Peak Oil News and Message Boards

By "Feminism" I assume we are talking about 3rd-wave Feminism, as invented by marxist activists Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Goldstein, alias "Betty Friedan". 2nd-wave Feminism ("Rosie the Riveter") was also marxist, the goal being to get more women into wartime industries to displace men to send to save the soviet union.

De Beauvoir was a Stalinist, as was her platonic companion Jean-Paul. Goldstein was and remains a Trotskyite. The goal of 3rd-wave feminism was to get more women into salaried careers to boost the tax rolls and to lower corporate wages by increasing the labor pool (did you really think that Marx was a friend of the workers? Did Engels turn his own millions and factories over to them? It was all an elaborate fraud), while discouraging women from marrying, so that there would be more single men available to send on the "white man's burden" (at the height of the Vietnamese War which was not a coincidence; the idea was to try to show up a former client state that went renegade).

Goldstein was advised by her then-husband, Carl Friedan ne Friedman (he had his own past to hide), who was an advertizing executive. She came up with a purely fictional identity as a suburbanite housewife (she was never a housewife; according to Friedan she had servants to do all the housework and raise the kids) and then promoted Feminism (Karl Marx'es version) by telling women that she was languishing in existential Angst because she didn't have a career, and then she discovered Feminism and found personal gratification. It is the standard advertising pitch: "I was lost until I found product X that solved all my problems".

Actually Goldstein did have a career. She wrote for a "radical labor" (ie, marxist) tabloid.

She lost control of the "women's movement" over the lesbian issue. Read "Sappho was a right-on woman", but read between the lines. She openly recruited lesbians to her "NAACP for women" as she called it, but wanted them to stay in the closet, because she realized that mainstream women would never agree to overt lesbian separatism ala Robin Morgan, Kate Millet, Ti-Grace Atkins, Sally Miller Gearhardt and Mary Daley (so-called "ecofeminists"), one of whom is on record for advocating male genocide as a means of "saving the earth", et al.

Ecofeminism doesn't work, and can not work. You can not commune with the animals like in "the Wanderground" and they give permission to the Hill Wimmin to kill and eat them. And you really can't "commune" with the pot of water and it starts boiling itself (so that you're not "raping the earth" by gathering firewood or polluting the air by burning it). Feminists don't really have magical powers like that. Mary Daley and Sally Miller Gearhardt are both completely dependent on that male phallologocentric thing about buildings, machines, civilization, etc. If you tossed them nekkid into a rainforest with a hunting knife I don't think they'd last very long.

Feminism is the problem not the solution. Just look at how much propaganda the National Organization of Women has created on behalf of the petrodollar empire. All the propaganda about "liberating" Afghan and Iraqi women (liberating them from everything they love and turning their lives into living hell). Feminism is the daughter of marxism--a means of enslaving people by telling them that they are victims and that you want to help them (by having them do your dirty work for you).

Feminism is nothing but lies by malicious misanthropic, "misandric" liars.

By "Feminism" I assume we are talking about 3rd-wave Feminism, as invented by marxist activists Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Goldstein, alias "Betty Friedan". 2nd-wave Feminism ("Rosie the Riveter") was also marxist, the goal being to get more women into wartime industries to displace men to send to save the soviet union.

No! I'm not talking about any 3rd wave, 2nd wave, 12 wave, or Mexican wave brand of feminism. I don't subscribe to any one person's view on feminism, or any one "wave's" view of feminism. I don't agree with one person's entire views or one movement's entire views on anything. I don't operate that way. The only one person's entire views on feminism I agree with are my own views.

I don't care what any individual feminist did, or didn't do or say. I don't care what any particular faction of feminism did, or didn't do or say. As far as I'm concerned, feminism is equal rights for women. E.g. not being refused a job solely because I'm a woman, not being refused oral contraceptives because I'm single, not being refused access to a particular area of education because it's traditionally only for men, fill in your own example.

Some of the posters in this thread seem to have very rigid, simplistic, and bizzare views of feminists.
E.g.

They tend to be overbearing zealots, capable of brainwashing people into doing things that they wouldn't usually do, as are many powerful groups.

Alot of people seem to think that if one feminist, or feminist faction says something, that every other feminist agrees with them. As I said before feminists aren't identical clones. They are individuals with individual views, lumping them all together into one identical mass is a lie.

Feminism is nothing but lies by malicious misanthropic, "misandric" liars.

I'm interested to know where the lies are in wanting equal treatment in employment and education.

Worrier wrote:

'm interested to know where the lies are in wanting equal treatment in employment and education.

...I would add to worrier's comments...

And also where are the lies in wanting a world where you can't just be beaten to death because you burned dinner, refused the right to own property, or wear what the h*ll you like.

[not being refused a job solely because I'm a woman, not being refused oral contraceptives because I'm single, not being refused access to a particular area of education because it's traditionally only for men]

In other words, she admits that she is dependent on men to create opportunities for her. Or do women discriminate against women?

The implication, then, is that a woman's need is her right, and it is a man's duty to fulfil her needs for employment, contraceptives, and education. How insulting to women! Feminism is the most visciously misogynistic concept ever imagined.

[No! I'm not talking about any 3rd wave, 2nd wave, 12 wave, or Mexican wave brand of feminism. I don't subscribe to any one person's view on feminism, or any one "wave's" view of feminism. I don't agree with one person's entire views or one movement's entire views on anything. I don't operate that way. The only one person's entire views on feminism I agree with are my own views.]

Words have meanings. If man-loathing Communist gender-baiters like "Betty Friedan", Bella Abzug, and Susan Brownmiller hadn't resurrected the concept, she wouldn't know to associate herself with it.

[And also where are the lies in wanting a world where you can't just be beaten to death because you burned dinner, refused the right to own property, or wear what the h*ll you like.]

The implication being that non-feminists want a world where "you" can be beaten to death because "you" burned dinner, or that women were ever refused the right to own property on a gender basis rather than a class basis (ie, yes, slave and serf women couldn't own property, but neither could slave and serf men).

This is feminism:

Feminist “peace and love”:

“It is I who gave you your 'plague,' my dear ..... I and the war I fought built your world for you, I and those like me, we gave you a thousand years of peace and love and the Whileawayan flowers nourish themselves on the bones of the men we have slain”

Joanna Russ, "When It Changed"

Reference to a gender-specific (male) bioweapon used by the feminists on Whileaway to exterminate the entire male population of the planet to create a paradise of “peace and love”.

“…the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
…
The male likes death--it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die.
…
it doesn't follow that because the male, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist.
…
SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing ball with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Men's Auxiliary are: men who kill men…
…
a woman's primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: "I am a turd, a lowly, abject turd," then proceed to list all the ways in which he is.
…
The few remaining men…can go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly and painlessly gassed to death.
…
Rational men want to be squashed, stepped on, crushed and crunched, treated as the curs, the filth that they are, have their repulsiveness confirmed.”

Exerpts from SCUM Manifesto. The rest of it doesn’t sound any better. Many people believe the feminist LIE that Andy Warhol (and apparently 2 innocent bystanders as well) earned his bullet by sabotaging the only copy of Solanas’s play “Up your ___”. Actually, he didn’t. The producer of “I shot Andy Warhol” found two copies still in existence. Just another feminist fairy-tale of persecution. The subject matter of that play is about a woman who achieves personal fulfillment by strangling her handicapped son. It’s a Lillith-complex fantasy. After Solanas shot Andy Warhol and one other man, and pointed the gun at a third (it jammed), the New York chapter of NOW assembled a legal dream-team consisting of most of the officers of NOW—who were all lawyers—to defend her (while simultaneously denying any involvement with the case!!!!), largely by attacking the victim and making it appear as though he had provoked the attack. More peace and love from the feminists.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
Andrea Dworkin

Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to [explitive]/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'"
Judith Levine

I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan (former editor of “Ms”)

Kill your fathers.
Robin Morgan

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men."
Sharon Stone (star of “Basic Instinct”)

This is feminism: http://www.hotheadpaisan.com/

Ayash -

I think you're mistaken.

The quotes you give are not feminism; they are merely inverted chauvinism.

As somebody or other said:

"We tend to accept the context of that which we react against."

Seems to me the trick is, regardless of ones gender, to get beyond being a reactionary.

regards,

Backstop

Atash, I think you're a bit bizzare. Bye bye.

seconded.

Feminism has become a bad word lately because the movement for equality was hijacked by ideolouges calling us men the root of all evil and blank-slater crazies who though that all the behavioral diferences between men and women were cultural constructs.

Oh, and IIRC, the blank slate thing in acedamia is a Leninist thing, not vannila Marxism.

This is an example of why I dislike feminist and think of them as hate mongers.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050503

Some are, others aren't.

Classifying all feminists as lesbian, hairy-armpitted man-haters is about as useful as claiming that everyone who accepts Peak Oil as a reality is a hard-core, survival-obsessed doomer frantically building their stash of guns and food tins in eager anticipation of the apocalypse.

It's intellectually lazy.

The Peak Oil movement has technologists, doomers, cornucopians, optimists, pessimists, survivalists, New Urbanists and homesteaders, among many others. Similarly, 'feminism' attracts hardcore Marxists, 'lifestyle feminists' and people like me who just want to see a more realistic work-family balance in the corporate world.

are feminists more agressive sexually?
Cause if they are thats cool

NEOPO wrote:are feminists more agressive sexually?
Cause if they are thats cool

Only towards other womyn.

Here's two things on that,

http://www.peterberkowitz.com/feminismv ... ralism.htm

http://www.theknoll.ca/php/display.php?article_id=2

Anyway, in essence feminism and multiculturalism are pretty much incompatible. I mean, how can you promote all cultures, including a culture that allows the trading of women and the marriage of little girls to older men, while promoting the superiority and prosperity of women?

Something has got to give, and my bets on feminism, especially when when the industrial economy begins to wind down and resources begin to become depleted en masse. A more traditional way of life will be the one that would tend to be optimal in such a scenario, meanwhile immigration and a graying older population will make the immigrants culture have a more profound effect overall.

What do you think?

In the book, Lucifers Hammer, womens liberation ended when the first fragments of the ficticious Hamner Comet slammed into Earth.

Whatever [s]sexual[/s] gender equality exists post peak it certainly won't be anything like it is today.

Multiculturalism is already dying and before the century is over, it will be gone.

It's not necessarily bad. Multiculturalism allows for a greater idea of the role of women and what it should be through the feminist movement. American feminism, or any for that matter, is not perfect, thus the meshing together of ideas from different cultures would/should allow the best qualities to emerge. Maybe American feminists can take a note from others and realize that being modest in your dress, for instance, gives you much more power and much more respect rather than dressing like a whore like is common here in the West.

Or the more agressive qualities.

Feminism won't go away, it will simply change form.

Those women who are feminist now, will be feminist later, even if they have to make concessions.

So, what form will feminism take politically?

I'm thinking that feminist, seeing a possible complete erosion of their freedoms will opt for some type of stalinesque government in order to try and maintain the rights and privileges that feminism has procured for women at the expense of men.

Women will be afraid that without a ultra powerful government in place, men won't share the pie. So they'll make concessions in the short term such as going back to a more traditional way of life temporarily, while using all of their political force to reinforce the government's power, at the expense of personal freedoms. Once the government is completely totalitarian, and in control, and the nanny state has been constructed, they will go back to pursuing their freedoms with feminist friendly dictators.

The new nanny state will be completely biased in favor of women instead of men.



What do you think?

Many of the Western countries are already heavily biased in favor of women. Men, especially Caucasians, are the only group that it is politically correct to show hatred towards.

Most feminist today are not about equality. They are about female gender superiority. One only has to look at the laws for divorce, reverse-discrimination, and social support for women.

Women get even more money, attention, and special treatment than children.

If society falls in on itself those with strong families will be more likely to survive. Feminism has destroyed families and thrives in wealthy and rising societies. As the societies fall and become poorer it will lose it's strength.

Why the elite love feminism:

1. It weakens families by saying the role of mother = slave. People from weak families tend to be easier to control and more dependent on government.

2. It demonizes men. This creates a conflict between genders and weakens the bonds between them. Again, weaker bonds means easier to control as people have less ability to rely on family and creates distrust between genders.

3. It convinced half the population that was barely represented in the workforce to take jobs. More competition for jobs lowers wages and benefits. More wage earners meant greater competition and demand for goods.

4. Children receive less attention from their parents. Since parents, especially mothers, spend less time with their children it is easier for the government to indoctrinate children.