Ladies against feminism
An excerpt from their website:
“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. “[I]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.”
Comments (103) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Feminism, like liberalism in general, is supposed to aim at individual freedom of choice.
So you would think that feminism would freely allow women to choose to be homemakers. Of course it doesn’t.
Why not? I’ve offered an answer in what I think is one of my better efforts, Is family a valid feminist choice?
That was one of the best essays I’ve seen on the subject, Mark. Thanks for linking it. I read it last summer when it went up at the site, and it reads even better now, in light of some of the intervening antics of women’s lib, antics that would be hilarious were they not so threatening, dangerous, and borderline criminally-insane.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, March 19, 2005 at 05:47 PM | #
Thank you very much for this article. Isn’t it amazing that “choice” for feminists only pertains to abortion, and nothing else?
Posted by Julie Bartlett on Friday, September 2, 2005 at 11:34 AM | #
"Choice” for feminists does not only pertain to abortion. How dare someone even think such a thought. “Choice” is about choice. About the control over ones life and destiny, and this is what feminists want for women. The right to be able to choose, without oppression from men. Also, to Fred. I would very much appreciate it if you were to call it Women’s Liberation, not Women’s Lib...this is a dema\eaning term, and just another way in which men do not take Radical Feminism seriously.
Many feminists today do not mind being housewives. Feminism is about much more than that. As i said above, it is about choice; the choice to be whomever and whatever you damned well please.
Posted by Matthew Davies on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 at 07:01 AM | #
"How dare someone even think such a thought.”
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought we were allowed freedom of thought. Or maybe that’s another “invalid choice.”
Posted by Julie Bartlett on Thursday, October 13, 2005 at 07:18 PM | #
You are, of course, free to “think that thought,” but the point Matthew Davies made remains. I have yet to speak to any feminist who is “anti-housewife.” I have yet to read any feminist article that regards housewives the way you have claimed they do. I have yet to come across any feminist commentary that deems being a housewife inappropriate, unfeminist, or “wrong.”
Many feminists are housewives. Sorry, but the argument is ridiculous.
Posted by Cathryn on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 01:39 AM | #
Cathryn, women’s lib’s fundamental positions are and always have been anti-housewife, anti-men, and anti-baby. (What these positions are, essentially, are lesbian positions.) The entire careers of the principle women’s libbers revolved around these central positions. Maybe you’ve come in contact with women who are trying to modify these central tenets (because as is obvious at first glance they’re not only unworkable but obnoxious, repulsive in the extreme) in order to try to make them into something workable and so salvage some of women’s lib (why they want to salvage any of it is a mystery) which has been a failure as far as making women happy goes. Women’s lib has always vigorously condemned the choice of the housewife/child-bearer/mother role by young women. Yes, Betty Friedan backtracked late in her involvement in the movement, and tried to endorse femininity, men, marriage, childrearing, and the houswife/mother role, claiming it was a mistake of women’s lib to condemn those things. But it was a classic case of “too little, too late,” and the broad public ignored her, having already decisively rejected women’s lib (all their organizations’ membership numbers were artifically inflated to appear far larger than they actually were). No one’s buying women’s lib any more, Cathryn. It’s dying as a movement and none too soon: it’s ruined enough lives—men’s, women’s, children’s, and grandparents’. It’s done enough harm.
Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 02:21 AM | #
Many feminists today do not mind being housewives. Feminism is about much more than that. As i said above, it is about choice; the choice to be whomever and whatever you damned well please.
Good one, Matthew, and I might add that feminism, by breaking down gender stereotypes, has also freed up men that want to take time from the paid workforce to be SAHDs, or for both parents to work fewer days and spend more time at home.
Helen,
The fundamental, killing problem with liberalism, of which Marxism and feminism are strains, is that freedom in the sense that it conceives it does not exist. Choice is a lie.
Imagine that you are a child still, and you look forward to possessing the powers of adulthood with a child-like longing. But you have the sense to know that they are a product - not a right or a privilege - of maturity. First, you have to grow up.
Liberals do not have such sense, and liberalism represents a refusal to wait. It is children’s politics. Liberals do not know that freedom (aka choice) is a manifestation of inner unity, self-consciousness and will - the fruits of a spiritual maturity which, because it requires solid foundations, the great majority of human beings will never achieve.
The kind of maturity I am speaking about - the real, natural kind - does not grant the power “to be whomever and whatever you damned well please”. That’s a fantasy ... a children’s game of pretending to be something you are not. No, such maturity means you are more yourself. What is real and true in you may, through a certain self-consciousness, exercise greater sway, and what is false or acquired in personality is abnegated.
That is the only basis on which a man or woman may experience freedom - the ability to do and to create.
The serious error in liberalism is the belief that Nature constrains, and what is acquired in the self is liberating. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 06:45 AM | #
No one’s buying women’s lib any more, Cathryn. It’s dying as a movement and none too soon: it’s ruined enough lives—men’s, women’s, children’s, and grandparents’. It’s done enough harm.
Fred, well said. There are too many women in their late 30s and 40s grieving over lost opportunities to marry or to have children for feminism to have any popular appeal.
I notice here in Australia that even left-wing men are now ambivalent about feminism.
It is surviving only at a “professional” level in academia and in government bureaucracies.
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 07:53 AM | #
I have yet to come across any feminist commentary that deems being a housewife inappropriate, unfeminist, or “wrong.”
Cathryn, nearly all feminist commentary is negative toward women being housewives.
A recent example concerns Julia Gillard, a senior politician in the Australian Labor Party. In an interview for a newspaper magazine, Gillard called for girls to have choices, but then carefully explained that,
“If one suggested to a girl in school today that her future life would consist of marriage, raising children and tending the family home, she would no doubt look at you as if you had just arrived from Mars ...”
This is a clever way for Gillard to appear to be pro-choice, whilst signalling that certain choices, like being a housewife, are thought to be illegitimate.
Gillard’s views, though, are hopelessly inconsistent. She states that in the future all women will combine motherhood with paid work, before confessing that she herself would be unwilling to make the necessary compromises.
And, having dismissed the idea that women might choose to be stay at home mums - as something too unearthly to even contemplate - she then enthuses over the idea that men would choose to be stay at home dads.
Think about what this means. Gillard when addressing girls is saying that being a homemaker is an inadequate vocation, but then turns around and says to boys that it would be a great thing to commit to - and she expects the illogic of this to pass by unnoticed.
For more, see my article Gillard vs Gillard.
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 10:42 AM | #
Mark, that was an excellent log entry on Julia Gillard.
To quote “Bobby N.” in the readers’ thread underneath the log entry which Mark links:
“The basic fact (that I’m sure one would agree with, in looking at the welfare of the child at least) - is that a mother who hands her baby/infant over to strangers to care for (8 hrs a day, 5 days a week) while she goes off to work, simply CANNOT be as good a mother to her child as a woman who hand rears her child full-time.”
Bobby’s got it exactly. There is simply no way to deny Bobby’s fundamental point here: it is unassailable. No one can dispute it, no one. Bobby’s point here all by itself blows women’s lib completely out of the water, though women’s lib is about lots of things other than just daycare advocacy (most of them pitifully wrong).
What about young mothers who aren’t women’s libbers but have to work so the couple can make ends meet? That’s government doing that to young couples mainly by imposing high tax rates and by not giving enough tax breaks to couples with young children, and shame on government for doing that! Such governments should be given the boot! They do not deserve to exist!
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 01:09 PM | #
I must say also that GW’s comment above was first-rate!
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 01:12 PM | #
Here‘s a woman who preferred not to hand her babies and toddlers over to some paid daycare drudge while she had her career (I just happened to see this bio linked by Johan in the Paul Belien thread):
Alexandra Colen was born in Dublin (1955) and grew up in County Monaghan. She holds an MA in Linguistics (University of Reading, UK) and a doctorate in Germanic Philology (University of Ghent, Flanders). She lectured at the universities of Antwerp and Ghent and is the author of A Syntactic and Semantic Study of English Predicative Nominals and a co-author of Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Engels Nederlands (Van Dale Comprehensive English to Dutch Dictionary) and other linguistic books.
Alexandra Colen is married to Flemish journalist Paul Belien and renounced an academic career to become a full-time mother [...].
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 01:26 PM | #
About the control over ones life and destiny, and this is what feminists want for women. The right to be able to choose, without oppression from men.
They want women to be free to make choices that harm the community and its foundation, the wife-husband unit. Replace a man-husband with a state-husband. Replace children with a job.
It is just one form of radical individualism that is advocated to facilitate a competitive advantage for less individualistic groups.
And Guessedworker is right: freedom inheres in following one’s nature, not fighting it.
Posted by ben tillman on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 01:43 PM | #
The kind of maturity I am speaking about - the real, natural kind - does not grant the power “to be whomever and whatever you damned well please”. That’s a fantasy ... a children’s game of pretending to be something you are not. No, such maturity means you are more yourself. What is real and true in you may, through a certain self-consciousness, exercise greater sway, and what is false or acquired in personality is abnegated.
Absolutely!
This is 100% true. Rather than repeat myself I’ll just quote a post I made at SF recently, after my epiphany about the absurdity of calling what we are “WNism”:
White Nationalism (or any flavor of Racial Nationalism) is a title that only makes sense in the context of the west’s psychotic anti-nature anti-human Zeitgeist.
WNism is not an ideology. WNism is not a political position. WNism is nature. WNism is humanism. Once you grok that, you understand that the name “WNism” is a misnomer, an illusion created to help the maladapted understand it within the framework of their delusion.
WNism is Ethnic Genetic Interests, if you must have a scientific theory; it’s nature.
I’ll still respond as a WN, reply to questions of WNs, self-identify as a WN because of its utility with the maladapted and its coinage, but I’ve come to understand that WNism is not ideology and it isn’t politics. It’s nature.
Racial Nationalism is a rest stop on the path to becoming a human being, or if you prefer, a fully human being. Being fully human means understanding human nature. Understanding human nature involves understanding human biodiversity and what it means for relations between people. Given the mass delusionary framework governing public life in the west, becoming a Racial Nationalist is a natural part of the process of becoming a fully human being.
SFer Hawthorn posted the perfect quote from Richard McCulloch’s Desiny of Angels (along with a caveat about what Hawthorn means by racism):
Actually, since racism is the pro-racial life position it is somewhat incongruous that there should even be a word for it, as it should be taken for granted as a condition of existence. It is as if - on the micro-social or individual level - there were a word, such as livism, for those who wish to live, to continue to exist, as if this desire was not assumed as a given. Racism is the macro-social equivalent of this desire to live, or livism. By this analogy, interracism is the macro-social equivalent of deathism - the desire for nonexistence - on the micro-social or individual level
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=301330
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 05:12 PM | #
No, such maturity means you are more yourself.
Yes, yes, yes! I love that I’ve finally understood that! It’s like enlightenment, but the natural kind; there’s nothing esoteric or enigmatic about it at all.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 05:22 PM | #
GW , your passage put in to words what I could not.
I really thank you for that as I now can use that as I move forward in life, which is the greatest compliment I could give.
It also takes me into other realms, specifically religion.
I am an agnostic, as I have stated before, but with “culturally christian” roots,i.e. happy to see churches in the skyline and don’t want to see anything else. As I have stated before here, I want to pass on my being(housed in my genotype) on to future generations because my belief is that combination of genotypical behavioural characteristics , along with specific life experiences(a little bit of nuture for genocidal marxist anti-racists listening in) create the consciousness that I experience. At this point JJR will hook me up to a machine that measures my brainwaves when I bite into an apple Vs his and prove that we are identical.
Back to my problem with Religion, to me(not understanding this till right now) professes to give a person a divine understanding/wisdom of oneself and the world around him by committing to the teaching/belief in the gospel, nothing else is required.
I think that is why I never really found that compelling, almost instinctually. Your analogy of the child longing for the maturity of adulthood as a child is powerful.
Frustrating me further, as once gaining an understanding of all the elements that it takes to grasp racial consciousness, it makes it difficult to impart that knowledge onto others who haven’t made that same journey.
Ironically enough, it gets so frustrating that I almost resort to using racial epithets to stake my position with people who don’t/won’t/can’t because of their lack of maturity brought on through the lack of knowledge to understand what we are fighting. I rarely argue with MR antagonists due to the fact their positions represent an act of genocidal war against my very being and is almost impossible for me to calmly debate. It is like them holding a gun to my head and saying “explain to my logically, why I shouldn’t pull the trigger”
It is tellling that many of the real intellectual giants who understand this seem to die very young, Sam Francis and John Attarian to name a couple. It is almost like their soul dies mimicking the dying soul/consciousness of European Man.
I am sure the GC’s, Abe Foxman’s and all the other anti-white racial antagonists are snickering happily that their campaigns are chipping at the very existence of Euro Man.
What should be concerning for them is with the knowledge of what has been perpetrated against us as a people, we will rise again to rule our destiny and for eternity as only we can create.
Posted by Voice on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 07:20 PM | #
It’s not unusual for all the pieces to be in place before the pattern emerges, Svi. We all have this experience, or we would be closed to the truth and going nowhere.
