U Not Gonna Like This

The last post of this evening and it's a reprint of a 1970s article about the Women's Movement that was published in the The Individualist magazine. (via International Men's Network )

"The Great Women's Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight"


It is high time, and past due, that someone blew the whistle on "Women’s Liberation." Like The Environment, Women’s Lib is suddenly and raucously everywhere in the last few months. It has become impossible to avoid being assaulted, day in and day out, by the noisy blather of the Women’s Movement. Special issues of magazines, TV news programs, and newspapers have been devoted to this new-found "problem"; and nearly two dozen books on women’s lib are being scheduled for publication this year by major publishers.

In all this welter of verbiage, not one article, not one book, not one program has dared to present the opposition case. The injustice of this one-sided tidal wave should be evident. Not only is it evident, but the lack of published opposition negates one of the major charges of the women’s lib forces: that the society and economy are groaning under a monolithic male "sexist" tyranny. If the men are running the show, how is it that they do not even presume to print or present anyone from the other side?

Yet the "oppressors" remain strangely silent, which leads one to suspect, as we will develop further below, that perhaps the "oppression" is on the other side.

In the meanwhile, the male "oppressors" are acting, in the manner of Liberals everywhere, like scared, or guilt-ridden, rabbits. When the one hundred viragos of Women’s Lib bullied their way into the head offices of the Ladies’ Home Journal, did the harried editor-in-chief, John Mack Carter, throw these aggressors out on their collective ear, as he should have done? Did he, at the very least, abandon his office for the day and go home? No, instead he sat patiently for eleven hours while these harridans heaped abuse upon him and his magazine and his gender, and then meekly agreed to donate to them a special section of the Journal, along with $10,000 ransom. In this way, spineless male Liberalism meekly feeds the appetite of the aggressors and paves the way for the next set of outrageous "demands." Rat magazine, an underground tabloid, caved in even more spectacularly, and simply allowed itself to be taken over permanently by a "women’s liberation collective."

Why, in fact, this sudden upsurge of women’s lib? Even the most fanatic virago of the Women’s Movement concedes that this new movement has not emerged in response to any sudden clamping down of the male boot upon the collective sensibilities of the American female. Instead, the new uprising is part of the current degeneracy of the New Left, which, as its one-time partly libertarian politics and ideology and organization have collapsed, has been splintering into absurd and febrile forms, from Maoism to Weathermanship to mad bombings to women’s lib. The heady wine of "liberation" for every crackpot group has been in the air for some time, sometimes deserved but more often absurd, and now the New Left women have gotten into the act. We need not go quite so far as the recent comment of Professor Edward A. Shils, eminent sociologist at the University of Chicago, that he now expects a "dog liberation front," but it is hard to fault the annoyance behind his remark. Throughout the whole gamut of "liberation", the major target has been the harmless, hard-working, adult WASP American male, William Graham Sumner’s Forgotten Man; and now this hapless Dagwood Bumstead figure is being battered yet once more. How long will it be before the put-upon, long-suffering Average American at last loses his patience, and rises up in his wrath to do some effective noisemaking on his own behalf?

The current Women’s Movement is divisible into two parts. The older, slightly less irrational wing began in 1963 with the publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and her organization of NOW (the National Organization of Women). NOW concentrates on alleged economic discrimination against women. For example: the point that while the median annual wage for all jobs in 1968 was almost $7700 for men, it only totaled $4500 for women, 58% of the male figure. The other major point is the quota argument: that if one casts one’s eye about various professions, top management positions, etc., the quota of women is far lower than their supposedly deserved 51%, their share of the total population.

The quota argument may be disposed of rapidly; for it is a two-edged sword. If the low percentage of women in surgery, law, management, etc., is proof that the men should posthaste be replaced by females, then what are we to do with the Jews, for example, who shine far above their assigned quota in the professions, in medicine, in academia, etc.? Are they to be purged?

The lower average income for women can be explained on several grounds, none of which involve irrational "sexist" discrimination. One is the fact that the overwhelming majority of women work a few years, and then take a large chunk of their productive years to raise children, after which they may or may not decide to return to the labor force. As a result, they tend to enter, or to find, jobs largely in those industries and in that type of work that does not require a long-term commitment to a career. Furthermore, they tend to find jobs in those occupations where the cost of training new people, or of losing old ones, is relatively low. These tend to be lower-paying occupations than those that require a long-term commitment or where costs of training or turnover are high. This general tendency to take out years for child-raising also accounts for a good deal of the failure to promote women to higher-ranking, and therefore higher-paying jobs, and hence for the low female "quotas" in these areas. It is easy to hire secretaries who do not intend to make the job their continuing life work; it is not so easy to promote people up the academic or the corporate ladder who do not do so. How does a dropout for motherhood get to be a corporate president or a full professor?

While these considerations account for a good chunk of lower pay and lower ranked jobs for women, they do not fully explain the problem. In the capitalist market economy, women have full freedom of opportunity; irrational discrimination in employment tends to be minimal in the free market, for the simple reason that the employer also suffers from such discriminatory practice. In the free market, every worker tends to earn the value of his product, his "marginal productivity." Similarly, everyone tends to fill the job he can best accomplish, to work at his most productive efforts. Employers who persist in paying below a person’s marginal product will hurt themselves by losing their best workers and hence losing profits for themselves. If women have persistently lower pay and poorer jobs, even after correcting for the motherhood-dropout, then the simple reason must be that their marginal productivity tends to be lower than men.

It should be emphasized that, in contrast to the Women’s Lib forces who tend to blame capitalism as well as male tyrants for centuries-old discrimination, it was precisely capitalism and the "capitalist revolution" of the 18th and 19th centuries that freed women from male oppression, and set each woman free to find her best level. It was the feudal and pre-capitalist, pre-market society that was marked by male oppression; it was that society where women were chattels of their fathers and husbands, where they could own no property of their own, etc.1 Capitalism set women free to find their own level, and the result is what we have today.

The Women Libs retort that women possess the full potential of equality of output and productivity with men, but that they have been browbeaten during centuries of male oppression. But the conspicuous lack of rising to the highest posts under capitalism still remains. There are few women doctors, for example. Yet medical schools nowadays not only don’t discriminate against women, they bend over backwards to accept them (i.e., they discriminate in their favor); yet the proportion of women doctors is still not noticeably high.

Here the female militants fall back on another argument: that centuries of being "brainwashed" by a male-dominated culture have made most women passive, accepting their allegedly inferior role, and even liking and enjoying their major role as homemakers and child-raisers. And the real problem for the raucous females, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of women do embrace the "feminine mystique," do feel that their sole careers are those of housewife and mother. Simply to write off these evident and strong desires by most women as "brainwashing" proves far too much; for we can always dismiss any person’s values, no matter how deeply held, as the result of "brainwashing." The "brainwashing" contention becomes what the philosophers call "operationally meaningless," for it means that the female militants refuse to accept any evidence, logical or empirical, of whatever kind, that might prove their contentions to be wrong. Show them a woman who loves domesticity and they dismiss this as "brainwashing"; show them a militant and they claim that this proves that women are yearning for "liberation." In short, these militants regard their flimsy contentions as unworthy of any sort of proof; but this is the groundless method of mystics rather than an argument reflecting scientific truth.

And so the high rate of conversion claimed by women’s liberationists proves nothing either; may not this be the result of "brainwashing" by the female militants? After all, if you are a redhead, and a Redheaded Liberation League suddenly emerges and shouts at you that you are eternally oppressed by vile nonredheads, some of you might well join in the fray. Which proves nothing at all about whether or not redheads are objectively oppressed.

I do not go so far as the extreme male "sexists" who contend that women should confine themselves to home and children, and that any search for alternative careers is unnatural. On the other hand, I do not see much more support for the opposite contention that domestic-type women are violating their natures. There is in this as in all matters a division of labor, and in a free market society every individual will enter those fields and areas of work which he or she finds most attractive. The proportion of working women is far higher than even twenty years ago, and that is fine; but it is still a minority of females, and that’s fine too. Who are you or I to tell anyone, male or female, what occupation he or she should enter?

Furthermore, the women libs have fallen into a logical trap in their charge of centuries of male brainwashing. For if this charge be true, then how come that men have been running the culture over eons of time? Surely, this cannot be an accident. Isn’t this evidence of male superiority?

The Friedanites, who call stridently for equality of income and position, have, however, been outpaced in recent months by the more militant women’s liberationists, or "new feminists," women who work with the older movement but consider them conservative "Aunt Toms." These new militants, who have been getting most of the publicity, persistently liken their alleged oppression to that of blacks, and like the black movement reject equality and integration for a radical change in society. They call for the revolutionary abolition of alleged male rule and its supposed corollary, the family. Displaying a deep-seated and scarcely concealed hatred of men per se, these females call for all-women’s communes, state-run children, test-tube babies, or just simply the "cutting up of men", as the real founder of militant women’s lib, Valerie Solanis, put it in her SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto. Solanis became the culture-heroine of the New Feminism in 1968 when she shot and almost killed the painter and filmmaker Andy Warhol. Instead of being dismissed (as she would be by any rational person) as a lone nut, the liberated females wrote articles praising Solanis as the "sweet assassin" who tried to dispose of the "plastic male" Warhol. We should have known at that point of the travails that lay in store.

I believe that modern American marriages are, by and large, conducted on a basis of equality, but I also believe that the opposite contention is far closer to the truth than that of the New Feminists: namely, that it is men, not women, who are more likely to be the oppressed class, or gender, in our society, and that it is far more the men who are the "blacks," the slaves, and women their masters. In the first place, the female militants claim that marriage is a diabolical institution by which husbands enslave their wives and force them to rear children and do housework. But let us consider: in the great majority of the cases, who is it that insists on marriage, the man or the woman? Everyone knows the answer. And if this great desire for marriage is the result of male brainwashing, as the Women’s Libs contend, then how is it that so many men resist marriage, resist this prospect of their lifelong seat upon the throne of domestic "tyranny"?

Indeed, as capitalism has immensely lightened the burden of housework through improved technology, many wives have increasingly constituted a kept leisure class. In the middle class neighborhood in which I live, I see them, these "oppressed" and hard-faced viragos, strutting down the street in their mink stoles to the next bridge or mah-jongg game, while their husbands are working themselves into an early coronary down in the garment district to support their helpmeets.

In these cases, then, who are the "niggers": the wives? Or the husbands? The women’s libs claim that men are the masters because they are doing most of the world’s work. But if we look back at the society of the slave South, who indeed did the work? It is always the slaves who do the work, while the masters live in relative idleness off the fruits of their labor. To the extent that husbands work and support the family, while wives enjoy a kept status, who then are the masters?

There is nothing new in this argument, but it is a point that has been forgotten amidst the current furor. It has been noted for years-and especially by Europeans and Asians – that too many American men live in a matriarchy, dominated first by Momism, then by female teachers, and then by their wives. Blondie and Dagwood have long symbolized for sociologists an all-too prevalent American matriarchy, a matriarchy that contrasts to the European scene where the women, though more idle than in the U.S., do not run the home. The henpecked American male has long been the butt of perceptive humor. And, finally, when the male dies, as he usually does, earlier than his spouse, she inherits the entire family assets, with the result that far more than 50% of the wealth of America is owned by women. Income – the index of hard and productive work – is less significant here than ownership of ultimate wealth. Here is another inconvenient fact which the female militants brusquely dismiss as of no consequence. And, finally, if the husband should seek a divorce, he is socked with the laws of alimony, which he is forced to pay and pay to support a female whom he no longer sees, and, if he fails to pay, faces the barbaric penalty of imprisonment – the only instance remaining in our legal structure of imprisonment for nonpayment of "debt." Except, of course, that this is a "debt" which the man had never voluntarily incurred. Who, then, are the slaves?

And as for men forcing women to bear and rear children, who, again, in the vast majority of cases, is the party in the marriage most eager to have children? Again, everyone knows the answer.

When, as they do at times, the female militants acknowledge matriarchal dominance by the American female, their defense, as usual, is to fall back on the operationally meaningless: that the seeming dominance of the wife is only the reflection of her quintessential passivity and subordination, so that women have to seek various roads to bitchiness and manipulation as their route to . . . power. Beneath their seeming power, then, these wives are psychologically unhappy. Perhaps, but I suppose that one could argue that the slavemaster in the Old South was also psychologically uneasy because of his unnaturally dominant role. But the politico-economic fact of his dominance remained, and this is the major point.

The ultimate test of whether women are enslaved or not in the modem marriage is the one of "natural law": to consider what would happen if indeed the women’s libs had their way and there were no marriage. In that situation, and in a consequently promiscuous world, what would happen to the children? The answer is that the only visible and demonstrable parent would be the mother. Only the mother would have the child, and therefore only the mother would be stuck with the child. In short, the women militants who complain that they are stuck with the task of raising the children should heed the fact that, in a world without marriage, they would also be stuck with the task of earning all of the income for their children’s support. I suggest that they contemplate this prospect long and hard before they continue to clamor for the abolition of marriage and the family.

The more thoughtful of the female militants have recognized that their critical problem is finding a solution for the raising of children. Who is going to do it? The moderates answer: governmental provision of day-care centers, so that women can freed to enter the labor force. But the problem here, aside from the general problem of socialism or statism, is this: how come that the free market hasn’t provided day care centers fairly inexpensively, as it does for any product or service in mass demand? No one has to clamor for government provision of motels, for example. There are plenty of them. The economist is compelled to answer: either that the demand for mothers to go to work is not nearly as great as the New Feminists would have us believe, and/or some controls by government-perhaps requirements for registered nurses or licensing laws-are artificially restricting the supply. Whichever reason, then, more government is clearly not the answer.

The more radical feminists are not content with such a piddling solution as day-care centers (besides who but women, other women this time, would be staffing these centers?). What they want, as Susan Brownmiller indicates in her New York Sunday Times Magazine article (March 15), is total husband-wife equality in all things, which means equally shared careers, equally shared housework, and equally shared child-rearing. Brownmiller recognizes that this would have to mean either that the husband works for six months and the wife for the next six months, with each alternating six months of child rearing, or that each work half of every day and so alternate the child-rearing each half-day. Whichever path is chosen, it is all too clear that this total equality could only be pursued if both parties are willing to live permanently on a hippie, subsistence, part-time-job level. For what career of any importance or quality can be pursued in such a fleeting and haphazard manner? Above the hippie level, then, this alleged "solution" is simply absurd.

If our analysis is correct, and we are already living in a matriarchy, then the true significance of the new feminism is not, as they would so stridently have it, the "liberation" of women from their oppression. May we not say that, not content with kept idleness and subtle domination, these women are reaching eagerly for total power? Not content with being supported and secure, they are now attempting to force their passive and long-suffering husbands to do most of the housework and childrearing as well. I know personally several couples where the wife is a militant liberationist and the husband has been brainwashed by his spouse to be an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his gender. In all these cases, after a long hard day at the office or at teaching to support the family, the husband sits at home tending the kids while the wife is out at Women’s Lib meetings, there to plot their accession to total power and to denounce their husbands as sexist oppressors. Not content with the traditional mah-jongg set, the New Woman is reaching for the final castrating blow-to be accepted, I suppose, with meek gratitude by their male-liberal spouses.

There is still the extremist women’s lib solution: to abandon sex, or rather heterosexuality, altogether. There is no question but that this at least would solve the child-rearing problem. The charge of Lesbianism used to be considered a venomous male-chauvinist smear against the liberated woman. But in the burgeoning writings of the New Feminists there has run an open and increasing call for female homosexuality. Note, for example, Rita Mae Brown, writing in the first "liberated" issue of Rat (February 6):

"For a woman to vocally assert her heterosexuality is to emphasize her ‘goodness’ by her sexual activity with men. That old sexist brainwashing runs deep even into the consciousness of the most ardent feminist who will quickly tell you she loves sleeping with men. In fact, the worst thing you can call a woman in our society is a lesbian. Women are so male identified that they quake at the mention of this three-syllable word. The lesbian is, of course, the woman who has no need of men. When you think about it, what is so terrible about two women loving each other? To the insecure male, this is the supreme offense, the most outrageous blasphemy committed against the sacred scrotum.

"After all, just what would happen if we all wound up loving each other. Good things for us but it would mean each man would lose his personal ‘nigger’. . a real and great loss if you are a man....

"To love another woman is an acceptance of sex which is a severe violation of the male culture (sex as exploitation) and therefore carries severe penalties.... Women have been taught to abdicate the power of our bodies, both physically in athletics and self-defense, and sexually. To sleep with another woman is to confront the beauty and power of your own body as well as hers. You confront the experience of your sexual self-knowledge. You also confront another human being without the protective device of role. This may be too painful for most women as many have been so brutalized by heterosexual role play that they cannot begin to comprehend this real power. It is an overwhelming experience. I vulgarize it when I call it a freedom high. No wonder there is such resistance to lesbianism."

Or this, in the same issue, by "A Weatherwoman":

"Sex becomes entirely different without jealousy. Women who never saw themselves making it with women began digging each other sexually.... What weatherman is doing is creating new standards for men and women to relate to. We are trying to make sex nonexploitative.... We are making something new, with the common denominator being the revolution."

Or, finally, still in the same issue, by Robin Morgan:

"Let it all hang out. Let it seem bitchy, catty, dykey, frustrated, crazy, Solanisesque, nutty, frigid, ridiculous, bitter, embarrassing, manhating, libelous.... Sexism is not the fault of women – kill your fathers, not your mothers."

And so, at the hard inner core of the Women’s Liberation Movement lies a bitter, extremely neurotic if not psychotic, man-hating lesbianism. The quintessence of the New Feminism is revealed.

Is this spirit confined to a few extremists? Is it unfair to tar the whole movement with the brush of the Lesbian Rampant? I’m afraid not. For example, one motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident opposition to men treating women as "sex objects." This supposedly demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment extends from pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of pretty models using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and admiring glances at girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on women as "sex objects" is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex. These new monsters of the female gender are out to destroy the lovely and age-old custom-delighted in by normal women the world over-of women dressing to attract men and succeeding at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagants would impose upon us! A world where all girls look like unkempt wrestlers, where beauty and attractiveness have been replaced by ugliness and "unisex," where delightful femininity has been abolished on behalf of raucous, aggressive, and masculine feminism.

Jealousy of pretty and attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of this ugly movement. One point that should be noted, for example, in the alleged economic discrimination against women: the fantastic upward mobility, as well as high incomes, available to the strikingly pretty girl. The Women’s Libs may claim that models are exploited, but if we consider the enormous pay that the models enjoy-as well as their access to the glamorous life-and compare it with their opportunity cost foregone in other occupations such as waitress or typist-the charge of exploitation is laughable indeed. Male models, whose income and opportunities are far lower than that of females, might well envy the privileged female position! Furthermore, the potential for upward mobility for pretty, lowerclass girls is enormous, infinitely more so than for lower-class men: We might cite Bobo Rockefeller and Gregg Sherwood Dodge (a former pin-up model who married the multimillionaire scion of the Dodge family) as merely conspicuous examples. But these cases, far from counting as an argument against them, arouse the female liberationists to still gieater fury, since one of their real complaints is against those more attractive girls who by virtue of their attractiveness, have been more successful in the inevitable competition for men-a competition that must exist whatever the form of government or society (provided, of course, that it remains heterosexual).

Women as "sex objects"? Of course they are sex objects, and praise the Lord they always will be. (Just as men, of course, are sex objects to women.) As for wolf whistles, it is impossible for any meaningful relationship to be established on the street or by looking at ads, and so in these roles women properly remain solely as sex objects. When deeper relationships are established between men and women, they each become more than sex objects to each other; they each hopefully become love objects as well. It would seem banal even to bother mentioning this, but in today’s increasingly degenerate intellectual climate no simple truths can any longer be taken for granted. Contrast to the strident Women’s Liberationists the charming letter in the New York Sunday Times (March ‘19) by Susan L. Peck, commenting on the Brownmiller article. After asserting that she, for one, welcomes male admiration, Mrs. Peck states that "To some this might sound square, but I do not harbor a mad, vindictive desire to see my already hard-working, responsible husband doing the household ironing." After decrying the female maladjustment exhibited in the "liberation movement," Mrs. Peck concludes:

"I, for one, adore men and I’d rather see than be one!" Hooray, and hopefully Mrs. Peck speaks for the Silent Majority of American womanhood.

