and stormfront the females are just card carrying feminists. This sites better. Even though i spend more time in the sin bin than actually active.

I will point out im not commenting on this thread. I'm just chatting to hamar.


I love your work with all those dna percentage statistics too.

Thusnelda
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 01:02 PM
By the way, isn´t it somehow peculiar that a man created this thread about "Feminism", directed at women? Obviously us Skadi women saw no need or necessity for such a thread. ;) I doubt anyone of us believes in Feminism.

Edie
Thursday, July 14th, 2011, 01:44 PM
My current avatar is from a BBC production of the novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles, one of my favourite books. Tess epitomises the Victorian Christian concept of the 'fallen woman'. She is a victim of the sexual double standard and more broadly, a concomitant double standard with regard to the set roles the sexes are expected to play, and her fate is circumscribed by it. In such a culture, the female is always an angel: a pure angel or a fallen angel, a character and a concept but never a person. Fallen angels cannot exist within the community, they have to be cast out before they corrupt the whole. This is very much the dichotomous perception of woman that denies her entry into the boys' club of fully realised humanity. She is a porcelain doll or a pariah, the upholder of society or its wayward destroyer. She always has to represent something bigger than herself, and her actions always have consequences far beyond her own reality according to this traditional understanding of her.

Some men's yearning for a bygone, mostly fictional world where women were passive and obedient is just a predictable reaction to the unveiling of what before had been a helpfully hidden vessel for their philosophy. Now that women can freely speak and act and work for themselves, they can debunk for themselves any claim of fatalistic otherness that can be used to signify anything anyone wants it to. The bloody-handed clinging to a two-dimensional archetype of femininity reminds me of the Romanticism movement of the 19th century, which itself was merely a reaction to the contemporary realities of rapid industrialisation and scientific de-mystifying of the world. Again, tragic mystical womanhood was used to symbolise a more fatally involved and quasi-religious view of the world, a world of parables and parallels. It often dwelt on a kind of dolorous view of ancient Celtic Britain, encapsulated in Pre-Raphaelite paintings of mysterious flame-haired beauties floating off to their doom. There is a subtext in these paintings of the entrenched Western idea of women as the ultimate guardians of the people, and ultimately beholden to them. They warn of the danger of the wanton woman who neglects to play her role and dooms society with her, just as the original Eve (herself often portrayed as red-head, a well established symbol of the femme fatale in the Western tradition) fell and brought Adam (mankind) down with her. According to this world view, all womankind is fallen; we are all daughters of Eve, the tempted and the temptress. Whether it's Helen of Troy, Guinevere or whomever, if there is a woman in the story, her purpose is to inflame the otherwise completely rational men and set them about destroying whatever little ordered civilisation they inhabit.

As I understand it, some of you truly believe that women and their ways are the cause of any social downfall. This is not a new conceit, it is one of the oldest.

It is the mythologising of women by the men who write the culture. Because woman was an inscrutable other, an other that can have great sway over men emotionally, unmerited responsibility and blame for events on the macrocosmic level were placed on her shoulders. I've read some posts on this forum wherein people claim to reject the 'worshipping' of women, the idealising of them as anything other than human, but I don't believe it: they've swallowed it hook, line and sinker and they're worshipping a false idol with false power. To them, woman has a lot more control over the course of civilisation than she actually does, so it's easy to blame her when things go to pot. They have just imbibed a convenient and pretty myth perpetuated by people to whom women were a mystery, and a culture that didn't allow women to speak for themselves about themselves.

We are not your guardians. We are not your enemies. We are all in this together, as people. As equals.

Gray
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 02:28 AM
Why do people on this site constantly say we should have more kids, but almost no one here actually has kids. Wow.

Vindefense
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 01:18 PM
It might help if people's (read: not just women's) desires and ambitions weren't quite so laughable. I don't believe the majority can think for themselves. Whatever desires and goals they think they have are merely imbibed from their cultural surroundings.

For this we must blame the parents which kill original thought by instilling in their children their superstitions and prejudices and in the process, root out of them the natural tendency to think for their themselves.


With that in mind, I couldn't really care less whether they realise their goals. It'd be like caring if a wind-up toy keeps walking in the direction you set it, or trips up and starts walking into the ground. It was going nowhere special in the first place, and certainly nowhere of its own volition.



I think it’s safe to say the sum of the legitimate arguments here, hinge upon one fact- That the only aspect of women considered to be of importance is the material and biological and any thing that emerges from their mental substance is to be irrelevant and directionless. Her only worth is a functioning biological unit capable of producing more biological units. Her place is the home and her thoughts and ambitions, lacking any serious substance are to be ignored, for outside of her material function, she is a pointless thing. Her education is to be discouraged and even prevented for what will become of it? This is the reasoning of men. Incapable of understanding he is inconsiderate of her feelings and desires. He sees women only as a biological necessity which should be happy to raise his broods and provide food for his cannons. Mere numbers is what they cry about, for their existence is based upon an abstraction not an identity and when that begins to fade they, having no identity outside of the abstract will perish with it.

hyidi
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 01:36 PM
Why do people on this site constantly say we should have more kids, but almost no one here actually has kids. Wow.

That was probably directed at me,and yes,I am guilty.

If I had known about how bad multiculturalism had become and the risk of white people earlier,I would had my time all over again with more children. I only found that how much damage multiculturalism as done in our land a few months ago when I join up here. I knew of multiculturalism but I was naive until I joined up to my first Germanic forum,and learned so much.

Just imagine more naive people coming across Germanic sites like this! We can influence them like how it did with me! ;):D

I am worried about us,that is all!

Germaid
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 01:36 PM
By the way, isn´t it somehow peculiar that a man created this thread about "Feminism", directed at women? Obviously us Skadi women saw no need or necessity for such a thread. ;) I doubt anyone of us believes in Feminism.