Communicating this stuff through mere words, however, remains both uncertain as to effect and, given our degraded intellectual zeitgeist, rather hazardous to reputations. All people process new information, whether it is “awakening” in intent or not, through the associative data they have acquired through life - often at a very early stage. It is impossible for the well-meaning outsider to break through at will. The pieces have to be in place first, and that might take years. It might never happen at all. Meanwhile the outsider looks like a prize chump!
Really, a contrived esotericism, like numerology or kabbalism, is for the most part pretentious. There is nothing esoteric about the art of being, save that we may not be comprehending yet.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 07:40 PM | #
Voice,
Like you, I am not a religious man. In addition to never seeing how belief was a prerequisite for understanding anything I couldn’t, and cannot, see what is the point of worship.
Never been capable of belief, myself. Perhaps that’s the reason I happily lump religion and politics in close proximity, and with them “grace” and “civil liberty”. The difference is only contextual. The quality of freedom must be the same, or Man cannot be true. That means that the narrow, liberal understanding of freedom is wrong - simple as that.
I don’t know whether we can inject enough truth into the zeitgeist to destabilise it. Today we are still very few and we are very weak, and detached. Still we have no choice but to try, each in our own way. For Svi and me that means arguing with our protagonists here and elsewhere - modelling if possible the superiority of our freedom and our meaning of life.
Religion is politics for us, perhaps, but politics is never religion.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 08:29 PM | #
Most of you are pretty much insane. Some of you aren’t even “pretty much insane,” you’re just insane in the most awful and dimwitted sense.
And you’re trying to find meanings in feminism that aren’t even relevent.
Let’s look at the agreed upon definition of feminism--"The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” That’s what feminism is.
Crazy Mark’s comment--"Cathryn, nearly all feminist commentary is negative toward women being housewives.”
I’m glad women have the CHOICE to be housewives. I’m glad some women like being housewives. I’m just as glad some women like being doctors, and lawyers, and even rulers of countries. Thank you: Pratibha Patil, Han Myung-sook, Hillary Clinton, Cleoptra, and so many other beautiful and smart women. I thank them as much as I thank all the men out there, but definitely not more. That’s what feminism is, twits.
And, abortion? Where did that even come from in this argument? And why?
You’d be a fan of abortion if you knew that mothers are going to keep giving birth to millions and millions of little feminists that are going to revolutionize the world someday. Hell, we’re doing it right now.
Here’s another funny one from Fred--"No one’s buying women’s lib any more, Cathryn. It’s dying as a movement and none too soon: it’s ruined enough lives—men’s, women’s, children’s, and grandparents’. It’s done enough harm.”
ahhahhaha. Oh, man. haha. Wishful thinking, I guess.
Fred, you’re buying in to feminism enough to be scared, yeah? If you weren’t scared, you’d have no reason to write.
I’ve got so much more to say, but so little time I want to waste saying it over the internet.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 09:12 PM | #
Right, Cathryn, I’m quaking in my boots.
Women’s lib is men-hating marriage-hating baby-slaughtering couples-ruining hate-filled perverted lesbian degenerateness of the first order. Normal women want nothing to do with that sickness. Pollsters can’t find any female college students any more who are willing to call themselves “feminists.” “Women’s Studies” departments at universities are the laughing stock of academia, more pathetic than seeing a dog trying to walk on its hind legs. Yes you’re dying and none too soon considering the monumental damage you lot have wrought on society and everything in it. Women’s lib’s last gasp will be music to mine ears.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 10:52 PM | #
Excuse me: Courtney. And the same goes for Cathryn.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 10:53 PM | #
Courtney Schofield said: “Let’s look at the agreed upon definition of feminism--"The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” That’s what feminism is.”
Wrong! “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” Hahahahaha!!!
Posted by Tommy G on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 01:55 AM | #
Wrong, again, Fred.
I can speak for myself, a college student, and several other college students who are willing to call themselves feminists. Who are these “pollsters?” If you’re correct, then they should probably be stripped of their salary. They’re not doing a super good job. A lot of colleges have “Feminist clubs.” Whether or not you agree with these clubs doesn’t matter, because they still exist. So, needless to say, there are definitely women who attend college who call themselves feminists.
And why do you care so much, anyway? I’m not a lesbian, but if I want to have sex with women, I’m going to go have sex with women and it shouldn’t bother you. Lesbianism and feminism are not connected. Also, everything else you associated with this “sickness” is unrelated. You have a skewed view of Feminism.
There probably will not be a last gasp, and by “probably,” I mean “definitely.” The fight for equality among anything--race, immigration quotas, social classes, and, yes, even gender will not cease until equality is achieved on all levels. Whether or not this actually happens is irrelevant--it only means the fight is prolonged. The only way to stop the fight for equality is to kill all those who believe in it, but it’s only a matter of time before the whole thing starts again. So, again, you’re just a wishful thinker, and that’s fine, Fred.
And, Tommy, I’m not sure if you were trying to be offensive or just funny, but it was neither. If you’re going to use humor, at least make it original so that I can find a little amusement in life.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 04:31 AM | #
"And why do you care so much, anyway? I’m not a lesbian, but if I want to have sex with women, I’m going to go have sex with women and it shouldn’t bother you. Lesbianism and feminism are not connected. Also, everything else you associated with this “sickness” is unrelated. You have a skewed view of Feminism.”
Please, have sex only with women. We have enough problems.
Cheers,
RER
Posted by Robert Reis on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 08:20 AM | #
"And why do you care so much, anyway? I’m not a lesbian, but if I want to have sex with women, I’m going to go have sex with women and it shouldn’t bother you. Lesbianism and feminism are not connected. Also, everything else you associated with this “sickness” is unrelated.”
What people do in the privacy of their homes does have an effect on those around them. Unchecked perversion spreads, spilling out into the public space. We see this with homosexuality and paedophilia today. It is ruining the lives of millions of innocents. You are not an island, despite your hyper-individualistic (intensely selfish) talk. A part of you belongs to the people around you, i.e., you have a responsibility to others in your community.
Posted by Rusty on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM | #
"It is ruining the lives of millions of innocents.”
How exactly?
Constantin
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM | #
Of course a bunch of guys in a movement that is famous for having virtually no women(and certainly no prominent women) MUST know more about feminism than a feminist herself. And of course posting some radical quotes by a few identity politics nutcases is representative of the feminist ideal in the first place.
Apparently the folks on this board are such experts that they know more about their alleged opponents’ ideology than the opponents do.
Posted by Slavyanski on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 01:45 PM | #
CS:"Let’s look at the agreed upon definition of feminism--"The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” That’s what feminism is.”
Okay, Courtney, your “agreed upon definition of feminism” sounds fair and benign enough. But the problem that prevents the achievement of true equality between men and women lays in fact the sexes are biologically different.
But if women were naturally equal to men, they wouldn’t need the government to force employers to hire and promote women, would they?
In a capitalist system, it is in a companies best interest to hire the best, most qualified. job applicant they can find. If construction company (A) refuses to hire highly qualified women but instead hires less qualified men, that is by definition a bad bussiness decision. If construction company (B)—company (A)’s competitor—hires those better qualified women, company (B) will have a competitive advantage over company (A)...and may eventually put company (A) out of bussiness.
Do you see how that works, Courtney?
Capitalism, because it has a competitive nature, prevents any form of racial or gender discrimination. It only discriminates between the competent and incompetent. You and your feminist friends should be advocates of capitalism if equality of opportunity is your goal. But most, if not all, feminists want equality of outcome--not equality of opportunity.
Equality under the rubric of feminism as “feminists” define it, can only be accomplished by the force of an oppressive, quasi-communist, government.
CS: “A lot of colleges have “Feminist clubs.” Whether or not you agree with these clubs doesn’t matter, because they still exist. So, needless to say, there are definitely women who attend college who call themselves feminists.”
Courtney, you should give thanks to white-men everyday since it was us who created an advanced society where you and your silly girlfriends can sit around and discuss fantasies about gender equality. I don’t think you could indulge yourselves in such luxury anywhere outside White dominated societies.
I recomend you read Tammy Bruce’s books. Especially “The New Thought Police.”
Posted by Tommy G on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 02:00 PM | #
Slavyanski - you are very hot for feminism (Im not addressing Courtney’s liberal student ramblings).
Where are all these past societies that successfully translated feminism/matriarchy into a long term success. There arent any are there. So we have to assume, somewhat pessimistically, that our current experiment will not succeed. Or are we somehow seeing a paradigm shift. That now after all of human history we’ve cracked it.
Posted by Lurker on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 02:01 PM | #
Thanks, Slavyanski, for not being a total dick. Or, as Lurker put it, you’re very hot for feminism (???).
And to answer your question, Tommy, yes, I do see how that works. I spend most of my time on earth.
And I agree, companies should hire the most qualified applicants because that’s what companies do to succeed. I am advocating equal opportunity (again, I am sticking with the basic definition of feminism). I don’t think the problem should be reversed.
“Equality under the rubric of feminism as “feminists” define it, can only be accomplished by the force of an oppressive, quasi-communist, government.”
I literally just told you what feminism means to the mainstream feminist. It’s really not that radical of an idea. I have no idea where you were able to find a “feminist rubric,” and if such a thing exists, which it does not, it probably wasn’t newsworthy.
I’m not even going to go in depth about biological differences, because it’s impossible to compare things that have so many differences (negative and positive) that don’t necessarily make either sex incompetent.
If I did decide to attend a feminism group--I don’t plan to ever, but if for some reason, I did--there’s not a overwhelming amount of white men I’d thank. Especially when you are the kind of white man you want me to pay my homage to.
I’ll think about your recommended reading o’ Tammy Bruce.
And, Rusty, to make your argument correct, everyone in the entire world would have to agree that homosexuality is perversion, which is an entirely different argument. How is it that homosexuals have an obligation to their community, but you do not have an obligation to your homosexual neighbors?
Annnnd, yeah. So, there.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 05:52 PM | #
Courtney said: “Thanks, Slavyanski, for not being a total dick. Or, as Lurker put it, you’re very hot for feminism”
LMAO! I’ll bet old Slavyanski isn’t so much as interested in feminism as he is in what feigning his support for feminism will get his d--k! In other words he’s not so much “hot for feminism;” he’s hot for the young, good looking, nubile wide-eyed feminists. I really can’t blame him for that!
But anyway, Courtney, all the best to you in your future endeavors. You sound reasonable given your young age...not like those whacked out radical feminists like Gloria Stein(bitch), Jane Fonda, Kim Gandy, Rosie O’Donnell, or Phil Donahue, et al.
Posted by Tommy G on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 07:55 PM | #
Well, yeah, it’s kind of unfortunate that the face of feminism currently is Rosie O’Donnell.
That’s a pretty big advantage women have over men, though--We can gain support soley on the reason that men (Slavyanski) want to have sex with us. (Not Rosie O’Donnell) I’m sorry, Slavyanski, that was mean.
I probably just screwed everything I said before with that last bit. I was joking, though. Kind of.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 10:26 PM | #
"Well, yeah, it’s kind of unfortunate that the face of feminism currently is Rosie O’Donnell"-- Courtney
Actually, Rosie and Whoopi Goldberg are held up by their feminist peers as quintessential icons of anti-white, anti-American, radical feminists. Even given those facts, Slavyanski would probably be delighted to have a go at either one of them. LOL
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/03/outrage_rosie_o.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295718,00.html
Posted by Tommy G on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 11:20 PM | #
I don’t mean she’s the face of feminism from the inside looking out, but rather from the outside looking in. I don’t know if that makes any sense. People don’t really understand what I’m trying to say usually.
Heh. Well, I don’t know the guy that well, but I guess crazy tang is tang, too.
I didn’t know that about Whoopi Goldberg; Actually, I forgot she even existed. I’m pretty sure, for me, she died in “Ratrace.”
I hate that people tried to defend Vick just because they were also black. That was annoying.
No worries.
Posted by courtney Schofield on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 12:11 AM | #
How is it that homosexuals have an obligation to their community, but you do not have an obligation to your homosexual neighbors?
Moral obligations are always reciprocal, Courtney.
The fight for equality among anything--race, immigration quotas, social classes, and, yes, even gender will not cease until equality is achieved on all levels.
Equality of immigration quotas? What is the quota for Americans or Brits in India, or China, or Mexico? I don’t think it equals the number those nations are sending in the other direction.
Do you see reciprocity in immigration?
Posted by ben tillman on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 04:05 AM | #
Oh this thread is cute. First of all, to the racialists- I wouldn’t be flinging sex jokes around if I were you. I have seen racialists hilarious, bumbling attempts to woo women. The problem with you people is you believe everything is precisely what you define it as. You know what Communism is better than Communists, you know more about economics than economists, you know more about history than historians, and you apparently know more about feminism than feminists.
Did it ever occur to you that these are various fields and they require a certain amount of time for study and understanding before you start making allegations?
If your movement is really so “awakened”, “rational”, and intelligent as you are constantly claiming- why are you always a fraction of a minority, even within your target demographic? Why are so many racialist leaders exposed as perverts at best, and at worst caught womanizing or whoremongering? Face it- your opposition has to do with your awkward fear of women. You want something submissive that will do what you want and not ask questions. You don’t love “your women”, you hate them. You blame them for not choosing you. You don’t ever consider that maybe it is your problem.
Poor, pathetic Nazis.
Posted by Slavyanski on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 08:37 AM | #
Na, du bist klug, Kamerad, gut gemacht. Zu klug. Ja, du have discovered our secret Nazi hideout. Leider, jetzt you must die, est tut mir Leid. Jungen! Take zees sick kommunistischen Schweinehund to the gas chambers where he can be ... deloused. Muhuhuhahahahaha! Und Jungen, bitte bring back a six-pack of soap and a lampshade fuer die kleine Hausfrau.
Sieg
Posted by Rusty on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 12:23 PM | #
Sorry Slavy, but you are wasting everyone’s time.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 12:40 PM | #
Morals are relative, Tillman. When you argue if something is right, you should never bring up “morals,” because they just don’t exist uniformly.
And, immigration quotas was an example of a fight for justice that some engage in. I didn’t take a stance on it, so I’m not going to answer you question.
And, I like you, Slavyanski. You’re funny--but not in a way that makes your argument any less accurate, or at the very least, valid.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 02:53 PM | #
"Sorry Slavy, but you are wasting everyone’s time.”
The poor, poor Slav.
Blog-owner GW doesn’t take the circular reasoning, strawmen, and Tourette-style Marxist tics of this so-called “Rational Red” seriously.
Why, Slavy will just have to show him!
---------------
Scipio - Rest assured, if “Slavyanski” and his ilk were to gain complete control of the West and disarm its population, they would not hesitate to reintroduce the old Bolshevik method of dealing with nationalists, patriots and dissidents alike: introduction to a lime pit via a bullet to the base of the skull!
Slav - You deserve it.
Posted by GT on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 03:21 PM | #
"Morals are relative”
Morals are relative only to people who abide by the tenets secular-liberalism. Moral-relativism is one of those tenets. According to the bolsheviks, such as Slavyanski, it was perfectly moral to deliberately murder, starve, and imprison millions of Ukrainians for the “higher moral good” of installing their communist utopia.
In a belief system such as Catholicism...morality is regarded as an absolute truth, not a social construct. That’s why leftists ideologies hate Christianity so much.
P.S. Courtney, me thinks you listen to your lefty professors too much?
Posted by Tommy G on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 03:29 PM | #
This is interesting. Courtney’s one of the few females to ever post around here. Why don’t you guys take advantage and see if you can convert her? How about instead of taunting her, Tommy, why not see if she’ll yield anything to MR-ism?
Courtney, what say you? It’s the position of these gentlemen (and mine, though I am not one of them) that white women are one of the biggest obstacles to achieving their racial aims. Those aims are varied, but they all agree that the race must be preserved. For the most part, I am of the view that their position cannot be refuted on rational grounds; that is, there exists no argument that will convince what is sometimes referred to as a “racially aware” white that his views are wrong. Would you allow yourself to be challenged on this point?
If you would, allow me to pose a question to you. You stated that there were no “absolute morals”. If whites wanted to exterminate all blacks, would they be morally wrong to do it, or to want to do it? I’m not a philosopher of ethics, but it would seem to me that one of the “ground rules” of a secular morality would be the concept of “reciprocity”, which revolves around the idea of considering “wrong” an action that could one could reasonably foresee oneself or people one cares about suffering from. Eg It’s wrong to kill because I myself might be killed if it were right. A white could possibly argue it’s right to kill blacks because the white considers himself so far superior to the black that the chances a black could reciprocate and kill a white are remote. How might you rebut such an argument?
Posted by silver on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 04:42 PM | #
"Courtney’s one of the few females to ever post around here. Why don’t you guys take advantage and see if you can convert her? How about instead of taunting her, Tommy,...”—Silver
Hey Silver, I already wished her well in an earlier post. I said to her:
Courtney, all the best to you in your future endeavors. You sound reasonable given your young age....
And then went on to recommend a book by Tammy Bruce for her to read. I figure Courtney will lend more credibility to a previous LA chapter president of the NOW (National Organisation of Women), than someone she ran across on a right-wing website.
Also, Courtney, if you return and read this...I also recommend “The Death of Right and Wrong” By Tammy Bruce, and “Londonistan” by Melanie Phillips.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Right-Wrong-Exposing-Assault/dp/1400052947
http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
Both authors explain in great detail how dangerous and destructive moral-relativism is to Western Culture.
Again,
Best wishes, Courtney
Tommy G
Posted by Tommy G on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 05:44 PM | #
Slither said:
“Courtney’s one of the few females to ever post around here. Why don’t you guys take advantage and see if you can convert her?”
No one will ever persuade a woman by logical argument; women are simply not programmed that way. Their limited reasoning power exists solely to support their actions. I’m not saying that as a put-down to women, just an observation for those of you who would waste your time trying to make a philosophical convert of a women blog commenter.
A man cannot win a woman by logic because women do not operate by logic. Women are either attracted to something or they are not; reason is used—if at all—only afterwards to support the instinctual decision. In our situation, they are attracted not to abstract arguments about truth or Truth, but to the man who speaks it. It is not “truth for its own sake” they are attracted to, but safety and security for themselves and their offspring, and the power to fend off other females who invade their territory.
Posted by Rusty on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 06:55 PM | #
Actually, Tommy, I don’t have any leftist professors--I’m a freshman, and one really doesn’t get any teachers who have any apparent stance on anything their Freshman year. One exception--my philosophy teacher is super right wing catholic. I am crawling out of my skin, man.
I’m not so incompetent that I’m unable to come up with my own thoughts without a professor persuading me to think a certain way.
And, also, morality being regarded as an absolute truth in Catholicism isn’t the only reason for “Leftist Ideologists” to hate Christianity. Don’t inquire about that. I’m not going to discuss religion. Actually, I probably will, but I’ll regret it.
Thanks, again for the recommendations.
I’m not sure if moral-relativism is dangerous or not, but I do know that it exists. With such diversity, there cannot be a set standard of what is right and wrong, or rather, a set standard will never be successful. Is this dangerous? Maybe, but thinking about it too much is more or less a waste of time.
I still stand by morals being relative, though, Tommy and Silver.
Silver, you said there is no argument that would make a “racially aware white” feel that his views are wrong. If this is true, then why would you even suggest converting me--the complete opposite--into the position you are in?
