Rebecca West 1913
Feminist fantasy
Understanding feminists
The Myth of Superwoman
How feminism destroyed real men
Sexual "Liberation" is Illuminati Subversion
How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society
Feminist View of Motherhood, Marriage, and Career
Labours left unfinished: third wave feminism
Launch of Wikigender
Letter: A Life Blighted By Feminism
An Introduction to Feminism
A Case Study in Horizontal Success
See also
eagleforum.org DECEMBER
2002
The feminist movement has had an immense effect on American culture, laws, education and social relationships. A principal tenet of the doctrine of Political Correctness, feminism is the prevailing dogma on university campuses and in the book industry. The feminists are powerful enough in the media, in schools and colleges, and in politics and government to intimidate most of their opposition, especially men.
The best book that methodically challenges the feminist ideology is Carolyn Graglia's Domestic Tranquility. She does a brilliant job of refuting the feminist ideologues' tiresome tirades. Check out any library under "women" and you will find that Mrs. Graglia's book is pitted against hundreds of feminist volumes. Phyllis Schlafly's The Power of the Positive Woman, published in 1977, is long since out of print and was censored by the libraries when it was in print.
But refuting feminist ideology is not enough. It is necessary to have intelligent critiques of feminist behavior, hypocrisies, language, and political and social activism. We need exposés of the ripple effects of their ideology in the laws that were changed during the last generation, in their proposals that were defeated, in debates in legislatures, in the scripting of television programs and movies, in the social experimentation in our armed services, in day-to-day social relationships, and in the changing attitudes and roles of men and women.
A few brave women have tackled limited parts of this movement; e.g., Suzanne Fields' wonderful columns in the Washington Times, some delicious dissections of feminist hypocrisies by Ann Coulter, Christina Hoff Sommers' dissertations on the feminists' war against boys, and several books exposing the double standards in the military. Criticisms of feminism are conspicuously absent from the writings of otherwise prolific male authors and commentators, and the few who have tried it have suffered career-damaging retaliation.
Years ago, I subscribed to a newsletter of timely jokes written by a successful practitioner of clean one-line comedy. I got tired of the abundance of jokes about dumb wives and wrote the author that I would cancel my subscription unless he gave equal time to jokes about feminists, whose antics and remarks are far funnier. He never answered me -- he didn't dare face the wrath of the feminists, knowing they have no sense of humor.
My new book called Feminist Fantasies (just published by Spence Publishing Company in Dallas) is the first book that tackles the feminists where the rubber meets the road -- on the battlefields of television and radio talk shows, in legislative hearings, and in college courses. The book consists of 92 of my essays on feminism written over the past thirty years chronicling how the feminists spewed their anti-family message in the media, in state capitols, and on university campuses. These essays show how their destructive dogmas took root in our culture and led many young women down the primrose path to a lonely, barren life.
The St.Louis Post-Dispatch ran a four-column news article this year about an aging feminist, a 30-year member of the National Organization for Women, who is still pouting because in the 1960s she was called a stewardess instead of an airline attendant. She showed the reporter her scrapbook of treasured pictures -- not of any grandchildren, but of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug and Florence Kennedy. Pathetically, she fantasizes that the Equal Rights Amendment will make her happy.
Feminist Fantasies provides a unique look at feminism from the battlefield where the action is -- where I've been for the past thirty years. It takes you inside the controversies of the feminist movement from its heyday in the 1970s through its second and third waves. No other book explains how feminist dogma has been translated into political strategy and tactics, federal and state legislation, litigation to invite judicial activism, movie and television scripts, newspaper features, military regulations, college courses and school textbooks. No other book provides a reasoned criticism of feminist follies in every aspect of the culture.
Feminist Fantasies shows how the feminists captured the media, including its famous talking heads, and converted television into a maker of social trends rather than a reporter or a mirror of real life. I trace the feminist campaign to reinvent the family in their own image through television talk shows and sitcoms, movies made by Hollywood and for television, music from opera to rock, newspaper news and editorials, art, advertising, and business magazines.
Feminist Fantasies tackles the contradictory goals of feminism: equality plus preferential treatment. It explains the feminists' devious devices to achieve power in the workplace through deceitful sloganeering such as "comparable worth" and "glass ceiling." It exposes how the feminists define equality as access to tax-funded abortions and same-sex marriages. It tells about their campaigns to restructure the American legal system, to pursue their global goals, to enforce double standards, and to use academia to locate and train recruits for their cause. It describes the feminists' identity crisis.
Feminist Fantasies should be must reading for every young woman. It's a vaccine against the contagious disease of feminism. I dare the Women's Studies departments of colleges and universities to use it to balance the scores of feminist books customarily assigned to brainwash female students. The foreword by Ann Coulter underscores this book's importance.
This book shows how the longtime feminist goal of a gender-neutral society was the motivation behind the campaigns for the Equal Rights Amendment and for the feminization of the military. Feminist goals are incompatible with the combat readiness we need in times of war, a priority that has taken on a new urgency because of events since 9/11. The brave firefighters who charged up the towers of the World Trade Center, and our Special Forces who dared to enter the caves in Afghanistan, need our help to defend themselves and their work against the feminists who despise macho men.
The feminists' goal is to eradicate from our culture everything that is masculine and remake us into a gender-neutral society. We see their handiwork in textbook revision and in the constant haranguing by the language gestapo to force us to use such gender-neutral idiocies as he/she. We see this in the war on boys through abolishing recess, overprescribing Ritalin, and the zero tolerance policies that forbid them to play cops and robbers. We see this in the sex integration of Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel, which was a battle not for sex equality but to eliminate macho men. We see this in the implementation of Title IX, which is used not to give women equal opportunity in colleges but as a vehicle to abolish wrestling teams and other sports in which men outperform women.
The feminists showcased their goal in the New York Times Sunday Style section on November 3, 2002. The headline was "She's Got to Be a Macho Girl," and the subtitle was: "In a role reversal, teenage girls are the aggressors when it comes to boys." The article boasted about "the trickle-down effects of feminism" which have taught teenage girls to initiate sex "in a more aggressive manner." One high school senior pontificated: "No one is a stay-at-home mom anymore. Women don't have to wear skirts. We are empowered and we can do whatever we want."
The feminists constantly intimidate men with their assault on the English language. When Mitt Romney, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, called the histrionics of his Democratic feminist opponent "unbecoming," the feminists exploded in tantrums of accusations that he had used a sexist word. Actually, since unbecoming means unattractive and creating an unfavorable impression, the word is most apt to politely describe a feminist politician. As Harry Truman used to say, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Feminist Fantasies offers hope and moral support to women who want to liberate themselves from feminist dogmas and build a traditional family. The book does not recite platitudes on how to be a good wife and mother. Instead, it provides intellectual ammunition to help young women refute their contemporaries who disdain marriage and motherhood. My lectures on hundreds of college campuses, which attract large crowds, prove that students have never heard the facts and arguments about feminism that I have the nerve to present to hostile audiences.
Understanding feminism requires knowledge of how the feminists coopted our culture and built their political power. Feminist Fantasies tells this never-before-told history through critical commentaries that contemporaneously addressed feminist issues during the past thirty years. No other book in print deals head-on with feminism like Feminist Fantasies.
How the Feminists Built Their Power
If you wonder how the feminists are able to wield so much clout with politicians, the explanation is in a new book called Guide to Feminist Organizations. As Midge Decter says in her foreword, this book is long overdue, and we thank Capital Research Center and author Kimberly Schuld for providing such a useful tool.
By setting forth the facts about 35 feminist groups, this guide clarifies how the radical feminists built their political power so that they are falsely touted by the media as the voice of "women," even though all polls show that the big majority of women reject the label "feminist." The feminists did it by organization, networking and lots of money, much of which came from leftwing foundations, corporations headed by weak-kneed executives, and grants of taxpayer funds.
The feminist groups detailed in the guide include the noisy activist organizations, the decades-old women's groups that had respectable reputations until they were captured by the feminists, the think tanks that grind out dubious data to fortify feminist follies, and the abortion-propaganda groups masquerading under the euphemism "women's health." Networking keeps them "on message" and well-funded. Feminist organizations even demand that government fund their ideologies and themselves, and transfer to feminists the power they think that men now enjoy.
These groups may appear to have different missions, but they have a common ideology: Women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society, and all men are guilty both individually and collectively. Women's problems are not personal but societal, and require constitutional, legislative or litigious remedies.
First among these activists is the National Organization for Women (NOW), which spent $5,292,025 in 2000. Loud and brassy, NOW lobbies for feminist and pro-abortion legislation, organizes protest rallies, initiates lawsuits, and always backs Democratic Party candidates and proposals. The NOW agenda supports all abortion rights including partial-birth abortion, gay and lesbian rights, worldwide legalization of prostitution, and unrestricted access to pornography in libraries. According to the guide, "NOW revels in attacking Christianity and traditional values, conservative ideas and men," with Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Promise Keepers their favorite targets.
NOW gave unquestioning support to Bill Clinton despite his shabby sexual shenanigans. Tammy Bruce, former president of the Los Angeles NOW, spilled the beans about how Clinton bought NOW's support with taxpayer grants for "tobacco control" from the Department of Health and Human Services: "California NOW and National NOW received three-quarters of a million dollars ($767,099) during the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky scandals."
The League of Women Voters abandoned its former credibility and became a federally funded lobby to expand the size of government so that it can accommodate expensive feminist programs. The League, which spent $4,620,246 in 2000, supports gun control, abortion access, universal health care, more environmental regulation, and increased power for the United Nations.
The American Association of University Women turned itself into a vehicle to promote off-the-wall feminist hypotheses that aren't taken seriously even in the academic world. AAUW spent $9,512,044 in 2000.
The feminists use the YWCA to teach radical feminism to the next generation. The Girl Scouts went feminist after they took Betty Friedan on their board; they dropped "loyalty" from the oath, began a condom-friendly sex-ed program, and made belief in God optional.
Most of the activist feminist organizations have 501(c)(3) sister groups with interlocking directors. They pursue the same agenda, including government-funded daycare, paid entitlements for family leave, unrestricted access to abortion, comparable worth, lesbian rights, affirmative action, universal health insurance, and anti-male implementation of Title IX. As the Guide states, "It's hard to see where NOW political lobbying ends and NOW Foundation education activity begins."
Funding for feminist foundations comes from many sources that ought to know better. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund has raked in corporate donations from a long list topped by ABC, AT&T, American Express, Chase Manhattan, Colgate-Palmolive, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, New York Times Foundation, Revlon, Saks, and New York brokerage houses; from Ford, Rockefeller and other wealthy foundations; and $1,678,252 in government grants since 1996 given by the Clinton Administration. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund boasted income of $7,318,269 in 2000.
Such vast amounts of money are used to develop political clout and enable the feminists to raise and spend millions of dollars in political campaigns. EMILY's List, which contributes only to Democratic pro-abortion feminist candidates, spent more than $20 million in the 2002 election cycle and is the largest political action committee, twice as large as the union that is second largest.
This political money has translated into a stranglehold on the Democratic Party and sycophantic cheerleading for radical feminist politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and their clones running in 2002. Follow the money and you will understand why Democratic Senators don't dare to cast any vote or make any off-hand remark that could be construed as interfering with the feminist or pro-abortion agenda. EMILY's List website boasts that Tom Daschle said, "The reason I'm here today as Senate Majority Leader can be said in two words: EMILY's List." Rep. Nancy Pelosi said, "I know that I would not ... be the Democratic Whip of the House without the work that was done by EMILY's List."
Hooray for Hootie!
At last we have a real man who can resist the histrionics of the pushy feminists. It's so refreshing to know that somewhere there is an American man willing to stand his ground -- on any issue -- and tell the feminists he is not going to knuckle under to their nagging, extortion, pressure tactics or media tantrums.
William Johnson, known to friends as Hootie, is the president of the Augusta National Golf Club located in northeastern Georgia which has hosted the world's most famous golf tournament, the Masters, ever since 1934. A pushy outfit called the National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO) has been trying to force the all-male golf club to alter its admissions policy and admit women. The feminists are not appeased by the fact that women can play golf on the Augusta National course; they demand to be members of the club.
Hootie responded by saying the club will not submit to pressure to change its admissions policy from an "outside group with its own agenda." Calling NCWO's tactics "offensive and coercive," he added, "We will not be bullied, threatened or intimidated. We do not intend to become a trophy in their display case."
Bully for Hootie! He probably read the Supreme Court's decision in Boy Scouts v. Dale, wherein the high court upheld the right of private associations to set their own membership rules.
The New York Times says that Hootie "counterpunched with harsh words and a complete resistance to bowing to the demands." The reporter must have been shocked, shocked that any man has the nerve to counterpunch against the feminists (even though the feminists have been claiming for years that they want to be treated like men instead of ladies).
The NCWO manifested its malicious streak by going to Coca-Cola, IBM and Citigroup to demand that they terminate their corporate sponsorship of the Masters tournament unless the Augusta National Golf Club changes its policy. The NCWO got easy help from its feminist friends in the media who then targeted only Hootie, but not the NCWO, as "defiant" and "angry" (words of the Associated Press), and as "defiant" and "combative" (words of the New York Times).
Hootie then announced that the club would cancel commercial advertising on the televised 2003 Masters tournament in order to protect the corporations from the feminists' wrath. The Masters tournament already gets the highest television ratings, and its fans will cheer the delightful prospect of watching a sports event without any commercials.
Maybe Hootie suspected that the corporate executives wouldn't have the stamina to stand up to the feminists. He's probably right. Most corporation executives get wobbly in the knees when the feminists start chanting their mantra "discrimination" and accusing the men of "sexism."
The feminists tried to use Tiger Woods, who won the Masters in 2002 for the third time, as a prop in their publicity stunt to advance their special-interest agenda. When asked what he thinks about Augusta National's rules, Tiger replied with the good sense that has made him a star and a role-model: "They're entitled to set up their own rules the way they want them."
British golfers also kept their eyes on the ball. A spokesman for the Royal & Ancient Golf Club, which runs the British Open at Muirfield where women are excluded as members, commented, "We take the Open to the best links in the British Isles. We don't engage in social engineering."
Under the Clinton Administration, the feminists made athletics one of the arrows in their campaign to emasculate America. They co-opted Title IX for their own agenda, sabotaging its original purpose of ensuring equal educational opportunity for women and turning it into a weapon to force the abolition of scores of college men's wrestling, track and gymnastics teams.
The feminists have been crowing that recent achievements by women athletes are the happy result of Title IX. But when a reporter asked for a comment on Title IX from Jennifer Capriati, one of the best women tennis players in the world, she replied, "I have no idea what Title IX is. Sorry."
The name of the National Council of Women's Organizations is a misnomer because it's not a "women's" council, it's a feminist council. The all-women's organizations I belong to wouldn't belong to it.
The NCWO has typical feminist goals such as Senator Barbara Boxer's current passion: ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). NCWO members are probably hoping to be named to CEDAW's Article 17 Committee of "experts" to monitor compliance so they can harass Hootie with UN backing.
NCWO's extremist feminist goals also include affirmative action for women, ratification of the long-defunct Equal Rights Amendment, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights legislation, government wage control camouflaged as "pay equity," the Clintonista feminists' use of Title IX, and government babysitting services. Its goals parallel those of the National Organization for Women and Eleanor Smeal's Feminist Majority, two of its member groups.
Phyllis Schlafly, the president of Eagle Forum, was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, the Equal Rights Amendment. She is America's most articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, and she has lectured or debated on over 500 college campuses.
She is the author or editor of 20 books on subjects as varied as politics (A Choice Not An Echo), family and feminism (The Power of the Positive Woman), child care (Who Will Rock the Cradle?), nuclear strategy (Strike From Space and Kissinger on the Couch), education (Child Abuse in the Classroom and Turbo Reader).
Mrs. Schlafly is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University, received her J.D. from Washington University Law School and her Master's in Political Science from Harvard University. The mother of six children, she was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year.
top
By Mrs. Chancey Jun 11,
2003
For the past generation, our society has tried to foist upon us the idea of the woman who "has it all" and "does it all." We stand in awe of women who (we are told) run successful businesses, volunteer for community service, keep beautifully decorated homes, send hand-written letters, cook and entertain guests with style, attend artistic functions, bring up happy children and look like a million bucks to boot. As we stand gaping at these idols of domestic and economic success, we wonder exactly where we fell short of achieving their outstanding merits.
Was it when we had the third or fourth child and suddenly found ourselves lacking in extra hands? Was it when we burned supper on the stove while trying to retrieve the crayons from the toddler who has redecorated a wall? Was it when we checked the mirror and noticed (yet again) that the baby fat hadn’t magically melted away in the night? Was it when we sat down in the midst of a toy-strewn living room only to hear the doorbell ring and suddenly remember this was our afternoon to host the monthly ladies’ tea?
These are not the questions we ought to be asking ourselves. The real question is, "When did I buy into this myth that I can ‘do it all?’"
Superwoman is dead. In fact, Superwoman never existed except in our wildest imaginations. The whole notion that one woman can have it all and do it all is false from beginning to end. The amazing thing is that we are gullible enough to accept it as truth and feel guilty for not achieving what we feel we are somehow obligated as women to achieve. It is time to free ourselves from this false standard and start living as women who are only too glad they do not do it all and cannot have it all.
Strangers ask me all the time, "How do you do it all?" My first response is, "I do not ‘do it all!’" And there are two sides to this answer. The first side is the one of impressions from a distance. A stranger does not live with me or see me on a daily basis. She doesn’t see the sink piled with soaking dishes on days when dishes just have to wait. She doesn’t see the tub toys floating in the toilet – yet again! She doesn’t hear the baby crying to be picked up while the toddler is asking for a diaper change and the eldest boys are quarreling over a toy. In real life, this is what happens. In "virtual" life, chores magically do themselves, children float serenely and obediently through the day and babies never need diaper changes! This is one of the great problems with a society that is plugged into television, magazines and the Internet. We can "see" people who live across the world. Their perfectly polished magazine interviews or web pages show us glimpses of their lives – children smiling around a birthday cake; mothers planting flowers in a garden; fathers carrying toddlers on their shoulders – but they do not show us all that there is to living in that particular family. Instead of thinking, "They are real people just like me, and I bet they encounter problems just like mine," we think, "Wow! They have really got it all together. I wonder how they do it?" But this is just plain blindness on our part. We are too ready to accept total strangers at face value and envy them for their "put-together-ness."
I’m just as susceptible to this syndrome as the next person is. I’ve gotten to the point where I do not want to know anything about the people who act in movies. Our family watches very few movies, and the ones we do watch almost always tell stories of people of honorable character with noble intentions. In my mind, I tend to associate the actors or actresses with the characters they play in the film. When I find out that an actress I’ve admired is a sorry person in "real life," I am always so disappointed. Isn’t that silly? It is highly unlikely I’d ever really meet or interact with that person. Why should it bother me that she isn’t what she plays on the screen? It is because the reality shatters my lofty vision of what that person should have been. I have placed that person on a pedestal, only to see her come crashing to the ground.
Because we have this tendency to accept what we see superficially as deep-down reality, we need to be very careful that we do not idealize people we do not know. We especially need to be careful that we don’t make them a false standard and spend frustrated hours trying to achieve what we believe they have done. It’s time to allow our idols to step down and be the flesh-and-blood human beings that they are.
Choosing not to do it all
But I mentioned there were two sides to my answer of "I don’t ‘do it all.’" Because I can only come at this topic from my own perspective, I will use myself as an example. As I said before, strangers constantly ask me for my secret recipe for success in homemaking, child rearing, running a home business, keeping a sane schedule, making my husband happy – you name it. I understand why they ask these things, because I do the same thing! When we find someone who appears to have achieved what we’d like to achieve, we want her to give us a ten-step program so we can get to the pinnacle she has reached. More specifically, we want to know how we, too, can "have it all" and "do it all" so that others may look on in wonder and applaud. I admit it! It is always nice to have the pat on the back, the "good job!" and the admiring glances of others. But praise from strangers is a pitfall. Strangers do not know me. Strangers do not see what goes on every day in my home. What counts is what God sees – 24/7/365.
Here’s the key: No woman in history has ever done it all or had it all. We all must make choices about what we do. When you choose one thing, something else must necessarily fall through the cracks. Yes, I do run a small home business, and I do sew a lot of things for my family and myself. But let’s get some perspective here. First off, here is a small list of things I do not do:
- I am not a "soccer mom." I do not run my kids around to various activities during the week, and I try to avoid spending time in the car if I can possibly help it.
- I do not belong to any women’s groups (book clubs, civic groups, etc.)
- I am not a gourmet cook. I like cooking, but I stay with fairly basic dishes and don’t do a ton of experimentation.
- I don’t send Christmas cards. If I remember birthdays, I am doing well!
- I don’t grind my own wheat. I buy it from the Mennonites up the road.
- I don’t attend a lot of society functions away from home.
- I don’t knit or crochet.
- I don’t paint or draw (though I’d love to really learn at some point).
- I do not have a vegetable garden and don’t can my own veggies.
- I don’t go to the gym. My daily exercise consists of walking up and down a 1/4-mile driveway, running up and down stairs in my own house, vacuuming, mopping, lifting laundry and children, scrubbing countertops and dancing with my boys when the music and the mood hits us.
"But what about the Proverbs 31 woman?" you ask. "Isn’t that biblical ‘Superwoman’ supposed to be our ideal?" Well, yes and no. Yes, this woman is to be our model in all that we do or attempt to do as women, and, yes, we should strive to emulate her. But we need to be careful that we do not misread this excellent passage or misunderstand its application to our lives. The first thing most people say when they read this passage is "When does this woman ever sleep?" After all, she "rises while it is yet night," but "her lamp does not go out at night." But we miss the cultural context here. Back before the days of electricity, people used oil lamps to light their homes. In Old Testament times, a lamp was essentially a small dish with a wick lying down in the oil. A raised spout on one side lifted the wick high enough to keep it lit and to prevent it from "drowning" in the oil. The wise woman had to keep her eye on her lamps to make sure the wicks were trimmed regularly and to see that the lamp basin did not run out of oil. No oil, no light. No oil, no fire to kindle the kitchen hearth in the morning. When the Bible tells us that "her lamp does not go out at night," it is saying that this woman remembered to make sure her lamp was full of oil before she went to bed. When she did this, she wouldn’t have to re-start a fire in the morning (remember – no matches in Bible days!). In other words, this woman is prudent and is taking care of the smallest details of her household. One application we can take away from this passage is to think about tomorrow before we go to bed so that we can wake up ready to start our day’s tasks.
"Well, then," you continue, "What about that business she is running, providing garments to the merchants, buying fields and planting vineyards?" Again, we have to look at the context. The passage also tells us that her husband "takes his seat among the elders of the land" at the city gates. This is a description of an older man (past 60, usually), who has established his reputation by being a hard worker, good husband and faithful father. Young men just starting out in life with no fruit to show for their labors have not earned the right to sit with the elders in the city gates; they still have years of hard work ahead of them. It is the same for the wives of those young men. Their first responsibility is to help their husbands establish godly households and train up the next generation. That work must always come first.
We all go through "seasons" in our lives. Before we are married, we have a great deal more "free" time that we can use as we see fit (hopefully in serving others, caring for our church bodies and communities, working with our families or on a small personal business, etc.). When we are newlyweds without children, we are able to devote great blocks of time to big projects that wouldn’t be possible when children need our attention. As the children come, we find we need to drop things so that we do not overcrowd our days and end up neglecting our families. In my own case, I phased out of my home sewing business and went into pattern design and publishing. Now that my second child is approaching school age, I will be phasing out of the designing business and giving over order fulfillment to someone else for a time. Later, my husband would like our boys to run the order fulfillment end of the business, since it will help them learn good trade skills. The next "season" of my life is that of full-time homeschooling, child training and other home- and family-centered "projects." There is no way I can "do it all," and letting go of the business while my children are small and need much more hands-on attention is a must. I may pick it up again later in life, but I’m not at that season yet, so I can’t say for sure! All I know is that my family needs all of my attention, creativity and love – to give them less would be hypocrisy. My home is the hub from which all my activities radiate, and this is a wonderful thing—not a restrictive killjoy.
Now, while I do not choose to participate in many activities away from home (besides church), I am absolutely not an isolationist. While I do not go out to do a lot of things, I do love hospitality, and our family has an almost constant stream of visitors in our home. I do not lack for friends and thoroughly enjoy time I get to spend with other ladies in my church and community. Many of my husband’s friends have kidded him, saying, "Don’t you ever let your wife out of the house?" Well, of course he does – the real point, though, is that home is my domain, and I never run out of things to do here. The "bored housewife" (if that isn’t just another myth) isn’t doing her job – there are always more projects to do than there are hours in the day.
Priorities
We need to step back and ask ourselves what is the most important thing we are doing today? If you have children at home, they will take up the lion’s share of your time (particularly when they are toddlers!). This is the way it should be. The next generation is more important than anything else you can put on your "to-do" list. If the children are falling off your list so that you can run a full-time business, something is wrong. Diligently, lovingly training the next generation is more important than anything else we will ever "achieve" in this life. When you are 70 years old, you will not look back and sigh, "If only I had organized the cabinets more often." The things that take up so much of our time will one day perish (and no one will miss them). But the people we train up and leave behind us will affect the world for good or ill for generations to come. They are the only lasting legacy we can leave. In all our striving to do and be, we must not forget our most important task in preparing young men and women to live beautifully and purposefully when we are gone.
If you are not married or do not have children, you are not left out of this picture! We all have a stake in the next generation, whether or not we have children. Who is going to care for the elderly in the next 50 years? Does that thought frighten you? When you look around at the self-centered, blasé culture we inhabit, do you worry just a little about how your needs will be met and how your wishes will be honored when you are old and feeble? Training the next generation requires godly, loving aunts, uncles, cousins and friends just as much as it does good parents.
And what about the kinds of homes we make (whether or not we have children)? The Christian home should be the most loving, inviting, welcoming place on earth. This "job" isn’t one that can be pinned down to a "to-do" list, because it is more about heart attitude than about checking things off in their proper order. If your house is immaculate, but your children are worn down by outbursts of anger, you do not have a home. If your meals stun people with their artfulness, yet your family sits around the table sullenly refusing to talk to one another, you might as well be eating Spam©. ("Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a fatted calf with hatred." Prov. 15:17) Who cares if we "have it all" when the "all" that we have is sadness, anger, disappointment or bitterness? Making a house into a home and parents and children into a loving, nurturing family is not something you can just do in your sleep. You are going to have to drop some things and make others priorities in your life. [Obviously, you should not take this to mean that you can do nothing that isn’t directly related to keeping a home! Hobbies and avocations are great, and they can have their place; they just shouldn’t have first place.]
The truth is that the more we take on, the less we are able to do thoroughly and beautifully. The more things I put on my to-do list, the fewer things I will be able to spend time doing well. Is it better to have twenty things on a list that you can push through and get out of the way quickly—just for the sake of having done them—or is it better to have five things on the list that you can concentrate upon and do extremely well? This is the whole point of homemaking vs. housekeeping. I’ve heard from women who say, "All this stuff about keeping a house is nonsense. It only takes two hours to clean a whole house from top to bottom and only an hour to make a decent meal. What are you supposed to do with the rest of the day?" But this is a materialistic view of homemaking. This view considers only the material things to be cleaned up, prepared, gotten out of the way or organized. The homemaker isn’t just the person who makes sure the house is neat. She is the one who sets the attitude of the home and makes home a starting point for learning, sharing, giving, doing, beautifying, enriching and ennobling. Home isn’t just the place where we grab a bite to eat and lie down to sleep. Unfortunately, it has become that for millions of Americans who commute to work and do not have a meaningful home life. But don’t we need to rethink the whole idea of what we are living and working so hard to obtain?
Surely it isn’t a "McMansion" filled with rich furnishings and trinkets we are never there to enjoy or use. That is materialism at its worst – things as an end unto themselves. Things are means to an end, not the end. If we are not using our homes to welcome strangers, show hospitality to friends and neighbors, enrich the lives of our families, demonstrate a love of beauty, share memories and reach out to the hurt and the lost, then we do not have a home. We only have a parking place.
Here’s another key: There is no such thing as a self-sufficient woman. No matter how they want to spin it, the feminists cannot deny that every woman is ultimately dependent upon someone somewhere – a boss, a daycare worker, a welfare office paper pusher, a relative who pitches in with the children. The full-time working mother must give her children over to someone else to train and care for throughout the day. She relies upon that help. The single mom (whether a single mom by choice or by unfortunate circumstances) often has to rely upon charity or government welfare in addition to the day care for her child. The woman at home relies upon her husband to support his family so she can stay with her own children and train them on a daily basis.
The problem is that those of us who stay at home often feel that we must justify our work by qualifying what we do: "I’m a stay-at-home mom, but I also run a small business on the side;" "I stay with my children, but I also head up the local homeschool co-op and coordinate all its activities;" "Yes, I’m a homemaker, but I also volunteer at the local crisis pregnancy center and participate in a community choir." We fear to demythologize ourselves. We want to be superwomen. We want to be that amazing gal who can juggle so much without dropping a single ball. But it cannot be done.
"It cannot be done." That statement should free us rather than making us feel we need to push faster, try harder and climb higher. Why should it be shameful to admit that we cannot do it all? Why can’t we answer the person who asks by saying, "Yes, I’m just a homemaker." No qualifiers. No aching need to prove ourselves. No feelings of inadequacy. Instead, we should respond with the secret smile of the woman who can say, "I am just a homemaker" and see the great joy of accomplishment shrouded in that word, "just."
Living in Community
We need to get over the notion that the things we are supposed to do we can do without help. Our culture applauds the "rugged individual" – that person who can strive and achieve without assistance. But such a person is isolated from his fellow strugglers. Reaching a hand out for help doesn’t make us weak or incapable; it makes us human. We need one another. The social economy of the Bible centers around the covenant community – men, women, children, elderly, families – all living with and helping one another.
Picture a society built around the Bible’s covenant model: The young women often volunteer to be "servant girls" in the homes of older married women, gaining as much as they give. While they are taking repetitive tasks like dishes and laundry off the hands of the mother, they have the opportunity to live in the "queendom" of another woman and see what is involved in managing a home, practicing hospitality, and caring for and training children. The older women whose children have grown serve as examples and inspiration to the younger women, teaching them directly and giving them loving guidance and encouragement when they need it. The older unmarried community members are not marginalized, either, but find themselves warmly welcomed into household fellowship and made a vital part of the community’s purpose. The men of the community pull together to provide a safe, nourishing environment for their loved ones and to protect them from harm. Children learn as they grow to help out with the tasks the entire community must shoulder. All come together for worship as members of a living body – not as detached, self-contained units vying for God’s attention. Such a community flourishes and grows strong, because the individual members see themselves as part of one another and are not afraid to ask for help. And because they live together in community, they see each other’s lives and know each other’s weaknesses.
Confession is a much-overlooked part of Christian life, and trying to hide our sins is never healthy. We need to be transparent people, open and willing to admit defeat, asking for help and accepting the loving rebuke of those who know us best. We need to be less concerned with the front we put up to the world at large and more concerned with our daily conduct toward those closest to us, lest we become self-enamored hypocrites.
Learning to Walk the Path Set Before Us
When we make the decision not to be Superwoman, we make the decision to put other people before our own desires – desires that take many shapes. For one woman it is the desire to have a successful business career to which she can point. For another it is a classy wardrobe and impeccable appearance. For yet another it is the shining talent that must not be hidden. Accomplishments can and do have their place in life, but they must never replace our relationships with flesh-and-blood people. And while it is a wonderful thing to find kindred spirits over the Internet and through the mail, we must not neglect the people who are here in our own homes, churches and communities.
The Proverbs 31 woman "reaches out her hands" – she doesn’t wait for someone to prompt her to serve the real people within her immediate domain. Living in close proximity to others who know us, see our faults and still love us is so vitally important to a healthy life. Being open and transparent, ready to confess sin and ask forgiveness is life giving. Trying to be Superwoman doesn’t help anyone. It cannot be done. It is a sure path to failure and disappointment. The path to life and health and peace is the way of humility, service and love for others – not seeking praise or recognition but being willing to work hard day after day and find our fulfillment in what God has given our hands to do.
Let Superwoman die; put her superhuman accomplishments out of your mind. Instead, work hard today on what is most important and what will make your home a love-filled place for your family and your community. Do it beautifully! Do it without guilt. You are a keeper of the home, and that is a sacred trust that requires an ordinary human being who loves others more than she loves herself. Superwoman need not apply.
"To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven:" (Ecc. 3:1)
top
Liz Jones and Nirpal
Dhaliwal 4th August 2006
Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'. The bitter irony, says this male writer in a piece that will infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones), is women don't like wimps after all...
At a dinner party recently, I encountered the depressingly familiar sight of a dynamic thirty- something woman accompanied by a nerdy male sidekick that she'd browbeaten into proposing to her.
The mismatch in power was obvious. She was successful, ambitious and confident; he was a diffident, overweight, shrinking violet who measured every word he spoke in case he said anything remotely contentious that might offend her.
On her wedding finger was the most enormous, glittering engagement ring. A mutual friend later told me she'd initially been presented with a less garish but more exquisite diamond but had told her fiancÈ to return it to the shop and get her something bigger.
That huge diamond was his declaration of surrender in the sex war. But I didn't feel sorry for the stupid sap; he should have been man enough to tell her to get lost and find some other dummy.
Instead, he'd been sucker-punched into a lifetime of nagging and neglect, and looking at his bossy wife-to-be parading her huge rock, I felt a shiver of pre-emptive schadenfreude.
Her smug smile might have given the impression that her glossy-magazine-inspired life was all going to plan, but I could see the tragedy to come.
One day she'll realise how dull and unfulfilling it is to have a man who doesn't answer back, who offers no challenge or danger - but by then she'll be over the hill and stuck with him for fear of being left on the shelf. Sadly, this is the state of many marriages today.
Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne.
Suddenly, women wanted to drive home their newfound equality by moulding men to be more like them.
This velvet revolution was reflected in a series of broader cultural changes. After decades of uncompromising movie heroes like Marlon Brando and Clint Eastwood, we were asked to fall for stuttering, floppy-haired fops like Hugh Grant; touchy-feely and hopelessly embarrassed around women.
No doubt at the time, millions of misguided single women thought that having a man who could feel their pain and emote for Britain was a Good Thing.
Now, over a decade later, women are waking up to the fact that these men are drippy, sexless bores. The feminisation of men hasn't produced the well-rounded uber-males women were hoping for.
Instead, women are now lumped with flabby invertebrates, little more than doormats, whom they secretly despise but are too proud to admit it.
Rather than partnership, professional women tend to seek dominance in a relationship. They map their lives out early on and pursue their dream of 'having it all' with cold-blooded ruthlessness.
Young women have a crystal-clear agenda: they want the career, the wardrobe, the smartly furnished house, the 4x4 and the cute kids they'll ferry in it to expensive schools. No man is going to get in their way; and the men they choose for themselves are pliant and feeble enough to facilitate that programme.
Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these women to pick a man who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of his own.
These are cardboard cut-out men who gush with empathy whenever their wives and girlfriends need to dump their professional stresses and female angst on them: weak and soulless men who haven't the guts to make a mark themselves, who take the passenger seat in their women's juggernaut journey to post-feminist Nirvana.
But having ticked off the various items on their life checklist, women are left with a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Where was the drama? Where was the passion? Where was the stimulation and growth?
It was all forsaken for an anodyne, materialistic shopping spree that is a Good Thing. ultimately a poor substitute for a real life. These women consider themselves to be alpha-females, but they are nothing but a pathetic sham.
A true Amazon couldn't stand the company of a supplicant male, let alone marry one. Real alpha-women are the ones who can more than hold their own with an alpha-man.
Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won't be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.
They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they've had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.
I'm always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.
While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it's a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.
I have a very low boredom threshold; I can't bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I 'are going'. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed 'He said, she said' monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.
I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.
I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.
Our relationship would never have worked had I been an effete New Man, desperately wanting to sympathise with the female condition.
My wife would have grown to loathe me for my fawning cowardice. She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.
Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist; they constantly attempt to secondguess their partner in order to avoid giving offence.
They preen themselves with groaning shelves full of beauty products so they won't incur derision and scorn. They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr Nice Guys, and won't project self- confidence in case it's regarded as unreconstructed machismo.
This backfiring feminist conspiracy has, of course, developed hand in hand with the march of raging political correctness in Britain. The two have combined like some potent chemical reaction to explode in the faces of a generation of women who thought that a 'moulded' man would make for a desirable one.
In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women, and no longer know how to entice them and turn them on.
But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.
They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there's a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn't afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.
The truth is, a real man doesn't care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.
Real men don't pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don't take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood.
Rather than pander to them, they simply watch them drift by like so many clouds on the horizon. They don't get entangled in a woman's feelings and listen to her prattling on and on until she's talked herself out. Such strong and stoic men are exactly what women need to anchor themselves amid the chaos of their emotions.
Sometimes my wife bemoans my detachment and laissez-faire attitude to our marriage and wishes I were more wrapped up in her. I tell her she would soon get bored of it, because men who put women on a pedestal can't make love to them in the way that women want.
A man who is too in awe of his woman isn't going to tear her blouse open and ravish her on the couch; he isn't going to pull her hair and whisper profanities in her ear. Whenever my marriage is at a crisis point, and my wife's ego and mine are jostling for a position of supremacy, we inevitably have strenuous, battling sex.
My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.
The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.
Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I'd been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her. Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness.
I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: 'Who's the boss?'
The question threw her. Initially she wouldn't give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. 'You are,' she finally gasped. 'You are!' I am a very difficult man to be with. I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not - I cannot be anyone other than myself.
I don't believe in working on relationships and making artificial efforts to give them substance. I believe in people being themselves and following their hearts towards whatever destiny lies before them.
When women choose to be with New Men, they are choosing a life that will be only half-lived. I think a lot of them are finally waking up to that fact. Relationships between independent and assertive people will always be fraught with tensions, but they have enormous creative energy.
Despite the many problems my wife and I have endured, we have both come a long way since we first met six years ago.
We have challenged one another to grow - professionally, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. This would never have happened had she flaked out and gone for a softer option in her choice of partner.
Bring back the real men, girls. You might just remember why you loved them in the first place.
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
February 19, 2005
Throughout modern history Illuminati bankers have used "sexual liberation" to subvert society and establish their subtle tyranny. As Masonic revolutionary Guiseppe Mazzini said, "we corrupt in order to rule."
The Illuminati bankers need to introduce "world government" to translate their unjust monopoly over credit into total world control.
They realized that they couldn't take control until they destroyed the family. This was a central plank of the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
Every major "revolution" in modern history has increased Illuminati banker control and the sexual revolution is no exception.
The bankers have encouraged sexual dissipation using their various "progressive" fronts: liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism.
The great appeal of left wing movements has always been the lure of "free" sex (i.e. free of the restraints of love & marriage.)
How is free sex subversive?
A healthy society is concerned with its survival and the propagation of its values. This requires that new generations are born and raised in a healthy manner, i.e. in a nuclear family. In a healthy society, women are honored for nurturing and educating the young, a role for which they are naturally suited.
Thus, the bankers set out to undermine and disparage women's role as wives and mothers.
They extolled "sexual liberation" because promiscuous women are less dedicated to family, and less attractive and suitable as wives and mothers. Furthermore, if sex is freely available, men have much less incentive to marry or be faithful .
Women were brainwashed to think they were being "exploited" by their family and should seek fulfillment in career instead.
The bankers used paid subversives like Betty Frieden and Gloria Steinem and the mass media to make it seem that Feminism was a spontaneous occurrence.
At the same time, they severed sex from marriage and procreation and exalted romance as the main source of fulfillment. Hollywood practically has angels singing hosannas when the stars have sex. It created this bogus religion.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEX
Sex is a natural function like eating food. If we didn't have food, we would think about nothing else.
Because of the gender confusion (caused by Feminism) many people are sex starved and are obsessed with it. As a result, society suffers from arrested development manifested as an obsessive adolescent preoccupation with bodily functions, genitals, pornography and homosexuality.
If we have plenty, we know that divorced from love, "sex is the biggest nothing in the world." (Andy Warhol)
Similarly, romantic love is mostly infatuation based on the expectation of some great advantage (usually sex or security.) I have seen businessmen generate the same kind of heat while making a lucrative deal. But, like AOL-Time Warner, romantic mergers often go sour.
A marriage based on sexual attraction is like a chair with one leg. True love is based on character, personality and trust, tested over a long period of time.
YOUNG WOMEN
The inflated status of fertile young women is another characteristic of our Illuminati-induced dysfunction. These women remind me of poker players recklessly overplaying their hand. They have lost the capacity for love, and sex is a paltry substitute.
Their dependence on their sex appeal is very risky. The shelf life is short and the competition is fierce. Jaded males look at 1000's of practically identical naked women on the Net these days without being turned on.
Increasingly they need drugs to respond and I suspect disgust with women is the unconscious reason. Viagra and Cialis sales are in the billions.
Does it make sense to use these drugs?
Socrates said that when he no longer had a sex drive in old age, he was "released from the jaws of a wild beast." Why would any man take a drug in order to be captive once again?
Hormones generated by the testes cause the male sex drive which takes control of our minds. How powerful are these hormones?
Most young men would agree that their sisters are barely tolerable. However, other men's sisters are an endless source of wonder and fascination.
What's the difference? Sex of course.
Are there harmless drugs that could suppress the production of these mind-altering sex hormones? Perhaps they could be made widely available to young men.
Then women, deprived of their magical spell, could be seen clearly and men could concentrate on something else. When a man falls in love based with a total human being, he could go off the drug.
Of course, a better solution is for men and women to marry (or establish a long-term loving relationship) at a much younger age (i.e. 18-20) like they used to.
People decry marriage because sex declines in importance over time. I thought that was the purpose of marriage.
Sex belongs to an age-and-stage, i.e. courting and procreation. We weren't meant to be obsessed with it for our whole lives. There are much more important and interesting things to do.
CONCLUSION
Modern women are the victim of a monstrous hoax perpetrated by the Illuminati bankers and their lackeys in media, government and education.
Women have been defrauded of a secure and essential social role, that of wife and mother. In exchange they have accepted the role of sex objects and worker drones.
They tart it up with terms like "freedom" and "independence" but many are lonely, bitter and increasingly desperate. They have been cruelly duped by an evil power. Consequently, to varying degrees they have betrayed themselves, their husbands and their children. (I don't object to women pursuing careers, only putting them before family, if indeed they want one.)
Sex is used by the Illuminati as a reductio ad absurdum. Everything good in life, all relationships, culture, love, caring, justice, beauty, and intelligence; is flattened by what has become a sick societal obsession.
The Illuminati use sex to corrupt and debase. The pornography that floods our in-boxes is part of a widespread campaign to degrade us. A morally degraded people are a weak people, and a weak people are easily disinherited.
top
By Henry Makow Ph.D.March
18, 2002
"In the 1960's, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a New World Order."
Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA.
Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970's by a radical feminist group called "Red Stockings." In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in "Feminist Revolution." Nevertheless the story appeared in the "Village Voice" on May 21, 1979.
Steinem has always pretended that she had been a student radical. "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era," she told Susan Mitchell in 1997, "and that made me a Marxist." (Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130) Her bio-blurb in June 1973 MS. Magazine states: "Gloria Steinem has been a freelance writer all her professional life. Ms magazine is her first full-time salaried job."
Not true. Raised in an impoverished, dysfunctional family in Toledo Ohio, Steinem somehow managed to attend elite Smith College, Betty Friedan's alma mater. After graduating in 1955, Steinem received a "Chester Bowles Student Fellowship" to study in India. Curiously, an Internet search reveals that this fellowship has no existence apart from Gloria Steinem. No one else has received it.
In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots.
One of Steinem's CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960's, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women's lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971. Warner Communications put up almost all the money although it only took 25% of the stock. Ms. Magazine's first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route. Despite its anti establishment image, MS magazine attracted advertising from the cream of corporate America. It published ads for ITT at the same time as women political prisoners in Chile were being tortured by Pinochet, after a coup inspired by the US conglomerate and the CIA.
Steinem's personal relationships also belie her anti establishment pretensions. She had a nine-year relationship with Stanley Pottinger, a Nixon-Ford assistant attorney general, credited with stalling FBI investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King, and the ex-Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Latelier. In the 1980's, she dated Henry Kissinger. For more details, see San Francisco researcher Dave Emory.
Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations. It was established and peopled by blue bloods from the New York banking establishment and graduates of Yale University's secret pagan "Skull and Bones" society. Our current President, his father and grandfather fit this profile.
The agenda of this international cabal is to degrade the institutions and values of the United States in order to integrate it into a global state that it will direct through the United Nations. In its 1947 Founding Charter, the CIA is prohibited from engaging in domestic activities. However this has never stopped it from waging a psychological war on the American people. The domestic counterpart of the "Congress for Cultural Freedom" was the "American Committee for Cultural Freedom." Using foundations as conduits, the CIA controlled intellectual discourse in the 1950's and 1960's, and I believe continues to do so today. In "The Cultural Cold War," Francis Stonor Saunders estimates that a thousand books were produced under the imprint of a variety of commercial and university presses, with covert subsidies.
The CIA's "Project Mockingbird" involved the direct infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. "By the early 1950's," writes Deborah Davis, in her book "Katherine the Great," the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all." In 1982 the CIA admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, who ran the operation until his "suicide" in 1963, boasted that "you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month."
I was born in 1949. Idealists in my parent's generation were disillusioned when the Communist dream of universal brotherhood turned out to be a shill for a brutal despotism. My own generation may discover that our best instincts have also been manipulated and exploited. There is evidence that the 60's drug counter culture, the civil rights movement, and anti-war movement, like feminism, were CIA directed. For example, the CIA has admitted setting up the (National Student Association as a front in 1947 http://www.cia-on-campus.org/nsa/nsa2.html). In the early 1950's the NSA opposed the attempts of the House Un American Activities Committee to root out Communist spies. According to Phil Agee Jr., NSA officers participated in the activities of SNCC, the militant civil rights group, and Students for a Democratic Society, a radical peace group.
According to Mark Riebling, the CIA also may have used Timothy Leary. Certainly the agency distributed LSD to Leary and other opinion makers in the 1960s. Leary made a generation of Americans turn away from active participation in society and seek fulfillment "within." In another example of the CIA's use of drugs to interfere in domestic politics, Gary Webb describes how in the 1980's, the CIA flooded Black ghettos with cocaine.
I won't attempt to analyze the CIA's motivation except to suggest what they have in common: They demoralized, alienated and divided Americans. The elite operates by fostering division and conflict in the world. Thus, we don't realize who the real enemy is. For the same reason, the CIA and elite foundations also fund the diversity and multicultural movements.
Feminism has done the most damage. There is no more fundamental yet delicate relationship in society than male and female. On it depends the family, the red blood cell of society. Nobody with the interests of society at heart would try to divide men and women. Yet the lie that men have exploited women has become the official orthodoxy.
Man loves woman. His first instinct is to nurture ("husband") and see her thrive. When a woman is happy, she is beautiful. Sure, some men are abusive. But the vast majority have supported and guided their families for millennium.
Feminists relentlessly advance the idea that our inherent male and female characteristics, crucial to our development as human beings, are mere "stereotypes." This is a vicious calumny on all heterosexuals, 95% of the population. Talk about hate! Yet it is taught to children in elementary schools! It is echoed in the media. Lesbians like Rosie O'Donnell are advanced as role models.
All of this is calculated to create personal confusion and sow chaos among heterosexuals. As a result, millions of American males are emasculated and divorced from their relationship to family (the world and the future.) The American woman has been hoodwinked into investing herself in a mundane career instead of the timeless love of her husband and children. Many women have become temperamentally unfit to be wives and mothers. People, who are isolated and alone, stunted and love-starved, are easy to fool and manipulate. Without the healthy influence of two loving parents, so are their children.
Feminism is a grotesque fraud perpetrated on society by its governing elite. It is designed to weaken the American social and cultural fabric in order to introduce a friendly fascist New World Order. Its advocates are sanctimonious charlatans who have grown rich and powerful from it. They include a whole class of liars and moral cripples who work for the elite in various capacities: government, education and the media. These imposters ought to be exposed and ridiculed.
Women's oppression is a lie. Sex roles were never as rigid as feminists would have us believe. My mother had a successful business in the 1950's importing watchstraps from Switzerland. When my father's income increased, she was content to quit and concentrate on the children. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted to. The difference was that their role as wife and mother was understood, and socially validated, as it should be.
Until Gloria Steinem and the CIA came along.
top
DECEMBER 1997
Hillary Proclaims a Daycare 'Crisis' Hillary Rodham Clinton staged what a White House spokesman called a "focused comeback" to proclaim what she described as a "frontier issue." She followed the usual liberal formula: proclaim a "crisis," wrap it in "children," and try to intimidate Congress into funding a new middle-class entitlement. Make no mistake: this is the start of another grab for power like Clinton's 1994 effort to federalize the health care industry.
Hillary's daycare "crisis" was carefully orchestrated by all the bigwigs of the Clinton Administration before an exclusive audience in the East Room of the White House. They included government officials who can influence public policy on daycare, reporters expected to write about daycare, a few academic types paraded as "experts," and a large number of daycare providers who can be turned into lobbying troops to gather the cash spoils of federally subsidized daycare. The audience included those two Democratic Senators who like to pose as models of fatherhood and family propriety, Senators Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd. Conservative and pro-family leaders were excluded.
President Clinton is demanding $300 million over five years to train 50,000 daycare workers, improve the pay of daycare workers, and direct Americorps student volunteers to look after latchkey kids. In addition, he is ordering Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to jawbone private employers to provide free on-site daycare.
Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, the chief lobby for raising children in a "village," said she hopes that Hillary's conference will be "a launching pad for significant re-investments" in daycare. In the Clintonian lexicon, village is a synonym for government and investment is a synonym for taxes.
Conference participant Joyce Shortt, who runs a daycare organizing group, said, "As long as we are promoting an economic system where two parents or single parents work, it is the responsibility of the federal government" to promote affordable and accessible daycare. No doubt, she sees federal subsidies heading toward her bank account.
The chief guru of the federal daycare lobby is Edward Zigler, a psychology professor at Yale University and director of Yale's Bush Center for Child Development and Social Policy. He advocates a national daycare system costing $75 to $100 billion annually.
Zigler wants daycare centers reconstituted as "schools of the 21st century" and "family resource centers." He wants daycare to extend as long as the workdays of mothers and fathers, before- and after-school care, and summer care for children up to age 12. He deplores the "hodge-podge of profits, nonprofits, and family daycare homes" and the fact that 60 to 75 percent of daycares are not registered. Those with a social parenting agenda think that government can do a much better job of regulating and financing the needs of children ages 1 through 12.
A drive for federally financed and regulated daycare led by Zigler and Edelman is, as Yogi Berra would say, déjà vu all over again. This same cast of characters carried on a tremendous national campaign for the same goal during 1988, 1989 and 1990 -- and they lost because Americans don't want to pay taxes to provide babysitters for other people's children.
Instead, American mothers and fathers want tax cuts so they can spend their own money and make their own decisions. The 1988-90 debate ended up with modest tax credits for children. This year the Republican Congress provided the best and only correct federal answer to the problem of child care costs: tax cuts. With the Clinton Administration dragging its feet, resisting every step of the way, this year's Republican budget included a $500 per child tax credit for children under age 17 in taxpaying families. That is a lot of new money in the pockets of 27 million families with 45 million children.
Then, Congress expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to reach 15 million people, giving significant extra help to workers of very modest incomes. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit is in addition. The Republican Congress also voted a tremendous increase in daycare spending as part of the 1996 welfare law. A new program of federal grants to the states, designating $13.9 billion over six years to fund daycare, represents an increase of more than $4 billion or nearly 50% over what would have been spent under the previous law.
The New York Times called Hillary "reborn," but her daycare proposals are just warmed over Big Government spending plans that have been exhaustively debated and rejected by the American people. Tax cuts are the best way government can help families cover the costs of raising children.
The Feminists' War Against Marriage
The war on marriage that the feminists in academia are waging hit me this year when I received the Winter issue of my alma mater's alumnae magazine, the Radcliffe Quarterly. In 52 pages under the heading "Scenes from the Family," the editors didn't include any discussion of a successful family based on a man and a woman honoring their solemn promises "to have and to hold . . . for better, for worse . . . till death do us part."
Instead, the feature article laid down the feminist line that a woman's identity disappears in marriage and that "marriage is bad for you, at least if you're female." Without any shame, the author admitted that she acquired her husband by breaking up another marriage that had lasted 15 years and produced three children. She argued that, "Instead of getting married for life, men and women (in whatever combination suits their sexual orientation) should sign up for a seven-year hitch." If they want to "reenlist" for another seven, they may, but after that, the marriage is "over."
Another article described a "marriage" of lesbians in San Francisco. Still another extolled the wonderful life of a child born out of wedlock, and yet another explained divorce as "a significant life event that confronts individuals with the opportunity to change."
The New York-based Institute for American Values recently completed a study of 20 post-1994 college social science textbooks used in 8,000 college courses. Called "Closed Hearts, Closed Minds," the report concludes that most of these textbooks give a pessimistic if not downright hostile view of marriage, emphasizing marital failures rather than its joys and benefits.
College textbooks view marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women. The textbooks are inordinately preoccupied with domestic violence and divorce, and view marriage as archaic and oppressive, not just occasionally, but inherently. Some textbooks are larded with anti-family rhetoric. Changing Families by Judy Root Aulette focuses on battering, marital rape and divorce, with no mention of any benefits of marriage.
The textbooks give the impression that children don't need two parents and aren't harmed by divorce. They omit all the evidence that children in single-parent homes are far more at risk than children in two-parent homes.
Cutting Loose: Why Women Who End Their Marriages Do So Well by Ashton Applewhite is an example of the new genre of books attacking marriage as a bad deal for women. The author dumped her husband after reading feminist Susan Faludi's Backlash. Now Applewhite seeks social approval for her walk-out by encouraging middle-aged women to find independence by doing likewise. She gives advice on how to deal with lawyers, manipulate child custody arrangements, and find new relationships.
The publication of another new book, On Our Own: Unmarried Motherhood in America by Melissa Luddtke, attracted Hillary Rodham Clinton, Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Senator Ted Kennedy to a book party at the home of PBS journalist Ellen Hume. Mrs. Clinton was thanked for her assistance as a "reader of the book in progress."
When the sexual revolution and the feminist revolution blasted into America's social consciousness in the late 1960s and 1970s, the voices raised against them came primarily from older women. Now we are starting to see acute bitterness from the generation that believed the liberationist lies and have discovered that, contrary to feminist ideology, women, indeed, have a biological clock.
The Independent Women's Forum has just published its Autumn 1997 issue of its Women's Quarterly (2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 550, Arlington, VA 22201, $5), and it is guaranteed to enrage the feminists. Called "Let's Face It, Girls: The Sexual Revolution Was a Mistake," it levels a broadside attack on the feminists for teaching young women that liberation and fulfillment come from romping around like men in casual sex while building their all-important careers. They are angry because they discovered too late that the cost of uncommitted sexual relationships is that "the window for getting married and having children is way smaller than one can possibly foresee at age 25."
So, we hear the anguish of babyless fortyish women frustrated by their inability to get pregnant, spending their money and tears on chemicals and on clinics dispensing procedures with high failure rates. They've even realized that a lot of female infertility comes from exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, and that's a high price to pay for those dead-end serial relationships.
In this Women's Quarterly, Carolyn Graglia exposes the consequences of the foolish feminist notion that men and women are equal in their sexual desires. This myth, which is contrary to all human experience, has deprived women of the societal support they need to refuse to engage in casual sex.
Far from being empowered in their relations with men, this myth has caused women to lose control over ordinary relationships. Adult, educated women are now demanding that the government (or plaintiff attorneys) protect them from "date rape" and "sexual harassment" in situations that, in the pre-feminist era, unsophisticated high school girls could handle with confidence, knowing that a No would be respected.
G.I. Jane: Feminist Role-Model
G.I. Jane, directed by Ridley Scott, is a fitting sequel to his 1991 movie Thelma and Louise. Both movies try to idealize the macho victim, the foul-mouthed, gun-toting woman who triumphs over the perceived discriminations perpetrated by an unfair male-dominated society.
But sic transit gloria! Thelma and Louise freed themselves from an oppressive patriarchal society by driving their automobile off a cliff. Their double suicide proved they were liberated women because they made that death decision independently from male coercion!
G.I. Jane (Demi Moore) proves she is a liberated woman by getting herself beaten to a bloody pulp, almost raped, and subjected to extreme bodily harassment. To the feminists, this is okay because her goal is to be treated just like men.
This is the kind of equality the feminist movement has always sought (and why they remain a ridiculous subset of the left wing of the Democratic Party, far outside of the mainstream). The feminists' legal oracle in the years before Ruth Bader Ginsburg emerged, Yale Law School Professor Thomas I. Emerson, described the goal of gender equality in the Yale Law Journal (April 1971): "As between brutalizing our young men and brutalizing our young women, there is little to choose."
The movie G.I. Jane was apparently designed to make Americans believe the myth that women can perform in combat just like men, even in the toughest branch of the services, the Navy Seals. But the movie really doesn't help the feminist cause because the villain is a loud-mouthed Texas female Senator (supposedly modeled on Patricia Schroeder and Ann Richards), whose sport is to humiliate military officers for not fully integrating women into combat jobs. In order to keep her Senate seat, she spikes G.I. Jane's career in the Seals by falsely accusing her of lesbianism.
G.I. Jane proves that women can take a beating as well as a man, but so what? The movie shows that she lacks the upper body strength to pull herself out of the water into a boat, a rather elementary test for anyone seeking to be a Navy Seal. The pretense that G.I. Jane could do everything the Seals do is a Hollywood fiction created with trick photography, make-up, and a stand-in for the star. It's all as make-believe as the scene where her Seal commander talks to her in the shower and somehow doesn't notice that she's nude.
But more important than the dishonesty of it all is what the feminists are doing to America and to the relationship of men and women. When G.I. Jane is being beaten and almost raped in the movie, we can see the horror in the faces of the Seals who watch, and their contempt for the Master Chief who performs this exercise. They joined the Navy to become real men, and now they are being trained to be passive while watching a woman beaten and raped! It's called sensitivity training to desensitize men about the abuse and mistreatment of women. Such courses are now part of U.S. military training.
Training civilized young men to suppress their inclinations to be protective and courteous toward women is not merely wrong and stupid, it is evil and wicked. We have no respect for the men who participate in the evil of programming men to treat women as though they are men. Civilization is on the chopping bloc. The feminists have not given us progress for women; they are turning men into the stereotype of the caveman who drags his woman by her hair.
The Kelly Flinn Flim-Flam
Kelly Flinn, the first female B-52 pilot, was the Air Force's poster girl of the supposedly successful sex integration of the Air Force. She was the golden girl who "proved" that women in the military can "hold their own" with men. She was the answer to the Pat Schroeder battalion in Congress who were demanding that women be put in combat jobs.
But Kelly blew it by indulging in adultery, perjury and disobedience. She committed the particular kind of adultery (called fraternization) that clearly cannot be tolerated in a military officer, namely having sex with an enlisted man and then with the husband of an enlisted woman.
When the Air Force disciplined her, the media went into a "feeding frenzy," allowing the feminists to portray her as a victim, and she became something of a feminist cause célèbre. Dick Morris, Bill Clinton's political consultant (who rose to notoriety and a lucrative book deal after a particularly gross adulterous relationship), predicted, "I think she may become a very significant feminist figure and spokesperson." Fortunately, his prediction has not come true.
The evidence against Kelly Flinn was so overwhelming that the Air Force had to press charges. She was not "singled out," but was treated highly preferentially compared to the 60 men whom the Air Force court-martialed for adultery the previous year and the many male officers whose careers were destroyed for much lesser offenses.
The aggrieved spouse, Airman Gayla Zigo, explained in her eloquent letter to the Secretary of the Air Force: "Less than a week after we arrived to the base, Kelly was in bed with my husband having sex. . . . In several occasions, I came home from work and found her at my house with Marc. While at my house, she was always in her flight suit flaunting the fact that she was an Academy graduate and the first female bomber pilot." Airman Gayla's letter quoted Kelly as saying that "she wanted to settle down with someone." Gayla added, "I didn't know that that somebody was my husband."
The military is to blame for leading young women like Kelly to mistakenly believe they can do a man's job. Of course, she can pilot a plane, but there's a lot more to being a military pilot than guiding the plane's controls. She tried to excuse herself on CBS's 60 Minutes by saying, "I was only 25 years old and I was confused." Can we afford to have someone confused who is piloting a B-52 carrying nuclear weapons?
Kelly's position required the emotional maturity and stamina to work at a base where her pilot peers had wives, but she did not. Kelly was lonesome. Her mother, whining about Kelly's predicament, said that the cad whom Kelly called her "first love" was "the first man who made her feel like a woman."
Pardon me! We have been endlessly told that women in the military can perform just like men. Sex integration in the military was supposed to prove what Robin Morgan said years ago on the Phil Donahue Show, "We are becoming the men we once wanted to marry."
Now we learn that the top female bomber pilot really wanted to be treated like a woman! When the Air Force handed Kelly a written order to break off her relationship, she chose her lover over her spectacular career, telling the New York Times, "I figured at least I'd salvage my relationship with Marc [Zigo]."
Having lost their battle to save Kelly Flinn's Air Force career, the feminists then took revenge on Air Force General Joseph Ralston, who was nominated for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To sabotage his appointment, the feminists dug up an old case of his adultery. The feminists' real purpose was to get Kelly Flinn's discharge upgraded to honorable.
Ralston's case was completely different from that of Kelly Flinn's (she was guilty of fraternization, disobedience and perjury), but the difference was lost under the feminists' tirades. So, we endured a public debate of several weeks on whether adultery should be a bar to promotion to high office.
Opinion surveys of the media elite over the past decade have consistently shown that the nation's top opinion makers do not believe that adultery is wrong. They would like to make it socially acceptable. The New York Times, for example, ridiculed the military's "antiquated adultery rules."
The Gallup Poll reports that 94% of Americans say adultery is wrong. The advocates of unfettered sexual activity are trying to paint those who affirm the standard of marital fidelity as hypocrites because the evidence shows "Americans do it anyway." But that doesn't mean they are hypocrites; it just means that they have sinned. Christians believe that man has a fallen nature and is prone to sin, and forgiveness starts with admitting you've done something wrong.
The sexual revolution that started in the sixties hasn't lived up to its promise of freedom and fun forever. It has produced record rates of divorce, illegitimacy, social diseases, and messed up lives.
There is a culture war going on inside America. It has caused a great many casualties and will cause many more. Setting up a commission to write new morality rules for the military will only prolong the agony; the old rules are still valid. In the long run, there will be fewer casualties if the military leads the way to a restoration of duty, honor, and the sanctity of marriage.
What Caused the Gender Gap?
Media Research Center thinks it has come up with an explanation for how Bill Clinton and the liberal Democrats developed a pipeline to the so-called soccer moms. Too many have been swallowing the pro-Big Government propaganda fed to them by women's magazines whose circulation is in the millions.
A joint Consumer Alert/Media Research Center study of 13 women's and family magazines for one year prior to the November 1996 elections revealed that they carried articles that portrayed government activism in a positive light by a ratio of more than six to one (115 to 18). The 13 women's and family magazines included Good Housekeeping, Redbook, McCall's, Working Woman, Family Circle, Woman's Day, and Glamour. The largest number of articles calling for government intervention concerned health issues, such as demanding federal action to stop "drive-through deliveries" and more federal funding for medical research.
The magazines directed their readers toward support for "universal" (i.e., federal) health coverage. Not a single article mentioned Medical Savings Accounts, the private-enterprise option that would allow individuals to own and manage their own health care.
During the past year, these women's magazines carried 23 articles urging women to lobby for expanded government programs, and not a single one to lobby for less government or for spending cuts. To urge more federal funding, Good Housekeeping even provided form letters ("Join the Good Housekeeping Lobby") that needed only a signature before mailing.
The women's magazines published favorable profiles of many liberal female activists but none of conservatives. The favorite was Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund, the leading exemplar of using children to expand government programs and regulations. Researchers looked in vain for articles in these women's magazines that urged a reduction in the tax burden on families, or a reduction in the regulatory burden that is costly, and even harmful, to families and small businesses.
The successful Clinton campaign of 1996 tapped into the propaganda flowing through women's magazines by pursuing what U.S. News & World Report called a "Redbook strategy." The rest of us laughed when Bill and Hillary promised that their Administration would force employers to give women time off to attend a PTA meeting or take their dog to the vet, but such talk apparently resonated with the readers of women's magazines.
top
The third wave and riot grrrl may be inspiring, but risk ignoring feminist history and swapping radical action for gigs and zines. In a fiery essay, Red Chidgey poses some difficult questions. 10 March 2008
The Seven Demands of the Women’s Liberation Movement
The women’s liberation movement asserts the right of every women to a self-defined sexuality and demands:
- Equal Pay
- Equal education and job opportunities
- Free contraception and abortion on demand
- Free 24-hour nurseries, under community control
- Legal and financial independence
- An end to discrimination against lesbians
The British Women’s Liberation Movement started with history. Or maybe it started with the sound of men’s laughter.
We are still feeling the effects of what it turned into: its call, its promise and its failures. Yet we don’t know our feminist history. That’s the paradox of the third wave feminist movement.
Let’s back track. It’s 1969. Sheila Rowbotham, a longhaired, mini-skirted, history student at Oxford, is attending a workshop organised by Marxist historian Raphael Samuel. The content is male-driven as usual, with trade union men arguing that women should stay at home, not work. Sheila states the need for women to earn an independent wage. The men laugh. Sheila jumps up and announces a meeting for those interested in considering women’s lives and histories. The men laugh. The first National Women’s Liberation Conference is conceived right there to the sound of male laughter. At Ruskin College, February 1970, a swell of women turn up and some graffiti “WOMEN IN LABOUR KEEP CAPITALISM IN POWER, DOWN WITH PENILE SERVITUDE” on the campus walls (and some women get mad at that).
Eight years of national women’s liberation conferences and thousands of alternative feminist media projects provide the oxygen and the adrenalin of a new movement. A spectrum of feminist projects, protests and identities circulate.
The second wave didn’t start with the first national women’s liberation conference. There were strikes, free universities, radical childcare groups, reading groups, and New Left groups, with women organising as women and for women. Feminism came out of a feed culture of social unrest, collective struggle, a belief in the possibility of social change.
The misrepresentation of our feminist past is part of a poverty of the ‘new wave’ of activism
In the 1970 best seller The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer announced: “This is the second wave.”
Dale Spender replied across the decades with her 1983 book, There’s Always Been a Women’s Movement this Century.
So, what is this third wave of feminism?
The third wave responds to the opinion that feminism is dead and buried. That women no longer care, no longer recognise oppression, no longer feel the affiliate bond of urgent politicisation with their sisters. It is a response to the different set of social orders we live in under late capitalism, and an almighty challenge to gender binaries to make sure feminism includes transgender and intersex people too.
Yet the women’s liberation movement, the second wave, has become a caricature of fashion sense, censure, prejudice and in-fighting in the imagination of both young feminists and the general public.
Whenever dominant narratives surface - such as it wasn’t until the 1980s when women of colour joined the movement and voiced their critiques - one should remain slightly sceptical. This is where knowing your feminist history comes in: you are not bound to repeat the mistakes nor the inventions of the past. And you are not so likely to be seduced by capitalism’s sentiment of what is truly revolutionary.
It is not revolutionary to make ‘feminism cool again’ (riot grrrl). To give the movement an ‘image make-over’ or ‘re-branding’ (Fawcett Society). To assert personal truth and only personal truth, without an understanding of how that is framed structurally and economically. It is not revolutionary to change your lifestyle, or your buying habits, or the people you date, solely.
Although what we do sends thousands of lines of motivation and inspiration into the world, circulates a vision of possibility and empowers more women to take up that baton, it still feels cheap, underwhelming and lacking
Through riot grrrl I became a feminist, but it taught me nothing about feminist history. I’m now figuring this out myself and with like-minded women from archives, from women’s voices and stories, and from working within the Feminist Activist Forum.
I see the misrepresentation of our feminist past as part of a poverty of the ‘new wave’ of activism. Third-wave feminism can act like it came from a glorious point zero (even in terms of trans-inclusion feminism). It thinks its reclamation of feminism is itself a point of revolt, a shake off from the dour movement of before, a big splash, just because it has feminist pride. This is a mistake.
Feminism is an ethic of care. A sense of radical possibility. A commitment to change those structures which say that we can’t, that condone and escalate the spiritual, physical and emotional assault that gender puts on us to dumb us down and cut us up into little units of consumable flesh and labour.
“with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished”
Lucky’s rant in Waiting for Godot reminds me of contemporary feminism’s sometimes unintelligibility, its tragicomedy aspect and its unfinished project of total social revolt.
As a fringe feminist, a grrrl feminist, a queer feminist and now a leaning anarcha-feminist, I want to see the underground rise up and make more patterns and confrontations outside of the bedrooms and the gig halls.
Born from a zine world of feminist theory, exploration, direct action and confession, I want that potential amplified. I want us to consider feminist temporality and consequence.
Even as I write this, at night with books pulled off my bookshelf, I want there to be a point that surfaces from this writing. I want a translation into action, further than the action of writing. I don’t just want to voice discontent, to puff and flap my arms around in cyberspace.
Can you have a movement without goals? Are we too diffuse? Too happy to make some noise occasionally, showing our protest in marches only, moving critical thought into action with little heard words and acts of art?
I want to ask feminists in my community, in my life, whether they feel satisfied with the work that they/we are doing. Our focus on cultural activism mostly, though not exclusively. Aren’t we selling ourselves short? Organising one-off events, creating a dance-hall culture just for ourselves. I feel this hunger for something more unwieldy. How to articulate that? How to measure this with the need to pay rent, to do work, to maintain and develop relationships, to avoid burn out?
Maybe I need fiercer feminist spectacle, real conversation starters, actual lived change - for the benefit of women I don’t know as much as for myself and my community of interest.
I feel like what we do, though it sends thousands of lines of motivation and inspiration into the world, circulates a vision of possibility and empowers more women to take up that baton, still feels cheap, underwhelming and lacking. Because I think a feminist movement should be in confrontation with the State, it should highlight everything which is unacceptable in this culture and specifically, publicly, create alternatives. How to do that and not go mad? Through strong political collectives and alliances. I feel too individual, too small, too comfortable, too late modern.
Can you have a movement without goals? Are we too diffuse? Too happy to make some noise occasionally, showing our protest in marches only, moving critical thought into action with little heard words and acts of art?
I can’t help but feel cheated if personal rants and opinion, like this, are the full stop of our political publishing. If we draw ourselves an enclave, only remove the ribbons from our own eyes. I don’t have answers, I don’t have concrete plans. But I have a sense that we are being too compliant in our feminist identities. And that there’s a fuck load of work to be done by the new generations of Emma Goldmans, Emily Wilding Davisons, Annie Kenneys, and Sojourner Truths. So let’s keep channelling
top
historyfeminism March 15,
2008
Members may wish to contribute to the section of this new resource relating to feminism’s history and/or use the resource as a teaching tool. Wikigender
Launched 8 March, Wikigender, an OECD Development Centre initiative, is your online platform to find and exchange information related to gender equality. The website is work in progress and benefits from your active participation. Users are invited to comment on or improve existing articles, and to create or upload new documents.
By providing a platform to share experiences and to learn from each other’s knowledge, Wikigender will contribute to a better understanding on the situation of men and women around the world.
Articles include:
Country Focus
Data and Statistics
Theory and Conceptual Framework
Policies and Instruments
Organisations and Initiatives
top
endofmen March 13, 2008
A great
letter, written by a gentleman called Philip Jones to Henry Makow. I’m
sure many men can relate this his experiences. He has been there, done
that and got the T-Shirt, this is how he feels.
Dear Henry,Feminism has been a blight on my life. *It has obstructed, even prevented me from realizing my absolute potential as a man and creature of nature. It has corrupted every relationship, perverted how others have perceived me, how I have perceived others, and endeared a rotten and reluctant misogyny within my breast for that deranged part of the female of our breed which kneels at the alter of the feminist lie.
Of course, the nature of this misogyny is borne out of resentment for experiences lost and is vengeful and bitter in it’s reluctance, as as much as I loathe them, I delight in the true feminine. Now, I should temper my earlier remarks about the female with an insight on how, during my youth, I related to girls/women. From an early age, I had adored the feminine. My own sweet mother was the very definition of woman; kind, warm and gentle, completely female in every way, yet strong and able to deal with those multitude of problems inherent in life at the lower end of the economic scale.
My earliest recollection of this appreciation of the `Fairer Sex` was the film `Sword of Lancelot` with Cornel Wilde. I could not have been more than seven years old old and was captivated by the beauty and grace of Jean Wallace’s Guinevere, and the superbly masculine, chivalrous and courageous Lancelot of Cornel Wilde. I think it fair to say that it was this film which planted the seed in me, at that young age, which grew into the man that I became. Of course there were others, the beautiful and elegant actresses of a Hollywood long since transformed into the Neo-Politico mind control, social engineering weapon that it is today, complete with the awful Angelina Jolie’s, Uma Thurman’s and Demi Moores and their contempories. It was the beautiful yet tragic love between Lancelot and Guinevere which began the process which led to the forming of a huge piece of my adult persona.
Most people today, reading the above, would regard these sentiments as being `corny` and outdated, but I feel that you, will understand these things.
As I matured into adolescence, I discovered girls at a relatively early age, around twelve years I believe. I matured quickly and became strong and athletic. I played Rugby, Boxed, learn Karate and was generally a handful for my parents and teachers alike. Not in a bad way, but in a boyish rambunctious manner which tended to endear me to some and not to others. I entered my teens, in the 1970’s, perhaps `The last days of Rome` for Great Britain . At this time, girls began to show interest in me, and I in them. But even at that stage, I could see that I treated them differently from my classmates. Years of Hollywood images of heroes and heroines had created a `throwback` who treated pretty girls like Princesses, and respectfully tolerated the `Plain Janes`.
I met my first Wife at the age of sixteen. She was a beautiful girl of mixed Irish/Spanish ancestry, with flashing eyes and long lustrous hair of the darkest brown. I quickly adored her and she I. It was young love. We were perfect together, and we grew to be inseparable. I `protected` her against all other advances, and became a `man` through her and our love. She was gentle, exquisitely feminine, yet full of fire and temper. She gave to me at that tender age a loyalty and devotion that to this day, I have only found in one other. Even now, three lifetimes on, in those precious ethereal moments, just before consciousness returns and steals from us our dreams of what is and can never be, I sometimes remember that glorious beauty who stole my heart, and gave me hers. We waited until we married to consummate our life together. It was not awkward or tentative, it happened as it was meant to and we connected in a way which elevated our consciousness and bound us to each other.
Our only child was born nine months later, a deliciously pink and heavenly soft little girl.
During the late seventies, the economic situation was very dire in the Industrial area of South Wales where I was born and bred (manipulated by the `brotherhood` in order to implement the next stage of their `Great work` and bring their newest protege, Margaret Thatcher to the fore) . Jobs, were hard to find, the Steelworks and Mines were `downsizing` and my own schooldays had been forcibly curtailed by parents without a steady income. I joined the Royal Air Force in 1978 and a year later, was patrolling the streets of Belfast and Derry with a 7.62mm SLR in my hands.
I omitted to mention that we were wed in 1979. We were twenty one years old.
As the 1970’s rolled into the `eighties`, I was still gainfully employed in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. We were the `perfect couple` or so everyone said, and destined for the greatest of things. In 1981, my time in the Airforce was drawing to a close. My wife wanted to go home, as all Welsh girls do. I had experienced so much in those years since leaving South Wales, and had grown into a strong and vital man, a potential leader of men who really didn’t want to go back `home`. I had been advised that further promotion was very possible, and that my career looked very promising. But it was not to be. My `Welshgirl` missed her `Mam` and wanted to go home. This was the first tiny schism between us. I liked the Airforce, felt I belonged. I even liked working in Northern Ireland. But, she was my wife so home it was. I joined the Gwent Constabulary in October 1981, and so I can now continue on from paragraph three.
At the Police Training School, I came head to head with `New Woman` and I hated her. Due to my military background, I was selected to be `Squad Leader` of the intake, which was made up of approximately 85% male and 15% female recruits. For thirteen weeks, these girls complained, moaned, caused disruption and dissention, fell down during foot drill, cried when they hurt themselves (which they seemed to do often) and flirted unashamedly with fellow recruits and instructors alike, causing several marital ruptures. They caused cliques and divisions which fostered so many problems during those weeks of training. I often wondered why a woman would want to do such a job.
During the same course, I was for the very first time confronted with the beast that is Political `Correction`. Nothing had prepared me for this strange pernicious anomaly. There was none of it in the R.A.F, well at that time anyway, and South Wales was working class, `blue collar` country.
We were given lectures on `women’s rights`, `minority rights`, `Inclusiveness` and had the concept of positive discrimination rammed very hard down our collective throats. Now, the thing about blacks is that I grew up with them and amongst them, I had fought alongside then in NI and had never even considered the color difference at all. Jamaicans arriving from the `Commonwealth` at that time, came to the UK searching for a better life, only to be treated shoddily in many cases, and manipulated into race conflict by Marxist Agitators such as Gerry Gable and his `Searchlight` ragmag. Thirteen weeks later, having successfully completed the course, I felt that overall, I had triumphed against the forces of irrationality. For the next five or six years, the `Feminist Question` and myself had little contact, except through the media.
Like the majority of men, I never noticed it’s tentacles creap into every orifice of society. I was much too preoccupied learning my craft, being a father and a husband, providing for my family and living life to take much notice of the political machinations of a few deranged `Plain Janes`. Of course from time to time, I would sit up and take note of `some woman said this`, on the telly, or `some woman did that`, or the Government has changed this law or that law; well you know, it’s something to do with equality !!
In 1986, with little or no warning, my wife and I began to quarrel. This was a new situation. Up until then, life had been as good as it gets. The job was good, we had a great social life, our `angel` was fit and healthy, and, well, there was no one else for either of us. But during her spare evenings when I was not working, she had been taking some courses at the local college. She began to come out with these statements about men, and rights and that there should be more to her life than being a wife and mother. What about her ? You know the story all to well. Within only six months, she was gone, on a `trial basis` she said, along with my sweet little girl. That day, long ago has tainted every other day of my life since.
The divorce was made ugly by a predatory Feminist Lawyer, acting she said on my wife’s behalf, and my heart was wrecked. It was difficult to reconcile the woman my daughter’s mother had become, with the girlish, brown haired creature of my youth. The resulting years after that crack in my own belief system and the lies which followed, caused a poisonous rift between my daughter and myself, which has never been repaired. I have two Grand daughters I have never seen. My former wife on the other hand lives nearby to them and sees them every day.
I never saw it coming. I just worked and worked, not through ambition, but necessity. All I seemed to have done since I joined the Air force was work. I was the man, the provider, it was what I was raised to be. Who would have thought it ? At that time, I still didn’t understand the extent of the feminist insinuation into the very fibers of my life, but I soon realized there was a monster in my/our midst.
In 1987, having legally battled my `childhood sweetheart` to a stalemate, I decided that a change of location would be the best for all concerned and transferred to the Metropolitan Police in London. As the Capital City of the UK and it’s political centre, every imaginable social extreme was highlighted and propagated. By 1989, mostly every `in job` vacancy in the `Force` was filled whenever possible by either a female or `minority`applicant. During the early part of that year, due to a knee injury sustained playing Rugby, I was temporarily suquested to the Force Recruitment Section. Here, `Affirmative Action` or what was termed in the UK as Positive Discrimination was akin to a religion. Many of the normal requirements for entry were dropped or adjusted, where females and minorities were concerned. We were told that there were `quotas` to be filled, and irrespective of aptitude or suitability, filled they must be. `Access` courses were arranged for `minority applicants` to ensure success in the written aptitude test. I should mention here that the majority of minority applicants I dealt with had no need of these courses, and many objected to being required to attend them. The Medical and Fitness tests were adjusted accordingly to ensure that female candidates would pass these `tests`.
I began to see that fairness and equality was not the name of the game at all. Former members of the armed forces, particularly those with regiment tattoos, or Union Jacks etched into their forearms were to be discouraged, no matter if they were highly suitable, unless they were either female or a minority of course.
Worse still was the level of anti male hostility displayed openly by new female recruits. An attitude conditioned into them by the new and extended training course at the Police College, the contents of which had been politicized to fit the new dogma of the age.
Back to patrol work for only two weeks, I was next sent on a `Sensitivity` course in a North London Polytechnic. This course consisted of a week of thinly veiled Feminist indoctrination, and was `moderated` by two of the most stereotypical `Femi- Marxists` one could imagine. I was, along with most of my colleagues in constant conflict with them, as they attempted to impose their nonsensical ideologies on what was in the main a room filled with men familiar with the realities of life` as Police Officers tend to be.
At work, the `climate` changed ever so gradually, and one became very careful of how one behaved towards female colleagues, and allegations of `harassment` against male officers grew in kind. I myself was reprimanded on a number of occasions for the heinous crime of saying, “Good morning girls” and similarly innocent remarks whilst entering offices within the Police Station complex. It was explained to me that some of the female members of staff felt the term `girls` to be demeaning.
To be honest, by the time I injured my back on duty in 1995, I had had enough of the Police Service. It was barely recognizable as the job I had joined fifteen years previously. Still nowhere near the `Strong` arm of the ruling government it resembles today, the writing was most definitely on the wall.
In London at this time, one would not barely even dare to offer one’s seat to a woman on a bus or train for fear of being publicly ridiculed as a chauvinist or sexist. Life had most definitely taken a turn for the worse.
The first half of the 1990’s was probably the last time that most British women took any pride in their daily appearance, and the incessant wearing of trousers in place of a dress or a skirt was still some years hence. By this time, I had met the dear lady who would become my wife and best friend. She was and still is the saviour of my soul. A lady to the core, soft, lovely and gentle. A woman in the fullest and most wonderful sense of the word. In early 1996, having been retired on ill health, we moved over to her native Denmark.
If my experiences with the `Feminist` were unfortunate in the UK, upon arriving in Denmark, I was confronted by a far more virulent and all embracing model. Feminism is akin to a `State Sponsored` Religion here, and it’s tenets are accepted and practiced without question. In fact, so entrenched is it in society, it has become the `norm`.
They have achieved a level of androgyny here, that I have not seen elsewhere, although slowly but surely, the whole of Europe is heading that way. One might imagine that many of the women here could have been cloned. They dress the same, behave in the same manner, cut their hair the same, wear the same spectacles, have almost identical opinions about the `Holy Cows` of Danish life (The Welfare State, Education, Health Care and Feminism) and to all intents and purposes, at least superficially, are the same persona. This is a `Hive` and the Queen Bee rules. The extent of feminist ascendancy and male emasculation is more extreme than in other countries I have lived in or visited. It begins in the kindergarten and goes on from there. Boys as boys, girls as boys. These days, whenever I am to be introduced to a Danish `woman`I have not previously met, I form a mental image of what she will look like, and 9 from 10, I am spot on the ball; Short hair, no make up, spectacles, dark coloured baggy clothes and the obligatory pair of ill fitting trousers.
Notwithstanding the above, there is the Media, and the moving image in particular. We have not had a television in our home since 2005. Sometime around 2003, I began to feel very agitated by Hollywood’s persistent portrayal of women as `warriors` and `kicking girls` in scenes where small skinny women would be beating the `Devil` out of large muscular men who could in reality, fold them into `Origami figures`. It is now of course near impossible to find a film which excludes these ridiculous themes. As a former 3rd Degree Black Belt in Karate and competitive Kickboxer, I absolutely refute the very possibility of this tripe being the case. In my none too limited experience in the Combat Sports arena, I know categorically that the female is simply unable to generate the kind of explosive force necessary to knock a strong and adrenally pumped man on his backside, except by surprise. I taught Self Defence to women at back in the early 1990’s and tell you this, when faced with a violent situation 99% of women freeze and panic. This is a fact, it is their nature, and no amount of PC feminist dogma will change it.
Instead of the glaring at the `goggle box`we spend out evenings at home either reading together, or watching a carefully selected movie on our DLP Projector. No more the poisonous viper in the corner of the lounge. Before `losing the tube` when watching young actresses like Alyssa Milano or some of the others who have been portrayed in this aggressive `fight mode` stereotype, I have often wondered at what they themselves think of their roles. Do they believe that they are furthering the plight of the downtrodden woman ? In fifteen years as a Constable, it was my experience that when women stand and fight with men, they get badly hurt. We always taught that for a woman to survive in a confrontation with a man, she must use that element of surprise, hit, then run like hell. Hollywood and it’s ilk, are placing women in harm’s way, by showing them a fantastical fable so far removed from reality.
But why on earth do women today want so much to be like men ? Of course, it’s because of a `cradle to grave` Social Engineering program, making use of all the instruments of information and propaganda available, the Education, Media, and Pop Music factories et al. Feminism is now the unchallenged received wisdom and publicly accepted consensus.
Henry, you and your work, are beacons in the dark. Although we have not met, through reading your articles, I feel I know you well. You have inspired me in so many ways, and I no longer feel alone in a world where all the inalienable truths I know to be real, have been turned on their head by the `Illuminati` Brotherhood of Doom`.
So am I a misogynist ? Well yes and no, but only until some sweet gentle thing, smiles at me, and treats me respectfully as a man and not some virulent anti female disease. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, that sweet and gentle thing is these days, always my darling wife. For the rest of them, with their short hair, manly clothes, manly ways, and denial of their true nature, I have only loathing and contempt. Not an ounce of compassion or sympathy, for as I approach my fiftieth birthday, they are my enemy, and even though I know and understand that they themselves are but pawns in a deadly game, I cannot help but think that there are those amongst them who do know what they do, and it’s consequences, yet persist in doing it, regardless of the cost.
Some years ago, at a University where I was giving a lecture, a typically scruffy looking 24 year old female student began to assail me with the usual feminist rhetoric. She asked me if I was intimidated by a `strong woman`? I said that in nearly fifty years of life, I had not met such a thing. She was confused by this response and seemed bemused that a man had actually something to say for himself. She then engaged me in argument, a situation which by nature, I relish. For the next hour, I verbally `drilled` her into her seat as I unleashed years of pent up anguish and recently acquired knowledge. At the end, she was white like a sheet and I could see that her own belief system had been if not crushed, severely damaged. She knew nothing of Betty Friedan, nor Gloria Steinberg, nor even Margaret Sanger. She knew not where her instilled ideology originated, that it was via the CIA and Communist agitative ideologues, bought and payed for by moneyed elites such as the Rockefeller’s and Rothschilds, and that beyond them, something far more sinister lurked.
I told her about the `girl` soldiers in Iraq, with their dislocated joints and other strains caused by doing a job women were never intended to do. About Women Police Sergeants crying on the streets of London whilst being tossed around like a rag dolls, until a male colleague arrives to `save` her. Of Women Fire fighters being unable to carry a body from a burning building due to inadequate strength, employed only on the basis of their gender.
I’m not sure whether what I said stuck, or whether the inevitable reinforcing of dogma through her University `professors` will have erased my tirade from her memory. I somehow doubt that as I am not easily dismissed. My challenge to speak to her class, or debate with her teachers in open forum was was not taken up.
So maybe I am only a discriminating misogynist. A female counselor for the Police during an annual evaluation once said to me that I suffered from a `Sir Galahad` complex and that I was only able to relate to attractive women. I told her that it was more likely a `Sir Lancelot` complex as the former was the perfect Knight, and that I was most certainly not that.
As I mentioned earlier, this month, I attain the half century mark of life on Planet Earth. In my whole life, I have `known` only four women, two of which have been wives. I have never had a casual sexual experience, nor a `one night` stand, never been unfaithful, and have loved each of those four women with all that I am, none more so than my dearest wife of these past eight years, who I pray I will share the remainder of my days with.
I hope that my ramblings have not been too disjointed, I just felt the need to tell you something of the man you have often corresponded with, but never met, and who admires and regards you and thinks of you as a friend. I am honored to know you and praise your courage and conviction, for it is you above all the others who has dared to lock horns with the beast of all beasts, that most destructive and vicious of weapons used to demoralize and deconstruct all that is is good and true in humanity.
Philip “Whatever became of Sweet Guinevere” ?
top
solmacker 7 Mar 2008
We must begin at an important distinction on a historical level. The term “Feminism” has been applied in various ways to various time periods and ideologies. Most simplistically, though, we can categorize feminism into two forms. The most historic form sought to restore the equal value of men and women within a culture. Movements that fall under this definition of feminism (either consciously or unconsciously) argued for equal treatment, rights, and appreciation in the public square. Women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who fought for the women’s right to vote in American, were feminists of this fashion.
The second form of Feminism is sometimes called the “second-wave,” while I prefer Radical Feminism. This form emerged in the 1960’s and sought (quite consciously) to establish functional equality between men and women. According to its proponents, women not only can do everything that men can do, but they should do everything men can do. This sort of Feminism has been incredibly damaging to the culture and its members.
Many people agree that this “second-wave” of Feminism was launched by Betty Friedan in 1963 through her book, The Feminine Mystique. In her book, Friedan argued that the traditional notion of women finding value and purpose in being a wife and raising kids was incorrect. Rather, women should find their identity in education and career. In essence she argued that in order to fully develop as human beings, women need to go back to school and back to work. Without doing this women can never find their identity and thus cannot become fully human.
This should sound familiar to those of you who’ve studied psychology. Friedan was a student of Erik Erikson, who was a student of Abraham Maslow, who was a student of Sigmund Freud. (How’s that for a genealogy of bad ideas?) Maslow’s most famous for his hierarchy of needs. His hierarchy depends on the fulfillment of lower level needs before higher level needs can be met. At the lowest level are our physical needs, like food, water, air, etc. The next level is safety, which is sometimes sought above physical needs. The third level is love and belonging. This includes both psychological/emotional needs as well as physical needs. After these needs are met, one seeks the fourth level- value from other people, or esteem. Finally, we pursue self-actualization. This is the driving force of life. We grow as individuals as we realize and utilize our abilities.
Erik Erikson continued Maslow’s work in his 8 stages of human development. Each of the 8 periods in a person’s life deals with different needs and will impact the person’s life depending on if and how those needs are met. For instance, at Stage 5 the adolescent (age 12-18) is faced with questions of identity. If the person resolves their conflict identities they will lead mostly successful lives. However, if they fail they will be indecisive and confused about their role in life (like in vocation, sexual orientation, relationships, etc.)
There are at least two basic ideas that permeate all of these thinkers. 1) Human beings evolved. The levels of needs and stages of development are applications of naturalistic theory to the evolution of the self. 2) Human beings are basically good. In order for human beings to realize their full potential they must have the capacity for goodness. It is only those whose environments impact them adversely who have great difficulty in self-actualization.
Betty Friedan’s work took these theories and applied them to the plight of the woman. Self-actualization cannot be met, according to Friedan, through motherhood or family. It can only be accomplished through pursuing education and career. If a woman does not pursue these things she remains in some sense sub-human. These ideas became the foundation of contemporary feminism (radical feminism), and they can be found throughout the writings of feminists such as Naomi Wolf and Marilyn French*.
After feminism achieves its goal of equality with men, then what? There is no other place to go but inward. That is, the ideology will continually become more self-centered and aimed at pursuing selfish desires (if that’s actually possible). This fits right in with the contemporary definition of freedom. At the founding of this nation it meant the ability to do what one ought to do. Now freedom is the ability to do whatever one wants to do. Here we find that radical feminism finds itself quite welcome among its postmodern neighbors moral relativism, pluralism, and socialism.
Radical Feminism looks to revise our understanding of the past, present, and future. For most feminists, women are actually better than men. They believe they must reach into history and bring out the female stories that were overlooked or overlook by men. While it’s important that we can access the history of humanity, including men and women, feminist ideology has stolen academics to the point that most courses are centered on feminist thought. One only needs to look at the credentials of the English faculty at Cornell University for evidence of this. Similarly most Christian institutions that have “Women’s Ministry” departments do not have a “Men’s Ministry” counterpart. This precisely how the Feminists like it, as it is in their minds what is due to them for a history of male oppression.
This is only meant to be an overview of Feminist thought and history. Next week I’ll look at the problems it’s caused.
*Footnote: Some will note that I have not said anything about third- or fourth-wave Feminism. There is scholarly debate about that terminology, and I side with those who believe that contemporary Feminism is ideologically identical to second-wave Feminism.
5. Self-actualization Needs: the need to fulfill one’s unique potential
4. Esteem needs: prestige, success
3. Love needs: affection, friendship, love
2. Safety needs: to feel secure, safe, and out of danger
1. Physiological needs: to satisfy hunger, thirst, and sex drives
(Abraham H. Maslow, Personality and Motivation. New York: Harper, 1954.)
top
menarebetterthanwomen.com
March 2008
There’s
only one way for a woman to get ahead in this world, and that’s by
fucking.
The sooner a woman realizes that, the sooner she can begin the lifelong process of self-loathing and delusion that is known as womanhood. But at least she can do it in Versace as an international pop idol or famous lady-author.
When a woman opens her legs, she opens the door to a future of success.
Let’s see an example of this and talk about my new favorite hooker: Eliot Spitzer’s very own Ashley Alexandra Dupre. Who is also my very own Honorary Man of the Month!
Once upon a time — before a massive political scandal, the destruction of a political career, and an outing as a whore so overpriced she made every all-inclusive resort in the world look like a bargain — Ashley Alexandra Dupre had a MySpace page and an aspiring music career.
“I am all about my music and my music is all about me. It flows from what I’ve been through, what I’ve seen and how I feel.” -Dupre’s MySpace page
In line with her musical philosophy, Miss Dupre’s music resembles something you would listen to while spreading $1 bills across the stomach of a Chinese stripper in a pantomime of an ejaculation. That’s the kind of money shot that any girl will appreciate.
Today, Miss Dupre’s strip house single is being played on every radio station across the United States. We men care about our hookers and are interested in their artistic pursuits. There’s nothing strange about that. That’s why the line, “I’m paying my way through art school/med school” always works. As eternal optimists, men believe in women. Even the dumber ones who fuck for two hundred dollars a night instead of a mortgage.
But she didn’t fuck for two hundred a night. She fucked for four thousand! That’s a hell of a living for a horse-faced 22 year old whose only skills are the ones God gave her.
As a man, success comes in great waves. We can see waves of success coming from a mile away and we have ample time to prepare and anticipate with our man brains. We have time to catch the wave and ride it to riches on our indestructible penises. Fuck that’s manly!
To a woman, success comes like getting punched in the vagina in the dark. They have no idea when it’s coming, but one thing’s for sure, if their legs are closed nothing is going to happen.
When opportunity knocks, a woman doesn’t answer the door, she opens her legs.
Abraham Lincoln failed at running for a bunch of political positions before he won the presidency. I don’t remember what they were, but I remember reading them on someone’s refrigerator and I remember being not only impressed by it, but impressed that said person had printed it out on some shitty Xerox paper. The point is, success is a numbers game. When women loosen the drawstring on their vagina, they spin the Wheel of Fortune. Sometimes they win small, like a free house in Des Moines and a free car and two little kids to smother to death. But other times, they win international stardom.
You have to be in it to win it. For women, “it” means “bed”.
Imagine if Divine Brown had had an aspiring music career before blowing Hugh Grant. She might have been in Austin Powers 3 instead of Beyonce. Who can say? I don’t know for a fact, but I would bet $50 on it. Miss Ashley Dupre is now going to have a future bright with success and shiny things and will probably not ever have to fuck for money again. Except that she will because she’s a woman and prostitution is embedded in her whore-DNA.
Just like Jessica Hawn, Kim Kardashian, and the slew of published escort and prostitute bloggers; these hookers should be celebrated. They’re removing the middle man of flowers, drinks, conversation, and pretending to listen to bullshit about golden retrievers for half an hour. Removing the middle man is manly!
I support this whore. You should too.
See also
Feminism revived or forgotten
The Pope rules out feminist theology
The feminisation of education
Selling sex
Feminism Stabs itself in the Back
Today's perfect wife: a good cook who argues
Bluestockings
Indoctrination
What modern women want: a beta male
Why men like to marry younger women
Readers please email comments
to: editorial AT
martinfrost.ws including full name