The days of hardcore feminism are over. There is simply no more need for it. We've mostly reached what we wanted, i.e. equal rights in terms of work, selfdetermination etc. I like it the way it is, though there still needs to be something done about equal pay. German women earn ca. 23% less on average than men for the same job. This must change.

hyidi
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 01:44 PM
We've mostly reached what we wanted, i.e. equal rights in terms of work, selfdetermination etc. I like it the way it is, though there still needs to be something done about equal pay. German women earn ca. 23% less on average than men for the same job. This must change.But I'd think we are destroying our selfs.

Women having babies from sperm banks??? (if they choose to have a baby)

Women with equal pay??? Women don't need men anymore,no babies being born!

Equal rights??? why? women in the Victorian era still got better treated than Muslim women and the Victorian women still manage to raise a healthy family.
Victorian women were aloud to work,then when she got married to quit and raised her family while her husband went to work.

I don't see how Victorian women were worst off than us! I do recall by reading a magazine or a documentaries,that women and men were happier in the olden days than we are today!

If women not need me anymore,where does this leave us?

Hamar Fox
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 01:51 PM
For this we must blame the parents which kill original thought by instilling in their children their superstitions and prejudices and in the process, root out of them the natural tendency to think for their themselves.

There's no such natural tendency in human beings.


I think it’s safe to say the sum of the legitimate arguments here, hinge upon one fact- That the only aspect of women considered to be of importance is the material and biological and any thing that emerges from their mental substance is to be irrelevant and directionless. Her only worth is a functioning biological unit capable of producing more biological units.

If you exchange the word 'women' to 'people' then the above is correct. The only value anyone has, in both my and mother nature's view, aside from his or her potential to increase the proportion, or likelihood of survival, of other biological units within the clan, is to produce more biological units. Everything else is fluff.

Even if the alternative in every case was to become a Shakespeare or Da Vinci, I'd still maintain that. The fact that that's virtually never even remotely the contribution of non-hardwired choices just makes me all the more resolute.

Germaid
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 01:54 PM
But I'd think we are destroying our selfs.

Women having babies from sperm banks??? (if they choose to have a baby)

Women with equal pay??? Women don't need men anymore,no babies being born!

Equal rights??? why? women in the Victorian era still got better treated than Muslim women and the Victorian women still manage to raise a healthy family.
Victorian women were aloud to work,then when she got married to quit and raised her family while her husband went to work.

I don't see how Victorian women were worst off than us! I do recall by reading a magazine or a documentaries,that women and men were happier in the olden days than we are today!

If women not need me anymore,where does this leave us?


No, we are not destroying ourselves.

Why is it that there are only extremes here?? It's either the hardcore feminazi or the oh-so-respectable and well-behaved Victorian woman. Both extremes lead to nothing good. Reality takes its toll, the "good old times" won't come back, just face it.

Wulfram
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 02:03 PM
No, we are not destroying ourselves.

Why is it that there are only extremes here?? It's either the hardcore feminazi or the oh-so-respectable and well-behaved Victorian woman. Both extremes lead to nothing good. Reality takes its toll, the "good old times" won't come back, just face it.

They were "oh-so-respectable and well-behaved" LONG before Victorian times. Except for the last 60 years there is hardly an era in the history of Germanic females when they weren't. How can you say it led to nothing good when this was the very thing that assisted in sustaining our Germanic communities for so long? Only when they strayed from this formula in the last century did our people start to decline.

hyidi
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 02:07 PM
No, we are not destroying ourselves.

Why is it that there are only extremes here?? It's either the hardcore feminazi or the oh-so-respectable and well-behaved Victorian woman. Both extremes lead to nothing good.

You can not blame Muslims and Africans for our low birth rates so what is the problem then? why small birth rates amongst European women?


Reality takes its toll, the "good old times" won't come back, just face itIt sounds like you have given up!


Just to let you know,Germany has one of the lowest birth rates out of all European nations,I thought you ought to know. Sorry for rubbing it in. I'm naughty,lol.

Germaid
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 03:10 PM
They were "oh-so-respectable and well-behaved" LONG before Victorian times. Except for the last 60 years there is hardly an era in the history of Germanic females when they weren't. How can you say it led to nothing good when this was the very thing that assisted in sustaining our Germanic communities for so long? Only when they strayed from this formula in the last century did our people start to decline.

I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, I just believe they were well-behaved only on the surface. With all the children they had they were completely dependend on their husbands. They usually did not go to school or had any professional training, so (in my opinion) they behaved in order not to get abandoned. Of course it's good they had a large number of children, I'm all in favour for this, it made us what we were not too long ago. But you also must keep in mind that this was long before the industrial revolution, women were not only housekeepers and mothers, they also worked with their husbands on the field. And with no social security, a large familiy was a guarantee to survive at old age. It all began to deteriorate when women were needed for industrial production as cheap labour. And it even became worse with the contraceptive pill. All of a sudden, they were able to determine if and when they became pregnant, the force of nature was put to an end. Having this unprecedented situation, they had no more reason to stay dependent. If this is good or bad is a matter for debate, no doubt. But this is how it is nowadays and you cannot go back in time.

I don't believe it's so bad today, most women still have children, even if they work. The traditional roles with the man as full-time worker and the woman as mother and then part-time worker are still strong. Today women have children because they love their partner and want to, not because nature forces them.


You can not blame Muslims and Africans for our low birth rates so what is the problem then? why small birth rates amongst European women?

It sounds like you have given up!


Just to let you know,Germany has one of the lowest birth rates out of all European nations,I thought you ought to know. Sorry for rubbing it in. I'm naughty,lol.

No, I haven't given up. I know it's all our own fault. I like modern women who are well-educated and have good jobs. What I dislike is the fact that women can choose only between being a mother or going to work. When they return after two or three years, their old job is gone and they will be given only unimportant jobs anyone can do. They didn't study or have a good professional training only to make coffee or distribute the daily post.

I think our low birth rate could be increased, if there were a better day-care system. If the women knew their kids are in good hands during the day, more of them would have children. But we don't have it, unfortunately. What's even worse: The income in Germany hasn't risen as much as inflation over the last ten years. Many couples cannot afford to let one person stay at home. But it seems to be the will of our political leaders to keep our income low to make our economy more competitive. They have succeeded, but it comes with a price: even fewer children. Perversely enough they are always whining about the low birth rates and try to bait women with financial aid. Our politicians don't seem to understand, that most women want both, work AND children. This is a trend that cannot be reversed in my opinion.

I know France is not very popular on this forum, but I really admire their system. The French women don't have any problems combining work and motherhood, so they have a higher birth-rate than we do. I might be an exception here, but I want this too. I'm actually a bit envious of them.

Wulfram
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 03:57 PM
I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, I just believe they were well-behaved only on the surface.

They were well-behaved on the surface but for centuries carried a rebellious flame underneath? This then festered inside them for countless generations until it all exploded in the form of feminism and only in the last half-century? Why not much earlier? Why did feminism take so long to "liberate" them from their centuries old ways?

Our people remained a powerful force throughout all those centuries of "oppression" that "forced" the female to maintain a such a facade?


With all the children they had they were completely dependend on their husbands.

The healthy Germanic community all pitched in to help one another. Much like the husband and wife were united so too were the households of that society, who often reached out to one another for help. And what is so wrong with being completely dependent on your husband if his job is to protect and provide for a home whose health and happiness was maintained by a strong woman?


They usually did not go to school or had any professional training...

Ultimately university training has proven to be disastrous for both the Germanic male and female. In the old days the students were exclusively male and made up a very small percentage of the male population. The rest of the males stayed on the farm (or became soldiers) and educated themselves with the very important task of providing sustenance not just for the family but also for the community.
(Including those poofy university lads :D)

A college education has been one of the main arguments by feminism for why a Germanic female should set out on her own, implying that if all men can do it then so should she. But most Germanic men did not go to school.

If our communities have been destroyed then what good has an education ever been if both male and female were uprooted from their traditional setting and then plopped down in a classroom? One can easily see the decline of Germanic societies when the men as well as the women began to be "educated".


...so (in my opinion) they behaved in order not to get abandoned.

This is a very harsh judgment on the traditional Germanic male.
Abandoned? You really think that love and adoration did not exist back then between husband and wife? I am convinced that LOVE was the ultimate driving force behind those early families and the very reason for why Germanics became the best and stayed the best for centuries. If women were only needed for babies then the nurturing process would have been stunted in the Germanic since the only way one can learn about anything is to love the subject being taught them, and one of these included inspiring pride in your heritage. More often than not this task was given to the female who raised and taught her children while the male worked.

They behaved because they were loyal to their husbands and children as well as the reputation which was expected of them to uphold. But guess what? This applied to the male as well. Feminism has been most effective in convincing the modern feminist that Germanic males were allowed to make mistakes and the female wasn't. I have still yet to see any evidence that proves this. It is always very easy to reach in the distant past and make something up and then repeat the lie over and over until it becomes truth enough to those it was intended to indoctrinate.

Is it not too much to assume that the male was also shunned by the community if he strayed? Once women were convinced that men were wild swinging fellows when not at home they began to behave in the same manner, a manner that was entirely fabricated by the feminists. So women began to try and achieve "equality" with men for things that most men never actually did.

Germaid
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Ok, it looks like we won't come to an agreement :) But I'd like to make some final comments:



They were well-behaved on the surface but for centuries carried a rebellious flame underneath? This then festered inside them for countless generations until it all exploded in the form of feminism and only in the last half-century? Why not much earlier? Why did feminism take so long to "liberate" them from their centuries old ways?

I'd say the contraceptive pill is to blame, as well as the change of the general environment. Women demanded more rights long before the pill, it was only the last decisive step. I don't know if they felt oppressed, but being able to decide whether you get pregnant or not surely gives you a number of possibilities you never had before, don't you agree? Why not use this chance?


The healthy Germanic community all pitched in to help one another. Much like the husband and wife were united so too were the households of that society, who often reached out to one another for help. And what is so wrong with being completely dependent on your husband if his job is to protect and provide for a home whose health and happiness was maintained by a strong woman?

There is nothing wrong with it, but you cannot compare a society from several hundred years ago with today. Things have changed quite drasticly, these smaller rural communities are the exception today. Now every family lives more or less separated from the others, especially in cities. There is (unfortunately) no longer a feeling of solidarity. If your marriage fails - for whatever reason - a woman needs to be able to take care of herself today. I don't like the current development either, but if you don't live in a small village where everybody knows each other, you must be prepared for all eventualities.


Ultimately university training has proven to be disastrous for both the Germanic male and female.

I disagree. Where would our countries be, if our economies were still purely agricultural? We need well educated people (men and women) to build successful industries remain competitive. Or would you rather be the slave for more advanced countries, being exploited in terms of labour and resources?


This is a very harsh judgment on the traditional Germanic male.
Abandoned? You really think that love and adoration did not exist back then between husband and wife? I am convinced that LOVE was the ultimate driving force ...

They behaved because they were loyal to their husbands and children as well as the reputation which was expected of them to uphold. But guess what? This applied to the male as well. ... It is always very easy to reach in the distant past and make something up and then repeat the lie over and over until it becomes truth enough to those it was intended to indoctrinate.

Is it not too much to assume that the male was also shunned by the community if he strayed? ...

Ok, it sounds harsh, I admit. Sorry, sometimes I have trouble with expressing what I want to say in English. There was certainly love just like today, but in former times most marriages were arranged. We have a proverb: "Love ends, property remains". I believe there is a lot of truth in it.

I never said men were allowed to do whatever they wanted. I wasn't there (and you weren't either), so I can only make assumptions.

ozhammer
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 07:50 PM
I have 2 aussie children and 1 aborignal child. So three aussie kids. How is it that women are somehow to blame for germanic peoples decline?

I dont know who said woman were the reason but if anything its the rubbish that has been installed in women infecting them to become either she-males or prostitutes
I saw a once school aquaintance now one of these prostitute types!

No longer are women the beauty they were and that is in nurturing and being proud raisers of the kids.

I would like to see an emphasis on the return of the FAMILY and MORALITY in our Youth. Respect and Discipline this was the good Australian way

If you are interested in ending the destruction of women by these feral social "engineers" and the over-sexualisation of our kids and society + End of Mass Immigration along with many other policies contact me on aussiefighter@live.com.au
Hear from you soon:thumbup

ozhammer
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 07:53 PM
But I'd think we are destroying our selfs.

Women having babies from sperm banks??? (if they choose to have a baby)

Women with equal pay??? Women don't need men anymore,no babies being born!

Equal rights??? why? women in the Victorian era still got better treated than Muslim women and the Victorian women still manage to raise a healthy family.
Victorian women were aloud to work,then when she got married to quit and raised her family while her husband went to work.

I don't see how Victorian women were worst off than us! I do recall by reading a magazine or a documentaries,that women and men were happier in the olden days than we are today!

If women not need me anymore,where does this leave us?

Hear Hear With all these "rights" its good to see divorce up, more kids on the streets, broken families and corporatised women so infact if this is rights I dont know what to?!...

ozhammer
Saturday, July 16th, 2011, 07:58 PM
No, we are not destroying ourselves.

Why is it that there are only extremes here?? It's either the hardcore feminazi or the oh-so-respectable and well-behaved Victorian woman. Both extremes lead to nothing good. Reality takes its toll, the "good old times" won't come back, just face it.

What?! Is it extreme for a woman to fulfill her biological duty just as I?!
Actually this so-called "extreme" was a wonder in Australia and including throughout the 1950s infact I was raised in the 90s on my mother ending her job and looking after myself. And I tell you i thank her for it:thumbup

The only thing stopping the good old times is $ where we have our women as drones. A Family is a team with both working together one brings in the $ the other brings in the Stability and Security of the Family

As they say You cannot serve 2 masters you can only serve man or god

But I guess where to 21st century to understand the simplicity of that....


Ok, it looks like we won't come to an agreement :) But I'd like to make some final comments

What on earth was wrong with this?
http://www.syvjournal.com/archive/6/38/2860/
Or this?
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.royaltyinthenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ste_mette-marit-2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.royaltyinthenews.com/tag/national-holidays/&usg=__qx4yoR3GM0aWRsf0OFhxvD22ahs=&h=600&w=430&sz=82&hl=en&start=17&zoom=1&tbnid=1G-i71SyrRuOKM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=97&ei=D9AfTsmZOcHumAXw8LnrDQ&prev=/search?q=Danish+Traditional+Dress&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C1ASUT_enAU388AU388&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1

A womans duty is to the raising of the family
A mans duty is to the protection of the family

Both equal in their own way and development Lets Encourage this and Tell any feminist billygoat to go and see the family destructions these days and tell us its better

Vindefense
Monday, July 18th, 2011, 03:29 AM
There's no such natural tendency in human beings.

Sure there is, despite the fact that such is a rarity. But this only goes to show that those indoctrinated by their parents will also be easily influenced by other sources of authority. They will lack the confidence that is required to question that authority itself which is a necessary prerequisite for original thought. This does not mean in any way that the tendency was lacking but rather that it is to be considered a threat to all established orders. That it is to be discouraged and rooted out even to the point that it is imagined to have never existed.


If you exchange the word 'women' to 'people' then the above is correct. The only value anyone has, in both my and mother nature's view, aside from his or her potential to increase the proportion, or likelihood of survival, of other biological units within the clan, is to produce more biological units. Everything else is fluff.

Then as a materialist you should understand that the formula that determines value is quite simple. The more a thing is in abundance, the less value it has. Then, when the populations swell war will be plentiful and life- cheap.

hyidi
Monday, July 18th, 2011, 03:38 AM
I believe that the 'Feminist' movement was created by Jews! To destroy the strong Germanic's ways of life.

Feminist came in after when Jews took hold of world power of the western world! Why Feminist movement never came in when we European Germanic's were in control of our world?

Gray
Monday, July 18th, 2011, 04:01 AM
I can tell you one thing though, feminism is going to be one of the more challenging things to change (if you are someone who wants it changed). It's extremely ingrained in most womens' minds, much more so than you might think. I don't know a single women who wouldn't take a lot of offense to me telling her to make me dinner or something. I would run the risk of being slapped in many cases.

I'm not taking any sides here yet because I'm split on this whole thing. My mom was supportive of it and I have a strong respect for her for many reasons, so I feel like I'd be doing her an injustice by being all out anti-feminist.

Whether women should or shouldn't have equal civil liberties though is not even debatable in my opinion. Not giving women the right to vote is ridiculous.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, July 19th, 2011, 01:34 AM
I can tell you one thing though, feminism is going to be one of the more challenging things to change (if you are someone who wants it changed). It's extremely ingrained in most womens' minds, much more so than you might think. I don't know a single women who wouldn't take a lot of offense to me telling her to make me dinner or something. I would run the risk of being slapped in many cases.

I'm not taking any sides here yet because I'm split on this whole thing. My mom was supportive of it and I have a strong respect for her for many reasons, so I feel like I'd be doing her an injustice by being all out anti-feminist.

Whether women should or shouldn't have equal civil liberties though is not even debatable in my opinion. Not giving women the right to vote is ridiculous.

I would say that women in the west have been weaponized, and as a Fellow MRA has said

"A bullet by its self is harmless, but asking it not to be so violent at High Speed when in contact with human flesh is a wast of time" Your Best option is to avoid the bullet and start shooting back"

This is pretty much why I think "Nationalism" is destined to go down the drain. Because its view of the White Female is more or less a dated concept, and that they cannot turn most of the Feminized Western Female population aside.