I’m not sure what you meant by, “White women are the biggest obstacle in preserving the race” (Sorry for paraphrasing). But, at least for me, a white woman, I really don’t care if the white race is preserved. There is no race, to me, that is superior. This might sound immature, but I’m kind of just for the human race. Evolution is fine with me. There’s really not a race or even a person on this earth I couldn’t love. This might be viewed as ignorance--like I haven’t thought this through, but I assure you I have. If this is what you meant by, “White women being an obstacle,” then, yes, I guess in my case you could say that’s true.
Maybe that’s not what you meant at all, though.
And back to morals…
Most white males are Christian--and if they were to exterminate all blacks, then, yes, that would be morally wrong because the big book of answers tells you so.
If a person with no religion were to exterminate all blacks, then, in my eyes, they would just be a really shitty person and they would receive a lot of criticism from pissed off people. Would it be morally wrong? You tell me.
Would I do it? No--not because of morals exactly, but because, I, personally would never want to exterminate a race for any reason. But, then again, I’m a girl who carries spiders in her house outside instead of killing them. That was NOT an analogy for blacks being spiders, by the way--that wasn’t an anology for anything other than I would not kill.
For secular moralist, it isn’t the fear of being killed that keeps them from killing, although, in some instances, this may be the case. I don’t know, really.
My dad and I debated on this question for a really long time one day, and we just talked circles around each other. Probably because our morals were relative.
And that’s real, yo. Ha. Sorry for the length. I can’t think concisely.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 07:16 PM | #
Courtney wrote:
“And, Rusty, to make your argument correct, everyone in the entire world would have to agree that homosexuality is perversion, which is an entirely different argument. How is it that homosexuals have an obligation to their community, but you do not have an obligation to your homosexual neighbors?”
Courtney, it is good for a young girl to know her shortcomings early on in life. One of yours is reasoning. It seems that you have been so polluted by radical liberalism and communistic propaganda that you don’t have a clear idea in your head. Your assumptions about White men are almost 180 degrees from true North. I hope you meet a real man with monumental, saintly patience—you really need some straigntening out. Stop continuing to hate that which you need so you can attract one. Stop being the bitter feminazi. That anti-Western, anti-White, anti-everything nonsense is cool when you’re a punky rebellious kid. But if you keep it up, you’re going to find yourself old and without a real man, and you’re gonna wish you’d’ve grown up when you were supposed to.
Posted by Rusty on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 07:45 PM | #
Silver said:"This is interesting. Courtney’s one of the few females to ever post around here. Why don’t you guys take advantage and see if you can convert her? How about instead of taunting her, Tommy, why not see if she’ll yield anything to MR-ism?”
Well, Silver, I tried, and look what she responded with! LOL. I should have known better than to take any of your advice.
Maybe the harsh realities of the world will someday smack her in the head hard enough to knock those snotty little thoughts out of her childlike mind?
Posted by Tommy G on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 07:59 PM | #
Ahhaha. Oh man. For real, Rusty?
Here’s another serving of poor reasoning from my big ol’ treasure box of shortcomings.
I don’t even know where to start. What is a “real man,” first of all?
Is a “real man” you?
If you’re what you’d call a “real man,” you’re only attracting stupid females--but that’s what you’re attracted to, I guess; girls who look up to your “great strength and intelligence and ability to grow some really cool facial hair” because they don’t know that they have any intelligence and strength (and facial hair if they’re lucky) of their own--It makes you feel like a “real man,” yeah? Thanks, but no thanks, Rusty, I’d much rather be lonely than stupid.
But, honestly, man, it’s working out pretty well for me, I gotta say--I get to embrace the companionship of men AND I get to not be an idiot. Life is so good sometimes.
Oh, man. “Real men.” haha.
Yeah, you’re right, I actually just got done reading the book called, “Radical Liberalism and Communistic Propaganda.” I totally got SO polluted. I can’t even walk straight.
180 degrees away? Hm. Not a problem. If I can manage to stagger another 180 degrees back up north with all of this propaganda polluting my veins, I can finally put a stop this miserable state of confusion--or, rather, have Rusty McRhetoric stop it for me. Get stupider to become less confused. That’s reasonable.
Your problem is, Rusty, that your views about everything are about 60 degrees away from anything in any direction. You’re floating out somewhere on a little raft made of your manhood in the South Pacific with your buddies, and not even the “feminazis” will come and save you.
Well, I’ve got some punky rebellious kid things to go do!
Y’know, graffiti, pot, communism and anarchy, punk rock, sex, addrall, feminism and shit. Maybe some heroin, cocaine and liberalism later if my parents give me my allowance! We’ll see how the day progresses.
But for real, your post was really petty and also, you called me a “feminazi.” (???) You literally make my head hurt, and you busted the balls of men everywhere. Good job.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 08:44 PM | #
And, Tommy.
The harsh realities of the world cracked me in the head probably earlier than they cracked you in the head and they continue to do so everytime I’m not looking. I’ve seen what life can be at its best and at its worst. If I say something “snotty,” it’s because I’m still learning. When you say something snotty, you have no excuse.
You’re advocating your utopia, and so am I. You want something perhaps silly and unattainable and so do I. One extreme to the other. We pretty much cancel out.
I don’t think my thoughts are any more child-like than your’s. And I don’t think that any “harsh reality” that effects me in the world will make me want to embrace putting myself above any other race or sex in value.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 09:11 PM | #
Courtney,
The only thing I can tell someone with your mindset is:
Be careful out there in the world, and always keep your guard up.
Posted by Tommy G on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 09:41 PM | #
Courtney asks: “What is a “real man,” first of all?
Is a “real man” you?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After reading your post to Rusty. It’s now obvious who the real man is! You’re the man Courtney! Does your hair dresser shave the hair of your back or do you assign that duty to your “wife”? LOL
Btw--I no longer believe you’re a young fresh faced college freshman. You’re too sophisticated in your wretchedness for that.
Posted by Tommy G on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 10:46 PM | #
"Btw--I no longer believe you’re a young fresh faced college freshman. You’re too sophisticated in your wretchedness for that.”
That’s kind of a compliment for me if you weren’t being sarcastic, but, yes, believe it or not, you’re talking to all 19 years of “wretched!”
Also, there’s nothing funny about back hair, unless it belongs to someone in a Speedo. (And, usually it does.)
And, I’ll keep my guard up, thanks? Being nice doesn’t necessarily mean being naive. I’m not naive, I’m just not scared.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 12:37 AM | #
"Also, there’s nothing funny about back hair, unless it belongs to someone in a Speedo. (And, usually it does.)”
And how many Speedos did you say you owned?
Posted by Tommy G on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 12:50 AM | #
I’d have so many speedos if I weren’t broke all the time, man.
