|June 2nd, 2010||#21|
Join Date: Jan 2010
It's a tendency for Goyim sheep - excuses for European men - to behave like this; to disengage their brain; to disengage logic.
I repeat again:
|June 2nd, 2010||#22|
Join Date: May 2009
I know plenty of white women who hate all other women. Never has a single one of them uttered a word of support for feminism, and when it really comes down to it, they denounce it's current form, at least. Only skanky bitch white women, and fat disgusting dykes support feminism.
|June 3rd, 2010||#23|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Jose, California
What kind of logic do you have when it is nothing but lies?
|August 6th, 2010||#24|
Join Date: May 2010
Just had this conversation with an older women I met in my office yesterday, we both agreed Womens lib was a terrible thing to happen to this country.
|August 6th, 2010||#25|
Join Date: May 2007
5. Galloping Headstrong To Bondage
One of the major issues being highlighted in this series of essays concerns the Marxist imposition of equality. Having intended to write this essay after part two, an essay which discussed how imposing artificial equality among and between the races flies in the face of Mother Nature, I will now discuss how imposing equality between the sexes has had a catastrophic effect upon Western societies. It is best read with the issues raised in part two in mind, I had intended it so but one or two more pressing matters meant the chronology was disrupted.
I think if I stated that if one were to observe Western societies with a neutral stance to assess how the enforced Multicultural social experiment is progressing, it would be difficult to assert that Multiculturalism is working. Despite being brow-beaten with the "we're all equal" mantra, clear differences continue to arise between races and cultures because reality stubbornly refuses to fall in line with this childish Liberal fantasy of equality of all in a tranquil rainbow Shangri-la.
Throughout the West, vast numbers of alien immigrants shun the culture of their host society, preferring instead to maintain their own languages, traditions and cultures and demanding ever more tolerance and acceptance of their way of life. Meanwhile, back in their lands of origin, their cultures and traditions are entirely persevered and in the case of the Middle East, alien cultures and traditions are strictly - and very forcibly - forbidden.
Making such an observation and also comparing the West with other societies, it is crystal clear that major differences exist between races and that the predominantly white West is behaving in ways that other societies - societies from where most immigrants to Britain originate - do not and this means that our own culture and our own traditions are now in decline, indeed one could honestly claim that we are well along the road to colonisation and this is a damning indictment on Multiculturalism and its supporters.
But what is not so easy to discern is how the imposition of equality between the sexes is playing a major part in causing a disastrous and ongoing collapse of the greatest civilisation ever created in human history. It is an imposition of superficial equality that has been as equally destructive as forcibly imposing equality between the races. It has happened once again by creating a "victim" group, in this case women, and championed by male-hating feminists, the imposition of equality between the sexes has severely handicapped the West and although some advances - much needed in my humble view - have been achieved, sexual equality has also unwittingly achieved an undesirable result of enslaving and oppressing Western women far more than they have ever been, not least because equality for all has a logical conclusion of leading women into a nightmare of oppression and slavery as I will now explain.
I assert that feminism is therefore self-destructive as all pursuits of illusions - in this case equality of the sexes - are. But before I continue, let me make clear that we are not talking about the worth of a person or even an infantile "one sex is better than the other" high-school debate but rather the differences inherent between the sexes as bestowed by Mother Nature and how these differences have played a part throughout human evolution.
Natural Born Leader
When we talk about equality in Multicultural societies, remember that we're talking about equality Marxist-style. Marxists loathe the strong and pity the weak and this is the inversion of morality explained throughout the series so far. The goal of Marxists is to weaken the strong and empower the weak and so, to impose equality between the sexes, the white male must therefore be weakened.
Human beings are dominant pack animals, they have evolved into the most dominant animal on planet earth without question. In the natural world, dominant pack animals have a strict pecking order, with the strongest male - the Alpha male - imposing his leadership. The role of the leader is to maintain the pack order, to establish and mark territory containing resources for the pack to survive and importantly, to defend the pack from attack. He will also face challenges from his pack for leadership and if he fails a challenge a new leader is established. As the male is the stronger of the sexes, females do not lead the pack, but will support the leader in maintaining order and defending the pack along with their natural role as bearer and nurturer of their young.
The goal of the pack is to survive, each day is a struggle to find food and it has to compete not just with packs of the same species, but other species as well for precious resources to survive. Dominant pack animals became dominant because of their success at competing and therefore surviving. From the leader through to the young, the role of each member of the pack is known and those who stray will be put in their place by the seniors or even the leader himself. It is the alpha male who will lead and place the interest of his pack first, its survival paramount.
This is an absolute fact for pack animals: Leadership must exist, there has to be a leader to organise the pack so its survival is ensured. Weak leaders are never respected in nature and this applies to humans too. All races have leaders and by logical extension, the strongest race will lead the weaker races. If it doesn't the weaker races will sense this and challenge for territory and dominance. That is what happens with dominant pack animals in nature - packs continually compete for territory and resources and the strongest packs will dominate. At this moment in history, the West - that is, the white race - is now acting against this because it is handicapping the strong and falsely elevating the weak and in doing so is establishing weak leaders with the result that the West - the territory - is now being invaded and conquered.
Feel Like A New Man
Traditionally, the roles of the sexes were quite clear: Man was the hunter, the breadwinner, the protector, the leader of the family, his pack, and woman was his supportive partner who bore his offspring, nurtured and raised them and made the home. Based on Judeo-Christian values, the nuclear family was at the heart of society and helped to make the West and especially Great Britain, such strong nations who advanced and therefore succeeded in the game of life, far better than any others.
Re-enforced by a strong work ethic, a sense of duty and of service to God and nation along with strict moral values, the man's role as provider for his pack from the fruits of his labour along with the woman's role as his wife and mother of their children was crucial to the family's survival and although life was harder back then, providing for his family gave a man an important purpose and a sense of pride and self-respect. For his wife, this would mean security to care for her family, and again, a sense of duty, purpose, service and fulfilment from being a mother and wife.
Contrast this, an albeit basic overview of how important family life along with clearly defined roles of the sexes was during Britain's golden era with what is happening today, where the roles of the sexes have changed dramatically and are now more about self-interest than family life.
Let's take men. Today's male in the main cuts a very different pack animal from his forefathers. In the Multicultural utopia, where the nuclear family has been all but trashed, many males are engaging in long-lasting childish or feminine behaviours such as the following which I seem to see on an almost daily basis wherever I go:
Adult males riding skateboards or roller-blading. Playing computer games night after night or watching TV for hours on end mindlessly lapping up the Multicultural propaganda spewed out by the deceitful media. Then there is the quite asinine mimicking of how blacks speak "lak is da cool fing mans innit" and males will even write in this retarded style. Modern man, sometimes referred to as "Metrosexual" will also be obsessed with appearance and fashion, from hair gel and facial scrub to designer labels and expensive after shave, men have adopted feminine attitudes to personal grooming and preen before mirrors as though they were beauty queens. Style over substance is now key and many young men will have no qualms about piling up debt to boost their image, flash cars being perhaps the most obvious example.
And we've not even mentioned the rise and rise of homosexuality.
Excessive drinking and drug-taking further anaesthetise the minds of many young British males. From smoking weed to dropping ecstasy from heroin to cocaine, drug taking is rife and to be fair, Western women are also joining in the "fun", there's equality for you! Shamefully, the West is awash with hardcore pornography, many men - and to be fair, women too - will watch this base "adult entertainment" every day.
That there is nothing "adult" about it matters not a jot in the Liberal "we tolerate everything" world. Watching consenting adults sexually debase themselves with beautiful girls performing a variety of sexually explicit and extreme acts is surely not what a mature adult considers entertainment? It is degenerate behaviour, a sign of a morally bankrupt and deteriorating society yet "open-minded" Liberals will claim porn flicks are evidence of "a celebration of sexuality because women can now freely express and share their sexuality and can now fully enjoy sex as equally as men without fear or guilt."
Can I humbly ask: Is porn and the glorification of what should be private acts really a sign of progress for women? And is porn evidence of a progressive society based on equality of the sexes?
You tell me.
Addicted to depravity, booze and narcotics and constantly manipulated by the Marxist controlled media, an awareness of how important territory is and how important it is to ensure freedom is the precious gift you need to preserve for future generations is virtually non-existent.
The modern Western male is Multiculturalist, he has abandoned the Judeo-Christian values that shaped the mighty West, is in the main anti-war and is meekly surrendering territory to invaders rather than defend it and in so-doing, bargains away freedom and robs it from future generations to enjoy a secure life. Football also provides an insight into how confused modern males now are. There's the childish and asinine chants directed at the opposition, e.g. "You're scum and you know you are", including abusing the officials, the players and staff of opposition teams including abusing them for their physical appearance which will often then escalate into mindless violence between rival supporters. Yet these same mature wise men will become apoplectic with rage should anyone dare criticise other races or even other faiths especially Islam and again resort to violence amid hysterical cries of "Racist". Point out that football supporters behave in this way towards each other and they will explain fierce hate-filled football rivalries as "it's territorial" or "it's tribal" totally oblivious to the colonisation of their nation in a war which is most definitely "territorial" and certainly "tribal" and with a far greater price at stake.
