Public comments on feminism

Feminist ideology and the effect it has had upon society
About this forum
This is an example of one thread - Feminism - which has recently been turned into its own subforum. Thus we are currently breaking that very interesting, but very long, thread into sub-discussions where appropriate. This will leave the original thread with a lot of views while the new threads will apparently have fewer. They'll begin to catch up though.

Public comments on feminism

Postby Elliott » 29 Dec 2012, 05:32

Feminism is one of the most contentious issues we have discussed on this forum.

A few days ago there was an article in the Daily Telegraph which prompted me to begin stockpiling comments for "preservation".

Hilary French, president of the Girls' Schools Association, says that girls at her private school have outdated attitudes towards career and motherhood, and it's because society doesn't do enough to tell them that it's their decision, they can have both, etc.

Hilary French wrote:Eighteen months ago, one of the young entrepreneurs [visiting my school], a lady, dared to say that she had probably put her business ahead of her son, and the sharp intake of breath from all of the girls was audible.

They were all absolutely shocked, so yes, we are still creating a generation of girls who think that the whole idea of looking after children is really the most important thing, once you have a child.

And now the comments from an article about this...

SALLY PECK: Girls still see child-raising as their future – why don’t boys?

itsastickup wrote:There is no equality between the sexes other than in dignity. Men and women are concretely different. The mother's instinct as a parent is different from the father's instinct as a parent. Their brains and hormones are wired differently. A father cannot replace a mother, just as a mother cannot replace a father.

This isn't ideological. This is based on anthropology and studies (such as single parent families etc).

While insisting that men and women are equal, nevertheless a man cannot give birth nor breastfeed. It's bonkers to pretend that despite the radical differences in body there is no difference in mentality or the brain or instincts etc.

Sure a woman can do (most) of the things a man can do, and vice versa, but there is a usually a cost and more often than not at the expense of the children.

The very word "sexism" is a denial of human nature.

magwitch wrote:Maybe I am an old dinosaur, but I see nothing wrong whatsoever in girls assuming they will one day be mothers. Who the heck is going to bear and raise future generations otherwise? We will soon be so very politically correct that we will PC ourselves into extinction!

alllan01 wrote:There are plenty of good men willing to raise happy families too. We hear constantly from family-hating feminists how women can do it for themselves, taking on man-like behaviours in the process. They have robbed women of the beauty of motherhood and left them desperately sad and lonely after a life of pursuing careers. Ladies - if you want these good men - communicate it and reconnect with the feminine mystery we love! Strong families of Mum, Dad and kids make a strong nation and our lives are better for it.

securedgold wrote:You feminists think men and women are identical! It's ridiculous.

Women want men with wealth, it's hard-wired. Men don't look for wealth in women at all.

Given this, it's perfectly natural to assume that a man can't dedicate as much time to child-rearing as he must dedicate time to earning the daily bread.

As for society gasping more when a woman leaves a child compared to a man, it's with good reason! A woman has a bond with a child far greater than a man. It's only natural to see this bond broken as being more abhorrent. Don't deny nature! Men and women are not identical!

whocares2013 wrote:Good to see some girls have sense and realise that child-rearing is more important than a career.

Vile feminists can't alter natural human instinct in the space of two generations.

stonewood wrote:"Girls still see child-raising as their future – why don’t boys?"

Because they're boys. Dear me, have you any experience of real life at all.

This reminds me of these brain-dead feminists who claimed (and still claim) that gender is a social construct. One experiment from the 70s had boys and girls being given doll's houses to play with to demonstrate that "we're all just the same". The girls re-arranged the furniture and the curtains and invited other girls to visit. The boys either set light to their houses or broke them up for missiles to bombard the other houses. Needless to say the feminist idiots didn't get the point then and they never will.

lizzy_tu wrote:"A lady dared to say that she had probably put her business ahead of her son"

Sharp intake of breath here too! What on earth do these people think life is about?

JamesH wrote:The shortest answer to the question in the headline is, it's not their job!

I think it's telling that, despite two generations of anti-mothering propaganda, the girls at Central Newcastle High School still realised that the woman who neglected her child to earn some wardrobe money, was doing wrong. Well done, those girls! Keep it up, and the next generation will benefit.

Men don't do parenting, or not as well. I speak as a man who worked part-time (though less through choice than through the job market) to look after my daughters when they were smelly and yelly. We know from recent research that couples who don't have clearly defined roles are less stable and prone to domestic trouble. We ignore biology at our peril.

And, why should a woman want to rejoin the rat-race? If the family can keep going frugally on one income, the children can't be hurt by having the exclusive attention of their own mother, especially when very young.

We need more commentary from women who take motherhood seriously, not as a lifestyle choice. Who knows, there might be enough people to make sure our culture continues (though it's not looking good right now).

fraternal wrote:More left-wingers trying to destroy the concept of a normal family. These people need to be put in jail for trying to put kids second. What a dreadful society we now live in.

pinkpanther wrote:People's capabilities are finite. What you are basically saying is that women who want a career as well as raising children should expect their partners to sacrifice some of their own career progression in order to help. Most men see this as OK, it's a matter of degrees. But ultimately, many people work out that it's better for the household to specialise, and concentrate efforts on one career and one carer. There is no point in a man and a woman having equally mediocre careers if between them they can't pay the bills.

It is also simply a biological fact that girls are generally more interested in child-rearing, and naturally better at many aspects of it, than boys. This specialisation (which is not total) is how our species has evolved so successfully and is replicated all throughout nature; most species of animal display one parent or the other concentrating on breadwinning, and one on nurturing. It is not wrong that this exists, and its existence in humans doesn't preclude anyone from pursuing their own particular path. It is wrong through to try to deny these facts and subvert the majority's happy balance in favour of a narrow personal agenda. Instead of moaning that not enough women have successful careers, celebrate the ones who do. Kids do know if you're depressed or bored, and imagine how godawful it would be if they were saddled with a stay-at-home father who had no inclination to be there, and was less empathetic and emotionally intelligent than the absent mother. Nobody has taught these young girls their attitude and god knows they get enough messages that women can have it all, so there must be a reason why they feel that parenting is more important than career. Why is it seen as a bad thing that they think that, if you're going to raise children, you should do it properly and devote yourself to it? This is a good thing, and I'd rather have a generation with this attitude than one that thinks kids will raise themselves and turn out okay, or that it's more important for Mummy to achieve life goals than to put her children's interests first while they're growing up. Thank heaven for little girls.

Simon Carter wrote:The best environment for a child to grow up in is a traditional family with two loving parents, who between them balance out parenting duties and earn enough money for the family to be self-sufficient and not reliant on the state

How parents choose to balance out childcare and earning duties between them is their decision, is almost certainly going to involve some compromise on both sides, and is no business of mine or the government's. What should be the government's business is to provide the right conditions to allow the traditional family unit to flourish and for both parents to have options that allow them to combine careers and childcare as best they can, without placing too much burden on employers.

valp wrote:If the general quality of adult civilisation and culture today is any gauge, I'd say not enough attention is given. Children are adults in the making and a successful parent is someone whose offspring gain stable adult lives and who in turn look after the aging parents who produced them.

Feminism preferred to indoctrinate women to populate the employment arenas. What nobody foresaw was the way a two-income family would impact on house prices. Now families have no choice about women going out to work (like home and family aren't work?).

Jonesy wrote:What feminist self-serving drivel. Yes, go ahead and put your child-rearing on the back burner or let someone else do it while you pursue your interests, after all they are only the future. Actually, if you really are that selfish please refrain from having children.
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Elliott » 29 Dec 2012, 06:08

JAKE WALLIS SIMONS: Shouldn't a woman choose her own place?

This article is also about Hilary French. Let's start with a rather amusing comment (if it's true):
The Wise One Speaks wrote:I worked at Central High for many years under the headship of Hilary French and believe me, her actions do NOT match her words. She has any number of domestic staff running around after her - nannies, cooks, housekeepers and so on - and they all feel the lash of her tongue when things are not done HER way. She could NOT have made it as a Head without the massive amount of support she has. The support I might add is ALL female on low wages. As a final point she actually threatened to sack a male teacher at her school when he wanted a few days off work to look after his wife after a terrible childbirth incident. So much for the sharing of roles, Ms French!

Frank Fisher wrote:"The fact that women are prevented from pursuing high-flying careers by society’s loaded dice"

They aren't.

Very poor article, didn't you grasp that as you were writing it? Sure, a "reasonable person" probably does and should want equal rights for women, but does that REALLY mean that same reasonable person would look at a boardroom and see something was wrong? Why? Women are not the same as men. They just ain't. As a group, they are more family-oriented, and less career-oriented, and I don't think many "reasonable" people would disagree with that. So in what way is it strange that fewer chase those top jobs (which in all likelihood are not done by the brightest and best btw, but by the sneakiest and crawliest).

We absolutely don't need to fuss about equality of outcomes, nor should apparent inequality of outcome indicate any bias or discrimination in the process. This really is simple stuff.

Oh, and if you want absolute equality, I assume you're angered by the low number of women in the men's 100m sprint final at this year's Olympics? Not to mention the shockingly low number of women serving life sentences.

J-M Arden wrote:“We are still creating a generation of girls who think that the whole idea of looking after children is really the most important thing”

It is. By far.

“We do still expect women to be at the core of the relationship, the homemaker, the person who brings up children.”

They are at the core. If by core you mean the heart.

The arrogance of this woman is breathtaking.

Cross Cop wrote:In the future Muslim-dominated Britain I somehow doubt that every girl will ever have "the opportunity to become a confident, self-assured young woman" again.

"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Koran 4:34).

Hilary French is busy tilting at wind-mills while a real monster is approaching from behind. Look around, Hilary.

Promenader wrote:“We are still creating a generation of girls who think that the whole idea of looking after children is really the most important thing”

They're right, it is. The future of the human race depends on it!

Stephie wrote:Modern feminism is not about choices but rather belittling the importance of mothers and fathers. Stay-at-home moms are ridiculed constantly as being stupid for making this choice and most of the time it comes from other women who simply do not want to feel any guilt for the decision they made to leave. How many times have you heard a feminist say that being a mother is not really work? Any parent, male or female, understands how much work it is to raise and tend to a child. Bringing up children who are educated, productive, and mannerly is extremely important to any society. Such a shame that so many mothers today feel so degraded.

Gannicus wrote:Nothing like ignoring 4 billion years worth of evolution.

BeastInBlack wrote:And 50 years of devolution.

David of Kent wrote:Equality does not mean everybody being the same. The reason that "a generation of girls who think that the whole idea of looking after children is really the most important thing" is biology; the hormones do the thinking for us during a certain period of our lives.

Stephie wrote:True and yet if you read any of those silly magazines for women, we are told repeatedly to ignore those nurturing feelings as they are not really biology but the residual effect of oppression from a society ruled by males.

Phil McG wrote:Women are very peer-oriented, more so than men. It seems to be not enough for feminists that they are free - thanks to Western civilisation - to pursue their own chosen lifestyles. They must harangue and hector other women into making the same choices, possibly because they feel this validates their decisions.

Prester John wrote:The majority of harm done to women considered as a group is done to them by other women.

Pressure to have a career as well as child comes from other women, not men; pressure to look impossibly slim originates with fashion magazines, whose editors are always female; the obsession with grooming comes from the same source (men notoriously don't notice when the women in their lives change their hair); the crushingly trivial articles in newspapers that treat women as fatuous consumers of fad diets and cosmetics are all written by women. These in particular are dedicated to preserving the idea that women should think of themselves as lesser, poorly-treated creatures.

In the Women's section of this paper today, for example, we have a story sneering at Kate Winslet for being on her third marriage at 37; a casually sexist article about how great the Olympics were for women's sport (so what?); another sexist article about how only women can empathise with the Virgin Mary; and much other guff besides, all of it patronising diminishing crap written at women by other women.

There's no Men's section for some reason.

We will have equality only when divorce lawyers tell both women and men that they either should or should not marry.

Conister wrote:I have always thought that rearing children was an important and demanding task and I'm surprised that a woman should belittle it. The bulk of the trouble society has currently with its young people is a consequence of inadequate mothering.

British Libertarian wrote:The anti-reproductive ideology of feminism is responsible for reducing the fertility rates in the West (and the encouragement of homosexuality could be seen as having the same aim).

The government is encouraging successful and intelligent young women to have a career rather than a child. And it is simultaneously encouraging the underclasses to breed through the welfare system.

Meanwhile the policy of large-scale immigration has brought into the country millions of people from cultures which do not have these concerns.

This is madness. The final outcome of the ideologies of the Left could well be the destruction of an entire civilisation. If someone wanted to eliminate a whole culture or race without being too explicit he would not use gas chambers or compulsory sterilisation, he would use feminism, homosexualism, welfarism and mass immigration.

Is it intentional or just plain stupidity?

Kevin T 1972 wrote:Feminists for the most part are privileged women with gigantic chips on their shoulders, who have decided that their gender must be the reason they feel oppressed and pissed off, not any sort of personality defect. Case studies: Harriet Harman and Laurie Penny.

Water Willows wrote:What a bunch of hogwash to pass on to younger women. But the next generation is waking up and can see the deliberate white-wash covering the deceptions.

What's so "free" about being conscripted as another tax drone? Does the female really need two jobs and more work? Should everything that is important and all that matters to her, be on the block of corporate profits?

Society has been diced and sliced by the madness of the feminazis. They have produced a dysfunctional and broken society and no-one is any richer for it. Can't even buy a house today.

It is also noticeable that the elephant in the room is always side-stepped and ignored. That being the great sleazing out of the female and the degrading cheapening of her dignity and status. Again the female is "used" for corporate profit.

People who are "used" and cheapened are never going to be the power-brokers of anything. They have degraded her traditional role of dignity and respect into the cheap floozy of flaunting her "fun bags" for the pleasure of the perverse.

This lie of "freedom" is little more than outright robbery.

Summer Mirr wrote:"The fact that women are prevented from pursuing high-flying careers by society’s loaded dice is completely unacceptable in modern Britain."

Oh put a sock in it. There is nothing stopping women pursuing high-flying careers, if they have the ability - but, let us face it, today's education in state schools hardly fits them out for it! Many women want to have children, build a home and maybe have a non high-flying job, which is part time. And, they want to be able to choose.

But, let me tell you what happens at the other end of life; after the career, high-flying or not, is over. As you get older your view on life changes, you want to give back, or help younger people, slow down, or do different things. Suddenly a high-flying career just is no longer so important. At the same time, you find that your carefully-nurtured children are bringing forth their own children, and you are now a grandparent. There is little that compares with the delight and sheer joy of that for many women.

But, if as a younger woman, you have not invested in your family, and believed all the equality guff - then you will not get the pleasure that your growing family gives you in later life.

Investing in a happy family is one of the best investments you can make - and I'd encourage any girl to consider it very carefully. A high-flying career is for 25 years, a family is for life and beyond.

Pear Tree 1 wrote:There is a shortage of women working as street-cleaners, motorway repair workers, bouncers and a few other such jobs. But they don't seem to be complaining...

Pear Tree 1 wrote:"It should be unnecessary to state that women absolutely deserve absolute equality. To every reasonable person, this is self-evident... The difficult question, however, is what having equality really means."

Pardon me, but how can something that you cannot define what it really means be self-evident? Would it not be logical to define equality and then work towards it? One of the real problems created by this equality dogma is precisely that no one really knows what it is, so it can always be invoked, in any situation, to push for radical left-wing action.

Bob 3 wrote:"So it looks like humans are always doomed to failure, doesn't it?"

We seem to have got on fairly well for the last few million years, but now in the West with Lefty interference we are not breeding anywhere near fast enough and those who are aren't the fittest or the best.

Jim Beam wrote:The vast majority of women play at their careers. They want to work until their early thirties then go off to have children, either giving up work entirely or coming back part-time. The only women who tend to want to go the distance in their careers are ball-breaking harridans.

Lorrinet wrote:For generations, women were cynically told (by men) that being mothers and homemakers meant they were on a "meal-ticket for life". The importance of their role in society was severely under-estimated and now we see the consequences all around us.

Unless we return to viewing the raising of children as a priority society will continue to disintegrate; recognising and appreciating the vital role of women in the home, knowing how to cook nutritious meals instead of warmed-up pizzas - and therefore raising healthier children - would be a good start.

Obviously, role-reversal can be a good thing too if it suits the family income better. It hardly matters whether it's Mum or Dad at home, but it needs to be one of them.

Roger Hicks wrote:Men have long single-mindedly pursued careers in order to provide for their family, which has traditionally been the focus of his wife's attention.

I do not believe that many people are capable of focusing on both career and family. There has to be a division of labour if a family is to be provided for financially and looked after practically and emotionally. How individual families decide to do this should be up to them.

Pressurising women into pursuing careers when they would be far more fulfilled looking after their families at home is one of the tyrannies of our times.

The problem lies with the nuclear family, which is not fit for purpose in the modern world, and which we would do well to replace with a larger community, so that men and women have more freedom of choice. This would enable both parents to focus on careers if they choose to, while other members of the community focus on caring for their children.

Genghis Dolefinger wrote:I bet Emily Davison wishes she never bothered jumping under that horse.

If you put your "career" ahead of your children, they will never forgive you.

Feminism is a very cruel con trick.

Out of EU Now wrote:I suspect that men-hating women like Hilary French are frustrated, bitter and twisted, and can't stand other women enjoying the fruits of family life.

I know one thing. I wouldn't let my child, boy or girl, be taught by this bitter freak of nature.

A pox on the militant feminists and their barren futures.

Reg Niztar wrote:Girls' schools are notoriously intolerant places, and any deviation from the ideal results in ruthless ostracism. Boys by contrast accept that different boys like different things, and there's room for the rugby man as well as the scholar.

Employers like confident, self-assured young women. But young women don't remain young women for very long. And confidence is a dangerous trait if it's misplaced. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Mourning Cloak wrote:Yes women should make their own choices freely.

French and her ilk are professional people which is different from being a human being. Born with the right-to-rule-and-lecture-others gene. They sneer at those who don't conform. In essence they are supremacists masquerading as feminists.

"must separate the weight of social expectation and prejudice from her true sense of what will fulfill her."

In other words they suffer from false consciousness.

In Marxist theory, false consciousness is essentially a result of ideological control which the proletariat either do not know they are under or which they disregard with a view to their own POUM (probability/possibility of upward mobility).

Hilton Holloway wrote:"The fact that women are prevented from pursuing high-flying careers by society’s loaded dice is completely unacceptable in modern Britain"

Around 60 percent of today's graduates are female. They'll all be at work and 50 percent of them childless before too long. The UK's bizarre form of feminism - unknown in Europe - is a one-way trip to no choice at all for young women.

I thought this comment was very sensible and forward-thinking:

Stigenace wrote:I'm hoping that home-based working opportunities will become more widespread as ever improving Internet links permit employers to increase workforce flexibility and, with modest capital start-ups, more mums have the freedom to go self-employed, allowing women greater scope to try and combine motherhood and continuing with a career.

PJUK1 wrote:"To every reasonable person, [it is self-evident] that gender equality is woefully lacking in certain areas of British life, especially in places like the boardroom and Parliament"

What about construction sites and the front lines of Afghanistan?

Jim Beam wrote:Most women I have heard express a preference on the subject prefer male bosses. Men are generally more natural in authority. Woman in authority generally have status issues and feel they have something to prove which often makes them a prickly, "bossy", pain in the backside.

Mike Somerset wrote:The extreme promotion of equality and the insistence that women must aspire to a professional lifestyle are very helpful elements in growing the state and diminishing family values.

I am not against equality in the slightest, however it should be individual choice rather than predetermined by the left.

Thirty years ago one member of a middle-class family would have to work full time to provide an adequate, if not good life for their family. This was generally the male. This would allow the mother to personally raise her children, but also to have the opportunity to work after the children had grown up somewhat. This is not a possibility now. It is not even an option for most middle-class families. Both parties must work in order to provide similar if not less than was attainable on one salary thirty years ago. Convenient that... double tax!

This might mean that a low-paid nanny must be employed. From what I have seen that means an Eastern European woman - a plus for mass immigration and a border-less Europe. Again very convenient.

Or the preferred option: children will be put into state-run childcare then nursery school and then school. So in essence the state raises the child and thus governs what they learn. A lot of us here are aware of how far left the school curricula are and at what a young age the indoctrination starts.

Alike AGW, peace for Europe through the EU, multiculturalism et al. The excessive promotion of women's rights is just another tool to bring about a new form of socialism.
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Nathan » 29 Dec 2012, 12:28

Thanks again, Elliott! Once again the comments prove more insightful than the articles. Feminism is not a topic I have particularly strong opinions about or which I've had a great deal of life experience with but I don't disagree with any of the sentiment in the comments you posted.

If I may deviate slightly (feel free to move this post if you think this thread is not the best place for it), over Christmas I met up with some of my old school friends - some of them I had kept in touch with but others I hadn't seen or heard from for ten years. Over the evening I tried to subtly gauge without being too negative or obvious what they thought about the decline of the west and to see what extent they shared some of the fears expressed on here.

Of the five of us, all in our late twenties, all what you could reasonably classify as middle-class, professional people who had all been to university, and unlike most of our parents none of us were married (although one was engaged) and none of us had children. I didn't want to put opinions in anyone's mouth but the general consensus was that there was 'something' wrong with that situation. Two of our group are gay but of the other three one mentioned not knowing where they stand with gender roles and a lack of femininity among the women they know as a reason for their lack of success. The friend who is engaged actually earns considerably less than his actuary fiancee, and between them they have agreed that if they have children he will be the one to do the bulk of the childcare and housework while she remains the main breadwinner. He actually claims not to have a problem with that, though having known him as a teenager I find that hard to believe.

Only one of us owned a house, and that was due to a generous inheritance. None of us lived or worked anywhere near the perfectly pleasant market town we grew up in, and although we all lament its unfriendliness and complete lack of community spirit three of us had more or less been obliged to live in London for work reasons. Three of us had also spent a year or more working or studying abroad.

While two of us considered ourselves in a better position that our parents at the same age we all agreed that our generation will inevitably be worse off than our parents as those in the rest of the world claim their share of the world's economy and that the current recession is in reality a long-term correction of the undeserved lead in living standards we have over much of the rest of the world and will likely not be ending any time soon. We all agreed that the welfare state will have to be cut back yet in light of the riots the public is far from ready to accept a lower standard of living and no democratic government would ever be willing to be radical enough to just cut people off in one fell swoop, although the only viable alternative would be our current years of austerity becoming decades.

I was wary of bringing up what I see as a demographic timebomb as my personal views are perhaps outside the range of what's politically acceptable and my friends perhaps wouldn't have seen them coming, but I mentioned the Abu Qatada case as an example of a country unwilling to stand up for its own traditional values as well as the unsustainable financial costs involved, but unfortunately nobody offered any further comment on the idea of multiculturalism so I didn't bring up the idea again.

We all agreed that so much of the present status quo was unsustainable and that history was full of examples of dramatic changes within short periods of time, and more interestingly, that 20 years down the line when our generation take over we will have to be more right wing whether we like it or not.

Listening to what my friends had to say, hearing ever more older family members tell me they are glad not to be of my generation and now reading these public comments on feminism gladdens me in realising that we on here are not the only ones who recognise that society has become dysfunctional and on a suicide mission and 'something' big is likely to happen. The only maddening thing about it for us is powerlessly having to watch it play out knowing that we largely brought it on ourselves.
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 29 Dec 2012, 14:07

Elliott, thanks again.

Nathan, thanks for an interesting post but I certainly don't think young men brought today's horrible situation upon themselves, as I'm sure you'd agree. They are just growing up lonely and bewildered, not sure what these "empowered" young women want. A thug or an intellectual? An intellectual who can be a thug sometimes? A thug with a feminine side? It's gone crazy.

Meanwhile women seem to march around stone faced, chips on their shoulders, obsessed with getting ahead in their "careers" - until a state of desperation kicks in during their late thirties and they suddenly realise what they really wanted all along.

Here are a few of my thoughts on feminism. I'm afraid I don't have time to format them much further but here they are:

  • That was a particularly good comment on women actually being the worst enemy of other women
  • Feminism has left women feeling they must compete in areas where they can never naturally do as well as men, and it has left tens of thousands of men and women lonely
  • Feminism has also demonised men as oppressors, when most men simply want a woman to love, and it has fed on this slander
  • On the whole I see feminism as political ideology designed to destroy relationships between men and women, destroy the nuclear family and thereby destroy the future of civilisation
  • I admit I have a special dislike reserved for feminism, as you might be able to to tell, and it is in no small part because I like, and care about, women.
  • Many men, and women, feel bitter about the hand feminism has dealt them, I think, and rightly so. The wisest women (ironically, from the feminists' point of view) are not feminist: they reject that rubbish. They understand their natural instincts. Feminists try to make them ashamed of this, men love them for it.
  • I think feminism has to go, and at least talking about it is a start. Women should have the right to work, but the sense not to. If they put work before relationships and children, most of them will always be unhappy.
  • Given that women now dominate many workplaces and that people can be sacked or at the very least ostracised for having these views (what sad feminist in power wants to hear the secret, niggling truth, after all?) this is going to be a hard problem to solve. I think women must be given the confidence to solve it for themselves, by firmly rejecting the ideology of feminism and being proud about that.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Nathan » 29 Dec 2012, 17:18

Gavin wrote:Nathan, thanks for an interesting post but I certainly don't think young men brought today's horrible situation upon themselves, as I'm sure you'd agree. They are just growing up lonely and bewildered, not sure what these "empowered" young women want. A thug or an intellectual? An intellectual who can be a thug sometimes? A thug with a feminine side? It's gone crazy.

Gavin, the 'brought it upon ourselves' refers to the broader sense of Western civilisation destroying itself from within as opposed to at the hands of any external forces, not blaming young men for feminism - apologies for not phrasing it more clearly.

Interesting that a thread like this with some comments citing feminism as a reason for the breakdown of the family has been started on the same day as the OECD has released statistics showing that Britain is one of the worst of all developed countries in family breakdown, with only 68.9% of children growing up with both parents, putting us 27th out of 30 nations in the study. Yahoo! News generally has a lower standard of comments than some publications but there are still some relevant comments on that article relating to feminism, some of which I will list below:

PJ12 wrote:Men have been undermined for years by the feminised media and aggressive female politicians, both of which can't stand the idea of an equal relationship. Many women have adopted these attitudes and treat men as if they don't need them. They give no affection, and say why should they have sex, even those who were highly promiscuous prior to marriage. The problem with media and politics women is that their marriages are often about power, status, wealth, career, and they will never have had any loving relationship with their partner or anyone else. That is why they cannot understand normal relationships. The many men who refuse to take any responsibility in relationships are also very much to blame, as they give women the excuse to say we are all like that.

Frank wrote:How the "Social Engineers" will be rejoicing ! They and their support network -the chattering classes will be basking in their handiwork.
Destruction always was their objective with nothing better to put in place of the family.
Nilhists of the worst sort.

Pavlovs BTCH wrote:They're bragging again; deliberate policies to destroy the family have succeeded over 50 years since the 'sexual revolution' in recent history. Social Services follow the tried and trusted methodology of incentivising single parenthood in tandem with the pressure for mothers to work as long and pressurised hours in stressful, demeaning jobs as fathers. Children are removed into the State Education/indoctrination as early as possible, breaking bonds and cohesion. There has been a war on the family and it is being won.
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Andreas » 29 Dec 2012, 18:02

A few random thoughts prompted by this discussion.

My grandmother and her two sisters attended university and my two great-aunts pursued full-time careers beginning in the 1920s, when there were few women professionals. One was a physicist, the other a medical doctor; neither of them ever married or had a child. I realize now that they must have made this choice consciously and deliberately, understanding that one can't "have it all." They were highly intelligent and competent, certainly equal to the men in their fields. They must have run into hostility from male colleagues and perhaps real discrimination at that time, but I don't remember either of them ever complaining about this. Unfortunately they passed away in 1986 and I can't ask them about this now.

My mother had a friend who lived under Communism in East Germany. This woman experienced the whole thing from being a child at the end of the war to being a retiree when the Berlin Wall came down. She of course had many criticisms of the regime, and one point on which she was particularly insistent was that it was too easy for women to get an abortion; of course it was free, paid for by the state. She emphasized that this led women to behave irresponsibly.

We are certainly in a period when many men and women have become confused about what it means to be male or female.
Posts: 195
Joined: 04 Sep 2012, 22:31

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 29 Dec 2012, 18:07

Yes, I did take your meaning that way, Nathan, I suppose I just wanted to emphasise that you and your friends should not be held in any way responsible.

The feminists have got what they wished for. I saw it reported that one of most wished for things on children's Christmas lists this year was "a dad at home". That's heartbreaking for a normal human being, but not for a feminist I suppose. After all, a woman is quite capable of bringing up a child on her own, men not necessary, etc. etc.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Elliott » 29 Dec 2012, 18:53

Nathan wrote:Once again the comments prove more insightful than the articles.

I strongly agree, Nathan. Nowadays I actually read the comments rather than the articles. I am just sick of the bland, insipid and often stupid content that official journalists write. There seems to be a requirement in becoming a journalist that you detach from reality and become "above" the petty thinking of ordinary people. I wouldn't mind that, if the journalists were unusually intelligent people whose thinking was genuinely better than most people's, but they're not and it isn't. The media seems to be a world that the Left rule by default, in that their opinions are automatically sanctified but anything contra has to be handled like toxic waste - with hesitation, reluctance and a thousand caveats.

I was wary of bringing up what I see as a demographic timebomb as my personal views are perhaps outside the range of what's politically acceptable and my friends perhaps wouldn't have seen them coming, but I mentioned the Abu Qatada case as an example of a country unwilling to stand up for its own traditional values as well as the unsustainable financial costs involved, but unfortunately nobody offered any further comment on the idea of multiculturalism so I didn't bring up the idea again.

It's a shame that your friends could not see - or at any rate, not bring themselves to openly acknowledge - the threat from Islam and the utter nonsense of our financing and encouraging it.

Multiculturalism took a turn about five years ago (after the 7/7 bombings) to become something that a person could condemn without being dismissed as a racist - but I think among the educated middle-class there is still a feeling that one should approve of it, because that shows one has risen above primitive "hatred" of the Other. By contrast, there is much less of a stigma around condemning welfare scroungers, since we can say that they are not useful in a utilitarian sense (objective, and therefore not swayed by primitive instinct).

We are still operating with the assumption that educated people do not (and should not) share the views of uneducated people, even when those views are correct and sane. Another way to put it would be: the assumption that nice people do not have unpleasant views. I think this is a result of irrational confidence in "progress"; we think that progress means ever-increasing niceness. Actually it often means unpleasant things have to be said and done in order to protect what we've built.
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Heather » 30 Dec 2012, 02:06

Excellent job with the comments, Elliott.

I whole-heartedly agree with the commenter who said that women are capable of what men are (within certain limits), but that it comes at a price. That has certainly been my experience, going to engineering University with other women. Sure, we could compete with the average man, but never with the best. And the cost of competing with just an average man was very high - we invariably had to work much harder, seek help from boyfriends, etc, and many of those young women became very bitter for it, pretending that the issue was with "society" rather than within themselves. They have gone on (the ones who could get jobs, at least) to become bitter workaholics. They all own pets and refer to them as their "babies," so clearly the instinct to take care of someone is still there, and I wonder what that instinct will look like in a decade. During my time at school I had several life experiences and discussions with older and wiser women, and was able to see what would become of young women on the Feminist Ambition Path. I therefore chose to only get my "MRS" degree!

I actually somewhat disagree with the commenter who was hoping for employers to increase work-at-home options. I follow several female bloggers who are homemakers, homeschoolers, and/or part-time workers, and they all say that it's actually extremely difficult to separate work and family while in the home. People who do it need the discipline to have a strict work schedule in place, zero distractions, the space for a noise-insulated office, and someone to care for the children. If that's the spouse during his after-work hours, then it eats into family time. Most families really struggle to hit the right balance. No doubt people will come up with creative solutions to these problems with time, but I don't think that work-at-home options are a well-thought-out answer to the work/family problem.
Posts: 132
Joined: 28 Apr 2012, 23:05
Location: The American South

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Paul » 31 Dec 2012, 01:09

Yes, good collation of responses there again Elliott.

I began a reply yesterday but lost it due to a crash! It was along the lines of finding the comments to articles these days more informative, more true and correct and also more entertaining than the articles themselves. I have been glad to see that everyone else seems to agree.

I think much of the MSM is utterly discredited now, particularly here in the UK. Quite apart from the (supposed but likely true) national pastime of building people up only so as to then take them down - often cruelly and viciously, the fact is that on the more serious issues, both the press and the BBC have been exposed as dishonest, predatory and without morals.

Still, they exist and report the supposed facts. On the issues of the various 'isms', of which feminism is but one (though the pre-eminent one I say), the same type of people keep spewing out the same blurb.

What's increasingly pleasing is that more and more people are scrutinising these reports and articles and picking holes in them. A lot can be gleaned by what's not said in these articles as much as by what is said. Most of what is said can in any case be gleefully deconstructed and more and more people are doing this.

Much of this is down to the internet. Where would be be without it, by now? Imagine how much more the state ideologies could have been promoted and how lonesome one would likely feel in one's views, except maybe a limited circle.

Even fifteen years ago (maybe only ten) it was very difficult to gauge mass public opinion on all kinds of these creeping issues that are the problem. You were told what the opinion was (meaning what the newspaper's opinion was) in a section called .....'Opinion'! You may get a smallish (or very small) space allocated to readers' letters, which in any case often alluded to an entirely different story from a previous edition of the publication in question. So you never really got to know how 'the people' actually thought about things, or it was relatively miniscule.

The only other time I ever got to hear the public talk about topical issues (ten or more years ago) was via the phenomenom of radio 'phone-ins'. It's never something I was a big fan of, but I have spent some time, here and there, listening to odd ones. The first one I became aware of (it may still be running somewhere) was the James Whale radio show, broadcast on weekday evenings and which was at first (I think ) a North-Western (UK) radio station broadcast. Red Rose Radio (Lancashire) if I'm not mistaken. This was back in the late 1980s or early '90s at the latest.

They may have been around longer than this, and maybe more in other countries (America?) but not in my experience. Back in the 1980s, as feminism was gathering even more pace (and becoming vicious at times, for the first time), along with racism and general multi-culti stuff, every man truly was an island. Where could you go to find some common ground and argue your corner? Newspapers were no good. They told you what to think, no matter how disturbing that was. It was a lonesome time really, under siege with nowhere to run.

A revelation were these radio shows and described at the time as 'radical', by which was meant - normal, common-sensical, plainly spoken, often blunt, but decent and informed, etc. Of course there were fools and trolls but it was a suprising relief to realise that there were lots of 'normal people' actually out there after all. It's since come to my attention that other radio phone-in programmes are also often refreshing in the same way, not that I have experience of more than two or three. Remember this was 20 years ago. Things weren't as bad in many ways, though one could see what was coming, and it was difficult to air ones views at all or find mass common ground. The very fact that speaking out against the creeping ideologies was suddenly 'radical' is a sign of how mindsets were changing - or had already changed enough.

One of the last times I was actually listening to a radio show, with phone-in (I was at work), I ended up listening live to two (or at least the 2nd) aircraft flying into skyscrapers in America. It was September 11th, 2001 of course, at about ten minutes before 2pm, UK time. I may not have ever listened to a radio phone-in since, which is cause for thought!

Phone-ins though are extremely limited in air-time per comment, obviously. Still you get (or got) a general feeling that a lot of people were angry at the various changes underway.

So all praise the internet. We would never know or connect and that now seems so vital that without it, we could be doomed ever the swifter. Even now it's a knife-edge. It is imperative that a 'free' internet continue. I'm wary and fearful of attempts to curtail this. It's already been mooted from on high and conveniently tagged along with calls for press control, as if the general public are anything like as reprehensible as the press. In fact, as we have noted in 'comments v article' content, it's the comments of the public that are the more truthful and correct.

Yet the public may have to be gagged. We may cause 'offence' - often for telling the truth. There's the straw-men of 'for our own good', to prevent the 'T' offence and recently (and perennially) to protect 'the children'. Whilst the press (and lets not forget the BBC) would abuse, or blind-eye to abuse of, children, or anyone, if it suited their own ends and without a second thought. We also know that it's highly unlikely that the press or media will face any strictures at all no matter what they do. They're more likely to simply step to one side whilst being paid a large bonus to do so. Instead it's WE the people who have to watch what we say and We who may have to be legislated against.

Well thank goodness for this forum, others like it and the free comment one can read all over the web. I do note it has been asked how far can or should this forum go in the intensity of comment - what are we allowed or not allowed to say? I still say one should be allowed (are allowed) to say anything as long as whatever is said does not encourage, aid and abet or conspire to commit a separate crime. In the case of slander, what is said should be truthful - in which case there is no slander. Merely saying things that express an opinion that some people may dislike (hate) and those sayings then being criminal in themselves I find incomprehensible.
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Paul » 31 Dec 2012, 01:43

As regards the comment that maybe all (most) women should look to being self-employed and work from home, I have to also disagree.

It's not likely, or desirable, that we should, suddenly or gradually, have untold millions more self-employed people. Most people, male or female, aren't suited and wouldn't make it.

Moreover, what are all these women likely to be doing? What in other words will they be producing? They can't all be in 'service industries'. There's only so much service a society or economy needs. The rest is just layers of bureaucracy that we don't want and cannot afford. We already have far too much service and too little production here in the UK, fatally so I think.

Much of this is in local government and lots of it is in the creation of 'non-jobs' that are, like it or not, filled by women. All the worst feminists tend to be found in these posts. Diversity offices, equality, multi-culti and various other elements of control. Females can get a taste for this kind of thing. Extra layers of bureaucray in the private sector can have the same effect I'm sure (and am told).

It's unlikely and unworkable that millions of women will go back to a spinning-wheel or potter's clay in the spare room, quite apart from the unlikelihood of mass conversions to part-workshop in the home. There's a limited market anyway. No, it will all be the 'home-office' scenario. A desk with a PC and internet and the result will either be meddlesome or an extra layer that needs paying for - or both!

What I call the 'proper' service industries that a society does require (education, health, policing and the military, to name four) are suitable for females as well as males. But they aren't the kind of jobs that can be done from home.

Another good point that one commenter made was that all the women now working in the West have merely become 'second tax drones'. It's now plain to see that two salaries are now needed to provide the things that one salary was once able to do alone. What has effectively happened over the last few decades is that the labour force has almost doubled. This has then doubled the money supply in the economy, with the result that the value of money has halved. There are other factors but this is a big one. At the same time the governmet has collected twice the tax.

Contrary to that statement though is that we do have a considerably better standard of living than 40 or 50 years ago and we do all possess more 'stuff'.
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 31 Dec 2012, 01:49

Very interesting, Paul. I just want to say for now that Whale is still on air! I used to listen to his late night programme on Talk Radio while processing cheques overnight back in 1998. Then Talk Radio became Talk Sport and they kept him. He was later sacked after openly urging listeners to vote for Boris Johnson as mayor, which is against Ofcom's rules, although strangely print media are allowed to be as partisan as they like.

Mr Whale has a slightly surprising set of views since he is very PC about multiculturalism but strong on law and order. He is also pro-EU, I think. He seems to think everyone can "get along" but in many ways is very good to listen to - he has little tolerance for fools, but does not come across as at all obnoxious. He used to refer to "common" people quite often and, back in the day, he half-jokingly advocated the forced sterilisation of the underclass and he had no time for feminism. He is also against the green movement, saying the climate has always changed. So, a mixture.

Whale now does the drive time show on LBC, which is a step up from late nights on Talk Sport. He is not as outspoken as he was, but then it is hard enough to give your views even as an unknown member of the public - I suppose it is harder when on air and he has already been sacked once. I began listening to LBC a lot (too much, I think) recently, but then I heard presenter Petrie Hosken totally "losing it" with a man who had the gall to object to feminism and since then I have been put off listening to the station at all. No bad thing. Most of the callers are fairly predictable and it is not a level playing field anyway. Calls can be filtered so that only "acceptable" views go on air, or so that a certain impression is created, and many people, such as myself, would never want to call in.

The Telegraph site remains, I think, one of the best places to see free comment from people. I hope it keeps going.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Paul » 31 Dec 2012, 02:47

Good for James Whale. I never listened enough and so never got to know (and I may have forgotten some) the exact make-up of the man's views. I remember his bluntness and short shrift with fools.

Talk Sport indeed, though not always about sport alone. They also used to have a morning phone-in all those years ago, covering topical issues, and hosted by a presenter by the name of Mike Dickin. He was funny and refreshingly 'normal'. Tragically, he was killed in a car accident in 2006.

I note from that link that he actually covered for James Whale for a while, being already with the same Talk Sport radio show.

One morning around 2000, the bulk of his phone-ins and the topic of the day concerned 'Kylie'. Suffice to say it was utterly hilarious!

It was Talk Sport I was listening to on 9/11, just before a scheduled interview and chit-chat with ex-footballer and manager Jack Charlton. It was meant to be covering a range of subjects, not just football and including young people, education, discipline, etc. No doubt some fly-fishing too! I was somewhat looking forward to it, but it was of course interrupted and then quickly shelved in light of unfolding events.

(Where were you that day and what were you doing? I can picture the exact scene now, being rooted to the spot, after turning the volume up and not doing any more work all day).
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 31 Dec 2012, 03:30

Whereas I'm in the same region as you, Lancashire, now, I was in my flat in Balham (London) on 9/11. Like everyone else, I had previously had no interest in Islam but after that I had to take an interest.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Elliott » 31 Dec 2012, 05:22

Well, since we're doing it...

It was my day off work. I was sitting at home reading a book with the TV on (a combination I couldn't manage nowadays). I looked up at the TV and saw a huge building with black smoke billowing out of it. I wrote this diary entry:

the 19 year-old me wrote:I am typing as the television brings news of the World Trade Center in New York being hit by two planes. Both towers. One has collapsed, an hour after being hit. A third explosion has occurred either in the Pentagon itself or very near it. The UN Headquarters has been evacuated, as well as the White House, the Pentagon and the US Treasury. Every plane flight in America has been cancelled. Members and non-members of two terrorist groups have offered claims of responsibility only to be withdrawn by the groups' leaders.

This is unbelievable. The first plane hit the World Trade Center at 9am, whilst 50,000 office workers were filing into it from the underground train system.

As I type, the second tower of the WTC is either collapsing or has fully collapsed; the BBC aren't sure yet.

It's been on for more than an hour and a half now. BBC News 24 are going crazy.

Apparently yet another plane is currently flying towards Washington right now, or so an anonymous tipper has told some media corporation.

Various BBC correspondents and news editors are giving their opinions not to take too seriously the claims of responsibility by the numerous terrorist groups. Orla Guerin in Jerusalem has just reported that Palestinian soldiers are shooting bullets into the air as a mark of celebration.

BBC gurus are raving about the "symbolism" and the "sheer scale" and the "massive human tragedy" of this event - these events, I should say. They are saying this may well be an attempt by anti-capitalist, or anti-UN, or anti-US terrorist group or groups to "hurt and humiliate" the US and show their hatred for its leaders and make "a political point".

"All the symbols of the United States are being attacked. The whole civilised world is under attack by these sorts of tactics."

More than 1000 people have been confirmed as injured and 6 confirmed dead.

Honestly, I had never even heard of the World Trade Center before. But there it was, all falling apart, and nobody knew what it meant. I certainly didn't. I knew it would be significant. Going into work the next day, everyone was talking about it and one guy asked me what I thought and I dramatically said "I think it'll be the start of World War 3!"

Now I think I may have actually been right about that.

But what's so interesting about that diary entry is that there isn't a single mention of Islam. We thought it might be anti-capitalists! We had no idea what had just started...
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh


Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Login Form

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.