It’s hard to conjure up an accurate number of how many I’d have, but it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of infinity.
Maybe more.
I don’t have back hair, though. That isn’t funny.
And I wouldn’t have my hairdresser or my wife shave it if I did. Self-sufficiency, remember?
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 01:00 AM | #
"I don’t have back hair, though.”
Maybe not, but since you’re so such a macho feminist, I’m sure you have an abundance of chest hair. Ha ha ha!
Posted by Tommy G on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 01:16 AM | #
Goddammit, Tommy.
When did I become a macho feminist?
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 01:23 AM | #
Courtney, can I offer a little bit of my history seeing as how I am just a half-dozen years your senior and might have some advice that is relevant.
I was brought up in the church.
I moved to the right to out-church my parents at an even more Protestant church.
I rebelled.
I moved way left.
I read everything in sight.
I moved further left.
Democracy Now! in the morning, Chomsky tapes, Michael Parenti.
Then on to Bakunin and Proudhon, Anarchism and finally settling in a comfortably numb hatred-for-all, self-indulging pussy-chasing narcissism.
I was exposed to the book Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver.
I lived near Oakland California for a while in the city of San Francisco.
I was exposed to Lew Rockwell and paleo-libertarianism/conservativism.
I moved further right.
Right speech, right thought, right understanding.
Courtney,
Some words of advice. With each passing year, one realizes how little they knew the previous year which only becomes magnified with each passing decade. At 19, you know jack shit, with all due respect. Please remember that when espousing your world views. All the best.
Posted by Guido the Killer Pimp on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 02:02 AM | #
I know that I still have a lot to learn, for those of you who thought that I thought that I was as intelligent as I’d ever be. It doesn’t even take a year for me to laugh at things I said or thoughts I had--it takes minutes, but I’d rather say some dumb things than not say anything at all. I really do understand that I’m not going to be the same person in 10 years; maybe I’ll be a different person tomorrow.
But, future Courtney isn’t here right now--so, I guess I’m just making due.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 02:40 AM | #
I just meant you should always try to understand where people are coming from instead of getting ‘holier than thou’ or rejecting their views outright as inferior thought.
Posted by 1/2 danielj & 1/2 guido on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 03:04 AM | #
I would agree with that, but I’d expect that it would work both ways, too.
Posted by courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 03:11 AM | #
Courtney, I take it I was wrong, you haven’t really given much thought to the issues this site discusses, your interest in it being restricted to this thread, to feminism.
Okay, that’s fine. You wouldn’t know it, but I’m not on “their side” (MR’s) here. I’m denounced and reviled. So with what I ask you next, don’t feel that I’m employing any underhanded tactics to turn you or anything, I’m just curious about something. You said you held to “one human race” views. Do you realize this means the eventual extinction of whites? Not just from “overcrowding”, in the sense that other races are going to “snuff the life out of” whites, which is untrue and silly. The extinction will occur as a result of interbreeding. No matter the differences—real and imagined—between any groups of people, if they occupy the same territory for long enough they will eventually mix. “Eventually” is potentially a very long time, hundreds of years, roughly speaking, but it will occur. How soon it occurs depends of course on the extent of mixing in each generation, but again, it will occur. Ultimately, there will be a world in which your phenotype—assuming you are white—will be extinct. What I’m curious about is how you feel about that. Even if you (erroneously) believe that whites can exist in interracial societies for perpetuity, just assume that I am right, that they cannot, that they will eventually interbreed and extinguish themselves; just assume that current policies assure a future with no more white people in it. How do you feel about that?
Posted by silver on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 03:50 AM | #
Silver--
I’m not really upset about it, actually. Red hair will be extinct or rare by 2100--it’s strange to see things go, but there’s nothing I could or would want to do about it. If that’s the path of our evolution, fine. Likewise for different races.
I’m not sure why this bothers people so much--because when you asked me that question, I wasn’t even effected by the scenario at all; the best and most complete answer I could think of was, “So what?”
So, to answer your question, “How you feel about that,” in a better form than, “So what?”
I don’t feel anything about that at all. I guess my generation is just able to view this more favorably than older generations.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 04:12 AM | #
And, yes, my involvement is restricted to this thread--I don’t plan to post anywhere else on this site. I came across this site when I was searching for things that the LAF said that I would be able to laugh at.
And then I got angry, so I posted.
And here I am.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 04:25 AM | #
Pay attention to young Courtney, folks.
She asks, “So what?”
So what? is the question Marxist profs ask students who express concern over the loss of any aspect of national character - language, western traditions, race, red hair, etc.
It is easier to ask, “So what?” than it is to defend or falsify a statement.
It’s kinda like the smart-ass kid sitting in the back of the classroom asking “What pencil?” when directed by his teacher to prove the existence of a pencil. The law, of course, prevents the teacher from picking up the pencil, sticking it in the kid’s eye, and saying, “This pencil, you little sonofabiscuit!”
Fortunately, in this context, there are several simple responses to the question, “So what?”
Posted by GT on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 06:24 AM | #
"Pay attention to young Courtney, folks.
She asks, “So what?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hopefully, young, no-nothing, self congratulatory, feminist twits will grow out of their annoying anti-ethnocentric ignorance and come to realize the comfy world they live in WAS created and IS maintained by White-men. If Whites disappear from the face of the earth, barbarism will soon consume the whole planet. No doubt, feminism will surly be the first thing to disappear from the social order.
“Charles Murray has shown in “Human Accomplishment,” 97 percent of the major scientific innovators in human history have been white.”
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/006019247X
Posted by Tommy G on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 02:27 PM | #
"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.”
That is, of course, if one assumes that either Roman Catholi-schism, [with her judaizing popes, and pederast priests] or the 2500 ‘branches’ of Protestantism [and a bum-bearing boytoy past Prez. of the NAE] are “Christianity.”
Hillary is a feminazi.
Jewish women are feminazis. (Abzug, Friedan, Steinem)
Lesbians are the ultimate feminazis.
All are anti-White, anti-European, anti- Christendom.
Start with restoring all three by god-fearing child bearing mothers, and you have the antidote to feminism. Some of the vanguard in that army against Feminists, are the homeschoolers, and the Quiverfull movement. God bless ‘em, all.
All Feminists are against Christian motherhood, which includes childbearing without contraceptives, the traditional gift of children, being seen as a ‘gift’ from YHWH God Almighty. If you can’t get pregnant by a man in the natural way, because you are ‘on the pill’ you are aborting by fornication, which is also a sin.
As to taking it [Women’s lib] seriously: “Also, to Fred. I would very much appreciate it if you were to call it Women’s Liberation, not Women’s Lib...this is a [sic]demeaning term, and just another way in which men do not take Radical Feminism seriously.”
Oh, I take killing your own child in the womb VERY SERIOUSLY. So does God. It’s called infanticide, and was reserved for the strongest strictures Greek and Roman society could envision, for it is the ultimate form of RACE Genocide, bar none! The modern woman who chooses NOT to bear children is committing a crime against her own body, her God, and her race as well. The ULTIMATE “HATE CRIME”!
But as to taking women seriously who do not know their place, their GOD-ordained place? No. THEY HAVE DEMEANED THEMSELVES. We conservatives, we life-preservers cannot demean them more than they have already done so themselves, in their unwarranted hubris. Let them, along with their lesbian, etc. ‘nappy headed’ sisters, find their judgment meted out at the appropriate time; before those of us who will not remain silent for their denial of their sex at the Last Judgment. Hillary and all those who adore the ‘Whore of Bablyon’- They all repulse me. The image of the ‘stoning a woman caught in adultery’ seems more than apropos for such talking heads, when contrasted with women like my mother or my wife, who KNEW/KNOW what being a woman, in subjection to her lawful husband, really is. IF only they would ‘go and sin no more.’ But today’s whores are proud of their whoredoms before God, and therein lies their greater punishment.
Of course, the men who have LET women sink to this perverted level, are even more to blame, for not leading their wives or daughters in a godly manner......
Posted by Fr. John on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 02:32 PM | #
Okay, well, I’m going to stop posting here, because Fr. John is arguing the ultimate useless argument--an argument in which one speaks FOR god--and not even rationally, and I don’t even feel like those kind of people need any response at all because they’re more fucked up than any person is able to reason with--and I just can’t take that shit.
GT, don’t read too far into my, “So what?” It wasn’t that deep. And, your pencil analogy just didn’t work for me. Marxism and evolution aren’t the same thing, dipshit.
And Tommy, all I can say to you, once again is, goddammit.
You’re all annoying.
Well, it’s been fun, almost too fun.
Good riddance--equally for all of us.
Posted by Courtney Schofield on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 03:27 PM | #
"Okay, well, I’m going to stop posting here, because Fr. John is arguing the ultimate useless argument...”
It’s a useless argument to you and your, amoral, death worshiping femanazi mentors. What is so hideously repugnant about radical feminists is they proudly, and unashamedly celebrate their right to murder their own babies within their wombs. What’s worse, is the feminazis misrepresent what abortion really is and encourage gullible women they can solve their problem by aborting/murdering their unwanted child.
The inconvenient truth for femanzis—and all others that believe abortion is okay—is human life begins at the point of conception; that’s an undisputed scientific fact. At what point a person, or society, puts value on that human life is a moral question. Radical feminists believe it’s perfectly okay to stick a pair of scissors in the head of a living, fully developed child, and suck it’s brains out while it’s passing through the birth canal (i.e.partial birth abortion). Femanazis and the men that assist them in committing infanticide, IMO, are the worst form of murderers that ever existed.
“And Tommy, all I can say to you, once again is, goddammit”
Well, Courtney, you’ll be damned yourself if you continue to practice the Satanic cult of radical feminism. There is no way of getting around the truth that abortion is feminism’s most valued sacrament.
I totally agree with Fr. John
“Hillary is a feminazi.
Jewish women are feminazis. (Abzug, Friedan, Steinem)
Lesbians are the ultimate feminazis.
All are anti-White, anti-European, anti- Christendom.”
Posted by Tommy G on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 04:48 PM | #
Courtney,
“GT, don’t read too far into my, “So what?” It wasn’t that deep.”
Well, that’s precisely the point! Lol. It is far easier to ask “So what?” than it is to justify or falsify a statement. That is precisely why Marxist profs ask it of students who express concern over the loss of any aspect of national character - language, western traditions, race, red hair, etc.
“And, your pencil analogy just didn’t work for me.”
So says the little girl whose panties are twisted, but we know better! Lol!!
“Marxism and evolution aren’t the same thing, dipshit.”
Of course not, honeybunny! Contemporary Marxists deny the very engine of human evolution - speciation - except when it’s useful to pretend otherwise.
---
“You’re all annoying.
“Well, it’s been fun, almost too fun.”
Logic’s not your strong point, is it dear? Don’t let that keyboard smack your adorable cheeks, sweets, on the way out!
Posted by GT on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 06:01 PM | #
Man it was hilarious watching that feminist girl bitchslap you “real men” all over the comments page. Dry your tears now.
Posted by Stauffenberg on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 06:17 PM | #
Stauffy,
“Man it was hilarious watching that feminist girl bitchslap you “real men” all over the comments page. Dry your tears now.”
Lol! Reality’s not your strong suit, is it? Say, aren’t you and Courtney supposed to be in class instead of stroking each other’s crack? Prof. Silvergoldbergowitz is addressing a very important topic in today: Male feminism. Get along now, Stuaffenberg, and at least try to pretend that you have a pair.
Posted by GT on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 06:33 PM | #
Do you just automatically put a Y on the end of everone’s name? You guys talking about being “real mean” and having balls is hilarious- because most of you couldn’t get a woman if you were the last man on earth(regardless of race).
Posted by Marinesko on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 06:45 PM | #
Marinesko,
“Do you just automatically put a Y on the end of everone’s name?”
We are being trolled by college “students,” folks! Lol.
Well, Mary, we always put a Y on the end of every troll’s name!
“You guys talking about being “real mean” and having balls is hilarious - because most of you couldn’t get a woman if you were the last man on earth(regardless of race).”
Several posts ago somebody calling itself ‘Latifa’ said, “Y’all is mean.” I can guarantee you, Mary, that ‘Latifa’ is not one of us.
Now I suppose the expression ‘having balls’ might be hilarious to confident young girls taking Prof. Silvergoldbergowitz’ class in Male Feminism. After all, if somebody told me to ‘grow some ovaries’ I would find that to be absolutely hilarious!
But it’s a different story for the neutered boys enrolled in the class. Deep inside they know they’re neutered - that is, except for the few who are in the class to ‘score.’
Can’t get a woman? ROFLMAO!! Most of us have been married to the same woman for longer than you have been alive. And you know what else? We didn’t have to neuter ourselves or pretend to be neutered to get close to them!
Grow some balls, Mary.
Posted by GT on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 07:21 PM | #
I think the world will be a lot better if it were led by black men. And what do you mean I am not one of y’all.
Posted by Latifa on Friday, October 12, 2007 at 07:41 PM | #
Posted by Mark Richardson on Saturday, March 19, 2005 at 04:17 AM | #