Archive for the ‘europe’ Category

Link dump

July 16, 2009

Oh, brother. It looks like I’m going to be getting irate comments on my post denouncing feminists for encouraging women to put themselves in danger forever. The basic premise of these people seems to be that, since women should be safe anywhere, including in a man’s bed without panties or drunk in a bad neighborhood wearing a miniskirt, women should go right ahead and behave as if they were safe anywhere, and just hope that the men they encounter happen, by pure chance, to be the enlightened sort.

Most of the comments were so nonsensical that I was embarrassed to belong to the same species as those who made them, but they had clearly worked themselves up into a self-righteous lather over at hexadecimal’s post. (Just think if they used that fervor against actual rapists instead of against people who mention ways of avoiding rape.) And considering that his idea of a good way to open a conversation is to brag about how horrified he is at the very existence of the person with whom he wishes to converse, it’s not too surprising that his commenters act the way they do.

Unlike that poor mangina Professor Anonymous, however, I have the balls not to cave to pressure to take my post down. And there’s always the hope that some woman who reads it will make some kind of subconscious connection and not endanger herself despite the urgings of feminists.

Oh, also, it seems I am guilty of not condoning premarital sex. Which I don’t. Not that I recommend that any man get married in today’s legal climate, and it would be cruel to expect men to be celibate in addition to everything else they have to put up with these days, but that’s not at all the same as approving of screwing around. It doesn’t mean that the women who do it deserve any respect. Sure, the civilization western men have created recognizes basic human rights of sluts, just as it does those of felons, the retarded, the comatose, the unborn, etc. But respect is not a basic human right, and certainly not anything that a woman who sleeps around can expect.

I linked the Editrix to a post I made some time ago about how fatherlessness helped cause the rise of fascism, which, considering how many boys grow up without fathers today throughout Europe and America, is something to worry about. She replied with this post in which she partially agrees with me but says my post was oversimplifying, which I knew it was. The purpose of this blog is to rail against one particular force in the destruction of our civilization. Feminism has accelerated it beyond the wildest hopes of Marx and Gramsci, but it was not the root cause. For the root cause, well, one good place to start would be here. Actually, let me clarify: the “root cause” is human nature. Progressive lies are appealing because they promise a utopia to come as soon as everybody is sufficiently enlightened, and because they relieve those who subscribe to them of responsibility for their actions. Of course that’s appealing. Someone who claimed to have invented a pill that would make ice cream and pizza accelerate weight loss would acquire a following too.

Back to the Editrix’s post, some time ago I found casualty figures for the Great War, broken down by country, but I can’t find them now. When I dig them up again, I’ll post them, but I do remember that Germany’s casualties exceeded everyone else’s by a wide margin.

Roissy has echoed my contention that feminism is just one big “shit test”.

Actually, I don’t think American women want to be equal. That’s just what they tell themselves to rationalize their aggressively masculine posturing toward men. More accurately, of all the world’s women, American women are the biggest shit testers because they so very much DON’T want to be equal to the supplicating American betaboys they date. A desire by American women to shit test men to kingdom come to find the alpha gem among the beta shale is often miscontrued by men as a desire for equal footing with them. The truth is, in fact, just the opposite. They shit test because they want to find a man who puts himself on a footing above her. This is why even the most hardcore self-professed feminists will wilt into a puddle of submissive passion for a devil-may-care alpha male who doesn’t take her oh-so-profound ideology or her empty bleatings for equality seriously.

I hadn’t been keeping up with Oz Conservative, but he’s got a lot of great posts lately. In Sweden, feminists are trying to force men to pee sitting down. Men, don’t let this happen to you! You know, back when Camille Paglia first said, “Male urination really is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendence. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on,” I just thought she was being nutty, as she often is. Swedish feminists, it seems, believed her.

Also, guys, follow the great F. Roger Devlin’s advice not to give a woman a baby unless she agrees to a real marriage to you. Even if all you do is donate sperm, she could come after you for money later.

This article… I can’t even stand to quote it. Just go read. If the feminist trolls are still lurking here, they’ll probably approve of everything in it.

Advertisements

Stockholm Syndrome: a euphemism for bad female behavior

June 6, 2009

The Editrix has an excellent post today:

Another Arm on the Octopus of Woman’s Insanity

She theorizes that the alleged phenomenon known as “Stockholm Syndrome” is actually just an excuse people came up with for irrational, unscrupulous female behavior. You know, in the original kidnapping that named the syndrome, two of the hostages later became engaged to their captors. No points for guessing which sex they were.

The Editrix then relates some of the behavior exhibited by men in captivity. Hint: they don’t generally decide their captors are actually wonderful, misunderstood people.

It made me remember some of the inspiring stories I’ve read of the courage of male POWs. Ever see The Great Escape? Based on a true story.

This post inspired me to Google to see if there was any data about the relative prevalence of Stockholm Syndrome between the sexes. I didn’t find any, though I did learn that there is actually a great deal of skepticism that it exists at all.

I also came across a whole bunch of crackpot feminist sites that declared that women who love men, enjoy being married, or approve of patriarchy are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Shall we apply the same logic to children who love their parents?

Then I came across this: Muslim sisterhood eclipses feminism, says Brit convert

“I know I shouldn’t generalise, but Western women are always bad-mouthing each other, pinching each other’s husbands and boyfriends and trying to pull each other down,” says Ms Ridley, a dryly witty Brit in her mid-40s who is speaking in New Zealand this week.

“Muslim women pull each other up and are encouraging of each other. They pull together.”

Western women do behave in the way she describes. Oh, not all the time, but a lot. I am skeptical, however, that Muslim women are any different.

Thrice-married and solo mum to 12-year-old Daisy, Ms Ridley exchanged a hedonistic life full of overwork and late-night boozing (“I used to be like a tightly coiled spring and I hated my own company”) for alcohol-free piousness, full-time hijab (hair coverings) and five prayer sessions daily.

You know what this reminds me of? In the days of royalty, kings’ mistresses and other courtesans tended to become devoutly religious when they got old and lost their looks and couldn’t get any more lovers. The famous courtesan Ninon de Lenclos disdained this practice as “making God a gift of the Devil’s leavings”.

Ms Ridley, now political editor of Islam Channel, a London-based satellite service, enjoys the respectful behaviour that her conversion prompts in others. It’s a while since she has heard a really filthy joke and doesn’t miss them.

“Sexual harassment” had to be invented because feminists demanded that men stop treating them like ladies, then discovered they couldn’t stand the way men behaved otherwise. There was a time when women didn’t have to join an oppressive, misogynist religion and wear a hijab to get a minimum of courteous behavior. That time was before feminism.

Her hijab has provoked hostile glares in public. She is not disturbed, but wonders what stokes such aggression.

Huh? Two sentences ago the article was saying that her conversion inspired “respectful” behavior.

She hit the headlines in 2001 after the September 11 attacks. Then a Sunday Express journalist, she sneaked into Afghanistan, at the time ruled by the fundamentalist Taleban.

Wait, shortly after 9/11, she figured it was a good idea for a white woman to sneak into Taliban-ruled territory?? She should’ve been committed. And what would have happened to her daughter if she hadn’t come back? Men have to take such risks sometimes, to keep the women and children back home safe. For women, there’s seldom a good reason for it.

According to her darkly funny book In the Hands of the Taliban

Darkly funny?!

According to her darkly funny book In the Hands of the Taliban, she was burqa-clad and posing as a deaf mute when the donkey she was mounting moved. Ridley yelled “Flaming Nora!” and as she reached for the reins, her camera – a banned item – swung into the view of a passing Taleban soldier.

Is this woman incredibly stupid, or did she subconsciously want to be caught?

During her 10 days in captivity, Ms Ridley was treated respectfully.

“Respectfully”? Did this woman inspire Joanie de Rijke?

Although terrified, she decided to behave as badly as possible, spitting and swearing. There was, she says wryly, no chance of getting Stockholm Syndrome – a condition in which hostages begin to side with their kidnappers.

I don’t see why. Maybe the book gives better reasons. Also, notice the “wryly”. The article keeps claiming Ridley is witty or funny, but fails to show any examples of this.

Once home, she started reading up on Islam and got a shock: “The Koran makes it clear that women are the equal of men.”

I have read the Koran. It makes no such thing clear. This is not a misunderstanding, it is an outright lie.

Also, she didn’t read up on Islam until after sneaking into Afghanistan?

In New Zealand for the first time, Ms Ridley has been impressed by the cohesiveness of New Zealand’s 40,000-strong Muslim community. Followers of different backgrounds mingle easily, something she says does not happen in Britain.

The openness reinforced what she had heard: that New Zealand “has a fantastic reputation for its humanitarian approach and welcoming refugees with open arms – and for refusing to get involved in an illegal war”.

Oh, bollocks. Liberals always say crap like that about foreign countries. I’ve heard American women claim that in Europe, women can walk around after dark in total safety, unlike here. Actually, doing so is even less safe there than it is here. (The women who have said this to me who have actually been to Europe were talking about walking a few blocks from a famous restaurant or theater to their expensive hotels. They’re the kind of middle-class people who splurge a bit on vacation, not that it’s wrong to do so, but it’s not a good indication of what a country is like. Affluent areas like that always have good security, if only because rich people have mean lawyers. If they lived there, in a normal middle-income area like the ones they live in over here, they would quickly learn not to walk to the grocery store after dark, any more than they would here.)

Anyway, do read the Editrix’s post. She is one smart lady.

No comment.

March 18, 2009

EU bans use of ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs’ (and sportsmen and statesmen) because it claims they are sexist

Using ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs’ has been banned by leaders of the European Union because they are not considered politically correct.

Brussels bureaucrats have decided the words are sexist and issued new guidelines in its bid to create ‘gender-neutral’ language.

The booklet warns European politicians they must avoid referring to a woman’s marital status.

This also means Madame and Mademoiselle, Frau and Fraulein and Senora and Senorita are banned.

Instead of using the standard titles, it is asking MEPs to address women by their names.

And the rules have not stopped there – they also ban MEPs saying sportsmen and statesmen, advising athletes and political leaders should be used instead.
Man-made is also taboo – it should be artificial or synthetic, firemen is disallowed and air hostesses should be called flight attendants.

Headmasters and headmistresses must be heads or head teachers, laymen becomes layperson, and manageress or mayoress should be manager or mayor.

Police officers must be used instead of policeman and policewoman unless the officer’s sex is relevant.

Feminists encourage rape

June 21, 2008

The Greatest Betrayal in History

Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.

If women want to be taken seriously, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Women cannot attack men for decades and blame them for being male chauvinist pigs, generally evil, stupid and weak and then expect men to come rushing to their defense to clean up the problems women themselves voted to create.

There are still a few sensible self-designated feminists left in the West, but they clearly constitute a minority. I’ve been told by radical feminists that rape is a weapon used by men — that is, men in general — to keep women down. This is also the line Swedish feminists usually take regarding rapes: It’s about the “patriarchy,” not about mass immigration. Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said.

As one of Marilyn French’s characters said, “All men are rapists, and that’s all they are.” In Norway in 2008, we had a case where a native teenage girl had been gang raped by Muslim immigrants, and the four female judges voted in favor of giving the rapists a “discount” on the minor compensations they were sentenced to pay to the victim. The one dissenting judge was the one male. As the female blogger Nina commented, this and other cases indicate that we need fewer female judges, not more.

Women are simply too soft and emotional to be performing these kinds of tasks. The effect of radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of “society.” Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell “racism” at men who suggest it’s not a good idea.

More about Germany

April 29, 2008

Study: Men in Germany Are Scared to Start Families

The article, of course, carefully avoids mentioning the real reasons German men don’t want to have children. The very real possibility of their wives leaving them and taking away their children and most of their income is not even mentioned. Nor does the author ask why a German would want to bring children into the world when it is almost certain that one day they will be living under dhimmitude.

German Bishop Slammed For Calling Women “Birthing Machines”

The good news:

A German bishop has sharply criticized government plans to improve childcare facilities, saying they reduce women to “birthing machines” who quickly have to return to work.

The bad news:

The remarks even have conservatives up in arms.

Huh?

The Catholic Bishop of Augsburg, Walter Mixa called government proposals to expand childcare facilities in Germany “harmful for children and families.” Mixa said the plans enticed women with federal aid to entrust their children to state care shortly after birth, degrading women to “birthing machines.”

Germany’s Minister for Family and Youth, Ursula von der Leyen from the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) wants to significantly increase to 750,000 the number of places available at day-care centers for children under the age of three by 2013. It is the latest step in an attempt to boost the German birthrate, which at 1.36 children per woman is one of the lowest in Europe.

Mixa said von der Leyen’s plans gave “top priority to recruiting young women as labor reserve for private industry.”

“We need to create family-oriented jobs, not job-friendly families,” Mixa told German breakfast television on Friday.

The minister’s family policies elevated double-income marriages to a downright “ideological fetish,” Mixa said.

Mixa’s comments highlight the deep divide in Germany over the role of the modern woman in society. The battle lines are clearly drawn between those who support women juggling jobs with children on the one side and those who adhere to the more traditional image of the mother staying at home and feeding her kids.

They’re not mad at him for saying women are birthing machines, they’re mad at him for saying they shouldn’t be turned into birthing machines by socialist policies!

Oh, but it’s all right for feminists to use this particular bit of hate speech:

During the 1960s and 1970s, many feminists in Germany used the term Gebärmaschine or “birthing m achine” to criticize women who stayed home after the war, producing one baby after another.

His cardinal is also under fire for speaking common sense:

Only Cologne’s ultra-conservative cardinal Joachim Meisner said he agreed with Mixa. He said children should be raised in the family, and not in daycare.

“In the bible, nurseries are actually just a temporary solution,” Meisner told the Catholic radio station Domradio. “If you turn it into a permanent institution, quasi as an alternative to the family, then this is a misguided development.” He said daycare was only necessary for emergencies and exceptional cases.

What a controversial statement.

Well, Europe’s fucked.

April 29, 2008

European Union Family Ministers Discuss New Roles for Men

European Union ministers for family affairs and gender equality have been discussing ways to dispel gender role clichés and to get men to take on a more active role in the family.

At the informal two-day meeting that began on Tuesday in the spa town of Bad Pyrmont in Germany’s state of Lower Saxony, EU family ministers signed a declaration aimed at firmly establishing gender equality in the European Union.

More flexible notions of gender roles would make it easier to combine work and families and it would also help EU countries to better tackle the challenges of demographic changes and boost economies, the statement said….

Firms should also do more to provide more child care facilities for their employees, the Czech EU commissioner said in an interview with dpa news agency.

In addition to the changing roles for fathers in child care, the conference also focused on equal opportunities for men and women at the workplace and in the family.

This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand coalition approved a plan championed by von der Leyen to triple the number of day care places for children under age three to 750,000 by 2013.

Under a new financial scheme for parents in Germany which came into effect on January 1 in Germany, the federal government pays mothers or fathers two-thirds of their last net paycheck — up to €1,800 ($2,360) — for up to 12 months as long as they stay at home to take care of a new baby….

Until now, working women in Germany have had a particularly hard time getting back into the labor market once they have a child due to the lack of full-day schools, kindergartens and day-care centers, which has partially contributed to the low birth rate in the country.

If you’re in the MRA blogosphere, you already know what’s wrong with all this. God help us; no one else can.