Discussing Radical Nazi Feminista/Feminism

[tonyrey]

well you live in spain, but come here to the USA and youll see what im talking about. you want elaboration? ok, how about the fact that women in the armed forces are not required to shave their heads and they are not held up to the same physical standards. women get shorter jail sentences for the same crimes as their male counterparts. a man has absolutely no decision power regarding his child while in the womb, meaning a women can choose to have an abortion without the man’s consent. a women can hit a man, but a man cant hit a women, and theres so many more things that are unfair to men in today’s society. the thing is, i support equality, but i support TRUE equality, meaning if women want the same rights as men, they must also be held to the same standards. either that, or accept being a housewife…

Similar inequality occurs in the UK where Christian principles are not tolerated on the ground that Christians are intolerant!

The Holy Inquisition has been replaced by the Secular Inquisition…

 

[John21652]

All movements to correct wrongs need a bit of hyperbole. You got me looking for slogans, here’s some:

Adam and Even
Sexism: the original sin
God is just an abbreviation for Goddess
Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in high heels

Some go much deeper:

Little girls made of sugar and spice grow up to be cheesecakes - women can be so much more than cheerleaders and kitchen housewives.
Men can stop rape - says it all.
Real men cry - did feminism also free up men to feel able to show emotion?

(I’m male btw, and re. your “disease” comment, one more feminist slogan - Sexism is a social disease ).

And you’ve fallen for the hyperbole hook, line and sinker.

Only it isn’t just hyperbole, it’s propaganda and propaganda designed to hide the real meaning of feminism.

You want some ‘slogans’ that show the feminist agenda?

Try these -

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process” Linda Gordon: radical feminist of the 1960s and 1970s and professor of history at New York University

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

“I haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don’t mean that. Yes, I really do.”

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
Robin Morgan, noted left winger and radical feminist activist from the 1960s and 1970s, author, writer and former Ms. magazine editor.

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking *****.” Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto which advocated the elimination of the male sex. She got herself famous for trying to shoot Andy Warhol. European Feminist Philosopher Avital Ronell described Solanas as a “girl Neitszhe”.

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” *

*“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”
Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.”

“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”
Andrea Dworkin 1960s left wing radical, anti-war and pro-lesbian rights activist, authoress

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” Catherine MacKinnon, authoress, teacher, professor of Law at Michigan Law School.

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” Sally Miller Gearhart, openly lesbian feminist activist and teacher at San Francisco State University and initiator of first women’s studies programs.

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” * Marilyn French, authoress and advisoress to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.*

Mother is the dead heart of the family, spending father’s earnings on consumer goods to enhance the environment in which he eats, sleeps and watches the television.

Women fail to understand how much men hate them.

Man made one grave mistake: in answer to vaguely reformist and humanitarian agitation he admitted women to politics and the professions. The conservatives who saw this as the undermining of our civilization and the end of the state and marriage were right after all; it is time for the demolition to begin.

Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it. Germaine Greer, avowed Marxist, authoress of the seminal work The Female Eunuch, teacher, Professor of English Literature and Comparative Studies at the University of Warwick, England.

 

[In_Spiration]

When people argue about "feminism, I like to ask each one how they define the term “feminism”. I often discover they have very different definitions of this word. Please clarify what you mean by feminism before being for or against it, so that all of us know what you are actually for or against. Thanks!

I’ll just leave you with one of many spot-on insights from the brilliant mind of Jim Kalb:

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

*It appears, however, that nothing can be called feminism that is not radically antitraditional and antinatural. What feminists call “gender”—the system of attitudes, expectations and customs that distinguishes men from women—has always and everywhere been basic to human life. To speak of “deeply rooted social stereotypes” is to speak of the centrality of masculinity and femininity to how we understand the world. Grammatical gender is one sign among many of that centrality. Although the detailed content of sexual distinctions has varied somewhat their general outlines have been stable. The men and women in ancient and non-Western literatures are immediately recognizable to us today as men and women like ourselves. Yang strikes us as masculine, Yin as feminine, just as they did the ancient Chinese.

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

The universality of these differences shows them to be rooted in biology and other permanent conditions of human life. It is hard to think of anything very different that would work, given the difficulty of building something that ignores universal human tendencies, and the need for stable and functional families and therefore role distinctions* settled enough to stand up to the stresses and changes of life. *A system as complex and subtle as human life cannot be reconfigured in fundamental ways merely at will. Nonetheless, opposition to gender as a principle of social order—to what is called “sexism”—is what unifies the things called “feminism.” Since the opposition is absolute and categorical, feminism is in no way reformist. *It treats a fundamental and evidently necessary principle of all human societies, sex-role differentiation, as an oppressive arrangement that must be abolished at whatever cost.

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

As for the rest of you who disagreed with me? Well, don’t you worry. I’ll let you know what I thought of your little posts, in another response. Coming soon. Promise. Brief Spoiler: To my own admitted surprise, your various arguments have actually caused me to rethink and mostly abandon my previous rejection of Feminism.*]

*Just kidding. You’re all wrong!

 

[inocente]

well you live in spain, but come here to the USA and youll see what im talking about. you want elaboration? ok, how about the fact that women in the armed forces are not required to shave their heads and they are not held up to the same physical standards. women get shorter jail sentences for the same crimes as their male counterparts. a man has absolutely no decision power regarding his child while in the womb, meaning a women can choose to have an abortion without the man’s consent. a women can hit a man, but a man cant hit a women, and theres so many more things that are unfair to men in today’s society. the thing is, i support equality, but i support TRUE equality, meaning if women want the same rights as men, they must also be held to the same standards. either that, or accept being a housewife…

Female marines being allowed to keep their hair long sounds like a male dominated “girls made of sugar and spice” concession – feminist marines would probably shave their heads in protest. Likewise, if there are rules saying females should get shorter sentences, those rules were made by men. There’s a long standing convention that no one has control of another’s body, again nothing to do with feminism. And I’d need a citation that women really have a right to hit men in the US - we get the “Cops” show here, so I’ve seen US women arrested for domestic violence against men.

 

[inocente]

You want some ‘slogans’ that show the feminist agenda?

Try these -

Very funny quotes, thanks. I was thinking of the somewhat less extreme and more mainstream form of feminism, which has a valid point. For example, I once found an old song by Joni Mitchell, and as a man the lyrics hit me smack in the face.

lyricsfreak.com/j/joni+mitchell/woman+of+heart+mind_20075339.html

 

[John21652]

Very funny quotes, thanks. I was thinking of the somewhat less extreme and more mainstream form of feminism, which has a valid point. For example, I once found an old song by Joni Mitchell, and as a man the lyrics hit me smack in the face.

lyricsfreak.com/j/joni+mitchell/woman+of+heart+mind_20075339.html

Just like everyone else you are in denial about what feminism became many, many years ago. Those quoted are teachers, publishers, writers and of great influence in academia and published writing.

The girly tiddlywinks feminism you are trying to pin your hat to died with the Suffragettes and was resurrected by the champions of Marxism. If you think the likes of Germain Greer, Robin Morgan and Catherine MacKinnon are not ‘mainstream’, then you’ve been living under a rock.

 

[In_Spiration]

SH,

Your glib post missed the issue, both in general and re: the current “wave” of Feminism, which is mostly dangerous insofar as it’s a sub-movement of ubiquitously-PC Egalitarianism, a deviously Leftist sentiment/theory I’ll likely tackle later. But, hey, I’ll bite anyway.

You just hate the fact that women are strong enough to stand up against you.

Actually, that’s somewhat correct. Still, you shouldn’t aim at a man’s sense of honor in the hope he might quickly shut up if you first insinuate he’s an oppressive coward unless he mindlessly averts his eyes, lowers his chin, and submits to following the Womyn. To be more precise, what I dislike is the fact that a lot of women, “strong” or not, go about trying to thwart a man’s will strictly because they were positively encouraged their entire lives to do exactly that; and simply for the sake of proud defiance, i.e., of preemptively asserting themselves by awkward force, usually in anticipation of some oppression they’ve been taught to expect from us men.

I hope the following source is sufficiently authoritative in your mind. Ephesians 5:22-24, in no uncertain terms, states:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

Here’s that notorious macho pig G.K. Chesterton putting it rather nicely:

I have my own little notions of the possible emancipation of women; but I suppose I should not be taken very seriously if I propounded them. I should favour anything that would increase the present enormous authority of women and their creative action in their own homes. [Emphasis mine, here and below.]

Feminism gave women the right to vote, the right to work and equal opportunity.

