Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 273

Thread: Feminism / Effects and Destruction of the Family / Influence of Feminism on Germanic Culture

  1. #21
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 07:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,154
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Oskorei
    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.

  2. #22
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 07:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,154
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Freja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, June 28th, 2011 @ 12:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Ancestry
    Norway
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    State
    Vastergotland Vastergotland
    Gender
    Politics
    Green
    Posts
    403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordhammer
    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... eyes:

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 03:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,606
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    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.






  5. #25
    Senior Member cosmocreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 18th, 2007 @ 06:36 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    54
    Politics
    Living in the real world
    Posts
    3,864
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
    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:
    .

    IHR Revisionist Conference, April 24, 2004, internet broadcast:

    http://www.internationalrevisionistconference.c om/

  6. #26
    Senior Member Sword Brethren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 12th, 2004 @ 07:08 AM
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Ohio
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Fascist / White Supremacy
    Religion
    Christian Identity
    Posts
    202
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Feminism's Third Wave

    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..."
    www.mysticknights.org (A good eastern and midwestern Klan)
    www.mwkkkk.com (The Mississippi White Knights. Fighting to keep Mississippi for Mississippians and America for Americans)
    www.safl.co.za (A miltia for defense of Boers)
    www.awb.co.za (The Afrikaner Resistance Movement)



    "The "Religious Right" is neither religious nor right." -Me

  7. #27
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Carey Roberts: "The Sun of Feminism Shines Brightly in Socialist Europe"

    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/introducti...08roberts.html

  8. #28
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Deutschland
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Gender
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    14
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    "You Don't Know Feminism"

    http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com...icle_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), 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?"). 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 [is] 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, The Second Sex, 1949.

    "[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry...not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] 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, 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.... [i]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, 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, 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. "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."

    [i]Brian Robertson, in his book Forced Labor: What's Wrong with Balancing Work and Family (Spence Publishing, 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 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?"). 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, 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)

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 12:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Alice Von Hildebrand on Feminism and Femininity

    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."

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 18th, 2010 @ 01:54 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Vandalic
    Ancestry
    Reidgotalandic
    Location
    Limes Germanicus
    Gender
    Posts
    941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Feminism as a Jewish Anti-Germanic Strategy

    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, 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” 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", 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.
    Last edited by Vingolf; Sunday, December 24th, 2006 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Spelling + clarity

Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 09:46 PM
  2. The Frankfurt School and the Destruction of Germanic Culture
    By Aptrgangr in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Tuesday, May 6th, 2008, 05:44 AM
  3. So Much For Feminism - Poor body image in females
    By Bridie in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 04:14 AM
  4. Feminism, gender-roles and the relation of physical appearance to the above
    By Nordhammer in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: Monday, August 9th, 2004, 06:57 PM
  5. Islam saves Europe from blind Feminism
    By Sister_Light in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 07:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •