God, I love your writing! The tidbits in between like the Meatloaf video are perfectly timed and executed. Your insights, and the way you build on them, are spot on.
We definitely took a wrong turn somewhere. I think it was when welfare started and there was no need for the family anymore, according to the government.
With no families, there’s no shame is behaviors, no need to be responsible for your own actions and no one to hold you accountable.
When welfare went from "keeping people alive and off the street" to "instead of having to work", that's when.
I'm all for us humans ensuring no-one starves, has to be homeless or is denied basic emergency care or basic education; all of those improves society.
It's when welfare means you can live just as well as if on minimum wage, when a roof over your head means living in an upscale NY hotel free of charge because you belong to [martyred group], and so on - that's where we went wrong no matter if we're talking the US or theEU or anywhere.
There's no use gilding the gutter so to speak, better make sure people can help themselves out of it instead.
What is supposed to happen to the children when a husband is physically abusive, disappears, or is serially sexually unfaithful?
Children do not raise themselves, and many women who would love to get married and have children simply now find the prospect too risky. Since the 1990s, there is virtually no welfare and often little child support when a husband is not able or willing to be a parent and provider for their family.
I find the level of level of hostility directed toward welfare and women to belie the reality of what most women take on when they become mothers.
Yes, I read what you wrote. In most cases, the current welfare system does not allow a woman with a child or children to live just as well as if they were earning a minimum wage. Perhaps in a few states, that is true, but for the most part, it is not.
In any case, welfare is not primarily what is leading to the current policies of Scott Wiener.
Many of the teens who are identifying as trans come from functioning two parent families.
Never forget that the Welfare State was purposely created to foster a dependent underclass to politically manipulate. Familial break-up etc is a feature, not a bug in the ‘program.’
very true. this goes as far back as Sparta in ancient Greece. The kids were communally raised, so that the rulers had more control over their society and war making machine.
Nice article. It's probably just "pride" month, but I'm seeing a theme in a lot of the articles I'm coming across.
Did you see the whole brouhaha about "cis" and "cisgender" on Twitter? The origins of the prefix "cis" and the term "cissexual" and later "cisgender" are interesting to say the least and tie in well with this attempt to remove the safeguards we struggled to put in place to give children innocence. (https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/cis-coined-by-pedosexual-apologist)
We are so close to "sex with children is a choice" it isn't even funny anymore.
Lilia, I'd never bothered to look up "cis," but after reading a reference to "cis-Atlantic" by Thomas Jefferson last week, I did. Webster's defines it as "on this side of," from the Latin.
I know you and I are probably on the same side. Using "cis" as an "opposite" of trans is just an attempt to legitimize linguistically something that not everyone agrees is legitimate, the idea that men and women come in two kinds with not much distinction between them.
I learned the term "cis" many years ago in elementary school reading about Julius Caesar's military campaigns in Transalpine (as opposed to Cisapline) Gaul. It's too bad it has been hijacked. Other nice words using cis include cisatlantic and cispontine. I guess next time I talk about Julius Caesar's Transalpine wars most people will think he was anti-lgbt+++.
This is a thoughtful, cohesive and important look at how society is being shaped, and what the problems are with that shape, which is sort of combination bong/sextoy/cellphone/surveillance camera, operated by Chat GPT and owned by Bill Gates. Yes, the direction is deliberate, the rationale is, or at least has been up until now socially unacceptable and therefore is sold as something else ( on demand abortion is “reproductive rights”, sex change surgery and artificial hut mine manipulation is “gender confirming”. Neurologically impaired political grifters, who up until recently would be cared for by nurses in a memory care center or rehab unit, are the “President” and a “Senator”. )
But what are they trying to make us into? Under the false rubric of Progressivism, we are being led into high tech Neo-feudalism indentured servitude. What are the characteristics of the things which were generally accepted as indicative of advancing civilization, a never ending long term slog against anarchy, ignorance, and cruelty which moves forward slowly at best and sometimes not at all for centuries? Is Rembrandt a better painter than
anonymous cavemen in France? Is the Empire State Building a greater design and engineering feat than a teepee or a mud hut or little house on the prairie? Is being able to do a heart transplant and get long term survival better than attributing disease to humors and applying leeches? Uh, yeah. All these things have in common the accumulation of knowledge, delayed gratification, intellectual and spiritual discipline,
building upon an existing body of knowledge.
The same applies in society. Society improves in the same way. We improve through relentless iteration, inspiration from time to time, and building on the past. That’s why we shouldn’t judge cavemen or Etruscans. They did what they could in their time, and here we are.
What is being done now is unraveling Western Civilization, enabling and codifying the freedom to ruin one’s life- sex,drugs, mindless constant entertainment, and other low level distractions, while removing our freedom to think, achieve, and advance. Serfs don’t advance. They live in huts, do as they are told and suffer the consequences of the whims of the laird. They don’t need to get any big ideas because that decreases their utility as fungible cogs and makes them dangerous. Take away hope. Take away understanding and you become much easier to control. Fight, fuck and get stoned all you like buddy, but you can’t escape the matrix.
The reasons we got here are numerous, but in general we got out in front of our skis. You take a good idea, like say equal rights ( negative rights) for all people, and you turn it into the exact thing you were trying to get rid of - oppressive, capricious, cruel treatment of other groups. You invent affirmative rights that have a zero sum aspect to them. I win = you lose. You build out an advanced economy and substitute commercial transactions for time honored social institutions and values. This has happened throughout history. We get a new toy and we break it because we need to assert dominance. Then we gradually learn how to use it more rationally. But make no mistake, the people at the top get all of this. It isn’t “ Whoops! We overdid it!” They just don’t care. They are willing to do the experiment - with your life of course. And that’s what all the fuss is about, because some of us are saying “no”.
And just to be clear, I’m not advocating behavioral or ideological Puritanism. Be gay. Be a vegan. Be your best whatever. We are after all humans. We can disagree. We can and will screw up. But you can’t fuck other people over. And you can’t sacrifice our children and society to this cynical, stupid, selfish bullshit.
ALL of the socialist philosophers have included, as a key component of their programs to transition to their particular "Glorious Socialist Paradise", the total elimination of the nuclear family as a foundational component of society. Period. And the blatant sexualization of ever younger children is simply a tool to expedite that process.
Every totalitarian state has taken control of whatever passes for "education" in that culture. Lenin famously said, ""Give me a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be mine forever". Control their minds - control their bodies. And keep those interfering parents away!
The relevant part of the Great Orwell Quote in this case is:
"Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now."
The quote about "give me a child..." et c is far older than that, to be fair. Prettysure it's in some versions of the Bible even? "Teach a boy how to walk and the man will not stray from the path" is even older, Ancient Greece around Homer's time if I recall correctly.
It's nothing strange about it either - in older society, you'd raise your kid to fit in into society and society taught the kid how to handle the interplay of society's vs family codes of behaviour.
Not overtly as I describe it here, but to an almost instinctual level:
In northern Sweden, it's rude to take the last piece of cake, especially without asking. What you do is take half of the piece after asking, even if everyone declines. Then, someone will ask you take all of it.
In southern Sweden, the custom is instead to reach for it while asking "If no-one else claims this it's mine" or words to that effect, and then take the entire piece. More of a "you snooze, you lose"-attitude.
(This is an example from within a people, up until recently almost100% racially/culturally homogenous. Imagine the differences between cultures that are total strangers.)
So if you grew up in the north, the southerners appear a bit rude, and vice-versa the northerners appear a bit silly - but you will have picked up on "how it's done" during those first five years.
Lenin-quotations aside, it's nothing inherently communist about it either, as scientifically designed state upbringing was en vogue among all the futurists/modernists of late 19th century thinking, including test-tube babies produced via eugenics.
I don't mean this in an "uhm aktcherly"-sense, just wanted to pounce on the opportunity provided.
Agree that the Lenin quote merely echos oft stated observation that children are usually raised to conform with the cultural context in which they are raised. I use it because, A) its succinct, and B) I remember it.
The first step in the Long March was to take over the education system.
"The history of education shows that every class which has sought to take power has prepared itself for power by an autonomous education. The first step in emancipating oneself from political and social slavery is that of freeing the mind. "
Antonio Gramsci (1935)
Of course, Gramsci, being a leftist, was lying about the goal being 'emancipation', the goal was slavery.
I wonder if the problem is too little structure and too much free time that is spent in meaningless ways. I think back to my childhood and how I spent my time. Some chores, babysitting for my younger brothers, homework, reading for pleasure, galloping around pretending I was a horse (that stage lasted from 9 to 12, I guess). I liked to draw and had my own little hobby projects. Trying to imagine what it would have been if the internet and smart phones were available in the 60s, I can't even (I don't have a smart phone as an adult, either).
Everything I did was firmly based in what they now call "meat world." In that world, I got plenty of fresh air and exercise, face-to-face interaction with friends and family, the discipline of boundaries.
I wonder if it's even possible to reach young girls with this message to value themselves, before it's too late. If children as sexualized, how will they even know what the alternative is?
Absolutely. I think outside reality is crucial here. Most of the girls I’ve seen or read about online who had gender dysphoria and wanted to be boys were 100% indoor city creatures with no actual contact with real boys or nature. One detrans girl on Twitter was recently bemoaning her boredom with nothing to do, but rejected anything happening outside because of “bugs.” Lol. I’ve never seen any farm girls or boys want to change gender.
For one thing, children who grow up on farms see real sexual reproduction every day in a variety of different animals.
It's not just that children and teens are online and not outside, it is what is online. Gaming platforms are full of trans characters. It is easy to take on a character of the opposite sex when all your interactions are on a gaming platform, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram and TikTok. Teens can end up having an online persona with a huge following for years in an alternate reality and different sex from their own biology.
Definitely, if you have teens, delay giving them a smartphone at least until they are 17 and limit screen time. There is software to do this automatically to avoid the battles over taking the phone away.
I've found spending time with teens and children outdoors and away from smartphones to make a difference.
Zooming out from the emotional human petri dish, we can see that the pendulum is always swinging in the annals of human history. We have had a fairly long build-up to this crescendo of extreme liberalism and the inevitable (and needed) conservative push back. There will be an almost audible sigh of relief, when we finally reach tipping point. However, my concern is that in looking at history, the conservative path is not always kind to the individual either. So we will inevitably, return to the exact same place, at the other end of the spectrum. I guess, all we can do is sit back and enjoy the moderate intermission between the two extremes, while its there! 🤷♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
I know that historians often speak of childhood as a cultural construct, but I think there has always been an understanding that prepubescent beings need to be protected from sexualization and knowledge beyond their understanding. Otherwise how to explain this biblical story which is over 2k years old?
"And Jesus, calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them. … whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him that a large millstone be hung on his neck and he be drowned in the depths of the sea. " Matthew 18:1; 6
Yes. Saw the 'tweet.' Even though they are sexualizing it they also harbor a desire is effectuate it in that very way in which they do not absolutely need to the sexual aspect or sexualizing. But that is what they are doing. So. . . it is COMPLETELY unacceptable, punishable, and against all rules of that the society has historically based itself on. On and on, you name it. It is impossible to think of a good reason for doing this. I think that yes, they sexualized the children. And they are making use of the opportunity to hide it. You can more easily exploit other people if you can hide it. Sexual perversion, in any case, comes down to "exploit while hiding." ...get away with it. Big anonymous city I think saw that one in the article, it comes just before the MEatlOaf. They can issue all sorts of sexual denials, but that is all it is. An attempt to have sex with minors. It needs to be done in such as way that they are able to disallow or push back criticisms. They want to sexually exploited children AND they want to get away with it. They want also to be able to not admit to it. That is why they are constructing this big ideology. This should collapse on they haids! They will evade you if you should attempt to catch it out. But yes, It's sexual (desire oriented).
OT, but this https://pomocon.substack.com/p/adjunct-suppressors at PostModernConservative, “Adjunct Suppressors: The Claremont Institute Editors Have Helped Squelch the Covid-19 Vax-Harm Story,” is likely the most important thing on the Covid/Vax disaster I’ve ever written, a direct reprimand to my academic-conservative colleagues, and to most conservative politicians, for their helping the MSM suppress reporting on the vax-harms. I'd be particularly interested in how you, Chris, as a fellow conservative, react to it. It also stands as a summary of how strong the evidence on our side now is. I will likely be attacked for it, indeed, it could become the final nail in the coffin of my long-ailing academic career, and so I would appreciate your support, here, in the comments there, and by sharing it as widely as you can. And keep on with your good part of the fight!
Sorry for a really slow response -- I fell way behind with my inbox. I gave up on CRB a while ago. Subscribed for a while, then stopped. They do some good work, but the aversion to fighting current battles is painfully clear.
No problem, Chris. A telling response, as you have a good gut judgment. There are things I could say in defense of their fighting mettle on current battles--their willingness to stick it out with John Eastman being exhibit A. Also, I'm also inclined to be more lenient with CRB than The American Mind on this given the nature of book publishing and reviewing--you wind up at very best, at least a year behind any big shift in current events if you rely on review opportunities for commenting on them.
In a healthy society, Scott Wiener would get thrown off a rooftop. Not saying that ISIS is good, but every now and then, ISIS gets it right, and I think if they got ahold of Scott Wiener, they would give that thing the treatment it deserves.
Well-written and thoughtful. Thanks for your sage observations. I see the problem as that we are reverting back to paganism, where these type practices were many times, in many cultures, routine. Throw in Marxist/Leninist/Maoist totalitarianism and their urge to destroy all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs and you end up with a very toxic brew of policies and beliefs that support the same.
Don't blame feminism. As a lifelong feminist, I can tell you there was never a cry to "smash the patriarchy". That sounds like Rush Limbaugh talk. No feminist I've ever known has said or prescribed to that. Perhaps you are referring to some outliers or academics, or even transgenders infiltrating the movement. I've started to recognize that high level/CEO type transgenders have been used to give us the illusion that women are making progress in the higher ranks. Bullsh*t.
Feminism is about equal opportunity and equal rights. Nothing more and nothing less. The right to control your own body. The War on Women is alive and well, escalating in fact. But it's not feminists driving that.
First, the "smash the patriarchy" quote is from Peachy Keenan, and isn't my characterization.
Second, this is a fair point, but which feminism is yours? Second wave and fourth wave seem like they've never even passed each other on the sidewalk. The women who led the age of consent campaign, from more or less 1880 to 1920 or so, very much considered themselves feminists, but then so (I think) do the women bringing their children to sexualized adult performances as a progressive cultural gesture. So X is feminism, and Not X is feminism. I'm not at all sure the word means to everyone what it means to you. I very much doubt, for example, that the average 70 year-old second-wave feminist looks at Lia Thomas and sees the same thing a 19 year-old fourth-wave feminist sees. Aren't there some generational schisms, and maybe some class issues, in contemporary feminism?
The source for much of the pro-trans, pro-sexual promiscuity feminists is a product of post-modernist academic feminism. Many academic "gender studies" programs took over women's studies programs in the 1990s. This happened at UC Berkeley, Simon Fraser University in Canada, UVic in Canada, and the University of Toronto in Canada. Much of this has been funded by the Arcus foundation and the Pritzker family. It was a deliberate takeover of women's studies departments and a deliberate attempt to silence feminism.
Look up Susan Stryker (originally a man from a Mormon family). She essentially infiltrated various women's studies departments starting in the 1990s and has been funded by the Arcus foundation over many years.
Second wave feminists (those who fought for Title IX) are still around, and there is a new generation that are coming around to "second wave" feminism. I would put Riley Gaines and the Independent Women's Forum in that category. Other young women such as Eliza Mondegreen and Meghan Murphy are eschewing the false promise of promiscuity. They aren't going away and are only gaining momentum.
Socialist post modernist feminism is a feminism funded by men with outsized power, outsized financing from the Arcus Foundation and the Stryker Family, and a big social media presence. But in everyday life? No, it's not feminism, but a Trojan Horse driven into the heart of "second wave" feminism.
In any case, I downloaded "Domestic Extremist" from Audible and look forward to listening to it. Thanks for the recommendation.
bingo. Yes, as I said in my own comment, the globalists are masters at warping true steps toward individual and societal empowerment toward their agenda of division and control.
There truly is an orchestrated global master plan to void women's sex based rights on a global scale and replace that with gender self-identification so that men can self-identify into women's sports, women's prisons, women's professional short lists, women's change rooms, and women's hospitals and maternities wards. To top it off, their agenda would obliterate the keeping of all medical and crime statistics that record sex. It's been going on since at least 2006 as described in this article:
Aren’t women like Riley Gaines simply defending themselves from being assaulted, as it were, at work? Hardly feminism. In simple terms, “Lia” Thomas and his ilk are thugs.
""The feminist movement has gone two directions," Gaines, who swam for the University of Kentucky, told Fox News. "One of which is upholding the original meaning of feminism, which is embracing and empowering women. The other direction has gone where they're now fighting for male inclusion in women's sports, women's spaces." "
That's one of the things that many feminists have been trying to deal with for decades: trying to defend themselves from being assaulted. As a woman engineer, I've had men deliberately stand right up next to me to literally try to force me out of my desk and lab area. I've had men shout me down, not because I had done anything to them, but because they were feeling insecure about their job. One very insecure male engineer I worked with felt so threatened by me being his colleague that he started talking about bringing an AK-47 to work. That wasn't in some rat hole. It was in a startup in Silicon Valley. I had to leave my job because of it.
In fact, I don't think this is a majority of men. But there are some men who are struggling with mental health issues or have severe self-esteem issues. Women also struggle with mental health issues. But there is no getting around the fact that when men have mental health issues, they are more likely to be more verbally and physically aggressive than women. And feminism or no feminism, women have always had to deal with this.
I view "Lia" Thomas as nothing new on the theme of aggression against women. It's more of the same. More trying to push women out of a public space.
One of my favorite feminists is Francine Pelletier. She has spent years trying to talk about women and assault. As a woman engineer who was sitting in a university engineering classroom in Ottawa Canada, just one hundred miles from Montreal, when 14 women engineering students were gunned down in 1989, I've spent a lot of time thinking about women and assault:
So to your question "Aren’t women like Riley Gaines simply defending themselves from being assaulted?"
The answer is yes. That is what she is trying to do. But to many people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, she is asking for too much. They think "how dare she demand the right to be recognized as a top athlete and to win awards as an athlete. After all, women aren't as a strong as men, so she should just suck it up, keep quiet, and let this male bodied "woman" suck all the oxygen out of women's sports." If a lot of people didn't quietly think that, then we wouldn't need to be having this debate.
What you experienced is nothing other than equal treatment: that is how men treat each other.
Also, lesbians have a much higher ratio of domestic violence, especially sexual violence, than heterosexual men. To compound the problem, lesbians also have culture of silence and victim-blaming, and lesbian sexual violence is much more studiedly sadistic than for any other group.
Rikard, are you some sort of expert on how men behave? I've probably worked with as many men as you. Men do not behave one way. Many men are courageous, generous, funny, altruistic and smart. Men can also be fearful and jealous. Just like women. But men are stronger than women and statistically speaking, tend to resort to more physical aggression than women in cases where they are angry.
Not sure what your reference to lesbians is about.
The original comment was about aggression. In Canada, where they keep statistics on femicide, overwhelmingly, women are killed by their male domestic partners/husbands/boyfriends. Men are killed by male casual acquaintances.
I've seen more than one bumper sticker to this effect.
As far as "control your own body" why don't you cut the euphemism crap and cut to the chase: what you really mean is the right for women to kill the fetus in their womb at will for any reason.
Feminists have been screaming for years about how horrible it is to, e.g., display photographs of attractive women in bikinis. So objectifying and degrading, that "male gaze." But it's pretty funny that men parading around as the most grotesque parodies of women is just about the most liberating, progressive, coolest thing imaginable, perfect for preschoolers.
Isn’t that the truth but then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I wish we could just keep the good parts of the internet and rid ourself of all the bad. I will never understand why parents allow their children to run the household. They buy and hand these smart phones over to them with pride. Children don’t need smart phones.
And the really cool trick is they persuaded many Women that killing their Sons and Daughters is a good thing, too. Work hard and don’t let anyone get in your glorious way.
Shouldn’t these Women get a bonus for taking one (out) for the team?
Were you ever in your Mother’s womb, Gayle? Hypocrisy much there, Abortionphile?
Just curious how you gleefully celebrate the poisoning, the suctioning, the pulling apart with metal clasping tools, the injections of the heart attack causing Digoxin, and the other lethal methods for the born alive survivors while knowing full well YOU once were that same helpless Baby in the womb.
Please enlighten us as to your preferred Child Murder technique.
I would say that the vast majority of women are happy to have more education, athletic and work opportunities than they did fifty years ago. The notion that women simply want to return to endless "domestic bliss", with no work opportunities outside the home, is likely a figment of your imagination.
As a homemaker, wife and mother, I've enjoyed it. But I equally have enjoyed my career, and I would be miserable if I had confined my life to only being a homemaker.
Can't believe my lying eyes, once again: who's arguing *that*‽ 😂 Irrelevance par excellence, not even a straw(wo)man. With bold yet pathetically off mind-reading sprinkled for good measure 🤭
I have to admit at this point that I have no idea what you are trying to say. The original comment suggested that women would be better off working at home than in the workforce.
I responded to that.
Don't know what all the anger and name calling is about here.
In the 1960s, british feminists published texts on political lesbianism, enforced sterilisation of men, segregated communities and that artificial insemination under state eugenic guidance programmes was the way to Utopia.
The divide between feminism which is nothing but a sex-based supremacist version of bosjevik marxism, and equal rights which is a traditional Enlightenment liberalist ideal has been there from the start.
It was kept under wraps but when equal rights (or rather, the gradual removal of discriminating laws) got under way and was more or less finished in the 1970s, the women whohad fought for that gave way to the feminists who by then had coupled with french post-modern and post-structuralist marxist philosophy, something which in the 1990s would birth gender theory and queer theory and all the other monikers being nothing more than smokescreens for the mongrel mixture of the ideas of people like Adorno, Gramsci, Foucault, Derrida,Laclau, Mouffe, Baumann, and many others.
Since reality isn't feminist, feminists had to rationalise harder and harder instead of admitting their ideology was and is flawed from the get-go. Fireman is the perfectexample of this, as the typical normal average feminist will put 50% women (at least) working as "firepersons" as amore prioritized goal and measure of efficiency et c than people saved and fires put out: feminists will always put politically correct ideological goals before factual real ones, since as mentioned the entire idea is wrong on an ontological level. Witness western feminists rationalise to defend genital mutilation of girls and child brides since not being "racist" is weighted heavier than preventing those races practicing such vile customs from doing so.
Feminism is nothing but a bourgeoise neurosis of women being envious, spiteful and hateful of men, and of able normal healthy women not being slaves to their neuroses.
ha! Well, those ideas don't describe any of the feminists I know. Clearly there's a range of pathologies being attributed to or labeled "feminist." (Perhaps self-labeled or labeled by those wanting to discredit / warp feminism, if they're on team globalist.)
Feminism seemingly means anything to anyone. As a son of one type of feminist, brother to others, and husband of yet another, I comfortably identify as a TERF myself. I've heard plenty about the "patriarchy", but outside of a few years when the kids were little, never served in it. As someone (a woman) once pointed out to me, the 15th Amendment gave the vote to black *men*. Black women--and their white sisters--had to wait four amendments and fifty years to get their votes. It's not my complaint to make, but if trans rights are human rights, do they have to come at the expense of women's rights? It offends my TERF sensibilities.
God, I love your writing! The tidbits in between like the Meatloaf video are perfectly timed and executed. Your insights, and the way you build on them, are spot on.
There's always room for a Meatloaf video.
Maybe this one would be apropos?
https://youtu.be/9X_ViIPA-Gc
By Melissa Alonso, CNN
Updated 9:04 AM EST, Fri January 21, 2022
Meat Loaf’s agent confirmed his death to CNN. No cause of death was shared.
Vax Injury?
Could've accelerated something.
He had been in poor health for decades. I don't think we can blame this one the vax.
Too much Meat Loaf.
and a little bit of horseradish on top even.... tasty!
We definitely took a wrong turn somewhere. I think it was when welfare started and there was no need for the family anymore, according to the government.
With no families, there’s no shame is behaviors, no need to be responsible for your own actions and no one to hold you accountable.
When welfare went from "keeping people alive and off the street" to "instead of having to work", that's when.
I'm all for us humans ensuring no-one starves, has to be homeless or is denied basic emergency care or basic education; all of those improves society.
It's when welfare means you can live just as well as if on minimum wage, when a roof over your head means living in an upscale NY hotel free of charge because you belong to [martyred group], and so on - that's where we went wrong no matter if we're talking the US or theEU or anywhere.
There's no use gilding the gutter so to speak, better make sure people can help themselves out of it instead.
""instead of having to work"
Do you think raising children is not work?
What is supposed to happen to the children when a husband is physically abusive, disappears, or is serially sexually unfaithful?
Children do not raise themselves, and many women who would love to get married and have children simply now find the prospect too risky. Since the 1990s, there is virtually no welfare and often little child support when a husband is not able or willing to be a parent and provider for their family.
I find the level of level of hostility directed toward welfare and women to belie the reality of what most women take on when they become mothers.
Have you considered reading what I actually wrote?
Yes, I read what you wrote. In most cases, the current welfare system does not allow a woman with a child or children to live just as well as if they were earning a minimum wage. Perhaps in a few states, that is true, but for the most part, it is not.
In any case, welfare is not primarily what is leading to the current policies of Scott Wiener.
Many of the teens who are identifying as trans come from functioning two parent families.
Never forget that the Welfare State was purposely created to foster a dependent underclass to politically manipulate. Familial break-up etc is a feature, not a bug in the ‘program.’
True. To replace the family with the State has always been a goal of leftists.
very true. this goes as far back as Sparta in ancient Greece. The kids were communally raised, so that the rulers had more control over their society and war making machine.
Excellent example. Had not thought of that.
Nice article. It's probably just "pride" month, but I'm seeing a theme in a lot of the articles I'm coming across.
Did you see the whole brouhaha about "cis" and "cisgender" on Twitter? The origins of the prefix "cis" and the term "cissexual" and later "cisgender" are interesting to say the least and tie in well with this attempt to remove the safeguards we struggled to put in place to give children innocence. (https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/cis-coined-by-pedosexual-apologist)
We are so close to "sex with children is a choice" it isn't even funny anymore.
The move to normalize and legalize pedophilia has been around for at least 10 years. I saw some Dutch professor give a TedTalk about it.
I'd love to give people a TedTalk of my own.
"TedTalk"
In the depths of twitter, the sodomites abusing animals are preparing for participating in Pride in the future. As are the incest-fetishists.
I saw some disgusting videos I certainly didn't want to repost.
Lilia, I'd never bothered to look up "cis," but after reading a reference to "cis-Atlantic" by Thomas Jefferson last week, I did. Webster's defines it as "on this side of," from the Latin.
The argument I keep seeing for "cis" not being a slur is that "it's scientific; it's from Latin." Well, yes, but . . .
The n-word comes from Negro, which comes from the Latin "niger" for black. Does that make the n-word okay?
Obviously not. It's all about use and abuse. (I write about "cis" as a slur here: https://lilliagajewski.substack.com/p/cis-tempest-rocks-twitter-teapot. Sorry for the self-promotion. It's easier than writing a long comment.)
I know you and I are probably on the same side. Using "cis" as an "opposite" of trans is just an attempt to legitimize linguistically something that not everyone agrees is legitimate, the idea that men and women come in two kinds with not much distinction between them.
I learned the term "cis" many years ago in elementary school reading about Julius Caesar's military campaigns in Transalpine (as opposed to Cisapline) Gaul. It's too bad it has been hijacked. Other nice words using cis include cisatlantic and cispontine. I guess next time I talk about Julius Caesar's Transalpine wars most people will think he was anti-lgbt+++.
Funny, and sadly not all that unlikely.
It was never funny.
This is a thoughtful, cohesive and important look at how society is being shaped, and what the problems are with that shape, which is sort of combination bong/sextoy/cellphone/surveillance camera, operated by Chat GPT and owned by Bill Gates. Yes, the direction is deliberate, the rationale is, or at least has been up until now socially unacceptable and therefore is sold as something else ( on demand abortion is “reproductive rights”, sex change surgery and artificial hut mine manipulation is “gender confirming”. Neurologically impaired political grifters, who up until recently would be cared for by nurses in a memory care center or rehab unit, are the “President” and a “Senator”. )
But what are they trying to make us into? Under the false rubric of Progressivism, we are being led into high tech Neo-feudalism indentured servitude. What are the characteristics of the things which were generally accepted as indicative of advancing civilization, a never ending long term slog against anarchy, ignorance, and cruelty which moves forward slowly at best and sometimes not at all for centuries? Is Rembrandt a better painter than
anonymous cavemen in France? Is the Empire State Building a greater design and engineering feat than a teepee or a mud hut or little house on the prairie? Is being able to do a heart transplant and get long term survival better than attributing disease to humors and applying leeches? Uh, yeah. All these things have in common the accumulation of knowledge, delayed gratification, intellectual and spiritual discipline,
building upon an existing body of knowledge.
The same applies in society. Society improves in the same way. We improve through relentless iteration, inspiration from time to time, and building on the past. That’s why we shouldn’t judge cavemen or Etruscans. They did what they could in their time, and here we are.
What is being done now is unraveling Western Civilization, enabling and codifying the freedom to ruin one’s life- sex,drugs, mindless constant entertainment, and other low level distractions, while removing our freedom to think, achieve, and advance. Serfs don’t advance. They live in huts, do as they are told and suffer the consequences of the whims of the laird. They don’t need to get any big ideas because that decreases their utility as fungible cogs and makes them dangerous. Take away hope. Take away understanding and you become much easier to control. Fight, fuck and get stoned all you like buddy, but you can’t escape the matrix.
The reasons we got here are numerous, but in general we got out in front of our skis. You take a good idea, like say equal rights ( negative rights) for all people, and you turn it into the exact thing you were trying to get rid of - oppressive, capricious, cruel treatment of other groups. You invent affirmative rights that have a zero sum aspect to them. I win = you lose. You build out an advanced economy and substitute commercial transactions for time honored social institutions and values. This has happened throughout history. We get a new toy and we break it because we need to assert dominance. Then we gradually learn how to use it more rationally. But make no mistake, the people at the top get all of this. It isn’t “ Whoops! We overdid it!” They just don’t care. They are willing to do the experiment - with your life of course. And that’s what all the fuss is about, because some of us are saying “no”.
And just to be clear, I’m not advocating behavioral or ideological Puritanism. Be gay. Be a vegan. Be your best whatever. We are after all humans. We can disagree. We can and will screw up. But you can’t fuck other people over. And you can’t sacrifice our children and society to this cynical, stupid, selfish bullshit.
"....high tech Neo-feudalism indentured servitude."
100%
ALL of the socialist philosophers have included, as a key component of their programs to transition to their particular "Glorious Socialist Paradise", the total elimination of the nuclear family as a foundational component of society. Period. And the blatant sexualization of ever younger children is simply a tool to expedite that process.
Every totalitarian state has taken control of whatever passes for "education" in that culture. Lenin famously said, ""Give me a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be mine forever". Control their minds - control their bodies. And keep those interfering parents away!
The relevant part of the Great Orwell Quote in this case is:
"Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now."
At least twenty years ago I first read excerpts from 1984. At that time I thought of it as spectacular exaggeration. I feel pretty foolish about that.
predictive programming.
The quote about "give me a child..." et c is far older than that, to be fair. Prettysure it's in some versions of the Bible even? "Teach a boy how to walk and the man will not stray from the path" is even older, Ancient Greece around Homer's time if I recall correctly.
It's nothing strange about it either - in older society, you'd raise your kid to fit in into society and society taught the kid how to handle the interplay of society's vs family codes of behaviour.
Not overtly as I describe it here, but to an almost instinctual level:
In northern Sweden, it's rude to take the last piece of cake, especially without asking. What you do is take half of the piece after asking, even if everyone declines. Then, someone will ask you take all of it.
In southern Sweden, the custom is instead to reach for it while asking "If no-one else claims this it's mine" or words to that effect, and then take the entire piece. More of a "you snooze, you lose"-attitude.
(This is an example from within a people, up until recently almost100% racially/culturally homogenous. Imagine the differences between cultures that are total strangers.)
So if you grew up in the north, the southerners appear a bit rude, and vice-versa the northerners appear a bit silly - but you will have picked up on "how it's done" during those first five years.
Lenin-quotations aside, it's nothing inherently communist about it either, as scientifically designed state upbringing was en vogue among all the futurists/modernists of late 19th century thinking, including test-tube babies produced via eugenics.
I don't mean this in an "uhm aktcherly"-sense, just wanted to pounce on the opportunity provided.
Agree that the Lenin quote merely echos oft stated observation that children are usually raised to conform with the cultural context in which they are raised. I use it because, A) its succinct, and B) I remember it.
The first step in the Long March was to take over the education system.
"The history of education shows that every class which has sought to take power has prepared itself for power by an autonomous education. The first step in emancipating oneself from political and social slavery is that of freeing the mind. "
Antonio Gramsci (1935)
Of course, Gramsci, being a leftist, was lying about the goal being 'emancipation', the goal was slavery.
I remember the warnings about slippery slopes regarding all this in the 1980s. Boy, were they ever right.
I wonder if the problem is too little structure and too much free time that is spent in meaningless ways. I think back to my childhood and how I spent my time. Some chores, babysitting for my younger brothers, homework, reading for pleasure, galloping around pretending I was a horse (that stage lasted from 9 to 12, I guess). I liked to draw and had my own little hobby projects. Trying to imagine what it would have been if the internet and smart phones were available in the 60s, I can't even (I don't have a smart phone as an adult, either).
Everything I did was firmly based in what they now call "meat world." In that world, I got plenty of fresh air and exercise, face-to-face interaction with friends and family, the discipline of boundaries.
I wonder if it's even possible to reach young girls with this message to value themselves, before it's too late. If children as sexualized, how will they even know what the alternative is?
Absolutely. I think outside reality is crucial here. Most of the girls I’ve seen or read about online who had gender dysphoria and wanted to be boys were 100% indoor city creatures with no actual contact with real boys or nature. One detrans girl on Twitter was recently bemoaning her boredom with nothing to do, but rejected anything happening outside because of “bugs.” Lol. I’ve never seen any farm girls or boys want to change gender.
For one thing, children who grow up on farms see real sexual reproduction every day in a variety of different animals.
It's not just that children and teens are online and not outside, it is what is online. Gaming platforms are full of trans characters. It is easy to take on a character of the opposite sex when all your interactions are on a gaming platform, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram and TikTok. Teens can end up having an online persona with a huge following for years in an alternate reality and different sex from their own biology.
Definitely, if you have teens, delay giving them a smartphone at least until they are 17 and limit screen time. There is software to do this automatically to avoid the battles over taking the phone away.
I've found spending time with teens and children outdoors and away from smartphones to make a difference.
Ah, but she will EAT ZE BUGS! LOL
Zooming out from the emotional human petri dish, we can see that the pendulum is always swinging in the annals of human history. We have had a fairly long build-up to this crescendo of extreme liberalism and the inevitable (and needed) conservative push back. There will be an almost audible sigh of relief, when we finally reach tipping point. However, my concern is that in looking at history, the conservative path is not always kind to the individual either. So we will inevitably, return to the exact same place, at the other end of the spectrum. I guess, all we can do is sit back and enjoy the moderate intermission between the two extremes, while its there! 🤷♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Anals. haha (Beavis told me to post that)
heh heh. Are ya sho' it wasn't Butt-Head's idea? I hear he's the smarter one doing the thinking (sic).
I know that historians often speak of childhood as a cultural construct, but I think there has always been an understanding that prepubescent beings need to be protected from sexualization and knowledge beyond their understanding. Otherwise how to explain this biblical story which is over 2k years old?
"And Jesus, calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them. … whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him that a large millstone be hung on his neck and he be drowned in the depths of the sea. " Matthew 18:1; 6
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on my book -- I appreciate it, especially from a non uterus haver!
Yes. Saw the 'tweet.' Even though they are sexualizing it they also harbor a desire is effectuate it in that very way in which they do not absolutely need to the sexual aspect or sexualizing. But that is what they are doing. So. . . it is COMPLETELY unacceptable, punishable, and against all rules of that the society has historically based itself on. On and on, you name it. It is impossible to think of a good reason for doing this. I think that yes, they sexualized the children. And they are making use of the opportunity to hide it. You can more easily exploit other people if you can hide it. Sexual perversion, in any case, comes down to "exploit while hiding." ...get away with it. Big anonymous city I think saw that one in the article, it comes just before the MEatlOaf. They can issue all sorts of sexual denials, but that is all it is. An attempt to have sex with minors. It needs to be done in such as way that they are able to disallow or push back criticisms. They want to sexually exploited children AND they want to get away with it. They want also to be able to not admit to it. That is why they are constructing this big ideology. This should collapse on they haids! They will evade you if you should attempt to catch it out. But yes, It's sexual (desire oriented).
Your pieces suddenly disappeared from my inbox. Hoping it's just a momentary glitch.
Sorry, just saw this. Did it turn out to be a glitch, or is it still happening?
I got the one you posted today, so I'm hoping the issue is fixed. Thanks.
OT, but this https://pomocon.substack.com/p/adjunct-suppressors at PostModernConservative, “Adjunct Suppressors: The Claremont Institute Editors Have Helped Squelch the Covid-19 Vax-Harm Story,” is likely the most important thing on the Covid/Vax disaster I’ve ever written, a direct reprimand to my academic-conservative colleagues, and to most conservative politicians, for their helping the MSM suppress reporting on the vax-harms. I'd be particularly interested in how you, Chris, as a fellow conservative, react to it. It also stands as a summary of how strong the evidence on our side now is. I will likely be attacked for it, indeed, it could become the final nail in the coffin of my long-ailing academic career, and so I would appreciate your support, here, in the comments there, and by sharing it as widely as you can. And keep on with your good part of the fight!
Sorry for a really slow response -- I fell way behind with my inbox. I gave up on CRB a while ago. Subscribed for a while, then stopped. They do some good work, but the aversion to fighting current battles is painfully clear.
No problem, Chris. A telling response, as you have a good gut judgment. There are things I could say in defense of their fighting mettle on current battles--their willingness to stick it out with John Eastman being exhibit A. Also, I'm also inclined to be more lenient with CRB than The American Mind on this given the nature of book publishing and reviewing--you wind up at very best, at least a year behind any big shift in current events if you rely on review opportunities for commenting on them.
In a healthy society, Scott Wiener would get thrown off a rooftop. Not saying that ISIS is good, but every now and then, ISIS gets it right, and I think if they got ahold of Scott Wiener, they would give that thing the treatment it deserves.
I don't think throwing pedophiles and closeted pedophiles off roofs is the exclusive province of ISIS, nor should it be.
I suspect one could very quickly recruit thousands of volunteers - in almost any rural area to tend to that little chore.
They would be doing the Lord's work: https://biblehub.com/luke/17-2.htm
Well-written and thoughtful. Thanks for your sage observations. I see the problem as that we are reverting back to paganism, where these type practices were many times, in many cultures, routine. Throw in Marxist/Leninist/Maoist totalitarianism and their urge to destroy all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs and you end up with a very toxic brew of policies and beliefs that support the same.
Danny Huckabee
Don't blame feminism. As a lifelong feminist, I can tell you there was never a cry to "smash the patriarchy". That sounds like Rush Limbaugh talk. No feminist I've ever known has said or prescribed to that. Perhaps you are referring to some outliers or academics, or even transgenders infiltrating the movement. I've started to recognize that high level/CEO type transgenders have been used to give us the illusion that women are making progress in the higher ranks. Bullsh*t.
Feminism is about equal opportunity and equal rights. Nothing more and nothing less. The right to control your own body. The War on Women is alive and well, escalating in fact. But it's not feminists driving that.
First, the "smash the patriarchy" quote is from Peachy Keenan, and isn't my characterization.
Second, this is a fair point, but which feminism is yours? Second wave and fourth wave seem like they've never even passed each other on the sidewalk. The women who led the age of consent campaign, from more or less 1880 to 1920 or so, very much considered themselves feminists, but then so (I think) do the women bringing their children to sexualized adult performances as a progressive cultural gesture. So X is feminism, and Not X is feminism. I'm not at all sure the word means to everyone what it means to you. I very much doubt, for example, that the average 70 year-old second-wave feminist looks at Lia Thomas and sees the same thing a 19 year-old fourth-wave feminist sees. Aren't there some generational schisms, and maybe some class issues, in contemporary feminism?
The source for much of the pro-trans, pro-sexual promiscuity feminists is a product of post-modernist academic feminism. Many academic "gender studies" programs took over women's studies programs in the 1990s. This happened at UC Berkeley, Simon Fraser University in Canada, UVic in Canada, and the University of Toronto in Canada. Much of this has been funded by the Arcus foundation and the Pritzker family. It was a deliberate takeover of women's studies departments and a deliberate attempt to silence feminism.
Look up Susan Stryker (originally a man from a Mormon family). She essentially infiltrated various women's studies departments starting in the 1990s and has been funded by the Arcus foundation over many years.
Second wave feminists (those who fought for Title IX) are still around, and there is a new generation that are coming around to "second wave" feminism. I would put Riley Gaines and the Independent Women's Forum in that category. Other young women such as Eliza Mondegreen and Meghan Murphy are eschewing the false promise of promiscuity. They aren't going away and are only gaining momentum.
Socialist post modernist feminism is a feminism funded by men with outsized power, outsized financing from the Arcus Foundation and the Stryker Family, and a big social media presence. But in everyday life? No, it's not feminism, but a Trojan Horse driven into the heart of "second wave" feminism.
In any case, I downloaded "Domestic Extremist" from Audible and look forward to listening to it. Thanks for the recommendation.
bingo. Yes, as I said in my own comment, the globalists are masters at warping true steps toward individual and societal empowerment toward their agenda of division and control.
There truly is an orchestrated global master plan to void women's sex based rights on a global scale and replace that with gender self-identification so that men can self-identify into women's sports, women's prisons, women's professional short lists, women's change rooms, and women's hospitals and maternities wards. To top it off, their agenda would obliterate the keeping of all medical and crime statistics that record sex. It's been going on since at least 2006 as described in this article:
https://unherd.com/2023/06/how-the-un-perverted-conversion-therapy/
that's definitely the diabolical part.
Aren’t women like Riley Gaines simply defending themselves from being assaulted, as it were, at work? Hardly feminism. In simple terms, “Lia” Thomas and his ilk are thugs.
Riley Gaines in her own words:
""The feminist movement has gone two directions," Gaines, who swam for the University of Kentucky, told Fox News. "One of which is upholding the original meaning of feminism, which is embracing and empowering women. The other direction has gone where they're now fighting for male inclusion in women's sports, women's spaces." "
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/riley-gaines-never-considered-feminist-raced-lia-thomas
That's one of the things that many feminists have been trying to deal with for decades: trying to defend themselves from being assaulted. As a woman engineer, I've had men deliberately stand right up next to me to literally try to force me out of my desk and lab area. I've had men shout me down, not because I had done anything to them, but because they were feeling insecure about their job. One very insecure male engineer I worked with felt so threatened by me being his colleague that he started talking about bringing an AK-47 to work. That wasn't in some rat hole. It was in a startup in Silicon Valley. I had to leave my job because of it.
In fact, I don't think this is a majority of men. But there are some men who are struggling with mental health issues or have severe self-esteem issues. Women also struggle with mental health issues. But there is no getting around the fact that when men have mental health issues, they are more likely to be more verbally and physically aggressive than women. And feminism or no feminism, women have always had to deal with this.
I view "Lia" Thomas as nothing new on the theme of aggression against women. It's more of the same. More trying to push women out of a public space.
One of my favorite feminists is Francine Pelletier. She has spent years trying to talk about women and assault. As a woman engineer who was sitting in a university engineering classroom in Ottawa Canada, just one hundred miles from Montreal, when 14 women engineering students were gunned down in 1989, I've spent a lot of time thinking about women and assault:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ecole-polytechnique-thirty-years-anti-feminist-1.5381510
So to your question "Aren’t women like Riley Gaines simply defending themselves from being assaulted?"
The answer is yes. That is what she is trying to do. But to many people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, she is asking for too much. They think "how dare she demand the right to be recognized as a top athlete and to win awards as an athlete. After all, women aren't as a strong as men, so she should just suck it up, keep quiet, and let this male bodied "woman" suck all the oxygen out of women's sports." If a lot of people didn't quietly think that, then we wouldn't need to be having this debate.
What you experienced is nothing other than equal treatment: that is how men treat each other.
Also, lesbians have a much higher ratio of domestic violence, especially sexual violence, than heterosexual men. To compound the problem, lesbians also have culture of silence and victim-blaming, and lesbian sexual violence is much more studiedly sadistic than for any other group.
Rikard, are you some sort of expert on how men behave? I've probably worked with as many men as you. Men do not behave one way. Many men are courageous, generous, funny, altruistic and smart. Men can also be fearful and jealous. Just like women. But men are stronger than women and statistically speaking, tend to resort to more physical aggression than women in cases where they are angry.
Not sure what your reference to lesbians is about.
The original comment was about aggression. In Canada, where they keep statistics on femicide, overwhelmingly, women are killed by their male domestic partners/husbands/boyfriends. Men are killed by male casual acquaintances.
http://femicideincanada.ca/about/trends
This is just one of many examples:
https://shop.reductress.com/products/id-rather-be-overthrowing-the-patriarchy-womens-tank-top
I've seen more than one bumper sticker to this effect.
As far as "control your own body" why don't you cut the euphemism crap and cut to the chase: what you really mean is the right for women to kill the fetus in their womb at will for any reason.
Feminists have been screaming for years about how horrible it is to, e.g., display photographs of attractive women in bikinis. So objectifying and degrading, that "male gaze." But it's pretty funny that men parading around as the most grotesque parodies of women is just about the most liberating, progressive, coolest thing imaginable, perfect for preschoolers.
How did we get here, Gayle?
I always ask Feminists, hey, what about the Preborn Girl’s body?
Ain’t she a Woman?
Porn hub is how we got here.
Absolutely. I think we’d all be better off without the internet. 100%.
Isn’t that the truth but then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I wish we could just keep the good parts of the internet and rid ourself of all the bad. I will never understand why parents allow their children to run the household. They buy and hand these smart phones over to them with pride. Children don’t need smart phones.
Well it helps that the men in bikinis are ugly…lol. Women do complain when the men win the beauty pageants….
🗨 feminism has not achieved its aim of giving women choices. Instead, it has simply herded women from the household and into the labour market.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And the really cool trick is they persuaded many Women that killing their Sons and Daughters is a good thing, too. Work hard and don’t let anyone get in your glorious way.
Shouldn’t these Women get a bonus for taking one (out) for the team?
🗨 The feminist cry to “smash the patriarchy” accidentally smashed the matriarchy instead. ~~Peachy Keenan, pseudonymous tradcath writer
😳
Get yourself back to Oral Roberts U. You're getting your opinions of women in the wrong places. Not reality. Maybe reality TV.
Were you ever in your Mother’s womb, Gayle? Hypocrisy much there, Abortionphile?
Just curious how you gleefully celebrate the poisoning, the suctioning, the pulling apart with metal clasping tools, the injections of the heart attack causing Digoxin, and the other lethal methods for the born alive survivors while knowing full well YOU once were that same helpless Baby in the womb.
Please enlighten us as to your preferred Child Murder technique.
Good grief! What is wrong with you?
Do most people put up with your insults, Gayle?
You can dish it out but can’t take it?
See class, even Women can be Bullies. And then they can cry out like an injured Doe thereby avoiding responsibility for their words.
It’s truly the best of both worlds.
It's not an either / or proposition. You can be in the labour market and in the household.
True for men too. (My husband is an excellent dish doer. In fact, he has pretty much taken over the dishwasher.)
Sure that's *not* the punch of that quote 😏
I would say that the vast majority of women are happy to have more education, athletic and work opportunities than they did fifty years ago. The notion that women simply want to return to endless "domestic bliss", with no work opportunities outside the home, is likely a figment of your imagination.
As a homemaker, wife and mother, I've enjoyed it. But I equally have enjoyed my career, and I would be miserable if I had confined my life to only being a homemaker.
Can't believe my lying eyes, once again: who's arguing *that*‽ 😂 Irrelevance par excellence, not even a straw(wo)man. With bold yet pathetically off mind-reading sprinkled for good measure 🤭
I have to admit at this point that I have no idea what you are trying to say. The original comment suggested that women would be better off working at home than in the workforce.
I responded to that.
Don't know what all the anger and name calling is about here.
That was capitalism. Not feminism.
In the 1960s, british feminists published texts on political lesbianism, enforced sterilisation of men, segregated communities and that artificial insemination under state eugenic guidance programmes was the way to Utopia.
The divide between feminism which is nothing but a sex-based supremacist version of bosjevik marxism, and equal rights which is a traditional Enlightenment liberalist ideal has been there from the start.
It was kept under wraps but when equal rights (or rather, the gradual removal of discriminating laws) got under way and was more or less finished in the 1970s, the women whohad fought for that gave way to the feminists who by then had coupled with french post-modern and post-structuralist marxist philosophy, something which in the 1990s would birth gender theory and queer theory and all the other monikers being nothing more than smokescreens for the mongrel mixture of the ideas of people like Adorno, Gramsci, Foucault, Derrida,Laclau, Mouffe, Baumann, and many others.
Since reality isn't feminist, feminists had to rationalise harder and harder instead of admitting their ideology was and is flawed from the get-go. Fireman is the perfectexample of this, as the typical normal average feminist will put 50% women (at least) working as "firepersons" as amore prioritized goal and measure of efficiency et c than people saved and fires put out: feminists will always put politically correct ideological goals before factual real ones, since as mentioned the entire idea is wrong on an ontological level. Witness western feminists rationalise to defend genital mutilation of girls and child brides since not being "racist" is weighted heavier than preventing those races practicing such vile customs from doing so.
Feminism is nothing but a bourgeoise neurosis of women being envious, spiteful and hateful of men, and of able normal healthy women not being slaves to their neuroses.
Women ignoring and rationalizing the suffering of female (and male) Children, you can’t get any more insane than that.
ha! Well, those ideas don't describe any of the feminists I know. Clearly there's a range of pathologies being attributed to or labeled "feminist." (Perhaps self-labeled or labeled by those wanting to discredit / warp feminism, if they're on team globalist.)
Feminism seemingly means anything to anyone. As a son of one type of feminist, brother to others, and husband of yet another, I comfortably identify as a TERF myself. I've heard plenty about the "patriarchy", but outside of a few years when the kids were little, never served in it. As someone (a woman) once pointed out to me, the 15th Amendment gave the vote to black *men*. Black women--and their white sisters--had to wait four amendments and fifty years to get their votes. It's not my complaint to make, but if trans rights are human rights, do they have to come at the expense of women's rights? It offends my TERF sensibilities.