I find it odd that many males will display such misguided passion for their football team but have zero passion or patriotism for their own nation. Football is nothing in the grand scale of things, it is now an entertainment business, a money generating scheme for the rich elite that wouldn't make a difference to life if it ended tomorrow. But your nation, your territory, is everything, it is crucial to your survival and the survival of your family, your children and your children's children yet many childish men regard football as being far more important to their lives.
This is not conjecture by the way, I've tried to debate and explain Islam to my fellow supporters on several football forums and I have been banned from all of them and vilified as a...well, insert your favourite well-worn smear for those who dare speak the truth about Islam here, I've been on the receiving end of all of them and not just on football forums either. However, I watch with interest the British Defence Leagues that have arose from various football "firms" as they protest against the Islamisation of Britain.
While Western men ogle their porn, quaff their beers, smoke their pot, fret over their wardrobes, gel their blow-waved hair and spend hours aimlessly zapping aliens, armies of alien males filled with hate and a steely resolve to conquer the West amass on our territory. Whilst men of other races still lead their packs and prepare for war against us to claim more territory and more resources, the Liberal-Multicultural Western male is preparing his "partner's" dinner, fretting about how he can be more tolerant, smugly priding himself with the knowledge that he isn't "racist" or "misogynist" or "homophobic".
That enemies are now in our territory preparing to conquer us isn't just the fault of the modern metrosexual male. Because the fairer sex has also changed and has contributed enormously to the current plight the West is now in.
Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves
The progression of feminism throughout the 20th Century to the present has presented a challenge to the Western male which quite frankly he has continually refused to rise to. What began as a struggle to give women the vote gradually morphed into a struggle to establish women as the equals of men - employment, property rights, education, marital rights, sexual freedoms and legal status.
Having secured a victory to establish women's suffrage, feminists then moved onto the next issue, then the next issue, then the next, continually citing "inequality" and "oppression" and demonising their menfolk as "enslavers" at each step of the way, demanding equality at all levels presenting a determined challenge to male leadership.
Each victory spurred on feminists to the next. Except true equality isn't the goal, the goal is leadership and that is now exactly what is happening. Pack animals must have leaders and women are now challenging for this role but they have to be aided in their quest.
Equality of the sexes doesn't exist and cannot exist. To artificially establish equality in the Multicultural Shangri-la, the strong must be unfairly penalised which is camouflaged by the Orwellian phrase "Positive discrimination". This is happening right now to the Western - British - male. Companies are forced by law to employ people based on sex or colour meaning that the best candidate cannot be selected if it means legal quotas of ethnic minorities or women will not be met.
Conversely, check out which sex does most of the fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. No rush to establish quotas there on the violent blood soaked battlefields of course and this is not a flippant remark, in fact the reason underpins this entire essay.
Feminists have also trashed completely the traditional role of wife and mother whilst at the same time elevating the virtues of work and encouraging a fiercely competitive "we're independent, we don't need men, we can do everything for ourselves and we can do it just as well if not better". Inspired by cultural Marxism, feminists have demanded the right to sexual freedom, the right to end marriages and claim half of the man's wealth as part of divorce and usually, custody of the children will be awarded to the mother and all of this places a wholly unequal burden of risk on the male as well as making marriage a not too attractive prospect for either sex for very different reasons. The divorce rate is sky-high and this doesn't account for the thousands and thousands of couples who live together only to part company before even a year has passed.
Greater sexual freedoms have also resulted in women now having the right to kill their babies under the "right to choose" abortion laws and liberal attitudes to sex, along with the widespread availability of pornography, results in promiscuity being promoted as being a healthy lifestyle choice with a strong emphasis on pleasure and self-gratification.
The rise in single parent families resulting from liberal attitudes to sex has brought about the quite ridiculous and, in my humble opinion, demeaning spectacle of a woman having as many children as she pleases and demanding the state step in and act as surrogate father to provide food and shelter. With the father - or now in many cases, fathers - absent from the home, children are raised with only a female authority figure without strong discipline or a masculine influence.
By trashing the role of wife and mother within the nuclear family, and elevating the values of work and female independence instead, feminists have so transformed the role of women in the pursuit to establish themselves as pack leaders that many women simply don't have enough time or even the desire to reproduce and the birth-rate in Western societies is now so low it may be impossible for the West to recover and reproduce itself sufficiently to maintain its survival and you can bet your last penny that our enemies who absolutely despise us and are chomping at the bit to conquer us will have noticed this and they'll know that victory will soon be theirs.
But a more pressing issue to consider is that with such a catastrophically low birth-rate, there will be less strong males to protect the pack from attack and right now the West is under attack from a variety of other packs, packs whose birth-rates are far higher, where the males are dominant pack leaders, packs whose goal is to conquer our territory and subjugate us or even annihilate us.
Taking The Bait
My contention is that what started out as a perfectly just fight to establish suffrage has morphed not just into a battle for equality but outright hatred for the white male. This hatred for men - misandry - has been seized upon by Marxists and promoted as healthy yet there will be very unhealthy - make that devastating - consequences.
The promotion of misandry and of feminist issues hasn't just empowered women it has demoralised Western men to the point of self-hatred. These self-hating "men" have sided with feminists and follow the lead of females having fallen hook, line and sinker for the Marxist "we're all equal" propaganda.
One could even go as far as saying that instead of making a better society by promoting a healthy respect and true equality between the sexes by reducing conflict, feminism has resulted in greater mistrust and hostility between the sexes and as men-haters like the demented Harriet Harman clearly demonstrate, it is a war to humiliate and discriminate against indigenous males to weaken them and empower women via numerous "positive discrimination" laws.
Let's not forget that these laws are in addition the "positive discrimination" laws forcing the equality of the races. Oh, and let's also not forget that those who hate us and seek to conquer and destroy us do not pass such laws in their own territories. Do you think that may be, perhaps, for a very good reason?
This Marxist promotion of feminism also encourages society to adopt feminine attitudes and traits such as equality, tolerance, compassion, understanding, peace, non-discrimination, non-judgemental, these are weak feminine traits that have now been adopted by weak males, many of whom adopt these traits to impress females, especially those who are Liberal-Multiculturalists and to my embarrassment I write from years of experience as a one time dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. I too swallowed this equality garbage lock, stock and barrel and honestly as I write this series of essays, I cannot believe I fell for it. I know I'm just one of millions who were brainwashed from childhood to accept the Multicultural ideology and although I had no idea of the ensuing very serious consequences, ignorance is no excuse and sadly, the majority of Westerners believe strongly in Multiculturalism.
Such is the astuteness and the cunning of our Marxist enemies.
The more feminine attitudes are adopted the weaker society becomes. Criminals are treated like children. Murderers, child abusers and drug pushers - utter scum - receive light punishments as their human rights are sacrosanct and must not be violated. The death penalty, abolished on the since oft-broken promise that a life sentence will mean life, is no longer an option, and our prisons now provide all home comforts for those who prey upon society and who have no mercy or compassion for their victims. And have you noticed how women are often portrayed in the media and in Hollywood as warriors and fighters who are as strong as men yet reality reveals a vastly different picture? Look at violent crime for example. Men will commit the vast majority of violent crimes, there are very few female armed robbers and gangs are dominated by males. Brutal, violent males at that.
Ridiculously, criminals even have the right to sue the Police if they think their rights have been violated as happened with one of the armed robbers arrested during the raid on the millennium dome. Crime is rife in our society, criminals are using the law to their own advantage and gang crime blights inner cities all because we lack the courage to severely punish criminals and this is another sign of how feminine traits such as compassion and pity weaken Western society.
Yet unlike myself and many other former Liberals, not once have I heard a prominent Liberal in society ever question their beliefs and say: The evidence is showing us that we're getting it badly wrong. Not once have I heard any of our leaders in the lib/lab/con admit that their Multicultural pursuit of equality between the races and the sexes is not working. None of them ever look further than the now and deploy a little bit of insight and warn of the dire consequences future generations are now destined to face. Not one. Instead, as always with the power mad self-serving elite, the reason things are going badly awry is because there simply isn't enough equality so the answer is more of the same: more legislation to punish the strong and artificially empower the weak, more propaganda and lies to support the childish Multicultural utopian fantasy piling yet more problems on top of existing ones.
When a society adopts a feminine perspective, it will smear masculine males as "racists", "thugs", "xenophobes" or "fascists", handicapping their own men who are competing with other races - packs - and who want to defend their pack from attack or defend their territory and resources from invaders who are determined to conquer and plunder them. This only serves to empower our enemies because it weakens the ability of the entire pack to defend itself and preserve its territory whilst empowering our enemies. Such self-destructive behaviour is akin to asking a boxer to fight with two hands tied behind his back. While his opponent wears head-guards and body pads, just in case.
Such stupidity is a complete denial of how nature works, it is a catastrophic undermining of the strong pack-leaders to handicap them from defending the entire pack and ensuring the safety and progression of the entire pack from predators who are competing AGAINST them. This is how life is, it is competitive and territory and the resources within it are absolutely essential. Those who refuse to defend their territory and protect their resources will not survive because other stronger and more determined enemies will attack and get what they can to ensure their own success in the fight for survival and the struggle to establish dominance in the harsh competition of life.
What feminists and their self-hating male sympathisers fail to grasp is that when the pack and its territory is threatened, it is the stronger sex, the male, who will have to fight and defend it. By propagating feminine attitudes throughout Western society, another quite alarming issue is now raised.
Be Careful What You Wish For
Equality of the races and equality between the sexes is being vigorously pursued by the ruling Marxist elite with an almost fanatical religious zeal. Anyone who dares to oppose this unnatural equality is smeared, de-humanised and criminalised. Equality can only be imposed by force and that means handicapping the strong.
Should any man reach down and find a pair and dare to criticise feminists they will be met with an hysterical outrage along with more smears and slurs: Haters, misogynist, male-chauvinist pig, bigot and "typical male", these of course in addition to all of the other insults hurled his way for wanting to preserve his identity and perform his natural role as provider and protector for his pack, these idiotic slurs along with the tired out brickbats trotted out by totalitarian Marxists to stifle debate, to silence opposition: Racist, Nazi, fascist, thug, Islamophobe. All as predictable as they are tiresome and bankrupt.
But there is a self-destructive consequence for a society that chooses to adopt weak feminine traits and perspectives and imposes an unnatural equality between the sexes and the races. In doing so, Liberal-Multiculturalists are making the white male a demon to all people, even to his own women, women who are so busy handicapping and dis-empowering their menfolk all they are doing is serving the interests of aliens who hate the entire West, who want to loot and pilfer the bounty created by the West and are busy going about occupying the territory of the West. And the women who are part of it are building the chains of their own oppression and bondage link by link and one day those they have sided with will force them to wear the chains they've constructed.
Blinded by their own desire to be the equal of the male and an arrogant belief that they possess an absolute and unquestionable moral justification, all these people can see is the here and now and they simply don't acknowledge that in the future, the utopian equal society they are busy building may have to face a very serious attack. Now obviously, if a society - a pack - is lead by women, then it is in serious trouble because women may well lead society but they will be wholly incapable of fighting for it and defending it.
That job, as history and other packs teach us, always falls to the stronger sex, the male. Now let me ask you a question:
If a male is brainwashed into believing that his forefathers were evil and guilty of oppressing weaker races; into believing that all races are equal and that because his nation and his people colonised other lands and stole their wealth his people must now atone; that his race is responsible for causing all of the conflicts and wars; that it is only right and proper for other races to share the abundant resources of his land and that his womenfolk are not just equal to him but are superior to him and actually hate him then is it possible that such a disgruntled male might ask:
Why on earth he should fight and defend his territory and his pack if such a society - his pack - holds him in such low esteem?
I mean, if you have no bond with your nation and your people, if you have no family because you've been divorced and punished punitively for committing the crime of marriage and if your society affords more rights and privileges for other pack animals and discriminates against you at every turn then maybe, just maybe, you will have as much desire to fight and defend your territory from attack as a Muslim has to co-exist in peace with the dirty kuffar.
The last sentence is very pertinent because there is something else I want to bring to your attention regarding how women are perceived by our enemies that feminists and their merry band of Liberal-Multiculturalists ignore at their peril.
To the fanatical jihad army of Islam, the women of kuffars in the lands of Dar al Harb are "war booty". This means that when a land is conquered into Dar al Islam, the kuffar women will be enslaved and used as sex-objects for their Islamic masters. Using dirty kuffar women as sex-slaves is an example personally set by the Islamic paedophile prophet Mohammed and it is an example that Muslims not only will follow should Great Britain become Al Britannia, Muslim jihadists are following it right now in many communities throughout the realm and indeed throughout Europe.
British women will then discover to their horror the consequences of their battle to establish equality between the sexes and that not all are sold on their fantasy of a rainbow Shangri-la where all are equal and where all live in peace and harmony. The evidence is there for them to see it but they prefer to turn a blind eye, yet all they have to do is open their eyes and look at the barbaric horrors endured by their sisters throughout Dar al Islam where rape, stoning, wife-beating, honour killings and mutilations aren't just common they are legal and where under Sharia law the life of a Muslim female is valued as half of that of a Muslim male and where women are afforded virtually zero rights in either marriage or divorce and many other inequalities I'm sure you could add.
But the point that needs to be made is: Whose civilisation is in decline and whose is in the ascendancy? One is very masculine, the other increasingly feminine. Take a wild guess as to which civilisation is going to prevail.
Eyes On The Prize
It isn't just Muslim jihadists who see women as spoils of war, as sexual objects to fulfil not just their own perverted sexual gratification but to humiliate white women and their menfolk. Gang rape of white women is now rife in the West, and along with Muslims following the example of their perverted prophet, gangs of black males delight in gang raping white women over and over again, a diabolical crime committed by blacks wherever they go, from the United States, to Britain and Europe but especially in South Africa where gang raping the poor victim in front of her husband, her parents or her children is common.
But the long tradition of men being the leaders and the protectors of the pack has been abandoned in white societies thanks to the advent of Marxism and feminism. Only the strong lead but now in white societies, women have been elevated to the equals of men and are competing to lead at every turn and Western men are allowing a feminisation of society and the establishing of women as equals and leaders.
Other societies and races do not allow women this prominence in their societies and this poses an interesting question: when whites become a minority in the West, will women enjoy the same freedom and equality the feminists have fought for and demanded whilst supporting the rights of a tsunami of immigrants flooding our lands?
Well if the evidence is anything to go by, they will timidly submit before their new masters. Take rape for example. Feminists become incandescent with rage and hatred for men who say that they raped a woman because she was dressed provocatively. They say a woman has the right to dress how she chooses without being raped by a lust-crazed sex-beast and of course, this is quite correct.
But when Muslim males rape dirty kuffar women in the lefty rainbow lunatic asylum of Sweden, these same feminists sided with the Muslims who cited the issue of provocative dress as the reason for their assault - al taqqiya of course - and so-called feminists advised Swedish women to dress in a less provocative fashion. And shamefully, whilst writing this essay, a woman from Amnesty International spoke out AGAINST a film depicting the horrific and barbaric stoning of women in Iran. This absolute washout of a woman who is supposed to be concerned about human rights was more interested in protecting the barbarian mullahtocracy of Iran and in true nauseating Liberal style whined "this film will not help".
What utter morally bankrupt cowards these weasels are! They won't even defend their own principles when other races and minorities trample all over them even to the cost of their sisters. This is what weak leadership based on feminine traits - compassion, non-judgemental, pity etc. - is all about and it will lead women into a very real horrific nightmare.
It is this weak leadership that continually makes excuses to tolerate the abuse of women by hate-filled aliens who commit these crimes, the very people feminists warmly welcomed into the West. Yet it has been these same feminists who have been blaming their own menfolk for oppressing them, for enslaving them in marriages, for abusing and raping them, for denying them opportunity. It is feminists who have continually competed for and demanded equality, who, egged on by Marxists who filled them with resentment for the traditional roles of mother and home-maker, who painted family life as a prison, and who demanded an end to "gender apartheid", another Marxist false construct to denote victim-hood.
What needs to be realised - and quick - is that we're not here to have a competition to see which sex is the better, the stronger, the more intelligent, the more independent. We're here to compete and survive in the game of life and those who play by Mother nature's rules will flourish and those who do not will perish and at this moment in time the West is engaging in an artificial pursuit of racial and sexual equality whilst subjugating itself before enemies who are instead engaging with reality. The message we're sending is loud and clear: We are ripe for the taking and our enemies know it.
Another symptom of the feminisation of Britain is the lamentable fact that we do not make anything any more. Thriving industries that made Britain strong and independent - mining, shipbuilding, engineering etc. - have all been absolutely decimated along with the communities who provided the labour. Nowadays, more and more men are employed in "unisex" jobs, especially as civil servants, the pen pushers who serve the growing and parasitical state Titan as wealth distributors helping it to destroy our nation. These are the men who are now performing a variety of unnecessary government jobs that regulate and interfere with the daily lives of people, robbing them of their hard-earned wealth and their even harder won freedoms.
This while our armed services have been cut-down to the bare bones yet which is better? Employing an army of bureaucrats who weaken the nation or an army of soldiers who can protect and defend the nation? In 21st Century Britain, there are too many people doing things we simply do not need and that contribute little of worth to our society and not enough people doing things we desperately need to make our nation self-sufficient, strong and able to protect and support its people.
It's all happened because of a concerted attack by Marxists on the very foundations of our once strong society. Fuelled by a seething hatred for success, Marxists have been tearing down the standards behaviours and morals that lead to success to weaken our once strong society all performed with relish by people who hate success because they are incapable of contributing anything of worth to society. So they maliciously ruin everything that contributes to a successful life and they've done it by promoting failed practices as healthy throughout the print and broadcast media: Promiscuity, equality, hatred for religion especially Christianity, and self-indulgence including binge drinking and drug abuse. They have force-fed their Multicultural propaganda with its equality of the sexes, equality of races and equality of cultures down the throats of the British people at every level of our society including the schools educating our children. Sorry, my mistake, make that "brainwashing our children".
For women, this has meant the trashing and demeaning of one of the most precious roles in nature: That of mother. Women have been made to feel that they are victims because of their natural role as child-bearer. Marriage too has been portrayed as female oppression and work and independence - including sexual freedom - have now been assigned far greater importance. Feminists have blamed men for their oppression yet it seems to me that feminists are in fact battling against nature.
In 21st Century Britain, if a woman doesn't want her child she can abort it. If she tires of her marriage she can end it and even if marital breakdown is caused by a straying wife, the legal system will still side with her and award her custody of children along with half of her husband's wealth. Should a woman want a child, she can even have one without having met the father, knowing full well the state will provide for all of the family needs.
A Liberal attitude to sex, where immediate pleasure and gratification are the overriding priorities and damn the long-term consequences has been unashamedly promoted. But it isn't as liberal as suggested. It has all been deliberately designed to trash the sanctity of marriage, the honour of woman, the respect between husband and wife to ruin the quiet, contented and vitally important bond between a man and woman and the raising of children in the security of family life.
Marxists have filled people with petty jealousies and even rancour for the opposite sex by making them believe they are missing out, that they are being trapped, that married life and family life robs them of precious life time. Along with the rest of the issues raised in this series, the promotion of behaviours that lead to failure have all been maliciously calculated to destroy the white race by portraying successful lifestyle choices as harmful and flawed lifestyle choices as desirable thus leading to a catastrophic and probably irrecoverable decline in the birth-rate of the race.
Along with the feminisation of males and the elevation of women to pack leaders whilst other males in other races continue to be raised with masculine, aggressive and dominant attitudes, Great Britain, a nation that created the greatest Empire in human history, has sewed the seeds of its own destruction and its conquest is a very real prospect that the latest generations of Britons could well witness in just 50 years.
Weak feminine leaders are not respected, certainly not in nature by any dominant pack animal. The feminisation of Western societies has lead to men adopting feminine traits and attitudes such as compassion, pity, non-judgemental and more emotional. It has been noticed by our enemies who know that Liberals and Multiculturalists are weak, faint-hearted and war-averse. They hear the anti-war, "let's all live in peace as equals" rhetoric, they know that the West will not put the interests of its own people before alien invaders and they know a simple truth:
These lily-livered cowards are the dominant demographic in Western society. They know feminised males in the West are too cowardly to compete with other races who are chomping at the bit to pilfer and destroy the West and who are exploiting the cowardice of the West to the max.
The West is now acting in a way that is removed from reality: that life is all about survival and working against the balance of nature is placing our long term survival under threat because we are failing to recognise the competitive nature between and among species. The more territory you hold, the greater resources you control and the greater you increase your chances of survival. The more you weaken and reduce the competition the better. It is all about territory and failing to dominate and protect your territory isn't just catastrophic, it's suicidal.
We are in a competition for territory yet because of the imposing of weak feminine attitudes on Western society, we are meekly surrendering our territory to invaders who seek to become conquerors and masters to further the interests of their own tribes. They have no problem in using our tolerance against us to further their aims and if we ever do try to defend what is rightfully ours, they too will dehumanise us as racists, fascists etc. knowing full well that many of our own will side with them - i.e. collaborate with the enemy - to help them strengthen their foothold in the West. It is very difficult to fight and defend your territory when your own pack is fighting against you and helping invaders to settle in your territory.
Take a look at the societies of two of our enemies, the host societies of the parasitical alien packs invading our nation, particularly Africa and the Middle East. See with your own eyes what Africans are doing to whites and see the harsh and decidedly unequal reality of how Islamic countries truly are behind the "Religion of Peace" veil. And check out the birth rates there and if you can, have a search for equality and Multiculturalism.
Mother nature is doing her very best to tell us: "All are not equal, only the strong survive, defend your territory or perish. Heed well my warning."
From Titans To Lemmings: The Suicide Of The White Race
Experience molds perception.
|September 25th, 2010||#26|
Join Date: Aug 2009
"Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." - Robert E Lee
|November 2nd, 2010||#27|
Join Date: May 2010
This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and additions are welcome.
* Bella Abzug
* Kathy Acker
* Rachel Adler
* Larisa Alexandrovna
* Gloria Allred
* Rebecca Alpert
* Hanne Blank
* Lisa Bloom
* Judy Blume
* Daniel Boyarin
* David Brooks (journalist)
* Susan Brownmiller
* Judith Butler
* Aviva Cantor
* Judy Chicago
* Hedwig Dohm
* Andrea Dworkin
* Eve Ensler
* Susan Estrich
* Susan Faludi
* Shulamith Firestone
* Betty Friedan
* Sarah Michelle Gellar
* Ruth Bader Ginsburg
* Emma Goldman
* Lynn Gottlieb
* Blu Greenberg
* Charlotte Haldane
* Nina Hartley
* Tova Hartman
* Judith Hauptman
* Dorothy Ray Healey
* Brenda Howard
* Sara Hurwitz
* Paula Hyman
* Elfriede Jelinek
* Erica Jong
* Roberta Kalechofsky
* Michael Kimmel
* Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner
* Naomi Klein
* Edith Konecky
* Barbara Kruger
* Anna Kuliscioff
* Michele Landsberg
* Lori Hope Lefkovitz
* Gerda Lerner
* Ariel Levy
* Fanny Lewald
* Rosa Luxemburg
* Frederica Sagor Maas
* Hana Meisel
* Annie Nathan Meyer
* Jennifer Miller
* Haviva Ner-David
* Martha Nussbaum
* Tillie Olsen
* Judith Plaskow
* Rachel Pollack
* Katha Pollitt
* Sally Priesand
* Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
* Tamar Ross
* Muriel Rukeyser
* Zalman Schachter-Shalomi
* Rosika Schwimmer
* Mendel Shapiro
* Christina Hoff Sommers
* Susan Sontag
* Daniel Sperber
* Gertrude Stein
* Gloria Steinem
* Sandra Steingraber
* Cathy Young
* Yona Wallach
* Wendy Wasserstein
* Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
* Naomi Weisstein
* Ruth Westheimer
* Naomi Wolf
* Joel B. Wolowelsky
* Elizabeth Wurtzel
|September 16th, 2011||#28|
Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Blog Entries: 1
|March 31st, 2012||#30|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Rich (right), with writer Audre Lorde (left) and Meridel Le Sueur (middle) in Austin Texas, 1980
Adrienne Cecile Rich (May 16, 1929 – March 27, 2012) was an American poet, essayist and feminist. She has been called "one of the most widely read and influential poets of the second half of the 20th century", and was credited with bringing "the oppression of women and lesbians to the forefront of poetic discourse."
Her first collection of poetry, A Change of World, was selected by the senior poet W. H. Auden for the Yale Series of Younger Poets Award; he went on to write the introduction to the published volume. Rich famously declined the National Medal of Arts, protesting the United States House of Representatives and Speaker Gingrich's vote to end funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Life and career
Adrienne Rich was born in Baltimore, Maryland, the older of two sisters. Her father, the renowned pathologist Arnold Rice Rich, was the Chairman of Pathology at The Johns Hopkins Medical School, and her mother, Helen Elizabeth (Jones) Rich, was a concert pianist (before she married) and a composer. Her father was from a Jewish family, and her mother was Southern Protestant; the girls were raised as Christians. Adrienne Rich's early poetic influence stemmed from her father who encouraged her to read but also to write her own poetry. Her interest in literature was sparked within her father's library where she read the work of writers such as Ibsen, Arnold, Blake, Keats, Rossetti, and Tennyson. Her father was ambitious for Adrienne and "planned to create a prodigy." Adrienne Rich and her younger sister were home schooled by their mother until Adrienne began public education in the fourth grade. The poems Sources and After Dark document her relationship with her father, describing how she worked hard to fulfill her parents' ambitions for her—moving into a world in which she was expected to excel.
In later years, Rich went to Roland Park Country School, which she described as a "good old fashioned girls school [that] gave us fine role models of single women who were intellectually impassioned."  After graduating from high school, Rich gained her college diploma at Radcliffe College, Harvard, where she focused primarily on poetry and learning writing craft, encountering no women teachers at all. In 1951, her last year at college, Rich's first collection of poetry, A Change of World, was selected by the senior poet W. H. Auden for the Yale Series of Younger Poets Award; he went on to write the introduction to the published volume. Following her graduation, Rich received a Guggenheim Fellowship, to study in Oxford for a year. Following a visit to Florence, she decided to cut short her study at Oxford and spend her remaining time in Europe writing and exploring Italy.
Early career: 1953–1975
In 1953, Rich married Alfred Haskell Conrad, an economics professor at Harvard University, whom she had met as an undergraduate. She had said of the match: "I married in part because I knew no better way to disconnect from my first family ... I wanted what I saw as a full woman's life, whatever was possible."  They settled in Cambridge, Massachusetts and had three sons. The birth of David in 1955 coincided with the publication of her second volume, The Diamond Cutters, a collection she said she wished had not been published. That same year, she also received the Ridgely Torrence Memorial Award for the Poetry Society of America. Her second son, Paul, was born in 1957, followed by Jacob in 1959.
