PDA

View Full Version : Ladies vs. Feminazis



Winsome
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 12:15 AM
What Do Women Really Want?

For starters, most women likely do not want to hear and read such tripe concerning "What Women Really Want" (as if all women want the same things).

Death and the Sun
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 12:21 AM
Are you male or female, Winsome?

Winsome
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 12:30 AM
Female. Why does it matter for the purposes of this forum?

Death and the Sun
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 12:33 AM
Female. Why does it matter for the purposes of this forum?

For the purposes of this forum it does not matter at all.

But since your introductory posts have all been gender-related, I'm sure you can understand my curiosity.

Welcome to tNP.

Constantinus
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 11:30 AM
Guess again, o unwise Cosmostradamus. Loki has instructed the staff not to ban me -- I plan to post a few pictures of some 'Nordish' relatives.

Oh God, this awful creature has posted here too I see.

DreamWalker
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 05:47 PM
Oh God, this awful creature has posted here too I see.
Wow, you EuroFolk sure know how to sweet-talk the ladies, I should be taking notes to see if these techniques work on Vinland ladies:rotfl:

Constantinus
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Wow, you EuroFolk sure know how to sweet-talk the ladies, I should be taking notes to see if these techniques work on Vinland ladies:rotfl:

I don't think I was adressing a lady there. ;)

The Horned God
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 06:22 PM
I don't think I was adressing a lady there. ;)

Nor do I. The less one has to do with those kind of people the better. :cool:

Winsome
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 07:29 PM
I don't think I was adressing a lady there. ;)
So people who seem bright, state opinions that conflict with your own and fail to conform to your stereotypes about women cannot possibly be female?

One sees plenty of this on the Internet.

anonymaus
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 07:31 PM
So people who seem bright, state opinions that conflict with your own and fail to conform to your stereotypes about women cannot possibly be female?

No, it's just that particular woman isn't a lady, rather a feminazi.

Winsome
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 07:39 PM
No, it's just that particular woman isn't a lady, rather a feminazi.
I know that's what he was referring to, and you responded as I expected. :)

Is it required of submissive 'ladies' that they have double-digit IQs? After all, it's clear that they must slavishly repeat the party line regarding 'feminism' to be called such.

anonymaus
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 07:48 PM
I know that's what he was referring to, and you responded as I expected. :)

Is it required of submissive 'ladies' that they have double-digit IQs? After all, it's clear that they must slavishly repeat the party line regarding 'feminism' to be called such.

Feminists are generally more concerned with, and steeped in, gender-role conflict and stigma than normal females and males are. It certainly seems to be the case here, at least in your baseless opinion of how men you don't know view women and feminism. I don't see submissiveness as a pre-requisite to being a lady, rather the opposite: a woman should be able to conduct herself appropriately in any social situation just as a man would.

The difference being that "I-wish-I-had-one-too" types are usually aggressive anti-male mouthpieces. The hot air blowing from these women's mouths is more effective at increasing global warming than any amount of petrol pollution. These are not now and never can be "ladies".

A lady can be whatever she wants, and hold whatever opinion she wants, without actively trying to tear apart the natural order of family and gender-roles.

Winsome
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 08:00 PM
Feminists are generally more concerned with, and steeped in, gender-role conflict and stigma than normal females and males are. It certainly seems to be the case here, at least in your baseless opinion of how men you don't know view women and feminism.

Anyone who is not of the particular 'baseless' opinion to which you refer has not read (and understood) many threads here.


I don't see submissiveness as a pre-requisite to being a lady, rather the opposite: a woman should be able to conduct herself appropriately in any social situation just as a man would.

Judging from remarks throughout your post, 'any social situation' in this context does not include the home, the workplace, etc.


The difference being that "I-wish-I-had-one-too" types are usually aggressive anti-male mouthpieces. The hot air blowing from these women's mouths is more effective at increasing global warming than any amount of petrol pollution. These are not now and never can be "ladies".

