Sacrificing our children
A while back, I blogged about the issue of our young people traipsing off to Third World countries to engage in various do-gooding activities. Now, just to clarify, I don’t object to doing good for people, although I think we’ve forgotten that charity begins at home. I do object to the trend of many parents who are apparently bereft of all judgment and common sense giving their blessing to their young daughters in particular going to dangerous Third World countries as volunteers, whether as church volunteers or Peace Corps volunteers. Yet I have a feeling that the administration’s vaunted ‘national service’ plans, which will apparently be mandatory for all young people, will send them to such dangerous environments….
So why does this go on? Why are there not more common sense measures to protect these people, or beyond that, why is there so little caution on the part of the young women themselves, or their parents? Why do parents whose minor daughters (and sons, for that matter) are going to these dangerous places not refuse their permission? I asked the mother of one such young woman why she was willing to let her daughter go to such a dangerous part of the world, but she was not at all concerned: the group leaders know what they are doing, she said, and besides the young people thought the locals to be endearing, childlike people who are not at all dangerous.
The young women themselves are driven party by feminist ideas of ‘I can do anything I want; I can do anything men can do’, and partly by the natural feminine desire to help and nurture people, especially people who seem to be pitiable and helpless, like most Third World people.
One of the young woman had her head turned by the attention she received from the native men, who made a fuss over her pretty blonde looks, and supposedly even proposed marriage to her.
In other words, though these young women believe themselves to be equal to men in all respects, they are naive and immature, though they no doubt have a heart for the less fortunate.
International Women’s Day
The first IWD was observed on 28 February 1909 in the United States following a declaration by the Socialist Party of America [emphasis added]. Among other relevant historic events, it came to commemorate the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The idea of having an international women’s day was first put forward at the turn of the 20th century amid rapid world industrialization and economic expansion that led to protests over working conditions. By urban legend, women from clothing and textile factories staged one such protest on 8 March 1857 in New York City. The garment workers were protesting against very poor working conditions and low wages. The protesters were attacked and dispersed by police. These women established their first labor union in the same month two years later.
Read the whole thing.
Not at Home to Mrs. Self-Knowledge
Women think they’re in control of their emotions, but their ‘emotional intelligence’ really means that they say whatever they feel without a thought to the consequences. It’s not ‘emotional intelligence’, it’s ‘emotional incontinence’. Men think ‘honesty’ is a considered opinion to which he sticks. Women think ‘honesty’ is changing her opinion as frequently her knickers because it is how she ‘feels’ at that second.
Which is why we fellas don’t think women are actually capable of understanding ‘principles’ such as the rule of law. So, when we say women are ‘equal’, it’s because we’re forced to by law and society. Very few men actually believe it.
“Women. They’re just not like proper chaps”.
It is with this in mind, that I look upon Harridan Harperson-Dromey. Just what does she think her “court of public-opinion” would do to her?
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
Women are another recently discovered “oppressed class,” and the fact that political delegates have habitually been far more than 50 percent male is now held to be an evident sign of their oppression. Delegates to political conventions come from the ranks of party activists, and since women have not been nearly as politically active as men, their numbers have understandably been low. But, faced with this argument, the widening forces of “women’s liberation” in America again revert to the talismanic argument about “brainwashing” by our “culture.” For the women’s liberationists can hardly deny the fact that every culture and civilization in history, from the simplest to the most complex, has been dominated by males. (In desperation, the liberationists have lately been countering with fantasies about the mighty Amazonian empire.) Their reply, once again, is that from time immemorial a male-dominated culture has brainwashed oppressed females to confine themselves to nurture, home, and the domestic hearth. The task of the liberationists is to effect a revolution in the female condition by sheer will, by the “raising of consciousness.” If most women continue to cleave to domestic concerns, this only reveals the “false consciousness” that must be extirpated.
Of course, one neglected reply is that if, indeed, men have succeeded in dominating every culture, then this in itself is a demonstration of male “superiority”; for if all genders are equal, how is it that male domination emerged in every case? But apart from this question, biology itself is being angrily denied and cast aside. The cry is that there are no, can be no, must be no biological differences between the sexes; all historical or current differences must be due to cultural brainwashing.
Boys are still top dogs
Research suggests that males will always dominate the highest ranks of IQ
