** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.

** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
This article sums up nicely the total folly that is feminists and Feminist Career Gals.

Ain’t no future for you Femi-Nasties…

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300

“…The fixation with looks in our modern society and the tougher living conditions for women, who are supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too. Which is curious, considering the fact that it was women themselves, encouraged by modern talk show hostesses such as Oprah Winfrey, who talked about “having it all”; it wasn’t the men. Men know that nobody can “have it all,” you have to give up something to get something. Maybe women have discovered that working life wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be? Men do, after all, universally die years before women all over the world….”

Lots of goodness … too long to for posting here.

Check it out!

09-06-2006 12:09 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the feminists€™ “War against Boys†Paved the Way for Islam.
vegasmike
Contributor
vegasmike
I just was about to post a link to it, highly relevant post. Good job.

09-06-2006 12:16 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the feminists€™ “War against Boys†Paved the Way for Islam.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Alarmist, conservative moralizing with no line of reasoning. Give me a break.

Men know that nobody can “have it all,” you have to give up something to get something.

Men have “had it all” … at least middle-class white men. They merely put the child-care off on women and expected a nice meal at the end of the day. Cultural masculinity taught them to have less connections so their well-being was, and is, lower than that of women’s in many ways. Women entering the work-force don’t have that problem as thatnks to feminism and other issues, they are more flexible. Growing pains exist anywhere.

Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable. “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman,” according to Catherine MacKinnon, prominent feminist scholar at the University of Michigan and Yale.

Hahaha! What an idiot. MacKinnon never said that. Its an Urban Legend, do your homework.

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are,” said Marilyn French, author and advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.

Erm, she didn’t say that. It was a misandrist character in a book she wrote. You know, like when people write books with different characters? Another example of framing feminism.

Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the **bleep** Monologues at them?

This guys doesn’t know anything. No bras were ever really burned and the **bleep** Monologues? Is he serious?! Hey, Elvis Prestley girated his hips on TV! Just thought I should warn ya…

According to Italian American feminist Camille Paglia, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts

Camille Paglia is just obnoxious and air-headedly ethno-centric. Some civilizations still live in “grass huts” because it is necessary. Yes, male-headed ones. That is why they were made or weren’t; necessity. If civilization was in female hands, which partly it is, and they took on that role we still would have in the west evolved from “grass huts” because they won’t sustain the weather. Don’t tell her that, though. If she finds out there is something that exists outside her world her head might explode.

09-06-2006 01:37 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the feminists€™ “War against Boys†Paved the Way for Islam.
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Men know that nobody can “have it all,” you have to give up something to get something.

Men have “had it all” … at least middle-class white men.

This is just blatant sexism, and prejudice and possible hatred of men.
Your statement is patently untrue.

Those men also died by the millions during the 20th Century, die 7 years earlier than their ‘poor, oppressed wife’ and worked fulltime for 45 years only to collect 7 years of SSI before they die.

Women worked parttime, little or not at all, and collect 15 years of SSI before they die.

09-06-2006 03:16 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Mamonaku: I’ve read a few of your posts here, and want to compliment you on your style of discussion. I find you clear in your thinking, and very good at expressing it. And, that suggests to me that you are authentic and sincere, qualities that I suspect are lacking in the anti-male posts here. I also suspect that a lot of females are masquerading as males in these forums, and the rhetorical devices that are apparent – every manipulative trick from parody, sarcasm, long stultifying narrative, personalization, and more – make it obvious that they are playing a game which is totally different from those who are speaking clear and plain and from the heart. I guess that you are much younger than I and have made a good choice of marriage partner. When I was younger and looked forward to family and children my time and energy was wasted away by a faithless American girl, the times (mid 60’s and the rise of American feminism), and a multitude of other distractions and barriers with the war and my family which was all female at that time. Now I’m really too old to start over, but with more modest plans and hopes I will be looking to another culture for a satisfying old age. I think you have made a wise choice, and I’ll bet you had to pursue it with some personal conviction. (I had a Chinese girl friend in the mid 1980’s and the American women were not kind – although it wouldn’t have been obvious to less perceptive men; the women knew what was going on under the surface all the time, of course). But, let me get to what I want most to say. I have said elsewhere in this forum that the feminists – or, just American women – are using argument about these issues to drain away the time and energy of men, and in this way to preserve the status quo and prevent men from taking positive action to make something of our lives. The proper counter measure to such political maneuvering might be to disengage from the debate with American women, and to establish a serious dialog among men only. (It should be clear to perceptive men that women have a long tradition, and many well proven tactics, to prevent men from doing exactly that). So, to keep from flying off into tangential issues and irrelevant rants like an old crank, I’ll stop with that thought.

09-06-2006 04:12 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the feminists€™ “War against Boys†Paved the Way for Islam.
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
” Alarmist, conservative moralizing with no line of reasoning. Give me a break.”

DMN,

Hi!

While this article isn’t the most focused of pieces, it does manage to touch on most of the major beefs that Men have with Feminism.

And, as you and I have done for a few days now, we can debate the specifics.

As you know by now, I am willing to go toe to toe with you anytime, to show you the error of your ways.

So if there is something in particular about this post that you want to debate… bring it on!

09-06-2006 04:31 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
“Mamonaku: I’ve read a few of your posts here, and want to compliment you on your style of discussion. I find you clear in your thinking, and very good at expressing it. And, that suggests to me that you are authentic and sincere, qualities that I suspect are lacking in the anti-male posts here…”

Thanks sir!

I’m 29 years old… so while I have opened my eyes to what’s real, I have a long way to go in the quest for knowledge.

But one thing I DO know, Feminism is bad, and this piece is a good brief survey of the damage feminism has caused.

As for discussion amongst Men only… here are your Red Pills.

Join us.

http://tinyurl.com/zo23n

http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/

http://www.angryharry.com/

09-06-2006 04:39 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the feminists€™ “War against Boys†Paved the Way for Islam.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

This is just blatant sexism, and prejudice and possible hatred of men.
Your statement is patently untrue.

This is just reactionary blabber. The quotation marks were qualifying. The blogger characterized “have it all” as a career and children. Yes, men have done that with general direct problems. Mostly middle-class white men because in the mid-century both black men and women would work outside the home.

Those men also died by the millions during the 20th Century, die 7 years earlier than their ‘poor, oppressed wife’ and worked fulltime for 45 years only to collect 7 years of SSI before they die.

I’m not sure what the first part means; every one dies. I can promise you there will be a 100% mortality rate for people born in the 20th Century. Do you not want to be able to work? Of course this has nothing to do with anything the guy said.

While this article isn’t the most focused of pieces, it does manage to touch on most of the major beefs that Men have with Feminism.

Well, I already pointed out that some of his most important “facts” to support his point (…whatever it may be) is incorrect.

09-06-2006 04:44 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the feminists€™ “War against Boys†Paved the Way for Islam.
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
‘While this article isn’t the most focused of pieces, it does manage to touch on most of the major beefs that Men have with Feminism.’

“Well, I already pointed out that some of his most important “facts” to support his point (…whatever it may be) is incorrect.”

Tell me what, in your opinion, is untrue please.

09-06-2006 04:47 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the feminists€™ “War against Boys†Paved the Way for Islam.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“According to Italian American feminist Camille Paglia, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”

When Paglia said that, she was saying what feminists say. That before there was the big bad evil patriarchal culture, there was the matriarchal woman-centered, mother-honoring, fertility-worshipping culture. Which there was.

Paleo-anthropologists agree. This is because those cultures survived in many places around the world up until the era of European contact c1500. And they were still living as matriarchies at a stone age level, which is why they were easily over-run by a patriarchal culture which had evolved for 2500 or more years, inventing things like steel and gunpowder along the way.

I don’t think this brief history of the world is much under dispute (some of the details perhaps) by anyone who doesn’t believe it’s all the fault of our space alien handlers, but I’m sure DMN will find a way.

Paglia is correct. And she’s not even really controversial in what she said.

Anyway, a couple of interesting things come out of this picture. First, feminists have tried to sell us on the notion that what they want in the way of changes in the family is progress and something new when in fact it’s a reverting back to the ways of the stone age. And then when some of us object to such decadence, all of a sudden we’re the Neanderthals. It’s freakin’ bizarre.

Second, the invention of patriarchy was the innovation which made civilization possible. Patriarchy came first, not civilization. Women could have invented civilization anytime during the tens or hundreds of thousands of years of the stone age — our brains have been largely unchanged the last 100,000 years — but they didn’t. They are a constant force trying to take us back to the stone age, which is why it’s up to men to civilize women, not the other way around (a Victorian notion).

When women are “free” and “independent” (i.e., feminists) they live largely in poverty conditions because matriarchies are so short-sighted they invariably don’t know how to make it at anything other than a subsistence level. If you want the benefits of civilization such as wealth and long-term horizons (asian families know their family trees back centuries) you want to live in a patriarchy. But you better hurry, because they’re going by the boards fast because we’ve forgotten who we are and where we’ve come from.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-06-2006 09:31 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
Ironic that DontMarryNoer, one of the most prolific misandrist posters on this forum is denying the existence of misandry.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-06-2006 09:51 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Paleo-anthropologists agree. This is because those cultures survived in many places around the world up until the era of European contact c1500. And they were still living as matriarchies

The civilizations that were overrun were not matriarchies; there weren’t many of them. All civilizations have fallen and the only thing they have had in common was slavery.

As for the rest of your stuff, it is an incoherant mess of things with no backing. If you want a discussion on the history fo the world, send me a PM or something. I’ve got a life.

Ironic that DontMarryNoer, one of the most prolific misandrist posters on this forum is denying the existence of misandry.

Hey, I’m sorry if the writer of that ridiculous reactionary piece can’t get his facts straight. It doesn’t make me misandrist; it just makes him wrong and I called him on it. Sorry.

09-07-2006 11:27 AM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“The civilizations that were overrun were not matriarchies”.

Man, you must be smokin’ some REALLY great sheet!

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-07-2006 12:33 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

There was a well known book – disertation, I think – decades ago titled “The Inevitability of Patriarchy” by Steven Goldberg (or a similar name.) The author’s contention was that there has never been a matriarchal society in the history of the world, and that there must be a serious reason for such a total domination by men. Naturally, the government supported feminist reactionaries attacked the hell out of it, and it was very soon that Ms. magazine published an article claiming a matriarchal society had been discovered somewhere.
The claims of matriarchal cultures – not to be confused with the other current myths about ‘goddess cultures’ – are all constructed from speculative, conjectural feminist blather and newly or re constructed archiological beliefs. While there have been, and perhaps are extant matrilineal societies, there is no true matriarchal culture that has ever been known to exist – which suggests that even if there had ever been one, it didn’t survive long enough or vigorously enough to leave a record.
It is interesting to me that the current belief among bimbo-fems and their academic priestesses, that there existed in some idolized misty past a utopian feminist society, is essentially reactionary and fundamentalist thinking, and appeals to the authoritarian personality in much the same way that NAZI philosophy (sic) appealed to German society when it felt itself unjustly condemned and suppressed by post WWI Europeans. The link that I see between the feminist claims of unity with Marxist ideology, and the obviously authoritarian and right wing personalities of feminists, is the Marxist insistence on violent revolution to overturn the extablished order (appealed to effectively by later Marxist-feminist theoreticians like Engels and Marcuse.) But, as soon as you try to point out to a feminist that modern feminism is a kind of passive-aggressive movement aimed at the hated male sex organs, they seem to start claiming that women are intrinsically non-violent and nurturing – while simultaneously claiming that women are just as capable of violence and physical force as men. The contradictions are endless when ideology is called into the service of neurotic personalities.

09-07-2006 08:54 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

There were archeological suggestions that there were matriarchical societies, but you can’t really gather such information merely from archeology just as paleo-anthropology can’t tell us whether women would have never evolved from grass-huts or whatever the heck.

There was a well known book – disertation, I think – decades ago titled “The Inevitability of Patriarchy” by Steven Goldberg (or a similar name.) The author’s contention was that there has never been a matriarchal society in the history of the world, and that there must be a serious reason for such a total domination by men.