OK, the “[liberty] to work” has always been available to women, legally, that is; and the “right to equal opportunity” is not really a right at all. I don’t know if “rights” even exist, to be terribly honest. Plus, I’m undecided on whether women’s suffrage is truly good, especially since it only seems to cause big problems. Its value is in no sense self-evident or indisputable. Women are naturally less motivated by concerns for justice. They inevitably side with policies that serve to increase the size & scope of the State and thereby undermine the primacy of the family unit – as financial independence and the government basically become a safety net to allay(/support) her excessive fear(/fancy) of being unable(/unwilling) to find a husband. When Schopenhauer said “the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no ‘sense of justice,’” he was apparently speaking in literal conformity with Nature. And a poor general regard for what’s objectively just and right is, needless to say, hardly conducive to wise opinions or votes.

Now, I state all this in spite of having 100% foreknowledge that at this moment you wish to proclaim my overall point incredibly beyond any merits for consideration. (Which is only to say, at bottom, how radically & shamefully unpopular it is in modern industrialized nations.)

I’ll proceed nevertheless.

 

[In_Spiration]

Don’t talk to me like you know God and use his name to set judgment against me. That’s foolishness. Answer to God for what? defending women? Don’t you pretend you know how God judges.

This is a theologically-poor dodge. Feminism essentially undermines the Church and God’s natural order of creation. Yes, I imagine He is quite angry at girls who nevertheless insist, out of deep-seated pride and (penis) envy, on pushing one of Man’s most fundamentally disastrous agendas as their own misinformed pet ideology amid widespread decadence. Then again, my claim was overtly conditional upon your spreading this sexually-transmuted disease within the body of the Church. It clearly never presumed to settle God’s decision re: your ultimate fate. To get a taste of the gravity, though, you ought to reflect upon the wisdom of Hilaire Belloc from The Great Heresies, which I was reading a couple nights ago, incidentally. You see, in 1938 he condensed all historical threats to Catholicism into just five main movements, the greatest of which he deemed “the Modern Attack”:

*Whether we call it “The Modern Attack” or “anti-Christ” it is all one; there is a clear issue now joined between the retention of Catholic morals, tradition, and authority on the one side, and the active effort to destroy them on the other.

…It is concerned with the destruction of the Catholic Church and the civilization preceding therefrom. It is not troubled by apparent contradictions within its own body so long as the general alliance is one for the ending of all that by which we have hitherto lived.

…Communism (which is only one manifestation, and probably a passing one, of this Modern Attack) professes to be directed towards a certain good, to wit, the abolition of poverty. But it does not tell you why this should be a good; *it does not admit that its scheme is also to destroy other things which are also by the common consent of mankind good; the family, property (which is the guarantee of individual freedom and individual dignity), humor, mercy, and every form of what we consider right living.

*…When the reigning Pope in his Encyclical talked of men reduced “to a condition not far removed from slavery,” he meant just what has been said above. When the mass of families in a State are without property, then those who were once citizens become virtually slaves. *The more the State steps in to enforce conditions of security and sufficiency; the more it regulates wages, provides compulsory insurance, doctoring, education, and in general takes over the lives of the wage-earners, the more is this condition of semi-slavery accentuated. And if it be continued for, say, three generations, it will become so thoroughly established as a social habit and frame of mind that there may be no escape from it in the countries where State Socialism of this kind has been forged and riveted on the body politic.

Are you really so arrogant as to maintain we ought to toss out this inherited hierarchy, of both the West and the Church, on the grounds that it has all along been a simple product of hateful misogyny? Might you not be giving human civilizations prior to the 20th century enough credit? In light of all the damages (abortion, divorce, etc.) caused by this divisive Sexual Reformation, you’re going to be hard-pressed getting anyone on your side if we’re to judge things by their (questionably presented) fruits.

 

[inocente]

Just like everyone else you are in denial about what feminism became many, many years ago. Those quoted are teachers, publishers, writers and of great influence in academia and published writing.

The girly tiddlywinks feminism you are trying to pin your hat to died with the Suffragettes and was resurrected by the champions of Marxism. If you think the likes of Germain Greer, Robin Morgan and Catherine MacKinnon are not ‘mainstream’, then you’ve been living under a rock.

So the Suffragettes (a name originally invented as a term of derision) wasn’t a serious movement but just girls playing tiddlywinks? Blame their menfolk, letting the little women out of the kitchen. :hey_bud:

I’m not very good at taking end-of-civilization talk seriously, and don’t know about Morgan and MacKinnon but am rather fond of Germain Greer, I do like outrageous academics:

*Australia is a huge rest home, where no unwelcome news is ever wafted on to the pages of the worst newspapers in the world.

The upper classes have always died out; it’s one of the most charming things about them.

We in the West do not refrain from childbirth because we are concerned about the population explosion or because we feel we cannot afford children, but because we do not like children.

The tragedy of machismo is that a man is never quite man enough.

Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.

One may not reach the dawn save by the path of the night.*

 

[John21652]

So the Suffragettes (a name originally invented as a term of derision) wasn’t a serious movement but just girls playing tiddlywinks? Blame their menfolk, letting the little women out of the kitchen. :hey_bud:

You missed the comparative analogy, did you? That the earlier form of feminism was pretty tame compared to the current manifestation. I know it is a shock to you, as it is to many, many others, to suddenly realise they have been totally blindsided by the radicalism that underpins feminism. However, don’t attempt to sidestep the fact that you’ve hung your hat of a philosophy which has Marxism as its base.

I’m not very good at taking end-of-civilization talk seriously, and don’t know about Morgan and MacKinnon but am rather fond of Germain Greer, I do like outrageous academics:

So the quotes I gave you from Morgan, MacKinnon and others didn’t set alarm bells ringing with you? Nor the fact that they occupy positions where they can heavily influence young impresionable minds and so distort the development of society, which is already happening? Not even out of curiosity even? All you have to do is get your head out of the sand and use Google.

As for Germaine Greer, if you admire her, then it either shows a profound lack of understanding of her own problems as they have become manifest over the years and which have coloured her philosophy terribly. She is also an avowed Marxist. Do you admire that too? Her countrymen all think she has a great big axe embedded in one of her shoulders and should it be removed, she’d likely bleed to death.

Australia is a huge rest home, where no unwelcome news is ever wafted on to the pages of the worst newspapers in the world.

The upper classes have always died out; it’s one of the most charming things about them.

We in the West do not refrain from childbirth because we are concerned about the population explosion or because we feel we cannot afford children, but because we do not like children.

The tragedy of machismo is that a man is never quite man enough.

Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.

One may not reach the dawn save by the path of the night.

The sheer banality and inanity of what she says should set alarm bells ringing, particularly as she is in a teaching position.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Feminism is about equal rights for women compared to men. It pertains to political, economic and social rights. Feminists don’t exalt themselves above men they just want justice for things like suffrage (the right to vote). They also seek to establish equal opportunities for women in things like education and employment. Feminism responds to things like social construction of sex and gender; meaning they seek to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women’s social roles and lived experience.

It helps to understand what a group suffers before you start calling them Nazis.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I bet it would be a horror story for a lot of men in America if there was a female president.

 

[Nilsonbor]

wow I will follow your topics :0

 

[someperson555]

Female marines being allowed to keep their hair long sounds like a male dominated “girls made of sugar and spice” concession – feminist marines would probably shave their heads in protest. Likewise, if there are rules saying females should get shorter sentences, those rules were made by men. There’s a long standing convention that no one has control of another’s body, again nothing to do with feminism. And I’d need a citation that women really have a right to hit men in the US - we get the “Cops” show here, so I’ve seen US women arrested for domestic violence against men.

right, so then make the women shave their hair too, hold them up to equal standards, give them equally long prison sentences, and have the same social norms and expectations. but you know the funny thing is that you dont see the feminists out on the street demanding all those things, in fact, they demand more leniency, more special treatment. for example, if women want to become firefighters, they should be held to the SAME physical standards as males. yet these feminists demand that the women should be given EASIER tasks. this is not only unfair, but its detrimental to society as a whole because we will have unqualified firefighters. feminism espouses egalitarianist dogma. feminism is also hypocritical because feminists expect women to have more rights than men, yet still retain all the comfortable aspects of their feminine role! for example a feminist expects that women should be able to join the army, be firefighters, be presidents, YET at the same time, they still expect the men to pay for their dates, to take care of them, to be the breadwinners, etc. now how is that fair? in a feminist society as a man I am still expected to be masculine, but the women are allowed to be both masculine and feminine. if you want true gender equality, then allow the men to swicth up roles too.

 

[inocente]

You missed the comparative analogy, did you? That the earlier form of feminism was pretty tame compared to the current manifestation. I know it is a shock to you, as it is to many, many others, to suddenly realise they have been totally blindsided by the radicalism that underpins feminism. However, don’t attempt to sidestep the fact that you’ve hung your hat of a philosophy which has Marxism as its base.

Radicals don’t shock me, change is good, the Arab Spring and so on. Much to be preferred over reactionary Talibans who want to keep the status quo at all costs. Anyhow I’d question why anyone might still worry about reds under the bed, and feminism now probably owes more to the postmodern than the old dude Marx.

So the quotes I gave you from Morgan, MacKinnon and others didn’t set alarm bells ringing with you? Nor the fact that they occupy positions where they can heavily influence young impresionable minds and so distort the development of society, which is already happening? Not even out of curiosity even? All you have to do is get your head out of the sand and use Google.

My alarm bell works differently, it only rings when everything stays exactly the same.

Young minds can deal with influences just fine, imho the more influences the better, and I doubt very much whether this generation hangs on the words of those in the Morgan and MacKinnon age group. More like Rihanna, P!nk, Beyonce, Lady Ga Ga and more recent. As for distorting society, surely a bit of distortion is good for the soul, and reports of the death of civilization are premature.

As for Germaine Greer, if you admire her, then it either shows a profound lack of understanding of her own problems as they have become manifest over the years and which have coloured her philosophy terribly. She is also an avowed Marxist. Do you admire that too? Her countrymen all think she has a great big axe embedded in one of her shoulders and should it be removed, she’d likely bleed to death.

I just like outrageous academics.

The sheer banality and inanity of what she says should set alarm bells ringing, particularly as she is in a teaching position.

Well, you’re in Australia and she’s Australian. I think she’s one of your better exports, an improvement on Mel Gibson anyway.

 

[MaryandJoseph]

As a woman, I applaud those women who struggled to gained us the right to vote…

As a woman, I believe that if the SAME work is done, then equal pay is a must…

Here though, is where I take a much different path then the feminists of today. My husband is the Head of the Household–PERIOD!!! God created us, man and woman, equal in DIGNITY, but each has a different role to play. My husband is the spiritual head of our family and the main breadwinner mad:thank you economy for forcing me out of the home to work). I am the heart of the home and my God given role of Mother.

I pray for men today. Some feminist go about claiming no need for a husband, or worse, a FATHER for their children Where does this leave men?

God clearly layed out His plan for the family structure, who are we to tell God He is wrong and that our way is better?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

God clearly layed out His plan for the family structure, who are we to tell God He is wrong and that our way is better?

While that may be the general model of the family unit; in some economic situations it is possible that both parents need to work. In which case, women should get equal pay.
Also, it may arise that some people are not suitable for the role of a mother, they have not met a husband, or something to that end; in which case it is profitable for the women to work. Therefore the women needs equal rights in the work place. Also i think its possible to argue that if a women has a more sufficient capacity for work and a wage, then the idea of the father being at home and therefore switching roles with the mother, is not immoral.

I think we have to be careful to distinguish between the abusing a mans natural right, and bruising his male ego.

Capitalism has had a hand in helping to distort the nature of the family unit; its not just the fault of the feminists.

 

[Geist]

Beyond equal pay for equal work(which is only just) and the right to vote, I agree with nothing a feminist has to say.

Er, whats a Nazi feminist by the way? The Nazis official policy on womens rights/duties/whatever were Kinder, Küche, Kirche, or Children, Kitchen, and Church.

Not exactly bra burners there.

 

[Sair]

, i support equality, but i support TRUE equality, meaning if women want the same rights as men, they must also be held to the same standards. either that, or accept being a housewife…

Yeah, you’re right. Most men are too soft to be housewives - they take one look at a pile of dirty dishes and run screaming.

 

[someperson555]

Yeah, you’re right. Most men are too soft to be housewives - they take one look at a pile of dirty dishes and run screaming.

lol, thats the other thing wrong about feminism. they allow role reversals for women, but they dont allow it for men. meaning, that its socially acceptable for a women to wear pants, but a man cant wear a dress. or its socially acceptable for a women to be a soldier, but we make fun of male hairdressers. and in our societies the men are still expected to pay for dates, be the breadwiners, etc. but if a man is a stay at home dad, we call him a loser. so feminists are hypocrites IMO.