Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: The Anglobitch Thesis

12 views
Skip to first unread message

martin

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 7:31:08 PM9/30/09
to
On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, "MCP" <gf010w5...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=21df958a3f5e707...
>
>                   RookhKshatriya
>
>       What is the Anglobitch Thesis?
>
>       Simple: the Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that
> arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an
> ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its
> self-proclaimed role as 'liberator' of women. This derives from a distinct
> component in Anglo-Saxon culture, namely Puritanism. This puritanical
> undercurrent gives women an intrinsic sense of entitlement and privilege as
> 'owners' of sex in a cultural context where sex is a scarce commodity (we
> call this sense of entitlement 'The Pedestal Syndrome'). Because of this,
> the advance of women's 'rights' across the Anglosphere has not been
> accompanied by a corresponding reduction of their traditional privileges -
> indeed, those privileges have only broadened in scope and impact, leaving
> men only with obligations and women aglow with rights plus privileges. This
> has been accompanied by an obsessive vilification of men in the
> Anglo-American media, and across the Anglosphere generally.
>
>       The Anglobitch Thesis differs from conventional men's studies, in that
> it considers the present debased condition of Anglo-American men not to be
> the product of recent agendas in politics and culture, but the ultimate
> expression of a centuries-old anti-male animus hardwired in traditional
> Anglo-Saxon culture. Our contention is that the present-day Anglosphere is
> in fact a matriarchy, in all but name. However, in the modern context the
> fall-out from Anglo-American matriarchy has precipitated serious social
> crises that threaten not just the Anglosphere, but the whole of the West.
> Anglo-American feminism is in a transitory state where women retain the best
> of all conditions, men the worst of all conditions, and which women will not
> change without external compunction as the whole thing favors them too much,
> right now.
>
>       From the late Sixties, Anglo-American women were given the right to
> study, work and improve themselves. The problems began when they were
> allowed to retain the privileges they enjoyed before emancipation. This has
> led to absurd double standards like women wanting access to male
> organizations/occupations like military academies or the fire service, while
> continuing to exclude men from their own at every opportunity. Consider also
> divorce, which retains an archaic view of the male as an evil ogre, while
> assuming the female to be a penniless damsel. Sooner or later women are
> going to have to choose either rights or privileges before male alienation
> from contemporary arrangements renders western societies irredeemably
> dysfunctional (a process already well-advanced).
>
>       What is to be done? I suppose it relates to how we want to take
> practical action against the issues that oppress us. There are two core
> approaches to attacking any problem - the velvet glove or the iron fist. The
> glove may be good for manipulating our opponents as we wish, but ultimately
> it cannot really bite deep into the problem with sufficient force. The iron
> fist can seem ridiculous if one has a meagre power base (as we do), and the
> titanic energies it engages can soon dissipate if not released with decisive
> intent. The best strategy is a combination of glove and fist, using both as
> appropriate until an opportunity arises for a decisive strike.
>
>       That said, withdrawing consent from the existing order is a potent
> technique of passive resistance. Men should withdraw their consent from
> whatever Western society they live in, refusing to marry, have children, pay
> tax or even reside there until the issue of female privileges is forcefully
> addressed. This is especially potent when functioning members of the middle
> class adopt it en masse. Cut the supply of tacit goodwill, guys. But then,
> considering the Marriage Strike, this is already happening.

Fine article.

tt

tooly

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 9:01:11 PM9/30/09
to
> tt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is a general message here, that the 'white male' has been
reduced. The question we should ask is 'why'? Prvailing hegemony is
to share power for those traditionally oppressed. But I think there
is something deeper going on, a 'social engineering' designed to
nullify a natural defense of that western culture [ergo, that white
male] for reason of...well...I suppose some sort of takeover? by who
or what?

I have read parts of the new 'cultural marxist manifesto' [the grand
march through the institutions], and it is scary to see what has taken
place to be an almost exact replica to what that strategy outlined.
Destroy Christianity, infiltrate media, ecucation, and news [any mass
opinion forming institution], create dischord between gender, races,
and political factions, and forever Criticize the traditional
framework to eventually psychologically 'influence' people to
gradually become rabbles of dissenters.

I've become convinced that much of what has gone down over these last
5 or more decades, starting with the social unrest of the sixties that
led to new leftist social policies under the general 'civil rights
movement' [ie feminist, minorities, and other], was at least partly
'engineered' as subtrafuge for more clandistine efforts to bring about
world socialism [eventually over time].

Am I crazy?

With the election of Obama and the financial crisis this last year, we
see a new 'confidence' being observed in socialists everywhere, and a
rising of heads behind their covers to 'finally, at long last', to
come forward to make the last play upon the mindsets of a failing
capitalist society for 'change' [to socialism of course].

Anyway, I believe an important part of the overall effort was the
alienation of the white woman from the white man, and the resultant
psychological demoralization it caused. Feminists, for this, have
been useful idiots for a greater scurge 'beneath' the covers of what
has been going on. The real object was not the greater freedom,
rights, or privileges of women, but only to neutralize that white male
that would otherwise be vitalized to resist the changes that were to
coming to 'HIS' civilization. The object has been marxist socialism
all along.

Or am I crazy? I mean, what are we seeing today; even on this NG?
For the first time ever, socialism being argued openly to a 'reformed'
public mind that has been slowly 'molded' to put it's guard down. I
mean, we are even seeing communists in the White House for cripes
sake. Tides, Appollo, ACORN, Southern Poverty Law Center, AClU...and
there are many more organizations and tentacles to this octupus like
grasp of our society now in the vise grip of socialism.

Can we resist, fight back, and prevail?

Not without the support of our women. They make up 50% of the voting
public, and it has been their vote that has cemented socialism's slow
march through our congress now [starting back with Clinton; and close
to 70% of working women always voting democrat and liberal].

Immortalist

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 11:13:28 PM9/30/09
to
On Sep 30, 4:31 pm, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, "MCP" <gf010w5...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=21df958a3f5e707...
>
> >                   RookhKshatriya
>
> >       What is the Anglobitch Thesis?
>
> >       Simple: the Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that
> > arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an
> > ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its
> > self-proclaimed role as 'liberator' of women. This derives from a distinct
> > component in Anglo-Saxon culture, namely Puritanism.

Is there an Asianbitch or Anglobastard thesis? It seems that people
are being blamed for entering some of their personal experience with
their arguments.

Circumstantial ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to
attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making
it simply out of self interest and or circumstances. In some cases,
this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's
circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation,
ethnic background, etc.) instead of and in place of the truth or
falsity of the claim being made.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests
and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives
to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It
is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political
affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that
1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

...antimale "gender feminists" willfully distort information on
women's status to keep their lock on government and foundation money.
Their dark agenda includes silencing sensible "equity feminists," who
celebrate women's achievements and who seek, in partnership with men,
to make the few minor adjustments needed for perfect equity. Her chief
disagreement with "gender feminists" concerns their belief that gender
bias is so ingrained that we are frequently unaware of its influence.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-Feminism-Women-Betrayed/dp/0684801566

The sad fact, however, is that men—as individuals, as a group, as a
gender—are being left behind. Around the table, the suddenly pensive
diners traded stories about men they knew who had lost their jobs or
their marriages, or both, and were now basically idle, taking up golf
or the piano, writing that novel, doing nothing. The women spoke about
brothers, sons, nephews, and husbands. "It's weird how everyone has a
story like this," remarked a female executive from a Fortune 100
company. "There's definitely something going on."

What's going on is a seismic shift in the current status and future of
American men that reaches from before the moment of conception until
after their death. No one can say exactly when it began, but the
change was well under way by the time noted genetics expert Jenny
Graves was asked by a reporter from the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation if men were heading for extinction.

"The future of the Y chromosome is certainly at risk," said Graves, a
professor of comparative genomics at the Australian National
University. "We've been looking at the Y chromosome in lots of
different animals, so we were able to tell where it came from and
where it's going . . . . The Y chromosome of course is what makes men
men—if you've got a Y you're male. But the Y chromosome's actually
derived from the X. It's just a pale shadow of its once glorious past
as an X chromosome."

Some 300,000 years ago, when the Y chromosome was equal in length to
the X chromosome, it had 1,400 genes on it. Today the Y contains a
paltry 45.

The shrinking Y chrome has prompted Graves and other scientists to
grimly suggest that the Y chromosome—the genetic code for the male
gender—may be gone altogether in around 10 million years. Never mind
that in 2003 a forty-person team of scientists led by David Page of
the Whitehead Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
reported that the Y chromosome actually has an elaborate backup system
with as many as seventy-eight genes, and that it seems to have the
ability to morph and grow and quite possibly survive. For researchers
like Jenny Graves the demise of the male gene apparently can't come
soon enough. When asked to pinpoint how long it would take the Y
chromosome to disappear, she replied: "Now, of course, it could be
tomorrow. In fact, there could be . . . right now there could be a
tribe of humans somewhere that have already lost their Y."

Are Y guys about to become X men? Males may indeed be genetically
hardwired to fail, but not for the reason that Professor Graves
suggests.

The truth is that men may be doomed, not because of their genes, but
because of their brains. Or, to be more precise, the innate biology of
males may be increasingly at odds with the modern world that they
inhabit. In fact, the very qualities that have helped men succeed for
so many years may actually be a contributing factor to their current
difficulties.

A growing body of scientific evidence attests that men are chemically
predestined to share not only certain -gender-- specific physical
traits but also a host of social, emotional, and behavioral attributes
that are so different from those of women as to render them almost a
separate species.

The classic male virtues—physical strength, aggression, self-
sufficiency, resolve—that were so useful in agrarian and industrial
societies, are increasingly out of date in a postmodern world where
networking, cooperation, and communication are key. In other words,
are men—or at least the traditional ideal of masculinity that has till
now defined the American male—in danger of becoming obsolete? Are men
at the beginning of a long, downhill slide to oblivion? And is it
possible that the slippery slope begins to tilt against them even
before they are born, and continues to skew the arc of their entire
lives, through an undereducated childhood, an underemployed adulthood,
and on to an unnecessarily premature death? As the ground beneath them
rumbles and shifts, are men changing too little or too much? And how
did they get into this mess in the first place?


Continues...
https://www.ecampus.com/bk_detail.asp?isbn=9780061353147

-------------------------------------

Cavepeople
Caveman-hunters
Cavewoman-gatherers
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/S.L.Hurley/papers/fep.pdf

BOfL

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 11:55:56 PM9/30/09
to
> to 70% of working women always voting democrat and liberal].- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The last millenium was dominated by '1' energy, from 1000 onwards. We
enetered this millenium which is dominated by '2'.

'1' being masculine, '2' being feminine.It started to change in the
early 1900's with the suffrigette movement, preparing for the last
century of that cetury, intensifying in the sixties.

The first new 'world' leaders, Obama, and Biden are both '2'
energies.Notice I said feminine not female. Thats one aspect of
confusion. Gays also started to open up publicly up to their 'energy'
in the latter part of last century also

No surprises for those that understand the 'music', but accusations of
madness from those that dont, inspite of very clear and precise
explaination befor and confirmation after.

Different movements mean little until the whole symphony is
understood.

If you believe that is nonsense, then you are much smarter than
Pythagoras, and therefor you will make your mark in history, as he
did.

BOfL

tg

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 8:41:01 AM10/1/09
to
On Sep 30, 7:31 pm, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, "MCP" <gf010w5...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=21df958a3f5e707...
>
> >                   RookhKshatriya
>
> >       What is the Anglobitch Thesis?
>
> >       Simple: the Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that
> > arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an
> > ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its
> > self-proclaimed role as 'liberator' of women. This derives from a distinct
> > component in Anglo-Saxon culture, namely Puritanism. This puritanical
> > undercurrent gives women an intrinsic sense of entitlement and privilege as
> > 'owners' of sex in a cultural context where sex is a scarce commodity (we
> > call this sense of entitlement 'The Pedestal Syndrome'). Because of this,
> > the advance of women's 'rights' across the Anglosphere has not been
> > accompanied by a corresponding reduction of their traditional privileges -
> > indeed, those privileges have only broadened in scope and impact, leaving
> > men only with obligations and women aglow with rights plus privileges. This
> > has been accompanied by an obsessive vilification of men

But that's just silly. Pale Males, perhaps, but Well-Endowed Swarthy
Males are certainly in high demand. It is simply a matter of
understanding the value of Hybrid Vigor; females are always going to
choose based on the quality of offspring they will produce. (And of
course their own satisfaction.)

> in the
> > Anglo-American media, and across the Anglosphere generally.
>
> >       The Anglobitch Thesis differs from conventional men's studies, in that
> > it considers the present debased condition of Anglo-American men not to be
> > the product of recent agendas in politics and culture, but the ultimate
> > expression of a centuries-old anti-male animus hardwired in traditional
> > Anglo-Saxon culture. Our contention is that the present-day Anglosphere is
> > in fact a matriarchy, in all but name. However, in the modern context the
> > fall-out from Anglo-American matriarchy has precipitated serious social
> > crises

What social crises?

>that threaten

Threaten what? This sounds like some silly circular argument---things
are changing, so things are changing.

Maybe this is all just a spoof from The Onion?

-tg

Flammarion

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 10:45:00 AM10/1/09
to
On 1 Oct, 02:01, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 7:31 pm, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am I crazy?

Yes.

tooly

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 1:28:22 PM10/1/09
to

Ha...ok; may as well go all the way nuts.

My enemies surround me. My culture slowly being devoured, taken
over. But these enemies don't wear nice bright insignias or fresh
uniform colors and march in unision like a proper invading army, that
all may see. They are many faceted, each carrying a banner of thier
own division, their own platoon, their own order of ninja-like
political action.

Over there marches proud womanhood, born of an invective of growling
teeth bent upon my destruction. Over here, a mass of browns from the
south, rife with the envy of soft lives they see as a basic unfairness
to life itself, not of their doing, therefore, surely of the evil
white man of the sterling cities to the north. In the front, the
African urbanite, seething with centuries of oppression and tumultuous
exploitation starting with his own ruling kings that sold him in the
night. And then in jackboot lock step come the generals and admirals
of the new Harvard classrooms, selling the idea of conhesion to the
enlisted, that war should be made upon the heads of the evil white
man, the slaver of men, the torcher of natives, and the raper of the
land itself. "Tear down his citidels and cathedrals, vanquish his
corporations and take his woman, his virtue, and his championed way of
life", comes the marching orders. Take from that which is given, a
new holy day upon the brow of humankind.

Hate. It rises like an obelisk in the morning sky, pointing to a 'new
day' of hope and prosperity to the downtrodden, the miserable and
unhappy, to the expunged expatriat only looking to 'belong' once
again...to 'something'; anything.

We've seen this before haven't we? Where hatred becomes so focused
behind magnification of the noonday sun, pointing upon a single object
of mythological proportion. "Turn, turn, turn", the call for change
goes out, yet no one questions exactly what 'change' is being extolled
as the new virtue of the day.

Until now. With a new leader of another color, we find the tinkers of
a new world order finally coming to light...

Socialism. That's all it was all along; just an old story that had
gone underground to repackage it's ideal under new characterizations;
to play upon the emotions of those of lesser cause, of undervalued
struggle, of harm's way. The rabble has been enraged now, and the
countryside rises up with their pitchforks and shovels and they storm
God's castle. The beast whetted of a new hunger for blood as found in
the White Man, and the crucifix never laid to rest, no matter how we
try.

John Stafford

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 1:54:44 PM10/1/09
to
In article
<248f3b54-9bc6-400d...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Oct 1, 10:45�am, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 1 Oct, 02:01, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 30, 7:31 pm, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Am I crazy?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Ha...ok; may as well go all the way nuts.
>

> My enemies surround me. My culture slowly being devoured,[...]

You never owned that culture. You rented it.

SeaWoe

unread,
Oct 1, 2009, 7:00:58 PM10/1/09
to
On Oct 1, 10:54 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.net> wrote:
> In article
> <248f3b54-9bc6-400d-bccb-2501f7f1c...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

I sort of skipped through a lot of this.
I think what is said is that Men should be in charge, no matter how
unsuitable for the position

Geopelia

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 8:23:43 AM10/4/09
to
Men are good at some things, women are good
at others.
I was born in 1929, years before anyone started Women's Lib, and
I never found any problem with doing male type jobs and living as I liked. I
didn't marry until I was 34, ancient for those days when most girls married
in their late teens or early twenties.

I found some of this Women's Lib stuff ridiculous! Now we are left with
mothers expected to put the kids in expensive day care and go out to work,
whether they want careers or not.

It has liberated men from needing to support the family on their own, and
given women a double burden.
Very clever, Women's Libbers!

I always saw men as brothers, not potential mates or deadly foes, and I
think they recognized
that and weren't on their guard with me.

Let's hope the kids coming along get back to liking each other again.

tooly

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 8:37:10 AM10/4/09
to

Good post. I remember when men and women complimented one another and
were not in this locked staghorn competitive embrace. Love existed
between the sexes.

I remember when emphasis started to seperate the genders into various
struggles, how so odd and 'unnatural' it seemed...forced. But people
bought into it I suppose.

My consciousness has been raised as of late however, and I'm now
considering that it may have been all by 'subvertive design' as part
of a 'cultural marxist manifesto' which outlines such things in a
supposed 'Grand march through the institutions'. Wherever possible,
it was theorized that to make people open to socialism, all harmony,
stability, and contentness must be challenged [by agitators] to bring
about dischord, competition, and unhappiness. This was outlined
specifically toward gender and race struggle.

The changes I've seen over my lifetime have NOT been natural.

Geopelia

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 5:19:58 PM10/4/09
to

"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:57769aa0-2d68-485b...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

--------------------------

Russian Communism collapsed, and perhaps socialism will go the same way.
Fortunately I had left Britain before the more harebrained postwar socialism
started.

Women's Lib wasn't all bad in New Zealand though.
The two big reforms of equal pay and safe legal abortion were long overdue.


purple

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 6:16:02 PM10/4/09
to
Geopelia wrote:

> Russian Communism collapsed, and perhaps socialism will go the same way.
> Fortunately I had left Britain before the more harebrained postwar socialism
> started.

It seems to be taking new root in the USA.

> Women's Lib wasn't all bad in New Zealand though.
> The two big reforms of equal pay and safe legal abortion were long overdue.

The fact that Women's Lib backed those measures doesn't
make them solely Women's Lib agendas. These are
fundamental fairness issues that should have been
addresses long before they were.

I do stand against state sponsored safe legal abortions
as a method of birth control.

tooly

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 6:41:18 PM10/4/09
to

You need to visit your local university library and check the sheer
quantity of woman's studies feminist "texts" on the shelves. It is
mind boggling. One would think most of the ciriculum on campus these
days is about new world activism and bringing down the evil Man's
world [in particular, White Man's world]. It feeds sedition in our
youth, rebellious activism based in a new value system rooted in
hatred of everything 'Western Civilization'.

But you're right. The original feminist movement had real issues that
gave them moral ground that justified the movement...'then'.

What MORAL ground (in developed countries) does feminism stand on
these days [except that as invented and a 'power play' molded out of
intellectual constructivism]. Too much is just a re-expression of
"Bobbit" anger by lesbos and hard core sexually rebuked women who
rationalize their feelings of rejection by trying to enlist all women
to 'cut their tail off' [Fox without a tail fable]. "Men are not
something explore loving relations with, to find meaning and worth as
found in familial bonding...nooo...men are only something to 'cut
balls' off from; to emasculate and demean.

Ha...somehow Janeane Garofalo comes to mind as something iconic about
today's feminist. She just looks miserablly unhappy; with a chip on
her shoulder and a scowl on her face, but convincing people around her
that she is 'so so intelligent' [argh, barf]. Ah well...we are all
free to make our own choices of course.

But feminist zeal influences kids and breaks down the bonds family is
constructed upon [leaving us all alienated in the end]. Feminism has
become a real evil in the world. Ah...but the opinion of an evil
'western civ' male.

purple

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 8:47:26 PM10/4/09
to
tooly wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:16 pm, purple <pur...@colorme.com> wrote:

>> I do stand against state sponsored safe legal abortions
>> as a method of birth control.

> You need to visit your local university library and check the sheer
> quantity of woman's studies feminist "texts" on the shelves. It is
> mind boggling. One would think most of the ciriculum on campus these
> days is about new world activism and bringing down the evil Man's
> world [in particular, White Man's world]. It feeds sedition in our
> youth, rebellious activism based in a new value system rooted in
> hatred of everything 'Western Civilization'.


If you look at the history of feminism in usenet newsgroups
like soc.women and soc.men you'll discover that none of the
"feminists" on the net have ever been capable of explaining
what feminism is actually about. Note also that NOW is
officially titled "the National Organization for Women."
That's to the exclusion of any social progress for males.

Unfortunately you can't really introduce anything new on this
topic to a usenet newsgroup that has as rich a history as
we enjoy.

> But you're right. The original feminist movement had real issues that
> gave them moral ground that justified the movement...'then'.


Wage parity and a few other issues remain only partially resolved.


> What MORAL ground (in developed countries) does feminism stand on
> these days [except that as invented and a 'power play' molded out of
> intellectual constructivism]. Too much is just a re-expression of
> "Bobbit" anger by lesbos and hard core sexually rebuked women who
> rationalize their feelings of rejection by trying to enlist all women
> to 'cut their tail off' [Fox without a tail fable]. "Men are not
> something explore loving relations with, to find meaning and worth as
> found in familial bonding...nooo...men are only something to 'cut
> balls' off from; to emasculate and demean.


Different strokes for different folks. Unfortunately you can't
actually define "feminism" any better than self-professed
feminists on usenet have been able to over the decades.


> Ha...somehow Janeane Garofalo comes to mind as something iconic about
> today's feminist. She just looks miserablly unhappy; with a chip on
> her shoulder and a scowl on her face, but convincing people around her
> that she is 'so so intelligent' [argh, barf]. Ah well...we are all
> free to make our own choices of course.


I'm surprised that none of the real feminists makes any comment
about her antics. Women like her do a disservice to the reality
of the social problems.


> But feminist zeal influences kids and breaks down the bonds family is
> constructed upon [leaving us all alienated in the end]. Feminism has
> become a real evil in the world. Ah...but the opinion of an evil
> 'western civ' male.


Again, you can't get a handle on feminism because there are
too many pretenders getting in the way.

Geopelia

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 9:09:22 PM10/4/09
to

"purple" <pur...@colorme.com> wrote in message
news:7isl5bF...@mid.individual.net...

I doubt if anyone would approve of abortion for that. But even with the Pill
contraception can fail.
Abortion is necessary as a back up.

Progress is being made on the "morning after" pill, and pills for very early
abortion, (which often occurs naturally without the woman even being aware
she was pregnant.)

The old method of "a pint of gin and a hot bath" could have appalling
consequences for the unfortunate baby if the method failed to work.


Geopelia

unread,
Oct 4, 2009, 9:25:36 PM10/4/09
to

"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2e80372d-f234-4429...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

------------------------

In my youth, many of the Suffragettes in Britain were still alive. We were
told about their struggle, and that if we failed to vote we were letting
them down. (Here in New Zealand, women were given the vote.)
It still annoys me when women say they are not going to bother voting.

Here we have MMP, where members can get in from a list instead of being
elected by the voters. I disapprove!
(Silly example, but think about it - if some party stuck Hitler or Stalin on
their list they could end up in Parliament, if still alive.)
And the serious main parties have to make coalitions with minor parties,
which gives those far too much power.

BruceS

unread,
Oct 5, 2009, 4:08:09 PM10/5/09
to
On Oct 4, 7:09 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "purple" <pur...@colorme.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7isl5bF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Geopelia wrote:
>
> >> Russian Communism collapsed, and perhaps socialism will go the same way.
> >> Fortunately I had left Britain before the more harebrained postwar
> >> socialism started.
>
> > It seems to be taking new root in the USA.
>
> >> Women's Lib wasn't all bad in New Zealand though.
> >> The two big reforms of equal pay and safe legal abortion were long
> >> overdue.
>
> > The fact that Women's Lib backed those measures doesn't
> > make them solely Women's Lib agendas. These are
> > fundamental fairness issues that should have been
> > addresses long before they were.
>
> > I do stand against state sponsored safe legal abortions
> > as a method of birth control.

purple said just about what I would have said if he hadn't said what
he said.

> I doubt if anyone would approve of abortion for that.

As a matter of fact, some *do* approve of it. There are women who
routinely use abortion as their method of birth control. Fortunately
they are a very small minority, but they're paraded before us by the
Pro Life crowd from time to time. I'm essentially anti-abortion, and
consider abortion a bad choice. It just isn't *my* choice to make, if
I'm not directly involved, and isn't the government's choice to make
either.

> But even with the Pill
> contraception can fail.
> Abortion is necessary as a back up.

Sometimes contraception fails, and sometimes the pregnancy isn't the
fault of the pregnant. That's when abortion, a bad choice, can be the
best choice available. That's why I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice.

> Progress is being made on the "morning after" pill, and pills for very early
> abortion, (which often occurs naturally without the woman even being aware
> she was pregnant.)
>
> The old method of "a pint of gin and a hot bath" could have appalling
> consequences for the unfortunate baby if the method failed to work.

The morning-after pill is useful when used right away (like after a
rape), but doesn't help for things like failed contraception. I'm
afraid we'll always need the abortion option. As for the "old"
method, that's hardly reliable.

Geopelia

unread,
Oct 6, 2009, 6:48:25 AM10/6/09
to

"BruceS" <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:75ba57d6-a6fb-4894...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------
A single girl can choose adoption, if she can afford the time off work etc.
There is help available, and people keen to adopt the baby.
But what is a married woman to do? There would be social disapproval if she
tried to adopt out, and wouldn't the husband's consent be necessary?
It's very sad for married people who want their baby, but just can't afford
it. Yet nobody seems to consider their plight.
Abortion isn't "easy", some people regret it for years.

------------------------------------


> But even with the Pill
> contraception can fail.
> Abortion is necessary as a back up.

Sometimes contraception fails, and sometimes the pregnancy isn't the
fault of the pregnant. That's when abortion, a bad choice, can be the
best choice available. That's why I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice.

> Progress is being made on the "morning after" pill, and pills for very
> early
> abortion, (which often occurs naturally without the woman even being aware
> she was pregnant.)
>
> The old method of "a pint of gin and a hot bath" could have appalling
> consequences for the unfortunate baby if the method failed to work.

The morning-after pill is useful when used right away (like after a
rape), but doesn't help for things like failed contraception. I'm
afraid we'll always need the abortion option. As for the "old"
method, that's hardly reliable.

-----------------
That was what women usually tried first, then all the "old wives' tales"
methods.
There was usually some local woman who would take care of it if home methods
failed.
But then women could die or be damaged for life.
The rich of course could go somewhere for a D and C, or "appendicitis".


Flammarion

unread,
Oct 6, 2009, 8:30:23 AM10/6/09
to
On 1 Oct, 02:01, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> There is a general message here, that the 'white male' has been
> reduced. The question we should ask is 'why'?

There is a general message here, that

to be reduced one has first to be elevated.
The questions we should ask are how the White Male
got to be pre-eminent, and did he deserve it?

purple

unread,
Oct 6, 2009, 9:35:22 AM10/6/09
to

You have your worldview, you have your answer.

Non-alpha's need not apply.

BruceS

unread,
Oct 6, 2009, 9:59:46 AM10/6/09
to
On Oct 6, 4:48 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "BruceS" <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

The last I heard it, the waiting list was for healthy, white babies,
so even single girls may not be able to adopt out their babies. As
for marrieds wanting a baby but not being able to afford it, the
picture's a lot better, at least in the U.S. Those who can't afford
to have children are paid by the government to have child after
child. People who work, and produce, and earn enough to raise
families tend to have few children, while their money is taken by the
government to pay people who never work, never produce, and never
earn, so that they can have many. Note that the payments for welfare
children are far higher than the tax break for the children of
workers, though, so some productive people are caught in the middle,
with no help from the government (because they produce and are
therefore "undesirables" to the socialist programs) but not enough
earnings to support an extra child.

> ------------------------------------
>
> > But even with the Pill
> > contraception can fail.
> > Abortion is necessary as a back up.
>
> Sometimes contraception fails, and sometimes the pregnancy isn't the
> fault of the pregnant.  That's when abortion, a bad choice, can be the
> best choice available.  That's why I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice.
>
> > Progress is being made on the "morning after" pill, and pills for very
> > early
> > abortion, (which often occurs naturally without the woman even being aware
> > she was pregnant.)
>
> > The old method of "a pint of gin and a hot bath" could have appalling
> > consequences for the unfortunate baby if the method failed to work.
>
> The morning-after pill is useful when used right away (like after a
> rape), but doesn't help for things like failed contraception.  I'm
> afraid we'll always need the abortion option.  As for the "old"
> method, that's hardly reliable.
> -----------------
> That was what women usually tried first, then all the "old wives' tales"
> methods.
> There was usually some local woman who would take care of it if home methods
> failed.
>  But then women could die or be damaged for life.
> The rich of course could go somewhere for a D and C, or "appendicitis".

Yes, there have been abortions available for centuries, and mostly
they were unsafe at best. No matter how many laws are made against
abortion, it will continue to happen. If illegal, it will be done by
criminals under unsanitary conditions, and with great risk to the
mother. I say let it be legal, but try to educate women and give them
better options. Oddly, it seems that many of those most vocally
opposed to legal abortion also oppose sex education and freely
available contraception.

Geopelia

unread,
Oct 7, 2009, 7:26:54 AM10/7/09
to

"purple" <pur...@colorme.com> wrote in message
news:7j0vcqF...@mid.individual.net...

Males in charge would have started when early peoples began worshipping gods
instead of
the mother goddess.
Before the cause of pregnancy was known, women were magical creatures
creating life.

The Queen ruled. Sometimes her consort was sacrificed and she took another.
Look at Oedipus. He gained the throne by marrying the Queen (Epicaste, or
Jocasta), unaware that she was his mother.
The obvious age difference would not have mattered.

Later, the natural family would have been one strong male with several
females and their children.

Monogamy would have come later. The man went out to work, while the woman
stayed home with the children.
The breadwinner would naturally have priority in the family.

For centuries, women (and blacks in America) had little or no education.
Europeans were ahead of Africans in technology, when Africa was first
explored.
The African Continent itself may be a disaster, especially with widespread
AIDS and famines, but recently people of African descent have spread out
around
the world like Europeans. (Humans originally came from Africa, anyway.)
We can expect great things in the future, especially with increasing
intermarriage.

Geopelia

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 9:28:56 AM10/8/09
to

"BruceS" <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37173e6d-aeae-41e2...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

----------------------

It takes time for social reforms to be accepted. But people are entitled to
their own religious views, unless they try to foist them on others.
Just give them the choice, and eventually common sense will prevail, though
it may take more than one generation.


tooly

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 1:53:44 PM10/8/09
to
>
> The last I heard it, the waiting list was for healthy, white babies,
> so even single girls may not be able to adopt out their babies.

So...single girls babies not healthy or white? Confused here,
probably not reading it right ha. Actually, not far from the truth
anymore.


 As
> for marrieds wanting a baby but not being able to afford it, the
> picture's a lot better, at least in the U.S.  Those who can't afford
> to have children are paid by the government to have child after
> child.  People who work, and produce, and earn enough to raise
> families tend to have few children, while their money is taken by the
> government to pay people who never work, never produce, and never
> earn, so that they can have many.  Note that the payments for welfare
> children are far higher than the tax break for the children of
> workers, though, so some productive people are caught in the middle,
> with no help from the government (because they produce and are
> therefore "undesirables" to the socialist programs) but not enough
> earnings to support an extra child.

This part reminded me of Shockley's writings [inventor of
transistor]. Since poor people have more babies, and it might be
surmised that relative socio-economic status is a rational guage of
intelligent capacity to rise socio-economically [or not], he argued
that intelligence would be diluted in a downward trend over time.
Observing the 'twitter' age of brightness, I'm not sure he was all
that wrong, ha.

Actually, makes sense to me, but anything touching upon race or
genetic differentiation is verboten in a politically correct world.
Except here on the internet where we can open up both barrells with we
want and not be guarded on what we say. That won't last though;
tyranny already raising it's ugly head [google 'Free Press' and
McChesney].

> it may take more than one generation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

Here's the rub...as we prove that God does not exist, we have no moral
foundation to say what a woman should do with their body...one way or
another. But, also as we sink into a meaningless reality, it becomes
a question of 'who gives a damn'...one way or another. Let's all fuck
our brains out and keep the trashcan handy. That's materialism and
decadence for you. At least the Taliban still believes in something
even it is insanity, ha. I believe a woman has every right to abort
if they want. But you know something...even as I NEED women, and they
remain the only game in town for any man...I really don't like them
all that much anymore; you know...respect them etc. But I'll still do
my cartwheels to perform for my sexual supper...so again, who cares.

I'm just being honest.


Geopelia

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 5:35:31 PM10/9/09
to

"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bb34fbe8-4983-472b...@v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...

>
> The last I heard it, the waiting list was for healthy, white babies,
> so even single girls may not be able to adopt out their babies.

So...single girls babies not healthy or white? Confused here,
probably not reading it right ha. Actually, not far from the truth
anymore.

-------------------------------
What people would prefer and what is available may differ. For some
couples any child however damaged is better than no child at all. And if a
child in need can find loving parents, why not?

But these film stars that adopt African babies for publicity are a sad
sight.

---------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------

Women have always been able to give life. In early times that was an awesome
power.
Now with abortion they can also take life - though at the stage when
abortion is done there isn't a "person" to kill.
One more reason for men to be afraid.

But do today's young women really want men's respect? I wonder.
If a gentleman opens a door for me, and I thank him politely, it's nice for
both of us.
Why would young women resent it?

As my grandmother (born 1880s) used to say, "If a lady is a lady, a
gentleman will be a gentleman".

And today we have the internet to be unladylike anonymously if we want to.
:-)

0 new messages