He assumes simply because there was no matriarchy then there is/was only patriarchy. However there is no patriarchy/matriarchy dichotomy. A few examples, egalitarian horticulturers in Africa are not patriarchies … but they aren’t matriarchies. Same with some South American societies miles and miles away from each other. There is a hilltribe in Asia where there are wooden breasts carved-out to symbolize the power of a woman (what? Women carved wood?! Don’t tell Camille Paglia!!); she can have abortions, divorce as she pleases, and there are no restrictions on her sexually … but it isn’t a matriarchy. Patriarchies exist where things are built on inequality. But to say it is in of itself inevitable? Clearly not.

Naturally, the government supported feminist reactionaries attacked the hell out of it,

Oh, yes. We can’t have anybody criticizing something!

It is interesting to me that the current belief among bimbo-fems and their academic priestesses, that there existed in some idolized misty past a utopian feminist society, is essentially reactionary and fundamentalist thinking, and appeals to the authoritarian personality in much the same way that NAZI philosophy (sic) appealed to German society when it felt itself unjustly condemned and suppressed by post WWI Europeans.

“Nazi”? Well, you just lost this argument…

09-08-2006 09:07 AM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

You sure write a lot of words to tell a simple lie. Thank God I love women in cultures where they don’t have too much power – it corrupts, you know. Oh, hell, now I suppose you’ll go on forever about how men have had too much power, and now women are getting more equal, blah blah. Did you ever notice that men would rather get between the sheets than argue, but women would rather argue? Here in the USA I can argue anytime I want, and in other countries I can have sex (almost) any time I want. Big difference. You can stay here and look for someone to argue with. I’m getting property and affairs settled so I can leave. Ha ha.

09-08-2006 02:58 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

One correction here: after the argument, we women do have sex, but not with someone like you. “you are not a human in my eyes, you are just my sex tool and serve me” attitude shows up. And anyone who disagree with you will be entitled as “feminist” or worse. Are we in a coummuinsm contry or what, that you guys have 0 tolerance on different voice? Is this still the US?

When you are obsessed with foreign women, who usually only have one job over there (prostitution), don’t forget to bring condom with you.

09-09-2006 01:55 AM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“The claims of matriarchal cultures – not to be confused with the other current myths about ‘goddess cultures’ – are all constructed from speculative, conjectural feminist blather and newly or re constructed archiological beliefs.”

This is a much older issue than anybody seems to imagine.

In 1851 (yes, before the Civil War) a Sir A. Maine asserted in “Primitive Law” that the patriarchal family was the original unit of society upon which larger social units were built. The same year, a Swiss judge named Bachofen asserted that the original state of man was promiscuity, from which emerged matriarchies, which only later were replaced or converted to patriarchies.

It’s easy to see where Goldberg’s ideas fall. The timing (1977) of his first book certainly gained him instant notoriety and was probably an astute career move then. Whereas he takes the position that patriarchies are robust because they’re rooted in biology, I take the position that they’re fragile because they’re a social creation. It’s matriarchies which are rooted in biology and are therefore robust. We’d differ in our definitions of what a patriarchy even is. When he says males are always at the top of social hierarchies, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. I’d only ask how important those positions really are and who those structures are designed to serve. Many appear to me to be largely ceremonial in nature, or of the sort that could be described as the women letting the men play at being big-shots, since otherwise they’d be causing trouble and disrupting things. I could go on, but won’t.

I know it sounds strange initially but I probably come down basically on the side of the “feminist blather”. Well, not really, because I haven’t read any of it (Gimbutas, Sjoo, Stone, Gadon, etc.) except Paula Gunn Allen. And it’s not because I’m any kind of feminist or buy their whole package as I understand the basic thesis, but because I think the first-contact reports, which were all compiled by Robert Briffault in a five-volume work way back in 1927, show primitive people were all essentially matriarchal, which is why they were still primitive (not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that).