"We are, I am, you are
by cowardice or courage
the one who find our way
back to this scene
carrying a knife, a camera
a book of myths
our names do not appear.“
From "Diving into the Wreck"
Diving into the Wreck: Poems 1971-1972 (1973)
The 1960s began a period of change in Rich's life: she received the National Institute of Arts and Letters award (1960), her second Guggenheim Fellowship to work at the Netherlands Economic Institute (1961), and the Bollingen Foundation grant for the translation of Dutch poetry (1962). In 1963, Rich published her third collection, Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law, which was a much more personal work examining her female identity, reflecting the increasing tensions she experienced as a wife and mother in the 1950s, marking a substantial change in Rich's style and subject matter. In her 1982 essay "Split at the Root: An Essay on Jewish Identity", Rich states "The experience of motherhood was eventually to radicalize me." The book met with harsh reviews. She comments, "I was seen as 'bitter' and 'personal'; and to be personal was to be disqualified, and that was very shaking because I'd really gone out on a limb ... I realised I'd gotten slapped over the wrist, and I didn't attempt that kind of thing again for a long time."
Moving her family to New York in 1966, Rich became involved with the New Left and became heavily involved in anti-war, civil right, and feminist activism. Her husband took a teaching position at City College of New York. In 1968, she signed the “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” pledge, vowing to refuse tax payments in protest against the Vietnam-America War. Her collections from this period include Necessities of Life (1966), Leaflets (1969), and The Will to Change (1971), which reflect increasingly radical political content and interest in poetic form.
From 1967 to 1969, Rich lectured at Swarthmore College and taught at Columbia University School of the Arts as an adjunct professor in the Writing Division. Additionally, in 1968, she began teaching in the SEEK program in City College of New York, a position she continued until 1975. During this time, Rich also received the Eunice Tietjens Memorial Prize from Poetry Magazine. Increasingly militant, Rich hosted anti-war and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment; tensions began to split the marriage, Conrad fearing that his wife had lost her mind. The couple separated in mid-1970 and shortly afterward, in October, Conrad drove into the woods and shot himself.
In 1971, she was the recipient of the Shelley Memorial Award from the Poetry Society of America and spent the next year and a half teaching at Brandeis University as the Hurst Visiting Professor of Creative Writing. In 1973 that Rich wrote Diving into the Wreck, a collection of exploratory and often angry poems, which won the National Book Award for Poetry in 1974, which she shared with Allen Ginsberg. Declining to accept it individually, Rich was joined by the two other feminist poets nominated, Alice Walker and Audre Lorde, to accept it on behalf of all women. The following year, Rich took up the position of the Lucy Martin Donnelly Fellow at Bryn Mawr College.
Later life: 1976–2012
In 1976, Rich began her lifelong partnership with Jamaican-born novelist and editor Michelle Cliff. In her controversial work Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, published the same year, Rich acknowledged that, for her, lesbianism was a political as well as a personal issue, writing, "The suppressed lesbian I had been carrying in me since adolescence began to stretch her limbs."  The pamphlet Twenty-One Love Poems (1977), which was incorporated into the following year's Dream of a Common Language (1978), marked the first direct treatment of lesbian desire and sexuality in her writing, themes which run throughout her work afterwards, especially in A Wild Patience Has Taken Me This Far (1981) and some of her late poems in The Fact of a Doorframe (2001). In her analytical work Adrienne Rich: the moment of change, Langdell suggests these works represent a central rite of passage for the poet, as she (Rich) crossed a threshold into a newly constellated life and a "new relationship with the universe". During this period, Rich also wrote a number of key socio-political essays, including "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence", one of the first to address the theme of lesbian existence. In this essay, she asks "how and why women's choice of women as passionate comrades, life partners, co-workers, lovers, community, has been crushed, invalidated, forced into hiding". Some of the essays were republished in On Lies, Secrets and Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978 (1979). In integrating such pieces into her work, Rich claimed her sexuality and took a role in leadership for sexual equality.
From 1976 to 1979, Rich taught at City College as well as Rutgers University as an English Professor. In 1979, she received an honorary doctorate from Smith College and moved with Cliff to Montague, MA. Ultimately, they moved to Santa Cruz, where Rich continued her career as a professor, lecturer, poet, and essayist. The two women took over editorship of the lesbian journal Sinister Wisdom in 1981. Rich taught and lectured at Scripps College, San Jose State University, and Stanford University during the 1980s and 1990s. From 1981 to 1987, Rich served as an A.D. White Professor-At-Large for Cornell University. Rich published several in the next few years: Your Native Land, Your Life (1986), Blood, Bread, and Poetry (1986), and Time’s Power: Poems 1985-1988 (1989). She also was awarded the Ruth Paul Lilly Poetry Prize (1986), the Elmer Holmes Bobst Award in Arts and Letters from NYU, and the National Poetry Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Art of Poetry (1989).
Janice Raymond cited Rich in the acknowledgments section of her 1979 book The Transsexual Empire, writing "Adrienne Rich has been a very special friend and critic. She has read the manuscript through all its stages and provided resources, creative criticism, and constant encouragement." In the chapter "Sappho by Surgery" of The Transsexual Empire, Raymond cites a conversation with Rich in which Rich described trans women as "men who have given up the supposed ultimate possession of manhood in a patriarchal society by self-castration".
Rich's work with the New Jewish Agenda led to the founding of Bridges: A Journal for Jewish Feminists and Our Friends in 1990, a journal of which Rich served as the editor. This work coincided explored the relationship between private and public histories, especially in the case of Jewish women's rights. Her next published piece, An Atlas of the Difficult World (1991), won both the Los Angeles Times Book Award in Poetry and the Lenore Marshall/Nation Award as well as the Poet's Prize in 1993 and Commonwealth Award in Literature in 1991. During the 1990s Rich became an active member of numerous advisory boards such as the Boston Woman’s Fund, National Writers Union and Sisterhood in Support of Sisters in South Africa. On the role of the poet, she wrote, "We may feel bitterly how little our poems can do in the face of seemingly out-of-control technological power and seemingly limitless corporate greed, yet it has always been true that poetry can break isolation, show us to ourselves when we are outlawed or made invisible, remind us of beauty where no beauty seems possible, remind us of kinship where all is represented as separation." In July 1994, Rich won the MacArthur Fellowship and Award, specifically the "Genius Grant" for her work as a poet and writer. Also in 1992, Rich became a grandmother to Julia Arden Conrad and Charles Reddington Conrad.
"There's a place between two stands of trees where the grass grows uphill
and the old revolutionary road breaks off into shadows
near a meeting-house abandoned by the persecuted
who disappeared into those shadows.
I've walked there picking mushrooms at the edge of dread, but don't be fooled
this isn't a Russian poem, this is not somewhere else but here,
our country moving closer to its own truth and dread,
its own ways of making people disappear."
From "What kinds of times are these?"
In 1997, Rich declined the National Medal of Arts in protesting against the House of Representatives’ vote to end the National Endowment for the Arts as well as other policies of the Clinton Administration regarding the arts generally and literature in particular, stating that "I could not accept such an award from President Clinton or this White House because the very meaning of art, as I understand it, is incompatible with the cynical politics of this administration...[Art] means nothing if it simply decorates the dinner table of the power which holds it hostage". Her next few volumes were a mix of poetry and essays: Midnight Salvage: Poems 1995-1998 (1999), The Art of the Possible: Essays and Conversations (2001), and Fox: Poems 1998-2000 (2001).
In the early 2000s, Rich participated in anti-war activities, protesting against the threat of war in Iraq, both through readings of her poetry and other activities. In 2002, she was appointed a chancellor of the newly augmented board of the Academy of American Poets, along with Yusef Komunyakaa, Lucille Clifton, Jay Wright (who declined the honor, refusing to serve), Louise Gluck, Heather McHugh, Rosanna Warren, Charles Wright, Robert Creeley, and Michael Palmer. She was the winner of the 2003 Yale Bollingen Prize for American Poetry and applauded by the panel of judges for her "honesty at once ferocious, humane, her deep learning, and her continuous poetic exploration and awareness of multiple selves."
Rich died on March 27 2012, at the age of 82 in her Santa Cruz, California home. Her son, Pablo Conrad, reported that her death resulted from long-term rheumatoid arthritis. Her last collection was published the year before her death. Rich was survived by her sons and Michelle Cliff.
Selected awards and honours
Yale Younger Poets Award (1950) for A Change of World.
Guggenheim Fellowship 1952
National Institute of Arts and Letters Award (1960)
Shelley Memorial Award (1970)
National Book Award for Poetry (1974, a split award) for Diving into the Wreck
Honorary Doctorate Smith College (1979)
Inaugural Ruth Lilly Poetry Prize (1986)
Honorary doctorate from Harvard University (1989)
National Poetry Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Art of Poetry (1989)
William Whitehead Award for Lifetime Achievement (for gay or lesbian writing) (1990)
Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service (1991)
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1991)
Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize (1992)
Poets' Prize (1992) for Atlas of the Difficult World
Frost Medal (1992)
Academy of American Poets Fellowship (1992)
MacArthur Fellowship (1994)
Wallace Stevens Award (1996)
National Medal of Arts (1997) (refused)
Lifetime Achievement Award from the Lannan Foundation (1999)
National Book Foundation Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters (2006)
Lifetime Recognition Award from the Griffin Poetry Prize (2010)
Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton. 1976. ISBN 978-0-393-31284-3.
On Lies, Secrets and Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978, 1979
Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose, 1979–1985, 1986 (Includes the noted essay: "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence")
What Is Found There: Notebooks on Poetry and Politics, 1993
Arts of the Possible: Essays and Conversations. W.W. Norton. 2001. ISBN 978-0-393-05045-5.
Poetry and Commitment: An Essay, 2007
A Human Eye: Essays on Art in Society, 1997–2008, 2009
A Change of World. Yale University Press. 1951.
The Diamond Cutters, and Other Poems. Harper. 1955.
Snapshots of a daughter-in-law: poems, 1954-1962. Harper & Row. 1963.
Necessities of life: poems, 1962-1965. W.W. Norton. 1966.
Selected Poems. Chatto & Hogarth P Windus. 1967.
Leaflets. W.W. Norton. 1969. ISBN 978-0-03-930419-5.
The Will to Change: Poems 1968-1970. Norton. 1971.
Diving into the Wreck. W.W. Norton. 1973. ISBN 978-0-393-31163-1.
Poems: Selected and New, 1950-1974. Norton. 1975. ISBN 978-0-393-04392-1.
Twenty-one Love Poems. Effie's Press. 1976.
The Dream of a Common Language. Norton. 1978. ISBN 978-0-393-04502-4.
A Wild Patience Has Taken Me this Far: Poems 1978-1981. W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated. 1982. ISBN 978-0-393-31037-5. (reprint 1993)
Sources. Heyeck Press. 1983.
The Fact of a Doorframe: Poems Selected and New, 1950-1984. W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated. 1984. ISBN 978-0-393-31075-7.
Your Native Land, Your Life: Poems. Norton. 1986. ISBN 978-0-393-02318-3.
Time’s Power: Poems, 1985-1988. Norton. 1989. ISBN 978-0-393-02677-1.
An Atlas of the Difficult World: Poems 1988-1991. Norton. 1991. ISBN 978-0-393-03069-3.
Collected Early Poems, 1950-1970. W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated. 1993. ISBN 978-0-393-31385-7.
Dark Fields of the Republic: Poems, 1991-1995. W.W. Norton. 1995. ISBN 978-0-393-03868-2.
Selected poems, 1950-1995. Salmon Pub.. 1996. ISBN 978-1-897648-78-0.
Midnight Salvage: Poems, 1995-1998. Norton. 1999. ISBN 978-0-393-04682-3.
Fox: Poems 1998-2000. W W Norton & Co Inc. 2001. ISBN 978-0-393-32377-1. (reprint 2003)
The School Among the Ruins: Poems, 2000-2004. W. W. Norton & Co.. 2004. ISBN 978-0-393-32755-7.
Telephone Ringing in the Labyrinth: Poems 2004–2006. 2007. ISBN 978-0-393-06565-7.
Tonight No Poetry Will Serve: Poems 2007-2010. 2010. ISBN 0-393-07967-8.
March 29, 2012
Motherhood, 'Otherhood' Inspired Adrienne Rich
By Debra Nussbaum Cohen
Adrienne Rich has died, and a voice who provided invaluable insight to the discourse on motherhood, on feminism, on Jewish identity and on sexual politics, has been stilled.
Rich, who was 82, died Tuesday at her home in California. Described in her New York Times obituary, as “a poet of towering reputation and towering rage,” Rich was a prolific writer who authored 32 books of poetry and prose, and indefatigable political activist.
Born to a Gentile mother and a Jewish father, Rich grew to identify strongly as a Jew. When a student at Radcliffe, she married a man from an observant Jewish family, and together they had three sons. Though her early poetry had been praised by W.H. Auden, she stopped writing, for a time, when she married. It was domestic life that brought her back into writing, and into her evolving identities.
In her brilliant 1982 piece, “Split at the Root: An Essay on Jewish Identity,” Rich wrote, “The experience of motherhood was eventually to radicalize me; but before that I was encountering the institution of motherhood most directly in a Jewish cultural version; and I felt rebellious, moody, defensive, unable to sort out what was Jewish from what was simply motherhood, or female destiny.”
“Split at the Root” is a meditation on identities both suppressed and expressed. Rich wrote of her dawning Jewish consciousness, the awareness of being “other,” imposed on her by anti-Semitism that was both aggressive and internalized by her father, by characters she met in literature, by her crowd in college, and by random strangers she encountered.
Her awareness of being “other” also grew as she began to explore her identity as a lesbian, after she separated from her husband in 1970. Shortly after their separation he killed himself. In 1976 Rich began a relationship with writer Michelle Cliff, which lasted until her death this week.
Her political engagement spanned her artistic and Jewish identities. Rich was involved with the New Jewish Agenda, and she was a founding co-editor of Bridges: A Jewish Feminist Journal when it began in 1990. Bridges ceased publication last year.
Rich was awarded many prizes and fellowships for her writing, including Guggenheims, a MacArthur and the National Book Award. She turned down the National Medal of Arts in 1997, to protest the House of Representatives’ decision to end the National Endowment for the Arts and the Clinton administration’s policies on the arts and literature.
For Rich, there was no separation between art and life, politics and art, or life and politics. She lived her beliefs.
Something she wrote in “Split at the Root” makes me think of the ever-more contained public comportment expected of Haredi women, though Rich was writing about the pressure in her family to act “more Gentile”:
“We — my mother, sister and I — were constantly urged to speak quietly in public, to dress without ostentation, to repress all vividness or spontaneity, to assimilate with a world that might see us as too flamboyant.”
The world is a poorer place for no longer having Rich’s voice in it. But I am grateful for what she left us.
Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-...#ixzz1qh6yy7TO
|October 22nd, 2012||#31|
Join Date: May 2009
Review: The End of Men by Hanna Rosin
ed> (jewess Rosin, born in Israel, is a writer for Atlantic Monthly)
Quote"........But it also feels to me (a feminist) like a dazzling glimpse into the future; Rosin flits from point to point with such natural grace that one barely notices the effort she’s taken to distill four years of headlines and obscure science into a handy, candy-colored manifesto. The inside cover claims that “‘the end of men’ has entered the lexicon as indelibly as Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘second sex’ and Betty Friedan’s ‘feminine mystique,’” but that’s disingenuous.
"This is a feminist work, but it is neither philosophical nor polemical. There is nothing of Beauvoir’s mysticism and only the slightest hints of Friedan’s rage; instead, Rosin deploys fact after fact with brutal precision.
" It’s not so much that she brooks no opposition to her argument—that we now live in a world where women will naturally come to dominate almost every field of productive endeavor—as that her factual fog masks any possibility of opposition (falsely, as we’ll see later). First-world patriarchy comes across like an iceberg in the age of climate change, melting faster the further it shrinks—and the Arctic isn’t getting any colder..."
The book’s general thesis, restated multiple times per chapter, also appears quite clearly in the introduction: “In the past, men derived their advantage largely from size and strength, but the postindustrial economy is largely indifferent to brawn. A service and information economy rewards precisely the opposite qualities—the ones that can’t be easily replaced by a machine. These attributes—social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus—are, at a minimum, not predominantly the province of men. In fact, they seem to come more easily to women.”
The words “at a minimum” show a restraint Rosin won’t often display later on, though she mostly lets experts do the trash-talking—statistical and otherwise—in her stead. Women are “plastic”—flexible, adaptable, realistic—while men are “cardboard,” “fixed in cultural aspic” (critic Jessica Grose), “the new ball and chain” (unnamed college senior), and sometimes “freeloading, bloodsucking parasites” (a married executive in Washington, D.C.). Rosin explains clearly that her goal is not to insult or attack men, and I believe her, but her on-the-ground reporting shines a light on a new, Friedanesque “problem that has no name”—the plight of women climbing a wobbly corporate latter without reliable partners to stabilize the bottom. A presentation from Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg, in a chapter on females crowding into the 1%, stood out. “Your most important career decision is who you marry,” she tells a group of businesswomen. “And if you can be a lesbian, definitely do it.”
Rosin structures her argument well, moving from sex (hook-up culture as symbol of social freedom, marriage avoidance in Midwestern state schools) to family (the media’s lionizing-and-or-emasculation of stay-at-home fathers, “seesaw marriages” where spouses swap who earns more) to business (women ruling in 12 of the top 15 fastest-growing jobs, female CEOs outperforming the rest of the Fortune 500).
. Thirty pages on South Korea seems excessive, even as a case study; one Amazon reviewer notes that the nations with the world’s highest birthrates are dominated by restrictive gender roles (and in some cases sex-selective abortion, still used most commonly to guarantee sons).
And why doesn’t homosexuality enter the picture? Much of the “feminization” of upper-class men Rosin refers to might have something to do with greater societal acceptance of non-traditional gender roles—and is that a victory for women, or just a victory for humanity? (Not that I’m faulting her for the title; books are hard to sell these days.) When every American can pursue any role in life for themselves, it seems inevitable that women will “catch up” in some areas (salary, leadership) and men in others (child-rearing, hours in the office). Is the “Rise of Women” really just a great balancing?