The poster on whom you commented seemed to be in favor of 'equal opportunity' and opposed to prescribed 'gender roles' - hardly resembling female supremacists in the vein of Dworkin, who spout the same rhetoric as male chauvinists ('women are the more compassionate sex', etc.). Contrary to your implication, 'penis envy' is not common among Dworkin types (nor among those you would deem 'feminazis' in general, might I add).


A lady can be whatever she wants, and hold whatever opinion she wants, without actively trying to tear apart the natural order of family and gender-roles.

If 'the natural order' is such as you describe, why does it vary across cultures and why do 'j00 feminazis' have the magical power to change it?

Death and the Sun
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 08:31 PM
Winsome;

tNP is not meant as a soapbox, not for feminists, not for anyone who would drive wedges between Nordish men and women.

I myself don't have a problem with independent and opinionated women; or with certain types of feminism (and I'm sure many of our members feel the same way); but I will not tolerate anyone who is being divisive and hostile on purpose.


If 'the natural order' is such as you describe, why does it vary across cultures and why do 'j00 feminazis' have the magical power to change it?

Two things:

Gender roles vary amazingly little across cultures; and we're not interested in emulating other cultures anyway, we want to preserve our own.





Others;

Any soap operas you may have had with Winsome in her previous incarnations, it's not necessary to reharsh them here.

anonymaus
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Anyone who is not of the particular 'baseless' opinion to which you refer has not read (and understood) many threads here.

Or isn't a crusader for gender equivalency, perhaps?


Judging from remarks throughout your post, 'any social situation' in this context does not include the home, the workplace, etc.

I was indeed including both of these. A lady is capable of doing most things a man does both at home and the workplace--certainly. Whether she does them as well as a man, or not, is likely based more on the individual than the gender, though both must play some (unequal) part.


The poster on whom you commented seemed to be in favor of 'equal opportunity' and opposed to prescribed 'gender roles'

Equal opportunity is a societal issue to me. An issue of rights. A woman who doesn't have the right to pursue her life as she sees fit is a second-class citizen and that is unacceptable. My problem is not equal opportunity, but the idea that women and men are equivalent in everything which is laughable.

The genders are different, they are designed to be different; males and females excel at different tasks and have evolved for these roles over exceedingly long periods of time. The neurological structure of the brain, how it processes things, the speed at which it does so, and the things which it can process all vary between the sexes.

More importantly, however, is the "big one": procreation. Men and women each have a place in procreation, with the women receiving not only the lion's share of the burden, but also the responsibility and importance. Homosexuals, equality nuts and man-haters(to name just a few) tend to be removed from the genepool - thus negating their genetic legacy which could have, in turn, produced more humans who do not wish to procreate.


Dworkin

I threw holy water at the screen, and I'm not even catholic.


Contrary to your implication, 'penis envy' is not common among Dworkin types (nor among those you would deem 'feminazis' in general, might I add).

Among them? No, certainly not, simply a matter of wanting to cut our members off and keep them on display isn't it? Or is it just so we don't "rape" them with it, during what everyone else considers normal intercourse?


If 'the natural order' is such as you describe, why does it vary across cultures and why do 'j00 feminazis' have the magical power to change it?

As much change as happens in any society regarding the, erm, "advancement" of women as equivalent to men there will always be enough breeders around to eek out an existence. Societies are temporary, procreation is perpetual.

It's a shame there aren't more third-world feminists or lesbians really.. they could serve well in reducing the birth rates of the more populous areas of the world. As for the West, well, it'd sure help the numbers some if more lesbians and "driven career women" could pop out a baby now and then.. but I don't think the breeding quality would much improve.

Any woman who can balance a career and a reasonable family life is just fine by me, though, because regardless of any feminist peccadillos she she might have.. she is still designed to make children. Society expects her to make children, and it wouldn't mind if she raised them properly either.

Equal rights, as opposed to equivalency, is a matter of adhering to the logic and laws of the land. Freedom, liberty, all that crap--when men wrote the rules they didn't imagine they'd have to apply to women too. Therefore I see women gaining equal rights as either one of two things:

1) Society coming to its senses
2) Exploitation by women activists of unforeseen consequence in the initial creation of the laws/liberties of the society

Essentially, aggressive feminism and homosexuality have to be allowed legally - but society on the whole need not accept them.

Equal? Sure. Equivalent? I don't think so.

/novel

IvyLeaguer
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Winsome,

I don't visit any of the other forums, so I've only just read what has been debated here between you and Anonymaus.

I will start by saying I am in no way a feminist. I am a mother and believe that to be my primary role in life. However, I'm also an academic, so I happen to be around those who are avid feminists on a regular basis. You might say my beliefs would place me in the minority at my place of work.

I guess what I am missing in this bantering back and forth is what exactly is it you want to prove here, Winsome? Do you feel that our primary role as women is not to pro-create? If you believe that it isn't, then what do you actually believe should be the fundamental purpose of women in furthering our cause? I'm just curious about what your thoughts are on this.

As an intelligent woman, which you very clearly are, why do you hold such a pejorative attitude towards traditional female roles or am I misunderstanding this?

I'm curious as to whether or not you have perhaps been reading the works of J.J. Bachofen? For those not familiar with this name, Bachofen believed that woman had been enslaved in the family unit through the unnatural state of marriage. He felt women should be able to freely choose the fathers of their children without hindrance from bourgeous Christian morality. Bachofen believed that this "enslavement" had caused the decline of the Aryan race. This makes perfect sense to a degree, since other races, for example the Amerindians and those who had lived in slavery, were allowed to breed unhindered by the social stigma of out-of-wedlock births and/or freely find other "mating" partners. Bachofen's followers tended to be, therefore, vehemently anti-Christian and neo-Pagan---C.G. Jung, Nietzsche, Strindberg, and H. Hesse were just a few avid believers in Bachofen's theories.

Winsome, I was wondering if you were also perhaps a follower of Bachofen's ideas? I think this may be why you might be locking horns with some of the tNP members and you are not seeing eye to eye. Many National Socialists actually advocated Bachofen's ideals, trying to rid Northern European society of these seemingly destructive bourgeous morals and norms, but at the same time and interestingly enough, so did many feminists.

What is your take on this?

Thanks!

IvyLeaguer
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 11:05 PM
I wanted to also add on and explain about Bachofen.......that he was considered to be a "racist" author mainly because he held the view that by allowing and promoting selective breeding, i.e. allowing the female to find the strongest and best male specimens to father their children, a master-race would be created. Just wanted to clear that up.

DreamWalker
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 11:54 PM
I wanted to also add on and explain about Bachofen.......that he was considered to be a "racist" author mainly because he held the view that by allowing and promoting selective breeding, i.e. allowing the female to find the strongest and best male specimens to father their children, a master-race would be created. Just wanted to clear that up.
Not terribly different from the old ways Varg Vikernes speaks of;

Women were seen as more powerful practitioners of magic, though, as males were not seen as magical creatures in the same way as women were. The women were even seen as more valuable generally speaking. If only one woman survives in a tribe the tribe is doomed, no matter how many men survives, but if only one man survives along with several women, he can still impregnate the lot of them (and it would probably not be too hard to convince him to do just that either, as all men are dogs after all) and make sure enough children are born anyhow. Children are the foundation all societies that wants to survive must be built on.

That brings us to my next point. The "Wiccans" and other "Pagans" don't seem to understand that the worship of Mother Earth, the goddess, was first and foremost a fertility cult where making and raising (quality) children was seen as the most important task. Because of that the circles of Freya priestesses picked out the best man in the tribe to be their Freyr priest, because quality was what mattered the most, and naturally the best man could give them the best children. Because of that these chosen Freyr priests had several wives. The unhealthy children, the sick children, the weak or otherwise not ideal children were set out in the forest to be eaten by wolves. They didn't do this because they were poor, but because their natural religion dictated this.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8862&highlight=varg+vikernes

IvyLeaguer
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 01:26 AM
Many have been influenced. Here is an interesting link to a synopsis of Bachofen's Mutterrecht and its relevance to National Socialism. It is by Julius Evola (Italian mystic and alchemist who had heavy involvement with the occult branch of the SS).

http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id22.html

Nordhammer
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 02:19 AM
Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry. One has only to observe how they behave in the theater or at operas and concerts, e.g. the childish unconcern with which they go on chattering away during the most beautiful parts of the greatest masterpieces. If it is true the Greeks refused to allow women into the theater, they did the right thing: at least one would have been able to hear what was going on. -- Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honor is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes. -- This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

Woman in the Occident, that is to say the 'lady,' finds herself in a false position: for woman is by no means fitted to be the object of our veneration, to hold her head higher than the man or to enjoy equal rights with him. The consequences of this false position are sufficiently obvious. It would thus be a very desirable thing if this number two of the human race were again put in her natural place in Europe too, and a limit set to the unnaturalness called a lady at which all Asia laughs and which Greece and Rome would laugh at too if they could see it: the consequences for the social, civil and political life of Europe would be incalculably beneficial. The European lady is a creature which ought not to exist at all: what there ought to be is housewives and girls who hope to become housewives and who are therefore educated, not in arrogant haughtiness, but in domesticity and submissiveness. It is precisely because there are ladies that European women of a lower status, which is to say the great majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the Orient.

-SCHOPENHAUER

;)

Nordhammer
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 08:42 AM
"A man's women folk, whatever their outward show of respect for his merit and authority, always regard him secretly as an ass, and with something akin to pity. His most gaudy sayings and doings seldom deceive them; they see the actual man within, and know him for a shallow and pathetic fellow. In this fact, perhaps, lies one of the best proofs of feminine intelligence ..."

"A woman wishes to mother a man simply because she sees into his helplessness, his need of an amiable environment, his touching self delusion. That ironical note is not only daily apparent in real life; it sets the whole tone of feminine fiction. The woman novelist, if she be skillful enough to arise out of mere imitation into genuine self-expression, never takes her heroes quite seriously. From the day of George Sand to the day of Selma Lagerlof she has always got into her character study a touch of superior aloofness, of ill-concealed derision. I can't recall a single masculine figure created by a woman who is not, at bottom, a booby."

"Women, in truth, are not only intelligent; they have almost a monopoly of certain of the subtler and more utile forms of intelligence. The thing itself, indeed, might be reasonably described as a special feminine character; there is in it, in more than one of its manifestations, a femaleness as palpable as the femaleness of cruelty, masochism or rouge. Men are strong. Men are brave in physical combat. Men have sentiment. Men are romantic, and love what they conceive to be virtue and beauty. Men incline to faith, hope and charity. Men know how to sweat and endure. Men are amiable and fond. But in so far as they show the true fundamentals of intelligence--in so far as they reveal a capacity for discovering the kernel of eternal verity in the husk of delusion and hallucination and a passion for bringing it forth--to that extent, at least, they are feminine, and still nourished by the milk of their mothers. "Human creatures," says George, borrowing from Weininger, "are never entirely male or entirely female; there are no men, there are no women, but only sexual majorities." Find me an obviously intelligent man, a man free from sentimentality and illusion, a man hard to deceive, a man of the first class, and I'll show you a man with a wide streak of woman in him. Bonaparte had it; Goethe had it; Schopenhauer had it; Bismarck and Lincoln had it; in Shakespeare, if the Freudians are to be believed, it amounted to down right homosexuality. The essential traits and qualities of the male, the hallmarks of the unpolluted masculine, are at the same time the hall-marks of the Schalskopf. The caveman is all muscles and mush. Without a woman to rule him and think for him, he is a truly lamentable spectacle: a baby with whiskers, a rabbit with the frame of an aurochs, a feeble and preposterous caricature of God."

- H. L. Mencken

;)

Arcturus
Friday, July 15th, 2005, 03:15 PM
If anyone has read Robert Jordan, and indeed, many other fantasy authors such as Terry Goodkind or David Eddings, they will find that when these authors depict women, the above comes quite close.