The Problem With Conservatives...How They Support Feminist Revisionist History
Masculist
Will's, a leading conservative journalist, supportive review on it in
the NYTimes
What Persltein did, that would cause a conservative to support his
book, was make Civil Rights the primary struggle between Left and
Right in the Sixties. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
blacks got all they wanted with the Civil Rights legislation in the
early Sixties and the rest of their act, the rioting and Martin Luther
King, were becoming irrelevant and the Vietnam War became the major
issue, of which King got on board against relatively late.
The rebellion of the Sixties was in fact a rebellion against
feminism. That's obvious in the music of the Sixties, especially
compared to what came after in the feminist controlled music
industry. The posture, looks, attitudes and sexual relationships of
the emerging and powerful "counter culture", which BTW NEVER died out
because it was never consummated politically, made traditionalists mad
as hell. Hippie girls were essentially servants of their brother
hippies and made the bogus "traditionalism" a joke. It was a joke
because it was totally hypocritical with pretending men be the heads
of households when in fact they were the servants of women in everyday
life. In real life it was a joke when fathers went through a divorce
because they lost their kids and had to pay exorbitant alimony and
child support.
Civil Rights mostly benefited women and oppressed men. No wonder
George Will and Perlstein make it their focus for the history of that
time. We live a women's world and if you want to get anywhere you
kiss feminist ass. Both Left and Right do it these days and that is
why we have scumbags ruling us.
Tom
Middle Class Warrior
I beg to differ. The Voting Rights Act that Lyndon Johnson passed was
bare bones and it hurt the Democratic party for nearly 50 years. It led
to the comeback of the GOP in the South and the West. Betty Friedan wrote
the Feminine Mystique that was popular in the 60s. The Hippie Movement
was primarily anti-war and anti-establishment. Fraternities saw a huge
decline on college campuses during this period.
We live in a world of no-fault divorce today and alimony is not common.
Many women have to raise children without child support. Women didn't
even have pay equality until Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law early
in his administration.
You sound like an embittered male chauvinist pig. You only have to look
around in DC, the state houses and the corporate board rooms to see who
really runs things.
America would be a better country if more women held office. There would
be less war and a social system that had more equality. In the early
colonial days women couldn't own property, they couldn't speak in a
public forum in front of men and were considered the inferior sex because
the Bible suggested women were derived from men. Most scientists believe
the opposite. Who else can you explain the men have breasts that serve no
function?
Women could not even vote in the US until the 1920s. You should read a
book on women's history before you post a misinformed opinion about
American women.
--
If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a
liberal at forty you have no brain.
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
I posted a really good proper post to this middle brow warrior, ca
teen hours ago.
It never posted.
Garsh dernit.
I never, nerver post without saving to notepad or such. But this one
time I didn't, I got bushwacked.
....There is a god...
And he's a real cock sucker mother fucker.
Society
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87EWl.31677$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Middle Class Warrior" wrote...
>>In the early colonial days women couldn't own property,
>
> for it.
Whoa there, GA. Never, never accept an airy-fairy unsupported
hand-waving claim from a feminist or a feminist fellow traveller.
The Muddled Class Worm must now explain away
all the property Martha Custes owned back in them
"early colonial days."
--
All excuses for feminism depend on denial of reality
by their swallowers.
the wharf rat
Middle Class Warrior <middle_cla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Who else can you explain the men have breasts that serve no function?
>
Technically I don't have breasts. Just nipples. And they
do so serve a function! Not only are they pleasantly ticklish but
without them I'd have no place to hang the tassles on Halloween!
Society
"Secular Human" <eel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0aac0f41-42e9-4b2b...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >
> > > Middle Class Warrior claimed...
> > >
> > > America would be a better country if more women
> > > held office. There would be less war and a social system
> > > that had more equality.
> >
> > of allowing women to vote in the first place.
> >
> > Obviously, Sis, you've never actually held
> > an important job and seen how women behave
> > in a corporate environment. You'd change your tune
> > real fast about their innate goodness in social settings.