On the other hand, once you see a rise in the a real multicultural situation in Europe and the US, brute force will go a long way to convincing many in the west of their folly.

I think we are already seeing this.

As White men that more or less leaves us on the fence, because in one since we are biologically tied to white women, on the other hand she has a pretty lousy record as an Ally of men, in any situation where she must be counted on.

My opinion is that most of the white males that have a survival instinct will in fact attempt to blend into the crowed and avoid the conflict and avoid the the western Marriage Trap. On the other hand this will leave alot of white women fending for themselves, so maybe their feminism will come in handy there Who Knows! Out of this mess though, you will have a very small number of "Normal/Rare" nuclear families.

Welcome to the "Brave New World"

Gray
Tuesday, July 19th, 2011, 04:33 AM
I agree about the Nationalist view of feminism being a bit dated. I just think feminism is too set in most womens' thoughts for us to just go back to the way things were. I think compromising is really the only way.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, July 19th, 2011, 05:30 AM
I agree about the Nationalist view of feminism being a bit dated. I just think feminism is too set in most womens' thoughts for us to just go back to the way things were. I think compromising is really the only way.

Personally I don't have a problem with not going back to the way it was.

The Sad reality is women pretty much are today the way they always were.

But during the Victorian Era, there was a pretense that women were not as rotten as men are. Today we know that to be false.

ozhammer
Tuesday, July 19th, 2011, 12:45 PM
Personally I don't have a problem with not going back to the way it was.

The Sad reality is women pretty much are today the way they always were.

But during the Victorian Era, there was a pretense that women were not as rotten as men are. Today we know that to be false.

Do you know how much Divorce Rates have climbed in Australia? To 50% of marriages!:thumbdown
What of the over-sexualisation of our youth with Girls skirts up to their thighs and boobs hanging out?:thumbdown
What about the Degrading of the woman's virtue the Lady now replaced with the vile arrogant brat who as 60 Minutes found is competing to be more savage?:thumbdown
What about the destruction of Marriage and Family with one-night stands and other ridiculous adultureous schemes? :thumbdown

The Victorian Era didnt place woman in the best light but in the 1950s Australia woman were woman and men were men. Both acted according to their duty and their was cohesion. So if not Victorian Era then only look to your grandparents.

Our Christian Morality is being thrown in the bin and with it the Family and Societal Cohesion all to the Marxist Zionist Internationalist or in better words
The Enemy of Our Germanic Peoples

So
Not much I can say for the False Pretense of todays degenerate times...

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, July 20th, 2011, 06:06 AM
Do you know how much Divorce Rates have climbed in Australia? To 50% of marriages!:thumbdown
What of the over-sexualisation of our youth with Girls skirts up to their thighs and boobs hanging out?:thumbdown
What about the Degrading of the woman's virtue the Lady now replaced with the vile arrogant brat who as 60 Minutes found is competing to be more savage?:thumbdown
What about the destruction of Marriage and Family with one-night stands and other ridiculous adultureous schemes? :thumbdown

The Victorian Era didn't place woman in the best light but in the 1950s Australia woman were woman and men were men. Both acted according to their duty and their was cohesion. So if not Victorian Era then only look to your grandparents.

Our Christian Morality is being thrown in the bin and with it the Family and Societal Cohesion all to the Marxist Zionist Internationalist or in better words
The Enemy of Our Germanic Peoples

So
Not much I can say for the False Pretense of todays degenerate times...

Well Being an American Sir. If I had of had my way there would have been an internal war launched on Liberals/Marxist back in 1968 and it would have stopped when the last one was dead and buried.

Keep in mind we did in fact have 45,000 Nuclear War heads pointed at us for a ling time, but the real threat was the internal Jew/Hollywood New York Third Column. Did I mention that that same Jew/New York Alliance were the same Shit heads that Funded the USSR both during the Bolshevik Revelation and the Cold War Soviet Build up.

largely the so called "Americans" you see doing shit around the world today are these same Liberal Trash.

If it were up to me I would kill all Marxist, Period. NO NEGOTIATIONS!
They are a menace to Humanity.

So in that context you are preaching to the choir.

Yes I would like to have a world where the women had a certain amount of self respect and modesty but I cant enforce that myself, all I can do is control my own behavior.

And to those ends I'm a realist.

Lew Skannon
Wednesday, July 20th, 2011, 09:11 PM
Feminism is the ideology where all men are swine and women are just as good as men.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, July 21st, 2011, 02:04 AM
Feminism is the ideology where all men are swine and women are just as good as men.

LOL! Yeah pretty much!

Kind of self exclamatory, is it not?

hyidi
Thursday, July 21st, 2011, 02:15 AM
Feminism is the ideology where all men are swine and women are just as good as men.

This is why I am anti feminism!

Roderic
Saturday, September 17th, 2011, 05:02 AM
q0TCHuwVZSs

1IvJDcFdrn0

zLn0K3v5BrA

QoYR7Y3bRqk

07fYARabdZo

5Iy_CVOKxsc

VGXuqU-XWlw

O5hVWxdKhYM

K4qisgpH094

bRBDy2DeTgE

FQLdfIDl8OU

mKyFfU4JJH8

Austin
Saturday, September 17th, 2011, 05:51 AM
I dislike feminists as well. I know a lot of liberally raised people who think feminism has hurt Europeans the world over.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, September 17th, 2011, 06:31 AM
I would say that Feminism and Marxism going hand in
hand is a no brainier.

The Russian Revolution is one war the US SHOULD Have gotten involved in and to that end the annihilation of the Marxist once and for all. Then the Crime bosses that made it possible in New York and Chicago.

Jens
Sunday, May 13th, 2012, 11:41 PM
This is not regarding the past successes of the Feminist movement or its former (achieved) goals, but what its aims are TODAY. What currently passes as feminist activism.

Is it positive? Restoring the gender equity that we once had before the influence of Latinized Christianity?:thumbup

Is it negative? Is it going too far, stirring up division and strife at the worst possible time?:thumbdown

Please share your opinion and explain it. I'm trying to decide what I think right now.

Slivers
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 12:14 AM
There is not much room in Germanics as I see it, for feminism in it's modern form. Feminism is a distinctly leftist cult, and with it you will find the extremes. Nothing was wrong with the male/female roles before feminism took hold.
I don't know for sure what the aims are of modern feminism but in the past they have been outspoken advocates of ripping away family life, abortion, pan-racial relationships, gender inequality, lesbian households and other niceties which are not conducive to maintaining productive and somewhat insular Germanic, families, social structures, states or countries. They are fringe, and should of always been left that way, and I cannot figure out what exactly they have achieved, but if some of their most prominent writers never wrote, or if their speakers never muttered a word and the politicians who sided with them were never elected...then I just can't say for sure how different the world would be today.

EQ Fighter
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 01:43 AM
This is not regarding the past successes of the Feminist movement or its former (achieved) goals, but what its aims are TODAY. What currently passes as feminist activism.

The vast number of original Feminist Leaders were Jewish I would think. It is an idea that comes directly out of Marxist teachings.

Individuals such as Gloria Steinem were Jewish, on her fathers side, even though she looks mostly Germanic.

Modern Scandinavia though appears to be one of the worst areas in the world for Feminism though. I’m not sure if there is a predisposition in Scandinavian women to be feminist though or if it is social conditioning.

Simply put feminism kills a culture for many reasons. As a man you really don’t have to put up with it and can take other options.

On the other hand for Scandinavian men who do not want to marry out of their Ethnicity they do in fact have a problem, because of the very limited number of Scandinavian women who are marriageable.



Is it positive? Restoring the gender equity that we once had before the influence of Latinized Christianity?:thumbup


Im not sure what "Equality" you are talking about.

I doubt Germanic Pagans were that "Equal" and were no more "Equal" than the Romans. Although I will admit that like almost all Empires Rome was a Patriarchy society. Although that did not stop a women from obtaining the Emperors throne at the end.

Sawyer
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 10:16 AM
This is not regarding the past successes of the Feminist movement or its former (achieved) goals, but what its aims are TODAY. What currently passes as feminist activism.

I will speak from experience here. One of the discussions during a course I did at university involved Feminism. The logic is exactly the same as minority logic: "let's put more women in traditionally masculine jobs, seeing as gender doesn't matter";) There are women who purposely become Lesbians in order to send a political 'message'.


Is it positive? Restoring the gender equity that we once had before the influence of Latinized Christianity?:thumbup

Is it negative? Is it going too far, stirring up division and strife at the worst possible time?:thumbdown

Same as always, negative really. It's a misguided sense of oppression. No one seems to take feminism seriously these days though, it was mostly a 60s generation thing.

Personally, I don't believe in gender equality, but neither do I believe in superiority or inferiority. I despise men who treat women like property. Genders are just different, that's all. Women excel at things men do not, and men excel at things that women do not, that's just how it is. And our societies would be best if we would stop trying to act like men (feminists) and women (homosexuals), and specialised in what we were made to do.

Feminism has only sought to destroy the family unit, and there is one thing that every child deserves, the mother. Nowadays kids are growing up like free range chickens in those daycare centres, rather than having a proper mother (whom feminism threw into the workforce in the name of 'equality').

Ocko
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 12:00 PM
To argue with who functions better in which job is an economic reason. For me functionality is a minor point.

Gender 'equality' produces less and inferior offsprings. We can see that in the birthrates of western countries. Women are overworked because they do a normal job plus they are most often also burdened with a homework (though technology has reduced the workload considerably). Women are now masculinized through the job demands and in the evening they have to apply feminine traits which leaves them confused and unhappy.

There are plenty of jobs which are done better by women, involving multi tasking and other things.

Women in tradionally male workplaces most likely produced a lot of trouble marriagewise through flings on the job.

feminism disregards to a big extends the real needs of women and treats them as men in a female body (that works down to lesbianism). It is materialist and treats people according to their body, not their essence or spiritual peculiarities.

A nation which loses it's feminine women is on the down spiral (as well as losing masculine men).

A nation with masculinized women and feminized men does not work and that is excactly why it is applied to western countries. Feminist never complain over Muslim standards (though they are much much better than portraited in western media) if that is not suspicious than I do not know what.

Jens
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 12:29 PM
Interesting thoughts so far, I would be very interested to see if the women feel the same way though.

hyidi
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 12:35 PM
Feminism kills European men.

As a women, I will never get to witness what my female ancestors went through. Real European men untouched by feminism sh/t! REAL MEN.

Meister
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 02:23 PM
Feminism is largely dead.

What we see now is women and girls who have freedom but don't know what to do with it.

Their mothers and grandmothers might have been burning bras but women now are superficial, image conscious (ironically because of women's magazines and female t.v programming) and exploit/cheapen their sexuality by dancing on tables for money and having promiscuous sex and dressing like sluts. They have made themselves sex objects for men.

Airheads like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian etc are their role models.

Family structure is destroyed, white men would rather be with non Europeans who still have that sense of tradition and family, single parent (mother) households are common and as a result kids are brought up without discipline and a male figure. This has been proven to be harmful to boys but also girls who then don't know how to relate to males when they get older.

I'm not a woman hater. I'm not for women being treated badly. Men and Women are different in many ways and it is better that these differences are respected and understood than to try and make men and women the same.

As we have been seeing it just doesn't work.

So overall the influence of feminism on Germanic and for that matter any culture that has experienced it has been negative.

It is the same as any social "revolution" that seeks to bring about equality. Once that equality has been achieved, they seek supremacy.

Gaiseric
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 03:48 PM
Feminism certainly isn't dead in the US. It's running rampant like a disease. A widespread epidemic. Media, entertainment, and even the educational systems spread feminist ideologies which the feminization of men and masculinization of women is the result. Women are taught motherhood and even marital sex is oppressive and degrading but yet casual sex is control and liberating. Women become extremely materialistic as they are taught wealth is priority over family.

Men are emasculated through pop culture and media. They are taught to be weak by being submissive to feminine dominance. They are taught that feminine features are more sexually desirable and that marriage and children will only rob them of their hard earned income and property. This teaching them to turn to casual sex and to perceive women as sex objects.

I could go on and on about this because I've studied it extensively and it's sickening nature.

Something must be done to restore moral traditional values or our society will fall into complete decadence....

paganwinterviking
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 03:53 PM
Personally, I don't believe in gender equality, but neither do I believe in superiority or inferiority. I despise men who treat women like property. Genders are just different, that's all. Women excel at things men do not, and men excel at things that women do not, that's just how it is. And our societies would be best if we would stop trying to act like men (feminists) and women (homosexuals), and specialised in what we were made to do.

Couldn't have said it any better myself, I have always held this precise conviction.

Jens
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 04:04 PM
I understand this has been a major issue in the English speaking world. I have had different experiences here in Germany though. Perhaps it is because I am in the South, but family values persist, generally. In many ways, old beliefs regarding gender roles are intact. Provided women are treated with respect and love, even the graduate students and career women will wash your socks and clean the dishes. It is something I've seen among the liberal types as well as the conservatives here. They don't like being told what to do, but they'll do it for you without being asked if you treat them right and act like a man. I have been in the USA and I agree that things are very bad and tense there. People don't know what is expected of them anymore and the women and men seem angry at each other all the time. It seems like here it is different though. Women have a lot more time on their hands since technology now does most housework for them. I don't see a problem with them working, provided they are home in the evening so we can spend time together. In America the women are bitter about Patriarchy theory and see themselves as victims. I don't see that here, at least not among the younger generation. Maybe if I hung out in the gender studies department.

Anyway the current goals of feminism are not those things. Today's feminism is focused on the following:

Body Image in corporate media. (I think women should get to look the way they do without judgement)

Passing the Equal Rights Amendment in the USA (mostly this would make women eligible for the draft and combat positions in the military)

Gender specific violence legislation for women (absurd I think considering by FAR the most victims of violence are men)

Abolishing the Sex Industry (looks good to me)

I think men underestimate their own power in steering women's attitudes. Women still want men, and refusing to be involved with them unless they meet certain basic requirements regarding femininity can prevent a societal shift. We can already see the effect of this. The rabid career women of the 70s and 80s did not reproduce. And their lifestyle is no longer glorified in the mainstream.

Elfriede
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 04:15 PM
Personally, I don't believe in gender equality, but neither do I believe in superiority or inferiority. I despise men who treat women like property. Genders are just different, that's all. Women excel at things men do not, and men excel at things that women do not, that's just how it is. And our societies would be best if we would stop trying to act like men (feminists) and women (homosexuals), and specialised in what we were made to do.

Feminism has only sought to destroy the family unit, and there is one thing that every child deserves, the mother. Nowadays kids are growing up like free range chickens in those daycare centres, rather than having a proper mother (whom feminism threw into the workforce in the name of 'equality').

Absolutely. Women being thrown into the workforce has ruined the traditional family unit. Because of this, men are now unable to get the same high paying jobs that they once were and therefore the women think they must get jobs in order to support their families. It's a vicious cycle.

Some women actually want to head back to work as quickly as possible after giving birth. I believe it is unnatural for women to not want to stay at home with their babies. I feel so sorry for those poor women who actually really want to stay home and take care of their family but cannot due to the effects of feminism.

So my (female) opinion on feminism is this: it's terrible. It has confused both genders into thinking they are something they aren't. That leads to the destruction of traditional gender roles, which I hold in high regard.

Thusnelda
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 04:59 PM
If we think of cultural marxism and cultural relativism as a kraken or leviathan then feminism is one of the plenty poisonous tentacles of the monster. :| Feminism did a great part in ruining our healthy traditional family values and family structures over the last 40 years, it´s a degenerate ideology which tries to convince us women to act and do against our natural tasks and against our nature as an individual gender. While I support true gender equality according to old Germanic values, I despise feminism as an unnatural ideology which fakes equality but creates delusion and discord.

Here in Germany we have a very heated political debate about the planned "Betreuungsgeld" (child care subsidy) at the moment. The plan is that parents who decide to take care of their young children and babies at home (until the age of 3 or 4) receive 150€ per month by the state for their efforts. It is meant to provide more freedom of choice for parents. But Germany has a strong leftist, socialist and feminist lobby and these influential people continuously try to badmouth the planned Betreuungsgeld as "reactionary garbage of the past century" and as a "cooking stove premium". :thumbdown They disparage and slur mothers and parents who want to take care of their child at home instead of handing them over to a daycare center with the age of 1 or 2! Because - according to feminists and leftists - young children who reach the age of 1 or 2 belong to the state and not to their natural parents! The state is seen as the best caretaker and nurturer of children, not the own family.

If the leftists had their will they would send all babies who reach the age of three or four months to a public playgroup, then to a daycare center with the age of two or three and later to a full-day kindergarten until the age of six. With six the children need to go to a full-day school until they are 18 and then they have to work 50 hours a week until they are too old to work. People who are too old to work need to be sent to a old-age home and then, when they are becoming demented and retarded, to a care retirement home until they die.

These destructors of our society, they make me sick! :censored I hope the Betreuungsgeld comes because it would create more fairness for parents who don´t want to give their children to state-owned "children farms". Daycare centers are heavily subsided by the state while stay-at-home parents don´t receive enough support. The monthly Betreuungsgeld would adjust the imbalance and create more freedom of choice.

You may ask how feminism is related with the debate about the Betreuungsgeld!? Well, feminists want us women to work. That´s not negative per se but the crucial point is: Work and career advancement has to be superior to family and taking care of the own children! So it´s no surprise that women and parents who want to take care of their own children until they enter kindergarten or school are seen as "hostile elements" by the feminists.

Jens
Monday, May 14th, 2012, 05:45 PM
I agree about the Leftists, Thusnelda, but Feminism is made up of many separate movements that have different goals and priorities, ranging from the extermination of men to the removal of all gender specific legislation. I find it hard to swallow that feminists, as a whole, oppose Betreuungsgeld, considering the amount of activism there has been to institute maternity leave, child support, and alimony. There are a few incendiary quotes from radfems who want to abolish the concept of family but Radical Feminism is one feminist subbranch, the same one who's members think men should be culled to 10% of the population, that is not a mainstream ideology. I've never heard of feminists opposing free money for women on principle before.

Odd I've never found myself on this end of this debate before >_>

Bittereinder
Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, 01:13 PM
It comes down to the balance of the world, by tampering with that which is the most fundamental interaction within our race and even species...

Found this thread yesterday while searching for stuff relating to the Pineal Gland: Thule = Hyperborea = Atlantis?


The final step of the great transmutation from hominid to human
occurred after a mated pair of the creatures learned the art of
f---ing face-to-face.

This permitted eye contact at the moment of climax, which is the exact
act by which two created beings cross the abyss which separates them
and attain contact with Thule. The two became one for a moment in
the light of the Star of Life, and when this one being fell again in
two, the two remembered, and found that they had changed. They had
become conscious, which is the modern way of saying that they had
become ensouled. They were human now, and Thuleans incarnate.
The collective soul of the newly human race, knowing itself and
cherishing its union with eternal Thule, acquired in usage four
operative parts, as it expressed itself in man, woman, boy, and girl,
or father, mother, son, and daughter. And the shards of the soul
embodied in these persons acquired names, as the humans began to
speak. Their names were simple, as befitted the rudimentary stage of
the language; yet to that extent it was the language of Thule itself,
and when these dawnfolk spoke, the words rippled with magic and
resonated with primal force.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=79708

hyidi
Sunday, June 10th, 2012, 01:13 PM
Got this from a you-tuber expressing his views on feminism
This is standard stuff. Typical bullshit. Trouble is, in the sixty or so years since Feminism got underway and women have had all these opportunities to excel, what have they produced? Paperwork? Reports? Cosmetics? Face it, civilization was conceived, built and maintained by MEN and it will continue to be so for a long, long time. I've advocated for a "Men's Strike." See what happens when the trains stop running, the electricity goes off, the cars won't start. Women will be screaming for men!

I totally agreed. Our western civilization thrived when men had their place and women had theirs. Men build it and maintain it for millions of years and women kept our race thriving by producing on average 7 European babies. Now it is all scams, European women having 1-2 babies and working taking places that should had gone to an unemployed men.

Ragner
Friday, June 15th, 2012, 03:52 PM
I totally agree with the qoute in your post.

Furthermore it's wonderful that skandinavian people finally start to question feminism.

I have been working on this for more than 20 yrs. and even lost jobs because of my views.
Therefore I salute the men who finally understand that they must go their own way and retake their societies.

tigerlily
Friday, June 15th, 2012, 05:57 PM
Got this from a you-tuber expressing his views on feminism

I totally agreed. Our western civilization thrived when men had their place and women had theirs. Men build it and maintain it for millions of years and women kept our race thriving by producing on average 7 European babies. Now it is all scams, European women having 1-2 babies and working taking places that should had gone to an unemployed men.

This is not a fair judgement. Women historically have not had the opportunities that men have had. :thumbdown

Altrogothic
Friday, June 15th, 2012, 09:59 PM
Feminism has eroded traditional gender role's for no other reason than to destroy. That's the problem when thing's precede from the anarchic will to destroy. They destroy for the sake of destroying. They don't build anything in its wake, they don't even try, in fact they make sure nothing can be built on that ground ever again. Its this scorched earth tactic of postmodernist's, feminist's who find 'oppression' in everything constructive and liberation in everything destructive that our enemy's support precisely because they see to its inner nature while we pretend not to.

Scholl
Saturday, June 16th, 2012, 01:56 AM
I spent time at uni in my youth, undergoing my cultural marxism indoctrination, and I took much of it up and a lot of it is still with me today, but no matter how much my views change I don't think I'll ever fully embrace the conservative view. I think the conservative view looks back on the past with rose coloured glasses. No matter how much feminism has been used against us, it really was a movement whose time had come, gender roles really did need to be examined and reappraised, because all really was not well with them.

It's like the way we treat children - they used to be seen and not heard, and nowadays we run the risk of letting them rule the roost, we're so lenient on them, but the fact is in the old days there was a culture that in parts was downright cruel in its treatment of children. There did need to be a cultural move to eliminate cruel treatment.

In the bigger picture today I actually find feminism to hold one of the most powerful critiques of modern society, one I'd be willing to defend to the hilt, though there wouldn't be many card carrying feminists who'd be willing to fight beside me. To me, it makes good sense to think of the criminal network which currently runs global society as "the patriarchy." Official feminism is a sham to the extent that it has sought to get in with the criminal network, rather than overthrow it.

In the past, women really did need liberating, and moves were made in that direction, good and bad, but men also needed liberation from patriarchal rule...and that has never happened. A real feminism would be staunchly anti-war and anti-military, and very conservative in it's treatment of the environment. It would turn military weapon making into a prohibited activity, and stamp out the practice, using force if necessary, paradoxically. (Because the simple fact is there's too many people on the planet to continue the war-making culture into the future.) That alone would turn the current world on its head.

I don't hold out much hope of things changing by themselves in this direction though, but maybe after the next nuclear bomb is dropped in anger people might start to think hard about the situation.

Jens
Sunday, June 17th, 2012, 12:33 AM
Alright Scholl, an interesting take. Though I can't figure out why you see anti militarism and anti violence as a feminist principle. There is no reason that this would be more important to women than men, quite the opposite. I think men have far more reason to oppose war and violence since men are by far the primary victims and perpetrators of both.