. My only regret is that lower-middle-class men with a high-school education or less—those closest to drowning in the modern economy—aren’t likely to open it (the pink-and-yellow cover doesn’t help). If and when it arrives in paperback, you could give copies as Christmas gifts to the manly men you know; they may not thank you for it, but when they read about Calvin’s recent pursuit of a nursing degree, they might just consider switching from cardboard to plastic.
Final note: I liked the book, but with serious reservations. Other readers had further misgivings or thought Rosin simply went too far in massaging the truth. Here are some links to alternate perspectives, in case you’re interested (also recommended for those who’ve already read The End of Men).
Aaron Gertler is a sophomore in Yale College. He is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.
Last edited by littlefieldjohn; October 22nd, 2012 at 10:40 AM.
|February 26th, 2013||#33|
Join Date: May 2009
The Making of American Feminism
|April 11th, 2013||#34|
Join Date: May 2009
|March 22nd, 2014||#35|
Join Date: May 2007
Top American feminist leader openly expresses hatred for white people
Robin Morgan is one of the most high profile “feminist” leaders in America. She is an atheist from Ashkenazi Jewish parents. Since the 1960s she has co-founded a laundry list of “feminist” organizations. She is credited as the founder of “second wave feminism.”
This is how Critical Theory, devised by the Frankfurt School, works. You attack religion, culture, heritage, and the family. You break down these bonds in order to make the people more willing to embrace international Communism.
Here is how she feels about all white people:
“My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others’ agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free.” – Morgan Robin
Experience molds perception.
|March 22nd, 2014||#36|
Join Date: Feb 2014
Im very glad that more liberals are becoming ex liberals. We gain, they lost... Etc... Your a smart, intelligent, witted guy.
Quote The more you weaken and reduce the competition the better. It is all end quote.
Exactly what the jews had done to the white race since 1945. Divide and conquer.
During the war, jews successfully used white men (British, Americans) to defend jews from other white men (germans) Today, jews are using white women to defend and to destroy white men. With the help of tool 3rd world migrants. All this happening without most whites realising that jews are white man's enemy, in the first place.
|October 27th, 2016||#37|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Why Is There A Prolific Jewish Presence In The American Feminist Movement?
An undeniable truth to the objective researcher
October 26, 2015
In the 1970’s, a movement known as “Jewish feminism” started in the American Jewish community. It was a movement that originally sought to make Jewish woman superior to equal to Jewish men. One of the first major issues tackled by these feminists was the power to optimize hypergamy initiate divorces.
Perhaps these Jewish ladies were becoming jealous of the growing “liberation” of non-Jewish women in United States. Perhaps Jewish women, for cultural reasons, are more naturally attracted to the ideologies of feminism. Jewish writer Marjorie Ingall describes how Jewish women are receptive to feminism by quoting Jewish feminist Naomi Wolf:
We have a political history going back to the socialist and labor movements, where women were organizers and rabble-rousers.
Or perhaps many Jewish women truly were being unfairly oppressed in certain areas of life and wanted to take action.
A quick Wikipedia search for “list of Jewish feminists” brings up an admittedly incomplete list of 114 names. Most of the women listed were born in the 20th century. The Jewish Women’s Archive website is a comprehensive website dedicated to key Jewish feminists, containing 1,193 profiles.
If one simply searches for “list of feminists” on Wikipedia, the page you’re directed to contains 770 names dating all the way back to the 13th century. The most comprehensive database when searching google for “list of feminists” seems to be Wikipedia.
Let’s be as fair as possible here and assume that the Wikipedia list of 770 feminists contains no Jewish feminists. So let’s add the 114 Jewish feminists to this list to get a total of 884 Wikipedia worthy feminists. We then take 114 divided by 884 and multiply by 100. The percentage of Wikipedia reported feminists of Jewish descent comes to 12.9%.
However, this quick calculation doesn’t take into account the Jewish Women’s Archive of 1,193 noteworthy feminists of Jewish descent and assumes that none of the feminists on the Wikipedia list of 770 are Jewish (when in fact many are). Also, the list of 770 feminists dates back several hundred years, whereas the list of 114 Wikipedia Jewish feminists is mostly 20th century and beyond.
Jews make up 1.7-2.6% of the American population. As such, to have adequate proportional representation in the feminist movement, there would only have to be two or three Jews at most for every 100 American feminist leaders. This doesn’t seem to be the case though, at least according to a simple internet search.
On a related note, we also need to keep in mind that disproportionate Jewish representation is also present in the US Congress – 8.4%, the Supreme Court – 33% or 3/9 Justices, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors – confirmed 40% or 2/5 current members (Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer are Jewish and are also the Chair and Vice-Chair of Federal Reserve Board of Governors), and higher level academia.
The “Jewish feminism” that started within the Jewish community seems to have become part of the bigger feminist movement taking place in America. Thus, the very small demographic of Jewish women in this country (roughly 1% of the population) seems to have a ridiculously large representation within the overall feminist movement.
Let’s explore only a few of these very influential feminists of Jewish descent:
Prominent Feminists of Jewish Descent:
The Key Players, Radicals, And Movement Leaders:
Judy Blume: Born 1938. Blume is an American writer with a target audience of children and young adults, with book sales over 80 million. She has written novels about racism, menstruation, divorce (It’s Not the End of the World, Just As Long As We’re Together), bullying, and masturbation.
Judith Butler: Born 1956. Butler is a “gender theorist” and a philosopher. She teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. Butler has written a book called Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity that was published in 1990. This book is considered the cream of the crop by many feminists when it comes to “queer theory” and “postmodern poststructural feminism” (whatever that means).
Andrea Dworkin: 1946-2005. Many of you guys have probably heard of Dworkin. She was a radical feminist. Dworkin, among other things, was vehemently anti-porn because she said it has links to rape. This is somewhat ironic, considering there is heavy Jewish influence in the pornography industry.
Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin
Shulamith Firestone: 1945-2012. Firestone was apparently schizophrenic (according to a commemorative piece in The New Yorker published after her death) and was also a key player in the formation of radical feminist ideals. She was the author of The Dialectic of Sex: The Case For Feminist Revolution which was published in 1970. This book has essentially been labeled as the boldest and clearest book ever written on radical feminism. Or, according to Naomi Wolf (another Jewish Feminist):
No one can understand how feminism has evolved without reading this radical, inflammatory second-wave landmark.
I certainly hope Naomi Wolf didn’t know that Firestone was schizophrenic…
Betty Friedan: 1921-2006. Friedan is a very big name in feminist circles. She was a leading figure of the women’s movement. She was a writer, an actor, and an ardent feminist. Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, a book which many argue helped to spark second-wave American feminism. By the year 2000, the book had sold over 3 million copies.
Brenda Howard: 1946-2005. Howard was an important figure in setting the tone for the present day LGBT rights movement, especially when it came to organizing SJW rallies. She was a sex-positive feminist and a bisexual rights activist.
Manosphere readers will appreciate a quip made on July 27th, 2005 by Tom Limoncelli (a bi-sexual rights advocate):
The next time someone asks you why LGBT Pride marches exist or why Gay Pride Month is June tell them ‘A bisexual woman named Brenda Howard thought it should be.’
If Limoncelli wasn’t clear enough as to just how much influence this woman had, how about this statement made by Brenda Howard’s partner Larry Nelson and published on June 17th, 2014 in a piece called Remembering Brenda: An Ode To the ‘Mother of Pride’:
You needed some kind of help organizing some type of protest or something in social justice? All you had to do was call her and she’ll just say when and where.
Erica Jong: Born 1942. Jong was a teacher and an author. She has been divorced three times but is now married again (this seems to be a common theme among these women). She wrote a sexually controversial book published in 1973 called Fear of Flying that played a big role in second-wave feminism. The book has sold over 20 million copies worldwide.
Gloria Steinem: Born 1934. Steinem’s mother was apparently not Jewish, but even so her name pops up on the Jewish Women’s Archive website if you search for it. Steinem was the leader and spokesperson for the late 60’s-early-70’s feminist movement. Interestingly, Steinem admitted having ties to the Central Intelligence Agency on camera (yea, the CIA of all people), but she supposedly broke her CIA ties before she became a feminist leader. You’ll have to travel further down the “rabbit hole” if you want more answers on this one.
Naomi Wolf: Born 1962. Wolf was a political advisor to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. She is an author and a journalist that has covered the topics of abortion and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Wolf has essentially become the spokeswoman of third-wave feminism (the term “third-wave feminism” was coined by Rebecca Walker, a woman who identifies herself as black, white and Jewish) Wolf also just had to write about how Nazi Germany came to power in her book The End of America. If you want some entertainment, check out this YouTube video where Wolf tries to explain “why we need feminism” but is totally destroyed on stage by anti-feminist YouTuber Karen Straughan.
Jewish Feminists In The Media
Larisa Alexandrovna: Born 1971. Alexandrovna was managing editor of Investigative News at The Raw Story for about three years. She was a blogger for the Huffington Post and her own blog as well. She has reportedly had her work referenced in Rolling Stone magazine, Vanity Fair, and Newsweek.
Lisa Bloom: Born 1961. Bloom is the only child of Gloria Allred (another feminist listed below in this article). She, like her mother, is an American civil rights attorney. She was the anchor on truTV’s In Session from 2001-2009. Bloom is a legal analyst for The Today Show and also contributor to NBC Nightly News and MSNBC.
Susan Estrich: Born 1952. Estrich is a political commentator for Fox News, a feminist advocate, political operative, author, professor, and a lawyer. She wrote a book published in 2005 called The Case for Hillary Clinton. (oh, great)
Jewish Feminists In Entertainment, Art, Erotica, And Pornography:
Mayim Bialik: Born 1975. Bialik is an American actress and also a neuroscientist. She played Dr. Amy Fowler on CBS’s The Big Bang Theory. This is an interesting coincidence, as an article was published right here on ROK about the blue pill ills of The Big Bang Theory.
Hanne Blank: Born 1969. Blank is a historian, writer, editor and also a public speaker. Blank has written and edited erotica in the past. She believes in “fat rights” (fat acceptance).
Judy Chicago: Born 1939. Chicago is an artist, art educator, and does collaborative art instillation pieces of “feminist art.” She collaborated with her third husband (here we go again with the multiple husbands theme…) to create The Holocaust Project: From Darkness into Light (1985-1993).
Eve Ensler: Born 1953. Supposedly, only Ensler’s father was Jewish, but she did grow up in a Jewish community and was given the Lion of Judah Award by the United Jewish Communities in 2002. Ensler is a playwright, performer, feminist and activist. She is best known for writing the famous 1996 play The Vagina Monologues. For any college students reading this, it wouldn’t surprise me if a rendition of The Vagina Monologues showed up on your campus at some point; it showed up on my campus and was hosted by the campus feminist organization in 2011.
Sarah Michelle Gellar: Born 1977. Gellar is a producer and an actress, starring or playing supporting roles in a plethora of TV shows and movies including Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream 2, and as Daphne in Scooby Doo (2002).
Nina Hartley: Born 1959. Hartley is an American author, sex educator, sex-positive feminist, pornographic film director, and American pornographic actress. She has been recognized with numerous awards throughout her career. She did an interview on “The Young Turks” and was introduced as “legendary” by Cenk Uygur. She apparently was known as “the best ass” in the business in her days of youth and specialized in lesbian scenes. Check out her Young Turks interview on YouTube.
Hartley’s case struck me as somewhat more interesting because it has been suggested by many people that the Jewish community has a powerful influence on this nation’s pornography industry. Dr. Nathan Abrams, a Jewish Professor at Bangor University in the UK has essentially said that the Jews were the driving force behind the modern day porn industry. In fact, he even wrote a piece about it in Jewish Quarterly called “Triple-exthnics.”
Jewish Feminists In The United States Government And Legal Realm
Bella Abzug: 1920-1998. Abzug was an American lawyer, U.S. Representative, social activist, and a leader of the Women’s Movement. She helped to found the National Women’s Political Caucus with Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Abzug also did women’s rights work under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
Gloria Allred: Born 1941. Allred is an American civil rights lawyer and commonly takes high profile cases. She has been involved in many women’s rights cases including representing at least seventeen women who have accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, harassment, or other misconduct.
Shulamit Aloni: 1928-2014. Aloni was an Israeli politician and founder of the Ratz party. She was also a leader of the Meretz party and served as the Israeli Minister of Education for a year. She won the Israel Prize in 2000.
Although Aloni isn’t an American, I chose to include her because of the following exchange that took place in a 2002 interview with American journalist Amy Goodman; During this short video, Aloni explains that charges of anti-Semitism are “a trick we always use” to suppress criticism of Israel coming from within the United States. If the criticism is coming from Europe, Aloni suggests that “we bring up the Holocaust.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Born 1933. Hopefully all American readers recognize this name. Ginsburg is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, appointed by Clinton in 1993. I highly recommend all readers review her voting record on social issues.
Elena Kagan: Born 1960. Hopefully, American readers will recognize this name as well. Kagan too is a Jewish feminist and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She came into power under Obama’s Presidency. This article on feminist.org reveals her confirmation was in fact endorsed by a feminist majority back in 2010.
Elena Kagan in 2009 – She is now one of the most powerful judges in America
Jewish Feminists In Education And Academia:
Rachel Adler: Born 1943. Adler is the Professor of Modern Jewish Thought and Judaism and Gender at Hebrew Union College (the Los Angeles campus). She reportedly played a key role in integrating feminist perspectives into Jewish texts.
Rebecca Alpert: Born 1950. Alpert is a professor in the Departments of Religion and Women’s Studies at Temple University. She is currently serving as the Senior Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts.
Daniel Boyarin: Born 1946. He holds dual US and Israeli citizenship (Sound familiar to any US politicians? Click here or here for more info on the dual citizenship of many US government officials). Boyarin has been a Professor of Talmudic Culture at the University of California, Berkeley since 1990.
Susan Brownmiller: Born 1935. Brownmiller is an American feminist, journalist, author, and activist best known for her work Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape published in 1975. She supposedly argues in the book that because rape is defined by men, women get shafted (not necessarily in those words, and no pun intended).
Aviva Cantor: Born 1940. Cantor is an American journalist, author, lecturer, and advocate of feminism and Jewish communal life. She helped fund a Socialist Zionist organization called “Jewish Liberation in New York” in 1968.
Hélène Cixous: Born 1937. Cixous is a professor, poet, writer, playwright, philosopher, etc. She was appointed as A.D. White Professor-at-Large at Cornell University from 2008-2014.
Jane Evans: 1907-2004. From 1933-1976, Evans was the Executive Director of the National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods (which is now known as the Women of Reform Judaism). Jane Evans was also the President of the National Peace Conference in 1950. I encourage all readers check out the Women of Reform Judaism website and review their statements on the immigration crisis in Europe and other “social justice” issues.
Susan Faludi: Born 1959. Faludi wrote a book published in 1991 called Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. She also wrote a book analyzing the 9/11 attacks and how they supposedly reinvigorated an American environment that is hostile to women.
Ilana Gliechbloom: Born 1986. Gliechbloom is a Judaic studies teacher at Abraham Joshua Heschel High School in New York City. She has made notable appearances at (surprise, surprise) The Vagina Monologues.
Susannah Heschel: Born 1956. Heschel teaches Jewish Studies at Dartmouth and is an American author. Her published works include Insider/Outsider: American Jews and Multiculturalism and On Being a Jewish Feminist.
And speaking of Jewish multiculturalism and massive illegal immigration, listen to what Barbara Lerner Spectre (a Jewish woman) had to say about multiculturalism in European countries in this 2010 video. I would say that after watching this video, you must ask yourself “Is it a coincidence?” that Spectre’s thoughts match up nicely with the views of Women of Reform Judaism, described above.
Paula Hyman: 1946-2011. Hyman taught Jewish History at Yale University. She was the first female dean at the Seminary College of Jewish Studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary from 1981 to 1986. Hyman published many feminist oriented works.
This has been merely a shallow dive into the depths of Jewish involvement in American feminism. Sure, anybody can log on to Google and come up with all kinds of names of non-Jewish feminists (simply because non-Jews make up about 98% of the population); but I don’t see how any reasonable person can objectively deny the fact that Jews are indeed over-represented in the feminist movement.
In the last half-century (roughly), Jewish feminists have involved themselves in every level of American cultural infrastructure including the government, justice system, media, entertainment, education and books, and even the porn industry – verifying the information presented here and following the links of this article will make this stunningly obvious.
Jewish women make up roughly 1% of the entire American population; and yet a relatively large percentage of the most powerful and influential second and third-wave feminist leaders off all time are Jewish.
Bella Abzug photographed in 1978 with New York Mayor Ed Koch (left) and President Jimmy Carter
Is it simply a cultural imperative that drives so many Jewish women to take part in feminism and culturally destructive policymaking? Some would argue it may simply be a consequence of an IQ difference that drives Jews to excel and fill leadership positions.
Others make the claim that disproportionate Jewish involvement in politics is part of a more organized conspiracy to intentionally destroy the moral fabric of mostly white, traditionally Christian societies. I’m not here to answer “the reasons why,” but rather to simply point out the obvious disproportional representation of Jews in the feminist movement.
It is generally agreed upon in the manosphere (at least hopefully it is by now…) that feminism is a tool that is being utilized to destroy the family unit and to get females into the work force, which generates more tax dollars and benefits corporations and politicians through mindless consumption.
I know this is a difficult subject for some, and can even create cognitive dissonance, but the reality is becoming nearly impossible to objectively deny that Jewish influence has the lion’s share of control over second and third-wave feminism, even though Jews represent only a tiny fraction of the American population.
|January 22nd, 2017||#38|
Bread and Circuses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Blog Entries: 1
Jews & The War Of The Sexes
|August 17th, 2018||#39|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Which tiny group is behind feminism?
See the numbers for Feminism by Religion
Name the jew