> >
> >>You should read a book on women's history before you
> >>post a misinformed opinion about American women.
> >
> >
> > What do they have in them? Breast monologues?
Heh heh. And if Middle Class Warrior had actually read
a book on the history of women rather than a women's
version of a history book for children, she'd have known
about those utopian promises suffragettes made regarding
women - specifically white, anglo-saxon Protestant women -
getting the vote.
> > --
> > "Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit nos nequiores,
> > mox daturos progenium vitiosiorem" ("Our parents,
> > viler than our grandparents, begot us who are even viler,
> > and we shall bring forth a progeny more degenerate still") -
> > Horace, Odes, III, 6
>
> What a pile of revisionist BS. You are obviously not educated
> to post such BS.
Here's another bit of Latin for you, Secular Human: "Ad hominem."
And some advice:
To think on your feet you need to master the fundamentals.
alpha_ovid
Had _you_ been educated enough to post here, you'd have
recognized Middle Class Warrior's blunders and seen past
Grizzlie Antagonist's gentle sarcasm. But you didn't.
Instead, you let your emotions take over.
> > Men have been running American corporations for years.
Really? "Men" collectively or just a few men. Think hard.
I have about as much in common with the CEO
of a Fortune 500 company as I have with my cat.
It's not logical to say that I, as a man,
run the world based on the fact that total strangers
with similar chromosomes have excellent jobs.
Yet that is exactly what many people believe.
Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Future_
Also, the people who built those American corporations,
especially the people who had the worst, most dangerous,
and lowest paid jobs in those corporations are also men.
So, what's your gripe - that not enough women are dying
on the job compared to men?
> > More women graduate from college and they make
> > higher grades than men.
Yeah, that's why women started Apple (the music or the
computer company, take your pick). And Microsoft.
Oh wait, they were started by men who had dropped out
of college. Sigh. I guess all your whining about the supposed
superiorty of college women's grades proves - at best -
is that a college degree isn't all the degree granting
(translation: selling) institutions crack it up to be.
> > Women are equal to men intellectually and in many
> > cases superior.
The science is not on your side the way you suppose it is.
For instance, ever wonder why IQ tests are sex-normed
(and not to adjust scores for men and boys upward...)?
Face it, Larry Summers was right. Among the candidates
who have the intellectual gifts that qualify them for
professorships at Harvard, women are hugely outnumbered
by men. Add in how challenging the post is and the few
women who might be competitive candidates for those
professorships tend to decline the opportunity.
Over the past 17 years, I have been career coach
to 1,500 middle and upper class women and to
500 middle-to-upper class men. Because of our
relationships' confidentiality, I have learned much
about what women really think on a number of issues.
Most surprising to me, is that at least half of
the women, including many graduates of elite
colleges, either don't want an income-earning job
or will only work part-time in an unusually pleasant
job.
"Men As Beasts of Burden"
by Marty Nemko
_Marty Nemko's Website_
<http://www.martynemko.com/articles/gold-diggers-are-alive-and-well-in-2006_id1222>
I highly recommend Warren Farrell's book, _Why Men Earn More_.
> Physically women have about 50 per cent of the strength
> of a male.
Which just goes to show that women aren't carrying their share
of the load. Literally.
> Men have more social problems than women.
Which just goes to show that when someone has
"social problems" men get punishment while women
get sympathy. Just look around you.
> More men are also incarcerated.
That's another example of the men get punishment while
women get sympathy phenomenon.
> Don't you even know about the Ledbetter law, moron?
Wow. Did your teachers neglected to inform you that
your name-calling does not add to the persuasive force
of your remarks?
The passage of the "Ledbetter law" is yet another example
of how much extra sympathy women get from the Establishment
than do men.
By the way, have you ever wondered why women control 85%
of all consumer spending in each category from staples to
luxury goods? (This statistic is available in different forms
from many sources. I took the one available from the firm
that used the data in marketing studies done for Oprah Winfrey's
media properties.) Just look around you the next time you're
at the mall. What has more selling space, women's or men's
clothing? Jewelry for women or men? Home furnishings
preferred by women or men?
Face it, "economic power" is in the hands of the one who
does the spending, not the laboring. And for every dollar
women spend, men only get to spend 16 cents. Where's the
feminist demands for equality in that department, hmmm???
(Yeah, we adults all know that feminism isn't about
equality, it's only about more goodies for girls and only
those goodies for girls that _leftists_ approve of.)
> [...] Here's some corporate facts:
>
> The P-I's list includes international titans, community banks,
> technology firms and timber companies. Though the businesses
> differed greatly in what they do, they carried a common thread:
> a glass ceiling for women.
This "glass ceiling for women" is a figment of feminist ideology.
Again I refer you to Farrell's book _Why Men Earn More_.
> Among the findings:
> # Women hold 131 of the 716 executive positions (18 percent).
> # Women hold 87 of the 641 board positions (14 percent).
> # There were no top-level women executives at 15 companies.
> # There were no women on the boards of 21 companies.
> http://www.seattlepi.com/specials/glassceiling/292359_glassceiling-main15.html
So what? Did the Seattle P-I bother to show how many women
dropped out of the rat race to become SAH (stay at home) wives?
Or how many executive women support a SAH husband?
Face it, those "findings" just illustrate the sexist blind spots
common to those who swallow the feminist ideology.
For example, women who want to live on an executive-
sized salary can either do the hard, unpleasant work necessary
to earn it, or they can marry a man who will do all the work
to earn it, or they can marry a man who will do some of
the earning work while they do the rest. Men don't have
the same options to get an expensive lifestyle that women do,
despite the passage of nearly five decades since Betty
Friedan published _The Feminine Mystique_ and a whole
lot of feminist consciousness raising among women.
[Rhona Mahony's _Kidding Ourselves : breadwinning,
babies, and bargaining power_] reports on a study
of Stanford MBA grads of c1980. They're [sic] average
income fifteen years later is some $130k. Are _they_
marrying unemployed artists, poets, and musicians --
i.e., marrying down, like men have done for millennia?
No. The average income of their husbands is $180k.
(This just goes to show that women only earn $0.72
for every dollar a man earns...) Well, duh, women want
to marry up (hypergamy), or these days at least not marry
down. That's grounds for divorce, or at least constant
nagging. This is not men's fault, it's women's choice,
and women benefit from it. A woman who's working
to support a man will be told by everyone, family and
friends especially, that she's just being _used_.
Of course the other way around is normal and expected,
because men are for using, being as conditioned to duty
as they are.
from "Laundromats" by The Martian Bachelor Scientist
published in _The Martian Bachelor Scientist Pages_
(emphasis in original)
<http://web.archive.org/web/20051106080118/www.martianbachelor.com/Science/Laundromats.html>
> You seem to have some real issues with women.
> See a doctor before it is too late.
Ha ha. Another feminist ideologue raises the white flag and
disses women in order to cover her running away! The
"real issues" Grizzlie Antagonist put before you, Secular
Human, are the falsehoods feminists use. If you insist on
calling women liars because of that, well, then you've
illustrated how misogynistic feminists like you really are.
--
[T]here is a reason why "playing the victim"
became an actual catch phrase and
"playing the perpetrator" did not [...]
[B]eing a victim has clear benefits
that can be exploited and has a certain level
of power associated with it. Victim power
is what makes patriarchy-feminism
an extremely feminine movement that plays on
traditional (and negative) feminine masquerades,
such as helplessness, complaining, materialism,
and lack of responsibility.
from "Double Standards are Double Jeopardy!"
in _Musings on Masculism_ by Darrin Albert
<http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.77>
Day Brown
thing, as women have moved up the corporate ladder, they left the usual
socialist propaganda behind, which the ranters here have not picked up
on. Course, a lotta women dont know what has been going on either.
There is a general misunderstanding of the talents. Mother nature spread
the bell curve out for men more because they've been the ones moving out
on the fringes of culture and technology. Course, they more often fall
over the edge, so we see vastly more men in the insane asylums. That's
the other side of genius.
Mother Nature clipped the ends of the bell curve for women to ensure
enuf competence to properly nurture kids, and this is good enuf for most
employment situations and academic pursuits. Just because a few men
surpass all women does not negate the fact that most women are more
competent than the average couch spud.
Men are more often instinctive hunters, women gatherers. So its women in
the malls gathering the routine items, while its the men searching thru
obscure resource sets for something spectacular.
The young women I know do not hope to marry up. They do not hope to
marry at all. I spend much more time at my age, nearly 70, with young
women than I ever imagined because all the young men know how to do is
play fantasy hunting video games. That's part of the reason young women
now make more money than young men.
Whether they want to be responsible or not, its the jobs of the young
men that have been outsourced, while the nursing job the young women
have is still here cause you cant move the hospital to Mexico. So, no
matter what you think of sexual equality or superiority, the economic
reality has made old farts like me more interesting to young women.
They are less interested in a high stress high income job cause they
dont need to support a trophy wife at home and a mistress downtown. They
dont need luxury status symbols to get laid, and they never have to pay
for it. They dont even spend money on porn.
All this has a lot to do with where we are headed whether we like it or
not. I'm commonly criticized as if its my policy, when I'm just a
messenger, and guys dont like the message. Which is another advantage
evolution drove women to acquire.
for it was they who were stolen or traded and found themselves living in
a strange culture that they had to adapt to. The advantages of physical
strength no longer matter. The brave heart, strong right arm, sword in
hand... no longer cuts it. Smith & Wesson guarantee equal rights for
smart women. They didnt ask for more powerful personal weapons, men did.
but since they are developed, the better fine muscle control in the
hands of women makes them more effective.
Might make right, always has, always will, and now, the way weapons have
developed, its the women who have that, as well as the cunts to motivate
some men to cooperate with their agendas. There are no safe nukes or WMD
or other weapons, but there are safe sex methods women can use. And it
aint only condoms; far better is the power to track infection, STD or
any other kind. Which is part of health services... in the hands of women.
Masculist
The issue isn't whether women compete with men in the work force on
equal footing. They had that well before Civil Rights. The issue is
their enormous political and social power that gives them preference
in getting jobs and then later promotions. The dynamics within the
work force with women using marxist rhetorical methods against men who
are rhetorically chalenged by nature combined with the hammer of
feminist sisterhood power and the sex control to get some men on their
side, is enough to make emasculated slaves of most men. These
dynamics are ignored or suppressed due to feminist control in the
academy.
The problem is no equivalent social and political power to balance
that of women. Until there is men will continue to slip into a modern
version of slavery. Eventually the fascism this produces will make it
impossible to fight back. Witness hate crime and hate speech
legislation. Any opposition will be considered "hate" like any
opposition to racial politics is considered "racist"
Tom
Day Brown
> The issue isn't whether women compete with men in the work force on
> equal footing.
> They had that well before Civil Rights. The issue is
> their enormous political and social power that gives them preference
> in getting jobs and then later promotions.
That comes of their ability to adapt to the cultural changes in
corporate group think. Men are stalwart, loyal, and dont adjust their
attitudes with the whims of the times.
> The dynamics within the
> work force with women using marxist rhetorical methods against men who
> are rhetorically chalenged by nature combined with the hammer of
> feminist sisterhood power and the sex control to get some men on their
> side, is enough to make emasculated slaves of most men. These
> dynamics are ignored or suppressed due to feminist control in the
> academy.
Case in point. The women rising to the top of power structures are not
marxist. But men who think they are, fail to understand what they are
really dealing with, and therefore loose out. Nor do these women make
slaves of men. They dont need slaves. It is alpha males who need slaves;
that has to do with the need to control the bodies of women in order to
have more sons. Women dont have the problem; do not need to control the
bodies of men to ensure that their progeny are theirs.
> The problem is no equivalent social and political power to balance
> that of women. Until there is men will continue to slip into a modern
> version of slavery. Eventually the fascism this produces will make it
> impossible to fight back. Witness hate crime and hate speech
> legislation. Any opposition will be considered "hate" like any
> opposition to racial politics is considered "racist"
To be sure, as we might infer from Aristotle, those who cannot control
themselves, and its really difficult for most alpha males, inevitably
find someone else to do that for them. Testosterone creates powerful
drives, and men who lack the intelligence need draconian law to help to
try to control them. There are some few alpha males who are intelligent
and gifted with enuf insight to control and direct their energy in very
productive ways, from which humanity has benefited greatly.
However, to judge by the rant you posted, you are not among them.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>have more sons. Women dont have the problem; do not need to control the
>bodies of men to ensure that their progeny are theirs.
>
Don't you think you're oversimplifying? But if you're going to
rely on invoking mythical archetypes to support your self-flagellating
biases then I'd like to take a moment to remind you that women invented
private property, human or otherwise. When the dear creatures invented
agriculture they ensured not only an adequate food supply but also
centuries of conflict over arable land, and yes, slave labor to farm it.
What need does a band of roving scavengers have of slaves? The
most sensible thing to do with captured enemies is eat them.
Day Brown
> In article <4a400988$0$11517$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> have more sons. Women dont have the problem; do not need to control the
>> bodies of men to ensure that their progeny are theirs.
>>
>
> Don't you think you're oversimplifying?
We dont have the certainty of scripture any more.
> But if you're going to
> rely on invoking mythical archetypes to support your self-flagellating
> biases then I'd like to take a moment to remind you that women invented
> private property, human or otherwise. When the dear creatures invented
> agriculture they ensured not only an adequate food supply but also
> centuries of conflict over arable land, and yes, slave labor to farm it.
> What need does a band of roving scavengers have of slaves? The
> most sensible thing to do with captured enemies is eat them.
Africans were so easy to enslave in America because so many had been
slaves in Africa. Typically also, they murder the men and take the women
into harems. This is why most gene pools have many more mtDNA lines;
Africa over 140 seen so far. Curiously, Europe only has 7, with scores
of Y chromosomes.
There are not many examples of matriarchy. But the Mosuo of SW China,
have not had slaves. Its worth noting as well that the palace of Knossus
was not, in fact, a palace, but an administrative center with no royal
apartment. Nor, was there any sign of slums until after the place was
taken over by the Myceneans.
Likewise, Niya, which was founded by the Amazons, and abruptly abandoned
1500 years ago when a flash flood moved the river away, left no sign of
slave quarters or slums. Its all middle class housing.
Both the Minoans and the Tocharian/Amazons have cultural roots among the
Chalcolithic era communities along the rivers that empty into the west
end of the Black sea. And again, the tels show us communal houses, like
what the Mosuo still have, but no signs of slave quarters or mud huts.
Both the Spartans and the Etruscans had the slavery you refer to, at the
same time women were very powerful. But all of the leaders we know of in
these cultures were men.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Any generalization has to.
A generalization should simplify. A generalization should not
OVERsimplify.
>The question is the statistical probability.
Statistical probablility of what? "Most cultures had
slaves. Most cultures are ruled by a male elite. Therefore a
male elite requires/leads to/gets their rocks off on slavery" is
invalid logic. No matter what the correlation coefficient is.
>Africans were so easy to enslave in America because so many had been
>slaves in Africa.
Interesting assertion. Do you have any proof of its truth?
Day Brown
began slave trading on the East coast of Africa soon as the Caliphates
got organized. And found the same ready supply.
Even today, if you read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel" you see the racism
by Muslims, even while she was at the Haj in Mecca, twards anyone with
darker African skin. And this, at the one ritual in Islamic tradition
that is spozed to be for all mankind.
Solon explained the process to the Athenians when he burned the
mortgages in the Agora, telling them that if they permitted slavery,
then the rich would use slaves to farm the land, and drive them all out
of (the yeoman farmer) business. Which is egzactly what happened.
A more recent example is that during the civil war, the Northern Ozark
counties, which were farmed by independent pioneers, seceded from the
Confederate government in Little Rock, dominated by landed aristocracy-
who were all slave owners.
In all of Africa, the Zulu were the only ones who were independent
yeoman farmers, and they were also the only ones, who when the Brits
invaded, were able to stay organized, men fighting to defend what they
saw as their own property rights. Had they any supply of modern weapons,
they would've wiped the Brits out, but even so, it was a close call.
All the rest of Africa had the institution of slavery, and so it was a
simple matter for the Colonial powers to change the skin color of the
slave drivers. People were already psychologically adapted to it.
the wharf rat
They're also full of references to Hebrew slaves.
>
>A more recent example is that during the civil war, the Northern Ozark
>counties, which were farmed by independent pioneers, seceded from the
>Confederate government in Little Rock, dominated by landed aristocracy-
>who were all slave owners.
>
I'm afraid I'm lost in your maze of non sequitur. Can you explain
to me why this is proof that Africans were easy to enslave because they'd
all been slaves in Africa anyway?
>In all of Africa, the Zulu were the only ones who were independent
>yeoman farmers,
Ummmmm you mean other than the Kikuyu, the Bambara, the Dorobo,
the Bantu (actually the Bantu are many tribes), and the Masai?
Day Brown
> In article <4a569c82$0$15951$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Egyptian records are full of references to Nubian slaves.
>
> They're also full of references to Hebrew slaves.
did not exist, but that white colonialists did not invent, but merely
adapted the use of slavery where they found it.
>
>> A more recent example is that during the civil war, the Northern Ozark
>> counties, which were farmed by independent pioneers, seceded from the
>> Confederate government in Little Rock, dominated by landed aristocracy-
>> who were all slave owners.
> I'm afraid I'm lost in your maze of non sequitur. Can you explain
> to me why this is proof that Africans were easy to enslave because they'd
> all been slaves in Africa anyway?
Yeoman farmers work independently and form republics out of the common
interest to protect their individual property rights. Hunting and
nomadic cultures dont have private land ownership, but see important
rights in relationships, which include slave/master.
Wallace,"The Forest People" does not find slavery among the Mbuti pygmy,
nor do I recall it among the Kalihari pygmy. Altho I think in both
cases, pygmy were taken as slaves. But none of the Africans imagined
slavery on an industrial scale, and the epigenetic effect of that trauma
has never been looked into. Simply put, they were easier to enslave
because they didnt know what they were in for; in African tribal life it
was not that much worse. They all, slaves and masters, lived in tiny
impoverished tribal villages.
>> In all of Africa, the Zulu were the only ones who were independent
>> yeoman farmers,
>
> Ummmmm you mean other than the Kikuyu, the Bambara, the Dorobo,
> the Bantu (actually the Bantu are many tribes), and the Masai?
I dont know all that many tribes, but the Masai and Bantu were not
yeoman farmer cultures. Of course, all over the world we see where the
men went out hunting and the women stayed to garden. Thus it is that
farming was regarded as women's work. Ayann Hirsi Ali mentions this in
"Infidel" saying the Muslim men didnt want to work in Dutch Tulip
fields, feeling such work was for slaves.
Zulu men didnt feel it was degrading to do field work, and their common
interest resulted in Sub Sahara's most advanced site, Great Zimbabwe.
Of course, if you are willing to use the whip as European and Muslim
slave traders did, then you can adjust attitudes. Neurological work
shows how the profile of hormone levels change.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>Yeoman farmers work independently and form republics out of the common
>interest to protect their individual property rights. Hunting and
>nomadic cultures dont have private land ownership, but see important
>rights in relationships, which include slave/master.
>
A) Poor farmers may or may not keep slaves. The "yeoman farmer"
culture of Saxon England was certainly familiar with the practice. As
were the Nordic cultures of Sweden, Denmark, and etc.
>Simply put, they were easier to enslave
>because they didnt know what they were in for; in African tribal life it
>was not that much worse. They all, slaves and masters, lived in tiny
>impoverished tribal villages.
>
I don't suppose the fact that they were bronze age pastoral cultures
confronted by organized gangs armed with firearms had anything to do with it?