I am of course ignoring the fine distinctions in the words “matriarchal”, “matrilineal”, “matrilocal”, “matrifocal”, for simplicity’s sake. But the very number of such words which are needed to describe all the various nuances in different places suggests a need for elaboration akin to the Eskimo’s need for many words for the various kinds of snow, an elaboration which wouldn’t be needed if there weren’t so many “matriarchies” (or so much snow) around, the generic term I use for class.

Patriarchies exist where things are built on inequality.

Let me guess – you learned that little simpleminded gambit in Feminist Studies class?

Patriarchal = Unequal = Bad :: Matriarchal = Equal = Good

The underlying premise is false.

Matriarchies are built on the biology of mammalian reproduction, where women are far and away superior (see “motherhood mystique”. Males are in an indisputably inferior position, which is why the females are barely able to get a subsistence level of support out of them, even though that is still way more than any other mammalian females get from their males. Some women like it this way, or at least think they would.

The innovation which led to patriarchy was the discovery that by making males socially superior a form of equality between the two sexes was achieved, and this led to benefits for women (and children) in spite of their having appeared superficially to have given something up in the deal. If this wasnt’t the case, women could have defeated patriarchy easily on. But they didn’t, and those who saw it’s advantages accepted it. Not without some chafing. The two systems have always been in a sort of competition.

It’s because of the apples/oranges nature of the balance that patriarchies are fragile and require constant maintenance to keep going, all the more so in rapidly changing times. When the maintenance fails or is destroyed, they revert to the matriarchal fall-back position.

That’s it in a nutshell. If anyone has a better model, let’s hear about it.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-09-2006 12:06 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Let me guess – you learned that little simpleminded gambit in Feminist Studies class?

Never been in a “feminist studies” class.

Patriarchal = Unequal = Bad :: Matriarchal = Equal = Good

Not quite. I don’t know why you’re saying that. A matriarchy would not be built on equality … but there doesn’t appear to have been a Matriarchy at any point in history as we would imagine it based on our experiences now. It comes back to what you were saying about distinguishing Matriarchy from other similar settings.

Any society where a single experience is the default setting is going to be built on inequality. Of course, it may just be a case of, “what do you mean by patriarchy/matriarchy?”. Some take patriarchy merely to mean “men are in the most powerful positions” and matriarchy to mean “women are in the most powerful positions”. I don’t. Also, biology doesn’t exist in its own atmosphere and nor does sociology. That is clearly why we have the !Kung in Africa and the Canela of Brazil VS Conservative Christians who follow the “submit to their husbands” doctrine all existing on the same planet, yet all being human. The idea that there is a dichotomy is false, but it may be the lens through which we view the world.

09-09-2006 05:09 PM

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

I found Goldberg’s book convincing in all but one way: I don’t accept the premise that the non-existence of matriarchal cultures means that they are not possible. Otherwise, his argument is clear and very difficult to argue with. That, I believe, is why Ms magazine chose to construct a newly discovered matriarchal culture than to argue with the resoning in the book. But, for all the flakey attempts to sound intellectual by the reactionary goddess cult bimbos and the would be matriarchs, the simple fact is that Goldberg defined what the terms are, and proved convincingly that there never has been and is not now a matriarchal society anywhere on Earth. Going ballistically off on a tangent and speculating that there really are, but they are invisible to the naked eye, is just too much of a waste of my time. I’d rather talk about why it’s more satisfying to marry a Swedish girl than a grossly obese, angry, emasculating, sexually disfunctional American woman who is likely to rape you financially as a substitute for sexual fulfillment.

09-10-2006 01:23 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.

Re: ** Must Read *. How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam.
Esuohlim
Visitor
Esuohlim

I am new to this discussion, I am a misogynist, and I would propose the “non-serious” solution of simply killing all women. in reverse, if women had done this to men, they would assumably achieve social equality amongst one another. anyhow, my general proposition is this: I do not have any tolerance whatsoever for women, and I feel that i myself being male am useless. a female has far higher status, but what is this status based on? why are females superior? the very word humanity itself is a complete joke, and any idea of civilization is useless. in the end, the men will kill the women, and the men will die. it is that simple.
and on a higher note, I ask any and all board members to point out flaws which you see in my opinion.

09-18-2006 06:28 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: