Sunday, August 31, 2008

The Failure of Western Feminism

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.



I have written several essays before on the damaging effects of Western feminism. The massive wave of violence and especially rapes in Western cities now is a form of warfare against whites, and it’s about time it is recognized as such. As this post from Gallia Watch puts it:

The Rap group ‘Sniper’As in war, the winners seize the indigenous women all the while protecting their own. The whole rhetoric that aims to debase the European woman or France (‘I screw France like a whore’ says rap group Sniper) is a part of the feminization of the white race, of the idea that Europe is a land to be conquered, a habitat open to all forms of pillage. Are not the notorious ‘gang rapes’ another example of collective violence to European women, just as Russian soldiers did when they seized German women in a devastated Berlin in 1945. It all holds together. A tribe that does not protect its women is behaving as if they have already lost the war. Many of us don’t know this. But our enemies do.

Feminist LogoAs a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves. They have been waging an ideological, psychological and economic war against white men for several generations now, believing that this would make you “free.” The actual result is that you have less freedom of movement and security than ever, as a direct result of the immigrant policies supported by you and your buddies.

In the big scheme of things, the truth is that white men have treated women with greater respect than the men of almost any other major civilization on earth. And I don’t mean just in the modern age, I mean for many centuries. Yet we are the one group of men who are most demonized and attacked, whereas non-white men get treated with much greater respect. What white men see from this is that white Western women prefer men who treat them like crap, and disrespect men who treat them with respect. This isn’t exactly a smart way to behave if you want to be treated with dignity.
- - - - - - - - -
The ERF HammerThe truth is that any nation is always protected from external aggression by the men. The women can play a supporting role in this, but never more than that. For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralized to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”. Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years. So why are you surprised about the results? As you said, you can’t fool Mother Nature. Well, you have tried to fool her for a long time, and you are now paying the price for this.

Western women have been subjected to systematic Marxist indoctrination meant to turn you into a weapon of mass destruction against your own civilization, a strategy that has been remarkably successful. Here is a quote from Robert Spencer’s book Religion of Peace?:

Attacks on Christian history and doctrine are an integral part of a larger effort to instill a sense of cultural shame in even non-Christian European and American youth — a shame that militates against their thinking the West is even worth defending. A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing… Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground…When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority…Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’

63 comments:

Joanne said...

"That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years."

Other than the abortion issues, I do not know what you are talking about. All the feminist movement has done for me is given me two jobs.

Fjordman said...

Let me add a quote from the book The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West, by Lee Harris:

"Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive, and ruthless. We teach our boys to be good students, to aim at getting good jobs with large, safe corporations, to plan prudently for their retirement. They want their boys to become holy warriors. We are proud if our sons get into a good college; they are proud if their sons die as martyrs. To rid your society of high-testosterone alpha males may bring peace and quiet; but if you have an enemy that is building up an army of alpha boys trained to hate you fanatically and who have vowed to destroy you, you will be committing suicide. It may take years or decades before you realize what you have done, but by that time it will be far too late to reverse your course. The end of testosterone in the West alone will not culminate in the end of history, but it may well culminate in the end of the West."

EnglishBlondie said...

'As a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves.'

I agree -as long as you mean 'some Western women' - not all of us. Also, it was not all down to those women, other people played apart too.

Fjordman said...

I'm not going to blame all Western women for this, I see no point in doing so. They have been deceived by the Marxists, who had a hidden agenda as they always do. A generation after we "won" the Cold War, Marxists of various types control our education system and our media and can indoctrinate both the children and the adults with their ideas. Traditional, conservative concepts of marriage etc. have not only become socially unacceptable but increasingly also banned by law.

The strategy of breaking down marriage was a key component of destabilizing the established society and culture. I think it makes sense to substitute "class" in traditional Marxism with "race" in cultural Marxism. Whites have collectively become the "oppressive class," and should be destroyed and deprived of their property in the name of "fairness" and " globalequality." Once you understand that, everything makes perfect sense.

Turning the women against their own men and into prey for men of other nations is all a part of this.

Afonso Henriques said...

"I think it makes sense to substitute "class" in traditional Marxism with "race" in cultural Marxism. Once you understand that, everything makes perfect sense."

Yes indeed Fjordman, yes indeed...
Very nice post, thank you.

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

English Blondie,

of course we can not blame all white women for our lousy current condition.

The problem is, at least in my country it is, that every now and then, when women have a voice as a group (remember, as a group), the group tends to be (95%) feminist, agressively anti-men and many times pro-multicultural as well.

The problem is that while many "good" model women exist, they, as a group, do not have a voice. You see, all this millions of women are only individuals, they rarely form a group.

A typical example: Last year we had a referendum on abortion. The yes won, and among all the parties with a sit on parliament, only one party with 5 deputies (out of 230) was against it. The yes won with less than 60% of the votes and actually lost in the North of the Nation. But, while many women were against abortion and while many individual women spoke against it during campaign, there was only one group of women to condemn abortion. The pro-abortion side had tens, if not hundreds, of female groups, one even counting on women related to the media.

The only group to condemn abortion was a group of Catholic nuns who runned (a net of) foster homes for orphans.

You have to realise that it is very strange the lack of reactionary positions of Western women to combat (agressive) feminism. And that emptyness leaves the impression that women, as a group, are indeed feminsts:

Because there is no visible opposite side, only scattered individual women.

Now if you aloud me, why is that? It really puzzles me...

Sir Henry Morgan said...

I've said it before, elsewhere, but I'll say it yet again:

Men are a tactical asset.
Women are a strategic asset.

Now eni fule no, you sometimes sacrifice tactical assets in order to protect strategic assets. As a former military man that makes perfectly good sense to me.

In a war, target the women, not the men. You target the men only insofar as you have to get through them in order to eliminate the women - the strategic assets.

If the enmy has one man remaining, but 100 women, that's 100 new enemy born every year - 50 of them men - new (future)tactical assets.. If they have 100 men remaining, and only one woman, they can restock their tactical assets at a rate of only one man every two years.

Target the women - there's more than one way to eliminate them as a strategic asset - for instance, make them have your babies instead of the babies of their own men.

Target the women - all the other peoples of the world seem to realise this. So why don't our own people?

Just look at the rape statistics in Europe, America, S.Africa - and who's doing what to who?

Again - target the women.

Conservative Swede said...

Fjordman,

As a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves.

In the bigger picture its obvious that it's the Western men that should be blamed for this. 200 years ago we were safely in power. Women wouldn't have this power today if we hadn't let them. There's no other way it could have happened. So it's our fault, because we let them. We should simply stop with that.

Furthermore, your focus on Marxism is way to narrow. Look for the answer with its father: liberalism, and its grandfather: Christianity.

Conservative Swede said...

And to turn around things regarding this, as with all else, what is needed is a completely different sort political regime, and in the transitional phase only a strong leader will do.

The women will adapt swiftly.

Fjordman said...

CS: Yes, the men are to blame for this, too. But in this case, the democratic system it to be blamed as well. Universal suffrage means that women can vote as a bloc to squeeze more tax money out of men, and treat the state as a substitute husband.

And no, you cannot blame Christianity for this one.

EnglishBlondie said...

Alfonso asked 'why?'
I'm not sure, I guess it is for many reasons, but one significant reason would probably be that in a parellel to opposition against all 'pc themes' (e.g. multiculturalism, mass immigration etc.) any such 'non pc' opposition does not get much of a chance.
This lack of 'chance' would be parallel -e.g. demonisation of proponents, media bias, lack of funding, etc.

DenisEugeneSullivan said...

I don't think that this phenomenon is limited either to Europe or Muslims.

Several years ago, on one of my internet safaris, I came upon the US Department of Justice's web site. In In the crime statistics section, I saw that a white person had a three times greater likelihood of being murdered by a black person, than a black person had of being murdered by a white person. This was a straight comparison of the number of murders unadjusted for the percentages of the two groups in the overall population.

I think that this type of outcome is foreseeable when a society first declares a minority group as having been victimized and then begins to define deviancy downward by not applying the appropriate societal sanctions.

EnglishBlondie said...

yes Dennis - I read the inter racial rape on the American FBI and the level of balck on white rape was massive, but the white on black was so small they did not have a proper figure available - I think it said 'approx zero' or something like that!

EnglishBlondie said...

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F3E3CD97-197F-4D31-BF36-A4CBA45FCB13

Afonso Henriques said...

Sir Henry Morgan,

You are right, women are a strategical asset while men are a tactical asset.

But to attack women, children and the eldery still is in my eyes highly immoral. So I say:

Target the men! Don't let them get close of your women! Protect your women and target fierciously the men.

Men do fight, women only produce the fighters. It is true that our women is under attack, that does not mean that we shall lower ourselves to the barbarians level, so: target the men!

We have a saying here:

"A beautifull women (all, in a certain ways, light or drugs) shall not be beaten neither with a flower."

Conservative Swede said...

Fjordman,

Yes, the men are to blame for this, too.

My point was actually that the men hold the blame exclusively. To put any blame on women would mean to buy into the reigning myths about how women took the power themselves with their struggle, etc. Of course they didn't! Women got this power because the men let them, due to delusional morality concepts based on inversion of values, egalitarianism, etc.

And no, you cannot blame Christianity for this one.

It's the Christian civilization and only that one that gave birth to liberalism. Marxism, modern democracy, feminism, etc.

And there's no surprise there, since inversion of values and egalitarianism come directly from Christianity.

Afonso Henriques said...

English Blondie,

"one significant reason would probably be that in a parellel to opposition against all 'pc themes' (e.g. multiculturalism, mass immigration etc.) any such 'non pc' opposition does not get much of a chance."

I am not buying that. For instance, it is non pc to be anti-gay but men still use adjectives like faggot and it is not socially acceptable to be among gays. There is a social repression that does not take place among women.

It seem that the only female oposition to the feminist is the old fashioned mother which is herself walking in the path of extinction.

It would be interesting to wonder why is that reactionary female movement non existant.

By the way, my nick name is D. Afonso Henriques, it is Portuguese, not Spanish. And also, if you do the math, you'll get to this number:

While a non white women is almost never raped by a white men in America, in the exactly same physical space, for every 15 minutes that passes by a white women is viciously raped by a member of a minority group.
And these are only the official numbers.

Between the two of us, and because there's no American listening, if this is not genocide, I don't know what is...

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Alfonso

Emotionally I understand you. But rationally, that is a losing game.

And like I said, there is more than one way to attack the strategic assets. Putting them to use for your own side is twice the gain - instead of them just losing an asset - they lose it and you gain it.

Look at WW2 - we despised them for the things they did - but we only beat them when we started doing worse. (one thinks of Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki - and no, I'm not criticising: you do what you have to do to win whilst losing the least possible of your own. Alcibiades' one and only God - Necessity)If all you ever do is defend, then eventually you lose. Do you want to lose?

If you are attacked in the street, do you defend yourself? then you will lose if that's all you do. Where is your attacker's incentive to stop? You must ATTACK BACK, so that he comes to realise that he will get hurt too.

Who ever claimed the facts of life were pretty?

Joanne said...

I don't know whether to feel sorry for you men for having such domineering women in your lives, and I say this with tongue in cheek, or think the lot of you merely hate women and/or are possibly not getting any.

As for the abortion issue, most people with voting power are men. Don't tell me, you men can't make it illegal to have abortions. Why aren't there referendums on abortion? Perhaps because just as many men want women to have abortions as women do - it certainly saves a man a lot of headache, especially when they want to sow their oats, but don't want to assume the responsibilities that go along with it. I hate abortion - it is murder of the most defenceless: God help us all.

Women have generally not been perceived to be a threat to the men who want to overtake a country, continent or people; they are just bootie, of which perhaps, the term 'bootie call' came about - doubt it, but interesting, no, disturbing thought.

Muslim men treat both muslim women and non-muslim women like crap, and they can because the men of non-muslim women do nothing about it. They either don't give a crap or are too cowardly to put their neck out, and this is a generalization. Chivalry is dead for many men, especially when it could mean an end to their life. There is no honour anymore because the women men put their necks out for are no longer thought to be honourable or honourable enough for them to risk life or limb.

Two larger than life characters in the Bible lied about their beautiful wives being their wives and told powerful men that their wives were their sisters, so the men wouldn't kill them and take their wives. Nothing has really changed, has it!

Well, you men try and figure it out, but it seems to me, the women in your lives aren't anything like the women I see. Women are taught to get a career, so they will not have to take the crap a rotten man dishes out, and they'll be able to leave and take care of themselves and their children. I know a lot of rotten men; women needing careers isn't a perceived notion, it is a reality when men have deteriorated just as rapidly, if not more, than their women.

EnglishBlondie said...

Alfonso - I think that there are many women who do not buy what we have been sold. I have friends who do not buy it either.
A lot of women know what is going on but how would anyone else know that we know?
In England most people just keep quiet these days about non pc matters. I am not saying that that is right - merely that that is how it is.

Erich said...

CS,

"your focus on Marxism is way to narrow. Look for the answer with its father: liberalism, and its grandfather: Christianity."

While I agree that Fjordman's imputation of blame was too narrow, your alternative is too wide.

Christianity in fact as a civilizational construct and force was a grand synthesis of Graeco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian currents. It wasn't all bad; it also had good. In fact, I'd argue it was mostly good.

In its orbit, Christendom did include forces that eventually led to what you call "liberalism" (largely in terms of incubating underground movements of Gnosticism notwithstanding that (or perhaps also because) they were regularly suppressed); though I wouldn't use that word "liberalism" to denote the process of deformation in the West. Otherwise, the civilization of Christianity for a solid millennium contributed to much of the ongoing progress of the West in terms of technology, science, laws, politics, philosophy, the arts, etc.

I rather see the overall history of deformation in the West as a process of phases, from Gnosticism, to Schism (beginning with the Nominalist-Realist split through to the Reformation and its repercussions), to Utopianism, to Revolution (which subsequently revived a virulent form of Gnosticism pace Eric Voegelin's analysis of Communism and Nazism), to Leftism, and finally to PC MC (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism).

As the phases go along, they are progressively "lite" versions of the preceding (with the one exception of Communism/Nazism).

For example, just as "Leftism" can be said to be "Marxism Lite", so too we can say that PC MC is "Leftism Lite".

PC MC has to be a "lite" version of Leftism -- otherwise we would be unable to explain why the vast majority of conservatives believe the myth of peaceful Islam. By "atomizing" Leftism, so to speak, PC MC has enabled its influence to become dominant and mainstream, even among the majority of conservatives.

For a fuller analysis, see my essay:

Western Deformation: Progressively "Lite" over the centuries

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

Christianity in fact as a civilizational construct and force was a grand synthesis of Graeco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian currents. It wasn't all bad; it also had good. In fact, I'd argue it was mostly good.

Christianity mixed with Roman influence (along with other cultural components) was a formula that served us well for many centuries. But there was no Roman influence in Christianity in the beginning, and there is none today. What we have today is purified Christianity.

And if the results of purified Christianity cannot be attributed to Christianity, then I do not know what to attribute it to. Neither can a purified Christianity that has purged all Roman influences claim any credit for being in symbiosis with Roman heritage. Both these things are trivially obvious.

The genie of Christian ethics has been let out of the bottle. This is what is causing our suicide and there no way to put it back. I have been analyzing this in several blog articles, e.g.:
Christianity: slave morality with a symbolic master

islam o' phobe said...

It's the Christian civilization and only that one that gave birth to liberalism. Marxism, modern democracy, feminism, etc.

And there's no surprise there, since inversion of values and egalitarianism come directly from Christianity.


But whats the alternative? Its not possible to separate the historic West from Christianity.

If you hate your parents you still can't change the fact that they are your parents.

I think a return to pre-liberal Christian society would make the most sense. But I get the impression this would not suit you.

If Christianity was practised as thought in the Bible there would be no problem.

All the utopianism from 19th century liberals onwards about ending war forever is contrary to the teachings in the Bible.

I think more Christianity, not less (as in previous centuries) would be the way to go.

Liberalism is one of many Christian heresies. I don't see that as an argument that Christianity is the crux of the problem.

islam o' phobe said...

thought=taught

NJArtist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
islam o' phobe said...

ConservativeSwede,

(Being a Conservative in Sweden must be tough)

I read your short blog post on slave morality with a symbolic master but you don't get into specifics.

You believe that liberalism is the logical culmination of Christianity and its teachings, correct?

What do you base this on?

Thanks,

NJArtist said...

@Conned Swede
By Thor! You got it! it is those bloody minded Christians with their white god: who preach redemption by grace, not by the edge of the battle axe. It's their fault that we Swedes no longer go out upon the high seas in our high prowed boats to rape, pillage, and murder. Instead, we must live peaceably with our neighbor as long as we are able. We are to respect our womenfolk, not seize whom we please; not beat them if they speak harshly to us.

Yes give us that old, old, time religion: where we passed the eldest child through the fire of Moloch; where we sacrificed our children to the sun god so that he would return for a new season. Why, if one god did not help, maybe another would.

Let us return to the days of yore: where the chiefs ruled by the sword and axe; where the king and his fellows had the right to bed a poor man's wife on their wedding night; to the days of yore, when the kings and the nobles were the people and the rest were not-persons: whose lives meant nothing but fit only for sacrifice and slaughter. Let us go back to the days of the gods: where every shrub and tree hid a god within; back to when there were not natural causes but gods to placate.

Let us go back to that old time religion, the religion of Cain, where the king was god and it was death not to worship him; where knowledge was confined to the priestly class.

One of your biggest mistakes, sir, is to to fail to perceive the difference between the Christian and the pagan wearing a Christian mask; you fail to perceive that there is true doctrine and there is false doctrine- and you do not know which is which; and, you mock those Christians who do not live or think as the world, you sir, would have them think.

Conservative Swede said...

islam o' phobe,

I read your short blog post on slave morality with a symbolic master but you don't get into specifics.

I do not know how much you expect from a single blog article. The article specifically suggested you to read this:
http://conswede.blogspot.com/2007/05/christian-ethics-to-be-or-not-to-be.html

And there is more.

You believe that liberalism is the logical culmination of Christianity and its teachings, correct?

Liberalism is pure Christian ethics detached from every other aspect of Christianity. It's not a culmination, it's a terminal phase. It's of course thinkable a hypothetical alternative world, where the genie hadn't been let out of the bottle; where the Christian ethics of inversion of values and egalitarianism hadn't ascended to become the top ruling principle. But I truly do not know how this helps us now.

And anyone having doubts about how liberalism is Christian should lift their eyes from their ethnocentric perspective. For a Hindu, Muslim, Confucian, etc., it's obvious how liberalism is Christian. You should also ask yourself where liberalism came from. Was it brought to us by extraterrestrials?

Conservative Swede said...

I believe we just had the honour of getting a comment here from Fredrik "barbarity" Reinfeldt, writing under the moniker "NJArtist".

Of course, Fredrik Reinfeldt thinks that today's West is a paradise for women, but he should read Fjordman's article above.

islam o' phobe said...

Okay,

I think I understand what you mean now.

Yes I know that liberalism is a kind of mutated liberal Christianity but while Eastern religions have a firm control over this century social conventions I find them so dreary (Hinduism, Buddhism) or mundanely evil (Islam) that its hard to stay awake reading their holy texts.

I don't think that Christian ethics, detached from their context within Christianity, should still carry that name.

I don't see it as a genie out of the bottle, toothpaste out of the tube situation but maybe I'm kidding myself.

In early 19th century Britain the loose morals of the 18th century were repudiated and the society was brought under control.

That seems unlikely to be repeated this century but I'm a never-say-die type so short of being murdered by Muslims I'm not giving up.

Conservative Swede said...

islam o' phobe,

If you are specifically interested in holding on to Christianity I suggest the Russian Orthodox Church, which never really went through any enlightenment and never parted from the Roman influence.

DenisEugeneSullivan said...

Greetings:

If you are interested in this subject, you may want to read "Culture and Conflict in the Middle East" by Philip Carl Slazman, an anthropologist.

He addresses the relationship between Islam and the nomadic, Arab tribal culture.

Profitsbeard said...

Women can only weaken those who are willing.

latté island said...

Afonso wrote: Between the two of us, and because there's no American listening, if this is not genocide, I don't know what is...

Auster (American) has devoted much of his blog recently to this very subject, the targeting of whites by minorities.

As I've already said lots of times, it's too bad we old-time feminists allowed our movement to be hijacked by idealogues who had another agenda. But, for those of you who want to turn back the clock and take away women's recently acquired rights to a career and public life, I don't think it will work. Traditional stay at home motherhood is fine for many women and of course that shouldn't be denigrated. But there are many women, like me for instance, who just aren't cut out for that. It would oppress such women to deny them equal participation in public life, and it would also deprive society of their talents. I think it's great that nowadays, a woman can easily get a woman doctor, and if she goes to court, she'll feel comfortable dealing with lots of women cops, social workers, lawyers, possibly a judge, etc. Before the 70's, everything was run by men, and it was alienating to women to be alone in every public situation. This is not marxism, man-bashing or the like...it's just normal people wanting normal representation in society.

Men and women are stuck with each other, unlike different races, who have the option of avoiding each other and still having a good life. If men and women are to be happy together, it's essential that we figure out how everyone can participate in their own way, not according to stereotypes that don't fit many people. Then women will have less reason to feel oppressed and resentful, they'll see men as allies, and few women will bother with divisive ideologies.

Whiskey said...

Fjordman --

Harris was wrong then and now. Islam's Alpha Male society makes them a violent failure, having to use aggression to conquer more wealthy neighbors, and relying on weak wealthy neighbors. Whenever that fails, the Alpha Male society falls apart.

Societies run by Alpha Males tend to be like West Africa or Saudi Arabia -- total failures when confronted by "modern" societies. China can and would crush either one. Without a thought either.

It is not feminism (most women never read any of it) but rather the debased "folk feminism" of consumerist sex and total freedom for women that have created our problems.

What women want is above all, the Alpha Male in all his testosterone, high-status/power, glory. Feminists and women never attack a John Edwards, or a Bill Clinton, or a "Big Man" of that type (Woody Allen, Roman Polanksy). They'd all want to sleep with those types if they could. Rather, it's the blue collar "low status" guy and the "nerd" (intelligence correlates highly with lower testosterone).

Women are not deceived by Marxists, merely exercising their own personal choices. They want single motherhood, the death of the nuclear family, untrammeled pursuit of whatever hot guy filled with testosterone and status is around, and deference paid to them as part of the demographic power they wield. In places where women rule, such as the Black Ghetto, entirely devoid of husbands and fathers, you can see the world they want. No one "turned" women against men, they simply chose what all women want, unless constrained by society: guy after guy after guy who has the most testosterone. Women in the Black Urban core often have three or four kids, each with different fathers.

This is also a problem in Muslim countries, that have highly urbanized and anonymous societies, available birth control, economies that allow women economic freedom, and so on. It is a problem in Japan, and also China's urbanized areas.

Look at Pride and Prejudice. Lizzie fell hard, and totally, for Wickham, even though he was a villain. Social mores prevented her from sleeping with him. Now those mores are gone in highly mobile and anonymous societies, and "Lizzies" sleep with Wickham types all the time.

What you call Marxism, I call the natural attempt at women to have it all their way -- including the denigration of "nerds" and blue collar guys whom are sexually unattractive to women.

Women simply deny the reality of physical threat and pretend Western Civilization and the rule of law are unstoppable and invulnerable. Because to realize it's fragility would mean compromises in the world of women's interests.

Really, if anyone doubts my arguments, spend time watching women's television "Dirty Sexy Money," "Desperate Housewives," "Gossip Girl," and "Sex and the City."

Women of course are RULED by cliques and the desire to fit in, anyone who's seen "Mean Girls" and such knows how true to life that is. The cultural life of Western societies is merely High School writ large. No one wants to be out of the "cool clique" by defending Western Civilization. [This applies to men who's profession depends on "coolness" rather than accomplishment -- it's why engineers are often conservative and Advertising people are almost never.]

Traditional society had lots of mediating institutions, high rates of marriage, children, and aligned men and women's interests together: for the betterment of their children. Western society's advantage was to use better treatment of women to first allow average men to have families and children, avoiding genetic bottlenecks and mobilizing that human capital (instead of sultans and slaves). Later it mobilized women themselves as workers in an organized way.

That is lost, it's not coming back and the only recourse IMHO to point out to women, that of course they face lots of violence from non-Westerners, and misogyny from the large and growing pool of unmarried Western men who have no ties to them. It's their world, they made it, they ought to simply embrace it.

Joanne -- the voting population in the US is over 51% women. Men die earlier. Think about it.

Whiskey said...

Joanne -- you say you know a lot of rotten men. Yes, these are the men women choose, knowing they are what they are. Because they have lots of testosterone. Read Dalrymple's "Life at the Bottom," even his nurses choose, knowingly, abusive men, because they crave that testosterone and dominance and fear they create in other men. They find "nice guys" boring and well, lacking in testosterone.

If women don't like misogyny, well, it's the entirely predictable result of a large group of men unconnected to women. Not husbands and fathers (who will as a group be relied upon to suppress misogyny in their own interests).

Wyoming Men gave women the vote in 1869, and would not join the Union without THEIR women keeping the vote. Because their interests were aligned, not "enlighted states of being" or anything nonsensical like that.

However, the consumerist sexual choices and ideology that women have embraced in an anonymous, mobile culture devoid of shame, makes that model dead. So women will simply have to endure the predictable misogyny that will only get worse.

Diamed said...

My problems with women (in general, none in particular, if you don't fit into this pat yourself on the back, you're not who I'm talking about):

They aren't having enough kids and apparently they're fine with us going extinct which is the eventual result of their choices. Replacement birth rate is a necessity and it is the height of immorality to not do it.

They no longer have any sense of honor or shame and find nothing wrong with premarital sex, adultery, serial monogamy, divorce, breaking up, cheating, drinking, drugs, bastard children, etc. This degrades relationships and makes them largely untenable no matter how well intentioned the man.

They care nothing for the children they do have, leaving them largely to TV and daycare and school while they go off to work or party, and do not care if their children have fathers or not, largely seeing them as just a nuisance. They do not care what the impact of fatherlessness and divorce has on children. Many mothers don't even breast feed their children, or protect their children in the womb, doing disgusting sick things like smoking, drinking, taking drugs, etc.

They are arrogant and rude. They expect to be treated like equals in fields they're nowhere near equal in, like the army, firefighting, police, science, math, politics, etc. Men are better than women at many things but they refuse to admit this and instead if they aren't better accuse us of sexism and oppression. Apparently when women are better than men at something, this is simply natural and right, since without oppression women are always better at everything than men. Their willingness to hurt men, trample over their interests, and expectation of always getting their way or they'll just find another guy again makes relationships practically impossible. Spoiled brats who already lacked honor or shame picking and choosing among an infinite host of willing men whoever is the most accommodating to their tyrannical whims empowers women to never have to compromise or settle. Monogamy and honor was meant to keep women with one man all their lives that they could not escape, this limited their power to bully said man because they could not threaten to just go find another, they had to reach a fair deal with the one they had. Now that's all gone and everyone knows the imbalance of how easy it is for a woman to find a new man, versus a man finding a new woman. A woman needn't take more than a day to find any number of willing replacements, a man might take years to find one. That is just how the sexes work, ditching monogamy overwhelmingly overpowers women and weakens men.

They are easily manipulated and cowed. While women will do anything to fit in and not offend their friends, only men stand up for what's right and pay the price for doing so. This leaves women disproportionately sheep in our struggle for existence with men having to carry the whole burden, usually while being sniped at by our wives and girlfriends for not just fitting in and making life difficult for them by offending their friends/family/etc.

They vote for the state to be their providers and thus relegate men to nothing but sperm donors, and of course, the tax payers they so callously rip off for their own selfish interests. I don't see why anyone should be forced to support a child who they don't a) get to procreate b) get to raise. Women use the state to deprive men of their natural rights while making them keep all their obligations. It's sick.

Is this due to marxism? Feminism? The pill? The loss of faith? Male limp-wrists? I don't know nor do I really think it matters. Simply mandating good behavior by legal force is the sword that cuts this gordian knot. For eons we have legislated against male crimes that endanger the health of society: theft, murder, assault, rape, drug-dealing, etc. It is time to treat women equally and legislate against their actions that harm society: promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce, parasitism, spinsterhood, etc. Simply because women are unlikely to do male crime does not mean they can't be menaces to society or do more harm overall than the male criminals. They are simply more subtle, not less morally repugnant, not less guilty. It's time to treat them as harshly as men, to hold them to standards of good conduct like we do men, and protect society just like we do from men.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Whiskey,

For very many years, I have worked in hospitals. Most of my co-workers have been (and are) women. I have observed dynamics just as you describe.
Over the years, I have seen several cases where a female hospital worker eventually married a physician (status, money, power.) A year or two later, he was busy "doing" some other bimbo on the side, but his wife would not divorce him (because she did not want to give up the status, money, power.) Of course, if she had divorced him, the other bimbo would be happy to take her place, knowing full well that he had cheated on his first wife ( because the other bimbo was the one who enabled him to cheat!)
Of course, I have never played this game, for two reasons.
First, I am not a physician, I am a technical worker. Thus my income (status, money, power) is about the same as most of my female co-workers. Thus, as far as romantic interest is concerned, the average female co-worker would not spit twice in my general direction if she walked past me on the sidewalk. I believe you had used the word "nerd," or, as any ladies reading this are probably thinking: "Looooo-zzer." ;)
Oddly enough, since I work in the laboratory, I once had my testosterone level done "under the table" (one of the fringe benefits of working there; we sometimes get to do little experiments on ourselves) and it was within normal limits, but it would be interesting to test the levels of the physicians.
The other reason I would not play this game is that I, and at least a few of my female co-workers, were disgusted by it. But all of us who reacted this way were "old fossils." That is, we all had rather strict, old fashioned upbringings and believed that such behavior was morally wrong.
I have long speculated that such social strictures, so often derided as archaic and outmoded, were in fact designed to mitigate some of the worst aspects of human nature.
Now that such social strictures are laughed at, there is NOTHING to mitigate the worst aspects of human nature.

Terry said...

As a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves.

Fjordman, because of that qualifying phrase, "to some extent," I can heartily agree with your conclusion.

In the month or so that I've been reading GoV, the blame for the Islam problem has usually been placed on the Left and liberal-left politicians/bureaucrats and politically correct multi-culturalism. This is the first time I've seen women being blamed. I agree, though, that Western feminism has a share in the blame.

Now comes Conservative Swede to add that Christianity is to blame for having inspired all the nuttiness that has resulted in the Islam problem. Since Islam regards Christianity as its' enemy (among others - any and all others), this would seem to go beyond blaming the victim to beating a practically-dead horse. I would agree that classical liberalism is Christianity's child, but modern-day liberalism is more of a twisted distortion and bastardization of its' alleged parent than a legitimate heir to it. In fact, today's secular liberalism is in opposition to Christianity. A few examples off the top of my head to illustrate:
1. In the Bible, you find the insistence on unchanging principle; today's liberals prefer relativism.
2. The Bible presents the concept of original sin and man's inability to change it; today's liberals think that man is born good and stays that way unless something comes along to interfere with his natural goodness.
3. In the Bible, man is most assuredly not the measure of all things; for today's liberals, man is the measure of all things (just don't set the standards too high).
4. The Bible exhorts us to obedience; today's liberals admire and cherish dissent.

Classical liberalism cut itself off from God and became secular liberalism, and secular liberalism is a whole other animal. Under secular liberalism, we try to do idiotic things like, for instance, outlaw hate. The old Christian civilization knew that you could never outlaw hate; it knew that hate could only be transformed by the transcendant. We no longer believe in the transcendant, so we seek refuge in a lie (viz., that you can outlaw hate and other such absurdities), and now we are confronted by the biggest lie of all time: Mohammadanism. Islam is Christianity's one enduring Great Heresy. For Mohammad took from the Judeo-Christian world what suited him, i.e., the oneness and omnipotence of God, and invented or rearranged everything else, i.e., the blessing was given to Ishmael, not Isaac. Even Islam's end-times eschatology sounds like the Biblical version rewritten by Christianity's evil twin. The Muslims' explanation for the eerie similarities: Christians and Jews changed and corrupted the sacred word.

Islam has confidence, vitality and faith galore. What does the West have? Guilty self-hatred, post-modern ennui and faithlessness. It doesn't look like a fair match. What are our advantages here? For now, we are still clinging to some of the old Judeo-Christian ideals, the biggest one being social equality, which does have its' roots in the Christian-derived all-men-are-created-equal-and-endowed-with-unalienable-rights. But now we are finding that those rights are not so unalienable after all (surprise, surprise), without that One to whom we are answerable. Bereft of its' Guarantor, the ideal of social equality is not serving us so well. First, we got rid of God, and now it looks like we may have to get rid of his prescription for how to live our lives. Get rid of equality. Get rid of women's rights. Get rid of any high-minded ideal that stands in the way of our survival. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be the right solution. It's perfectly logical, though.

NJArtist said...

@ Conned Swede
Fredrik "barbarity" Reinfeldt, writing under the moniker "NJArtist".

Wrong.

-------------
You are like the foolish baker who, despising leaven, removed it from his shop and now wonders why his bread doesn't rise

Again:
You are like stowaways on a ship talking among yourselves in the hull; in the course of the journey, you delude yourselves that you are responsible for the technology and skills that enable the ship to sail. You overthrow the crew and then watch in horror as the ship deteriorates and finally flounders on the rocks. The last thing you hear as you sink below the water is the mocking laughter of the crew.

Abrahim's_brother said...

For too long friday has been bastardised for the showing of womens meats, binge drinking and illicit sexual activity.

Friday is Jumma day...womens need to spend it praying in the mosques.

This is happening in many towns ...but in the rest of the towns...please sort it out.

Remember Allah SWT does not want womens meats to be shown...the burka would not have been invented otherwise.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Abrahim's brother:

While I don't condone frivolity -and actually consider it bad - it is vastly preferable over submission to an ancient, evil-minded pagan Arabian moongod and the spurious, racist and violent commands of its wanna-be prophet.

Oh. We also are aware of the totalitarian political system that extends its anti-democratic fangs from the abyss of the mosque.

Take a hike, please.

Afonso Henriques said...

Sir Henry Morgan,

I can't imagine how we could do that to the women's enemy. If you do came with an example maybe I can understand it better.

For instance, days ago I suggested that, in case of a so called "multicultural war" in Europe, we should expell all "ethnic" men between the 13 and the 64 years old, in order to cut them of "tactical asset". The women, children and eldery, because they are mere "strategical asset" could opt between continuing in Europe or going away with their own men.

That's what the Serbs did to the Bosnians: Target the men!

Sir Henry Morga, you example of the Second World War is, in my view a terrible one in my eyes because, as we all know, Germany did not attack you, Germany was attacked by both: England and France. This before the mass murderer of Jews had started, as well as the bombing of England. So, why did you attack them in the first place?

As Buchannan suggests, maybe it was an unnecessary war, derived of the will England had to necessary stop a Continental power to domain all the Continent.

Concerning the Japanese, I don't think that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were worst than what they did and tentioned to do.

"If you are attacked in the street, do you defend yourself?"
Because the people here is too damned passive, if you are some 1.8m tall and show some "attitude" the criminals will pray on more vulnerable persons. So, I'd say that here, excepting big gang violence, to deffend yourself is eneugh. I have never needed to punch one, here, to push one is enough.

That leads us to the point: Maybe, you don't have to show a massive war power, you just have to show that you are not the weakest in the block. And to target "morally" only the men, reveals - I think - some "attitude" or strnght.

Abrahim's_brother said...

Henrik,

I can see that you have a problem with my culture...however it has huge strengths and potential...do not dismiss out of hand.

I have been reading this thread...and I am blown away as it is so alien to me.

Your womens are doing more than trample over you "men". Your societies are crumbling because they will refuse ...that's right refuse to replenish your dwindling stock of white men.

So what are they here for then?

Henrick, consider the simplest analogy ...that of a shopkeeper... when an item runs out of stock ; he rushes to the warehouse to get more..without stock ..he faces bankrupcy.

This is what your society is facing..fewer white men....so what are the womens to do....they cannot go without stock?

Muslim men may not be their priority today...but we are available...and in the numbers that your women prefer...in 20 years time Henrick....the shrewd shopkeeper will not have become bankrupt....merely changed the product.

Sorry if this this offends...I do not mean to ...but that's the thing about facts...it takes no sides.

Consider the potential of Allah SWT...your grandaughters certainly will.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Alfonso

"For instance, days ago I suggested that, in case of a so called "multicultural war" in Europe, we should expell all "ethnic" men between the 13 and the 64 years old, in order to cut them of "tactical asset". The women, children and eldery, because they are mere "strategical asset" could opt between continuing in Europe or going away with their own men."

That's exactly the sort of thing I meant when I said "twice the gain" - they lose their strategic asset (gain 1), and you acquire it (gain 2).

I'm not a physically big man and HAVE had to cope with the streets. I assure you, if attacked you have to attack back. Do that and even superior numbers will back off (I enlisted for a military life at age 15 - I do have some little idea of what I'm talking about).

We in the West are, yes, too passive.

Dennis Mahon said...

That assumes, paynim, that things continue as the do. As you can see, we are hardly asleep.

We have thrown you back before--we shall do so again.

Afonso Henriques said...

Sir Henry Morgan,

So, we do agree after all.

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

What I found the most shocking in this thread is that the person who's more and more reasonable here is Abrahim's Brother. That shows us the vitality of islam. What he says is true.

Abrahim's brother,

following your analogy of the shopkeeper, I think I can complement it:

1st) it's not only muslim men who are in the game, is an entire variety of non-Europeans.
You can see that in Los Angeles, where blacks and mexicans kill each other in order to have the little pieces "white LA" has to offer them. From white girls, to money coming from the taxes of the overwhelmingly white tax payers.

You are indeed right. But you forget that your "penetration" into Europe, has another things to consider:

A normal European women will never "consider" muslims. Only the fallen ones. muslims and other "ethnics" are not socially aceptable yet and will not be with the passing time, despite the multiculturalist leftist pressure.

The biggest danger is that the society will consist of:
1) In the top, the rich whites
2) The average middle class Europeans
3) The low middle class (with a past of lower class) Europeans
4) The low class poor Europeans
5) And the non-Europeans, where muslim stands.

The problem is that, as you said, white girls will, with the time "consider" muslims and others "ethnics".

This will lead to a racialist society, with the top being exclusively white and the more you get into the lower classes, the browner it will be. Why? Because high and middle class white girls will never "consider" "ethnics".

We have an expression to that:

LATIN-AMERICANISATION.

That society, and this you can not escape, will lead to the rise of an Hitler-like figure that will clean - clean is the expression - the lower classes with the support of the higher and middle classes. Such a figure will not tolerate opposition. The violence would be unspokable. And we have already seen this in Latin American countries: whenever Europeans felt treathened, they ordered:
1) "Progroms" against non-whites
2) Mass immigration from Europe.

There is no State to which Europe can reccur to. And this Hitler-like figure will be pan-European...

Nostradamus predicted three "anti-Christs" that would destroy Europe:
Napoleon, Hitler, and the one to come.

While Henrik grandaughters may consider your descendancy, both will be walking the path of death.

I am only in the process of discovering the bounderies of what's legitimate to do in order to keep (or transform) Europe European.

But it scares me the hell out of me that your vision is indeed correct.

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

Concerning the discussion about Christianity my vision is close to that of Conservative Swede, though I am much more of a Christian than he:

Christianity is a Semitic movement like islam. It could not triumph in Europe.

But, trough it's "slave morality" and apropriation of Indo-European traditions and ethics as well as by the apropriation of the Celtic, Italic, Greek and posteriorly Germanic and Slavic world as only one, the recognition of all this purely Indo-European space as the Christian space with all it entails: The people's world view, tradition, etc. Christianity became less and less Semitic. Into a mainly European movement.
(Charles Magne looked up to the ROMAN tradition, not to the tradition of the Jews and Arabs of the desert. All Christianity had from the Semitic peoples was it's exotericism. Christianity was based in the Roman Tradition and Jerusalem and the desert were only "interesting" because "wow... there's where God spoken, ther's God favourite land, chosen people etc etc" no Semitic tradition, only the accounts of a book)

Then, I don't exactly know how, why and when, Europeans started revolting against Christianity, against the Semitic carachter of it. This after Christianity had developed into three distinct branches according to its distinct peoples: Latin Catholicism, Germanic Protestantism and Greek Orthodoxism.

Then, some Jews turned to Communism (the Semitic carachter of Communism is interesting) and Hitler appeared with the ideas of eliminating everything "Semitic".

After that, I'd say that Hitler failed to eliminate the Semitic Jews (fortunateley) but succeeded in eleminating (Semitic) Christianity:

Nowadays, we do not know what to do with that, but because Christianity (the Papacy at least) had become so incredibly Semitic, we can not count on it. And, from my Latin Perspective, Protestantism is just an inferior sub set of Catholicism that the Germanics had to invent because the barbarians could not maintain proper Catholicism :)

I feel that for 95% of the people here, my words will not make much sense.

Our liberals (leftists) are the worst of all:
Semitic without their religion, slave mentality, a person to worship... they actually want us to be slaves (mentally), to worship their ideas, don't matter how stupid... They only have a set of Semitic Christian ethics that have lost it's conection with the divine.
But they are at the same time, Europeans, but without traditions without the sense of belonging to a given culture/Nation and most importantly a "demos"; a thriving persuit for perfection and freedom, but without honour, moral, and more an aparent freedom than a real one that turns freedom into slavery and perfection in the most vile imperfection.

Those leftists are like the retarded children of two brothers, they just have it all messed up.

xlbrl said...

The feminization of society is accelerating both emasculation and socialism, it is true; two deadly diseases for any civilization.
Yet there should be no doubt it was precisely the influence of women that is responsible the rise of the West. Irritating, frustrating, contradictory, and vexing though they are, and yet we rose because they are what they are.
So it is that Socrates, when he was not making jokes about man's condition under women, said this:
'Before the birth of love, many fearful things took place through necessity, but when this god was born, all thing rose to man.'
Clearly, that is an experience uknown to Muslims, among others, and it wears poorly on them.
Life is undoubtedly lived in cycles, and we are at a low point in the one under discussion. Islam is only the barium to illuminate our foolishness, which, unchecked by the concentrating effect of a great enemy, would by itself overtake us without interruption.
Yet Islam itself could not be weaker. All cruelty springs from weakness.
Sopocles--The keenest sorrow is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.

xlbrl said...

afonso h--
Christianity is not a Semetic religion, like Islam. Islam is a mutant desert Hebrew religion, warlike and polygamous like the Hebrews of old. Christianity has very little to do with Hebrew religions of any sort, and did not catch on with Jews for that reason. I seem to recall Jesus was executed by the Hebrew priestly cast.
Jesus was undoubtedly a Hellenistic Jew, and his ideals were improvements on the best Greek understandings.

Joanne said...

diamed 3:45 a.m. - too much information man; you have some serious issues. Your generalizations are way off.

Maybe people should look into the reasons men choose certain women, than trying to lay the blame on the 'supposed' reasons women choose men.

xlbrl - you need to give the Bible a read, because you are so far off. Read Genesis and hopefully you'll be enlightened. Pay attention to Shem and his descendants.

"Sopocles--The keenest sorrow is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities."

Isn't this the truth. How about looking inward instead of outward for the reasons the relations between men and women have gone downhill. Personally, I believe things have gone amuck is because we as people no longer keep God's commandments, judgements and statutes; thus, we are no longer good. Trying to lay the blame on women and their wanting testosterone driven men who are 'all bad' is ludicrous. Most women want a man who will quite simply 'love' them. Is this so much to ask of men?

Joanne said...

"Most women want a man who will quite simply 'love' them."

And I should add - that the men who love the women, show this love through actions, just not words.

xlbrl said...

joanne--
Do not assume someone has or has not read the "bible." Your references to the Old Testement do not explain or excuse polygamy. No worthy civilizatoin has risen out of polygamy without first eradicating it. That would include the Jews, eventually, and the Greeks, if not the Macedonians.
For centuries, the Jews were accustomed to prophets sweeping in from the desert outlands, sometimes twice a century. Some things stuck, most didn't, but over centuries the religion evolved.
Jesus did not come from the desert, Mohammed did. Muhammed represented a mutant conglomeration of things, while Jesus separated himself from Judiasm too much to be included in it.
But the point is, or should be, the essential and irreplacable role of women in forming a unique civilization, no matter that this knife has two edges and cuts many a hand that uses it.

Diamed said...

How are they way off?

Women aren't bearing enough babies, it's a fact, they are below replacement fertility.

Women are the ones who file for 2/3 of the divorces and are the source of the rise in divorce, men never wanted it. They also are virtually always the one who breaks up with the guy. Illegitimacy rate is also 50% in Europe and rising in America as well.

Women commit adultery 50% of the time now. These are just facts.

Women vote liberal and are the main cause of the unfair laws that support their parasitic behavior.

Women receive affirmative action in jobs they cannot compete fairly in at men's expense, then complain when they don't end up at the top of every field. Again, these are just facts.

Comments like yours, "you're totally wrong." are so empty and useless because they do not attempt to describe how I'm wrong, where I'm wrong, what isn't true, and so on. Try to argue constructively instead of "you have issues." I repeat all my well documented, well proven charges on women. Are any of them Actually wrong in any way you can Actually point out?

Afonso Henriques said...

Xlbr,

I do not say that Jesus or his ideas were Semitic, in fact, I'd say that his ideas have strong influences from "Indo-European" sources such as Persian Zoroastrianism and Roman vallues... I'd say very early Christianity to have two components: One, completeley Semitic (Jewish/Hebrew) and Jesus, half Semitic, half "European".
That does not mines what I have said though.

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

Joanne,

"Most women want a man who will quite simply 'love' them. Is this so much to ask of men?"

No it's not. In my view, it is to dicieve men. But maybe, it is me who... "has issues". While love may be necessary, it is definetly not enough. Even I can tell that.

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

Diamed,

"Illegitimacy rate is also 50% in Europe and rising in America as well."
WHAT!!??

If you said 20%, I could agree but, 50%... I'd like to see your sources, otherwise, I will not believe it.

Homophobic Horse said...

Afonso, ditch the Julias Evola and read Rene Guenon instead, Rene Guenon is lucid traditional wisdom and insight without the fascism.

Diamed said...

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050410_ruin.htm

"Crime's sister, illegitimacy, is also high in Britain. In England and Wales 41 percent of new babies are born to unmarried women. And it's even worse —46 percent, see p. 84 of this PDF—among women born in the U.K. "

Read it and weep afonso!

Whiskey said...

Last Few Patriots --

Yes, your experiences are what I have seen and observed in various social settings.

Joanne -- I'm sorry but stats do not bear you out. Illegitimacy went from 4% among whites and 24% among blacks to 34% today and 70% among blacks nationwide, and 90% in the urban core. The latest 2006 Survey had 41% illegitimate births.

Women don't need or want husbands, rather "stimulating" and "passionate" sex partners in a disposable way. One after the other. NYC's rate of STDs for example, 25% of adults, much higher than the 18% nationally. Women in NYC average 25 reported sex partners (it's undoubtedly higher) compared to 9 nationally.

Highly mobile, urban, anonymous society allows women to consume sex and relationships like disposable razors.

This is not going to change, any time soon, and the PC/Multiculti politics that comes from it will create two opposing classes: women and the 20% of high testosterone-status men who flit from women to women, and the 80% of men too low status to compete.

Misogyny is CERTAIN to be created, and women will just have to deal with it.

Jungle Jim said...

Joanne said

"Other than the abortion issues, I do not know what you are talking about. All the feminist movement has done for me is given me two jobs."

All that the feminist movement has done for me is to deny me jobs. In my field I have been discriminated against every step of the way because I do not have a vagina.

Afonso Henriques said...

Diamed,
50% in the U.K. that I believe.
You however have generalised it to the whole of Europe. Here in Southern Europe more than 20% is impossible, I'd say between 5 to 10~12%.

Homophobic Horse, thank you for the tip. I'll lay an eye on it.
Concerning Évola, I only read 1953 Men Among the Ruins. I will definetly take your tip.

S said...

Diamed, et al~Your comments are getting scary.

"For eons we have legislated against male crimes that endanger the health of society: theft, murder, assault, rape, drug-dealing, etc. It is time to treat women equally and legislate against their actions that harm society: promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce, parasitism, spinsterhood, etc. Simply because women are unlikely to do male crime does not mean they can't be menaces to society or do more harm overall than the male criminals."

Can you seriously be comparing theft, murder, assault, rape and drug-dealing with promiscuity, illegitmacy, divorce, spinsterhood and parasitism (whatever that is)?

Promiscuity is and has always been a male trait. Men are biologically and genetically that way to spread their seed the most they can to procreate. Those that didn't get shut out of the gene pool. Most young men today have a three date rule. After three dates if there isn't sex, they move on. The girls today are responding to that pressure. Give in or get dumped. Casual promiscuity is a result of enjoying sex, not to hurt the partner. It's becoming more common for women to sleep around, but they don't sleep around ALONE. And I would guess most women who give themselves, the first time to a man, they hope to stay with him and then they get dumped. Hurt and angry they do as the men do and hurt in return. And 3 out of 5 women, at least, have their first sexual experience at the hands of a molester, either a neighbor or family member or aquaintance. They are the ones who often end up being the most promiscuious. They harden up to reality real quick. Almost ALL prostitutes were raped as kids or preteens. Would you prefer women be mutilated, like in islam, so they will stay "PURE"???

Divorce is a two way street, in case you hadn't noticed. The posters here talk as if filing for divorce is a casual idea decided over lunch. Unlikely. Divorce used to be something men initiated, when they found another woman. Now women file first because they have income. Would you prefer the islamic style of divorce? Where the man just has to say it but the women has to fight in court, while the man marries the next and the next wife?

As far as illegitimacy goes, that has ALWAYS existed. And it is a two way street, also. Shotgun wedding's being forced by the girl's father have deminished as the welfare system came into being, that is true. Would you prefer the shotgun wedding, where the abuse usually starts soon after the vows are finished? Those black chicks that have 4 kids by 4 different men would probably LOVE to have a husband, but as soon as they find out they are pregnant the guy shouts, It AIN'T MINE and disappears. They just decide they will have the kids anyway. Maybe you want them to marry at age 9? Then they would not be out there having illegitimate kids? I hate to tell you but there are plenty of married gals collecting, because the guy is a drunk or drug addict, but still making babies. Would you prefer the islamic way of murdering women who become pregnant while not married?

And Spinsterhood, a MENACE TO SOCIETY, and comparable to a CRIME? PLEASE, tell me you are joking! Can you seriously believe that if a girl doesn't marry she should be a criminal? You are sick. And should all those guys who don't marry and are just 'players', what about them? Oh, that's right, they won't be criminals because we don't need them to populate the earth, right? Would you prefer the islamic way of forcing the daughters to marry to insure they get married? Or maybe you could volunteer to marry a spinster to take one "off the street" and reduce crime?

And parasitism? Do you mean "Gold-diggers"? Someone looking for a mealticket, either from a partner or the government? They've always been around, both male and female. The immigrants sitting in France waiting to get into England fit the description but you are talking about women here. The female is biologically and genetically that way to provide for survival of the children. With fifty percent of the women working full time in the US it's hard to produce large families. If the man can provide for the family on one salary (the old fashioned way) the family is often larger. Not always, of course, because the media makes young people today think that they are doing the world a favor by limiting the size of their families to two. Would you prefer the islamic way of Saudi Arabia? Where the women is the chattel and responsibility of men? Or are you asking for women to all be employed so that no man ever has to provide for them? Or the kids?


As far as the high testosterone guy who is bad, it's not usually testosterone so much as good looks. The good looking guy gets the girls. Just like the cute cheerleader gets the boyfriends. Good looks are like money in the bank. Genetic gold that indicates good health. And good looking guys often do better wealth building and faster at work, even treated better by other guys. Good looking girls get better promotions and good looking waitresses get better tips. It's an unfair world for the not so good looking.

As far as your work stories, there are examples to prove the opposite everywhere. You want women to stay true to their vows but then you are critical of the doctors wife when she does just that, saying that she is only staying married for the prestige or money. How do you know? Are you in her therapy sessions? Did she tell you that?

You complain bitterly about the women who are sleeping around. If they were sleeping with you would you be complaining? It sounds like you are looking in all the wrong places for someone who is able to be your partner. Someone who is on your level. Get some therapy.


I don't think women want us to go extinct. There are not enough kids being born, that is for sure. That is due to the propoganda from the environmentalists telling us the world is overpopulated. And the invention of the pill has taken the sexual pressure off of both sexes. I hear lots of girls wishing they could have more kids. Most don't because they have to work full time and the husband or boyfriend either left them or won't help or just told them no way. As far as abortions go, the few girls I know were told by the boyfriend or husband to get it or else. And the number one cause of death for pregnant women is murder by the child's father. And shelters are bursting so don't even suggest that. They are full of women who were beat nearly to death by the boyfriends because they refused to have abortions and their families kick them out because they are pregnant and a 'burden' or "shameful". Women are damned if they do and damned and condemned if they don't. Bitched at for "downloading a burden on society" and bitched at for not having kids and bitched at for opening their legs and putting out and bitched at for not putting out. No wonder women are AFRAID to have children.

You want to go back to the old ways. When society shamed everything except a very narrow view of life? When people stayed married, no matter how miserable? When the orphanages were bursting? Illegitamet kids hidden away or abandoned in shame? When those kids born to unweds were called bastards to their faces? When abortions weren't legal so women died if they needed one? And don't tell me they are NEVER needed either. My aunt would have lived if she was able to have an abortion but instead she died at 19, one year after getting married and finding out about a heart defect that killed her due to her pregnancy. The doctor could have saved her but it was not allowed. But saving her would be a crime to you since she would have lived a long life as a childless women only able to be good to other people's children. And my great-grandmother, who died in childbirth and left three children under the age of 4 1/2 to be raised motherless, by a bitter father, angry at being alone.
And the 15 year old girl who died at the local hospital two years ago because of her heart defect who would have lived if she had an abortion. But her family was very religious and they decided her fate. The doctor warned them she would die but they didn't care. She didn't tell her family out of shame until she was 7 months along and by then it was too late and her heart killed her a few weeks later. A late term abortion would have saved her life. The people around her said late term abortions are NEVER needed and god would save her if it was meant to be. Why save her if she can never have a child anyway, right? The LGF crew said anyone who would have a late term abortion has no right to live. Didn't she? They said anyone who has a late term abortion should be tried for murder. At 15? To save her life? Oh well, god willed it her parents said.

You say that women "care nothing for the children they have, leaving them largely to TV and daycare and school while they go off to work or party". Again, you are clueless, it seems. Most of the women I know were weeping when they had to take their kids to daycare so that they could work. They would have gladly stayed home with the kids, but they made the mistake of being with someone who was not a "high earner" so they must work. So you critize them for working? And leaving them at school while they go off to work? PLEASE! Must they home school also for you to be happy? The welfare moms are staying home with the kids, but they get your scorn, too.

For every story you have from guys about reasons for kids not being born there are similar stories from gals. You just don't hear them because you are a guy.

Of course there are some women like the shows that "Whiskey" described. But you are in trouble if your impression of women comes from Hollywood soaps or shows. And that is another problem today with small families. Many people today don't have a brother or sister to even learn what it is like to share a home with the opposite sex as a person to relate to before marriage.

Western people do need to have more children. I have been saying that for years. Four children, not two.

Immigration needs to stop. But the governments won't stop it unless the population is growing to sustain the economy.


(Diamed-By the way, do you have children? I bet you don't.
You sound like someone who hates women. )

laine said...

At it's simplest, here's the problem. A society that does not have children dies out.

Only women can have children.

When women choose to work instead at a job that a man could do and shirk the one job he cannot do, that is a narcissism fatal to society.

Additionally, although there is no job a man can do that some woman somewhere can't do, as a group, women are too risk averse (and physically weak) to make satisfactory substitutes in large numbers in armed forces, police, fire departments or political leadership when externally attacked. Therefore promotion of women in these areas hastens the demise of the society that allows it after an early blossoming due to a larger pool of intelligence.

There seems little point in blaming men or women for this situation as there's more than enough blame to go around.

Both sexes have bought into a narcissism that considers only one's individual preferences, (the me society) unencumbered by any sense of duty toward anyone or anything else like one's parents, fellow citizens or posterity.

Christianity provided some impetus toward duty and altruism as well as morality. With its weakening (purposeful by the Left but not exclusively their doing) nothing nearly as efficacious took its place (despite socialism's pretense of altruism eviscerated by the Baron in another post or atheists' claim to a moral code which more often than not is cribbed from the Christian one and which only works where there is a remnant of Christian decency).

Human nature that is not strongly inspired by something to rise spiritually seems prone to wallow in the lowest of behaviors, like violence or irresponsible sex. (Diamed, "rising" as in high moral standards cannot be coerced and if it is, the resulting society is still ugly, as Islam should have demonstrated to you).

The first order of business is to rehabilitate the beauty of having and raising children among western whites, both men and women, as something nobler than most other occupations. The second is encouraging intact families among all western citizens including blacks as the proven best method for raising healthy children who will be productive members of society as well as personally happy.

These two steps alone would go a long way toward diminishing poverty and crime as well.

latté island said...

S, thank you for your rant. That's EXACTLY what I wanted to say, but I was so demoralized by this entire thread, that I didn't bother.

mjcwrites said...

We're not talking about men and women we know, we're talking about the feminist movement, aren't we? When Fjordman says "women brought this on themselves" that's an apt description of what's happened. I personally didn't create this problem; I was born in the eighties, well after feminism became another ingrained grievance industry. I don't look at men and women I know personally for blame in this situation, either. That's not the discussion at hand. Feminism did this, and women didn't stop it long after we saw where it was heading. If we HAD tried to stop it, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Feminism has made more headway in feminizing the military and demonizing men than its opponents could counter in a generation. The women I know personally aren't terribly feminist. They just want what most women want: equal pay for equal work, acknowledgment that we're no less intelligent or capable than a man. Feminism as a movement started from those simple propositions, so women, in a reflexive, absent way, end up supporting far more damaging propositions.

You can't lay the damage to men in the last forty years at the feet of any agent OTHER than feminism. Take domestic violence as an example. Everyone agrees it's wrong, it should be stopped. It's a horrible thing. Feminism has taken that baseline agreement and then gone on to proclaim an EPIDEMIC of domestic violence. The bar for what constitutes domestic violence--now to include "emotional abuse" and "verbal abuse"--has been lowered. Jail sentences are higher. The burden of proof is lower. And in the hysterical climate of this "epidemic" of domestic violence, with statistics hyped far beyond the bounds of reality, to be accused is to be guilty. What's "emotional abuse?" Yes, I know the dictionary definition, but it's elastic as hell and any woman whose husband disagrees with her can accuse him of it. Women use this as a weapon in custody battles.

Take the rape "epidemic." Young women in colleges are being taught that EVERY man is a potential rapist. As with domestic violence, to be accused of rape is to be guilty. No need of proof but the word of the accuser, and God knows she'd NEVER lie, all though we know women who have. Duke rape case, anyone?

Yes, women do get raped. But we've lowered the bar on PROOF so far and left no repercussions whatsoever on a lying accuser, so that the real crimes are buried in a morass of petty revenge and bloody-minded feminist-indoctrinated lies.

This serves no one. Not enough women spoke up when that bar was lowered, so now we find ourselves in a position where, with a few more Dukes, there will be real rape victims who AREN'T believed. Too many women cried wolf.

All the attributes that make men masculine have been under attack for forty years. Aggression, competitiveness, honor, courage, duty, loyalty, fidelity, too many others to name. These things were the foundation of men that understood their obligations and duties--to protect and provide, because like it or not, protection is still necessary and provision for families isn't and shouldn't be a job for one person. Metrosexuality is simply the feminization of men, and we don't NEED feminized men, we've already got women.

Ordinary little boys, bundles of energy that they are, get drugged en masse to make them compliant under the guise of ADD and ADHD. Boys aren't allowed to be boys anymore, which means men can't be men. Men are now vastly outnumbered in college. They're less literate than women by a huge percentage. And male suicide is increasing.

All of that is fruits of feminism, which told us men are the enemy, men are unnecessary, men are the cause of all the evils in the world. And we--I'm including you in this, Joanne--didn't stop the radicals, so in that sense, we are partly responsible. Men would've had a hard time stopping it; it's still considered less than gallant for a man to argue with a hysterical woman, and from what I've seen, the uberfeminist harridans are rarely anything less than hysterical.

Remember Hillary's run for Senate in New York? As soon as her opponent was seen to "menace" her, though it would've gone completely unnoticed if she'd been a man, the election was over. How are men supposed to fight in that kind of climate?

Men were fair enough to AGREE, way back when and as a majority, that women did deserve equal rights and equal pay. It was women that took that and ran with it to the point of demanding preferential treatment and no responsibility. Maybe if men had made a stronger stand initially, saying "yeah, equal rights...AND responsibilities," we wouldn't be here. It's possible. But in their defense, these men didn't know what would happen after equal pay for equal work had been achieved.

Limpet said...

"I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves. They have been waging an ideological, psychological and economic war against white men for several generations now, believing that this would make you “free.”

In fact, feminist organizations have been taken over by leftist frauds who have betrayed the ideals of feminism and seized positions of influence in the mass media and in the field of education. It seems their main objective is to prevent women from starting families at an early age. The phony feminists also encourage immigration and casual sex, which is obviously not in the interest of women. Another of their objectives is to direct young women into careers that are better suited for men, and young men into careers that are better suited for women.

This evolution is not unique to feminism. Many religious and environmentalist organizations, many conservative institutions, many charities, trade unions, parent teacher associations, etc, have been taken over by the crazy left. It doesn't mean there was something wrong with their causes. I don't think there was anything wrong with feminism. It was a useful movement dedicated to the defense of women's interests.

The left always tries to create antagonism between people: between employers and employees, between the third-world and the West, between teenagers and their parents, between women and men...
But it isn't true that women in western countries have become hostile to white men. The hostility mainly comes from the media and education institutions, although they must have some bad influence on normal people.

I think the feminization of western society is probably linked in some way to the fact that society has become less natural and more heavily controlled by the administration. The invention of the contraceptive pill must have had an effect on relations between men and women too. Not every change can be attributed to far-left feminism.