As for the Women’s Liberationists, perhaps we might begin to take their constantly repeated analogies with the black movement more seriously. The blacks have, indeed, moved from integration to black power, but the logic of black power is starkly and simply: black nationalism-an independent black nation. If our New Feminists wish to abandon male-female "integrationism" for liberation, then this logically implies Female Power, in short, Female Nationalism. Shall we then turn over some Virgin land, maybe the Black Hills, maybe Arizona, to these termagants? Yes, let them set up their karate-chopping Amazonian Women’s Democratic People’s Republic, and ban access to them. The infection of their sick attitudes and ideology would then be isolated and removed from the greater social body, and the rest of us, dedicated to good oldfashioned heterosexuality, could then go about our business undisturbed. It is high time that we heed the ringing injunction of William Butler Yeats:

Down the fanatic, down the clown;
Down, down, hammer them down,
and that we echo the joyous cry of the elderly Frenchman in the famous joke. As a female militant in France addressed a gathering on women’s liberation, asserting, "There is only a very small difference between men and women," the elderly Frenchman leaped to his feet, shouting, "Vive la petite difference!"2



Footnotes
I. Ludwig von Mises has written: "As the idea of contract enters the Law of Marriage, it breaks the rule of the male, and makes the wife a partner with equal rights. From a one-sided relationship resting on force, marriage thus becomes a mutual agreement.... Nowadays the position of the woman differs from the position of the man only in so far as their peculiar ways of earning a living differ.... Woman’s position in marriage was improved as the principle of violence was thrust back, and as the idea of contract advanced in other fields of the Law of Property it necessarily transformed the property relations between the married couple. The wife was freed from the power of her husband for the first time when she gained legal rights over the wealth which she brought into marriage and which she acquired during marriage.... That marriage unites one man and one woman, that it can be entered into only with the free will of both parties,... that the rights of husband and wife are essentially the same-these principles develop from the contractual attitude to the problem of’ married life." Ludwig von Mises, Socialism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951), pp. 95-96.

2. Professor Leonard P. Liggio has brought to my attention two vitally important points in explaining why the Women’s Lib agitation has emerged at this time from within the New Left. The first is that the New Left women were wont to sleep promiscuously with the males in the movement, and found to their shock and dismay that they were not being treated as more than mere "sex objects." In short, after lacking the self-respect to treat themselves as more than sex objects, these New Left women found to their dismay that the men were treating them precisely as they regarded themselves! Instead of realizing that their own promiscuous behavior was at the root of the problem, these women bitterly blamed the men, and Women’s Liberation was born.

The second point is that almost all the agitation comes not from working class, but rather from middleclass wives, who find themselves tied to the home, and kept from satisfying outside jobs, by the demands of children and housework. He notes that this condition could be readily cured by abolishing restrictions on immigration, so that cheap and high-quality maids and governesses would once more be available at rates that middle-class wives could afford. And this, of course, would be a libertarian solution as well.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), the founder of modern libertarianism and the dean of the Austrian School of economics, was the author of The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty and many other books and articles. He was also academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Not a joke. I've seen this link repeatedly on MRA blogs and have finally decided to give it a plug.

Read it and weep:

http://www.womensinfidelity.com

This is something I've decided to grab from the International Men's Network articles section.

It's a speech given back in 2000 on the real purpose of the feminist movement.


THE REAL GOAL OF FEMINISM: TRANSFORMING SOCIETY

Antonia Feitz
Speech delivered at the Inverell Forum 2000, 2/3/00
1. The Problem

Ladies and gentlemen, my topic is feminism and some of you may be wondering why, given our country's parlous state. Our national sovereignty is being destroyed by the the over-riding of our domestic laws and the signing of UN treaties - with no consultation and with no public or even parliamentary debate.

So why feminism? Because feminists are at the vanguard of the phalanx of fools, the useful idiots, the ideologues, who are destroying our hard won rights and our national sovereignty.

We live in an age of ideology. God has been pronounced dead, and Chesterton's witticism has proven true: when people no longer believe in God, they'll believe in anything. And the post-Christian people of the West are proof, holding beliefs which their grandparents would have dismissed as absolute nonsense, and contrary to all common sense let alone morality.

Take extreme environmentalists. Apart from literally worshiping trees, they exalt the welfare of frogs and even insects over that of people. Believe it or not, there's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [1]. Homosexuals demand their relationships be accorded equal status with marriage, including the 'right' to adopt children. And under the banner of multiculturalism, Australian children are either kept ignorant, or taught to be ashamed of their own heritage and history, while simultaneously being taught to value ethnic and especially indigenous cultures.

But arguably, feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that plague us, simply because the relationship between men and women affects all of us.

I must stress that modern feminists are not the heirs of the suffragettes who fought for equal rights such as the right to vote and property rights. Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for women. They want to transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory because they freely admit it.

Take CEDAW. It's the acronym for the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. (You can discriminate against men till the cows come home). This convention's goals are not reformist, but revolutionary. It openly calls for the elimination of traditional sex roles, and the re-writing of text books to purge them of alleged sexual stereotypes. The UN's call for the total disarmament of the world's people is embedded in CEDAW's preamble.

According to the feminists who constitute the CEDAW Committee, until nations achieve a 50-50 sexual split in everything - in occupations, in public life, and even in the domestic sphere - they are discriminating against women. Now that might sound far-fetched, but article 5 of CEDAW advocates "a proper understanding of maternity as a social function." Note the socialist bullying in the word, 'proper'.

This "proper understanding" demands that child-rearing - universally! - should be "a fully shared responsibility ... by both sexes." It also insists that society has an obligation to extend child care services to "allow individuals to combine family responsibilities with work and participation in public life."

The message to women is: you will participate in work and public life whether you want to or not. In a now notorious interview with Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir said: "No woman should be authorised to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." [2]

So much for freedom of choice. These bully-girls demand "a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version of equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?

To achieve the goal of sexual identity, Article 10c mandates the revision of textbooks, school programmes and teaching methods with a view to eliminating stereotyped concepts. This must be why one of my children's French textbooks showed Dad in an apron washing the dishes while Mum, dressed in a chic suit and carrying a briefcase, waved ta-ta to the baby in the high-chair. A French textbook! Textbooks in all subjects are being used to indoctrinate children in our schools. It's just too bad if individuals prefer the traditional roles when they have young children - as most people actually do.

According to CEDAW's Preamble, all nations are "obliged to work towards the modification of social and cultural patterns of INDIVIDUAL [emphasis added] conduct in order to eliminate prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on ... stereotyped roles for men and women."

These intolerant ideologues who so loudly criticise Christian evangelists are far worse. At least religious conversion is voluntary! But incredibly, the CEDAW Committee has instructed Libya to re-interpret its sacred book, the Koran, in ways that are permissible under CEDAW. The Algerian government was castigated for "using religion as an excuse" for failure to comply with CEDAW. The Committee has also instructed China to legalise prostitution. [3]

Whatever happened to national sovereignty? And how hypocritical is the UN? On the one hand it supposedly values the diversity of the world's nations and cultures. But on the other hand, with CEDAW, it demands that the world's nations and cultures must conform to the deranged and frequently immoral opinions of Western feminists who themselves are a minority in their own countries.

If you think CEDAW is bad news, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW drafted in March 1999 is even worse . If governments want to maintain any vestige of national sovereignty, they'd better not sign it.

Previously, nations signing or ratifying international treaties could add RUDs - reservations, understandings and declarations. These are statements limiting or modifying the effect of the provisions of a treaty; or of giving notice of matters of policy or principle; or of simply clarifying matters. But true to feminist tyranny, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW will forbid any reservations.

Feminists have been frustrated that too many countries included RUDs when they signed CEDAW - precisely to protect their cultures, religions and sovereignty. The Optional Protocol will forbid any such reservations. It is an unprecedented and massive assault on national sovereignty and if signed, will set a terrible precedent for the signing of other treaties.

Maybe the ancestor of CEDAW - the 1946 UN Commission on the Status of Women - had good intentions. But those good intentions have been high jacked by CEDAW. Instead of improving the welfare and securing basic rights for women in the poorer nations, CEDAW's main game is transforming society in the West. The Optional Protocol will be used by individuals and NGOs in the West to achieve radical social change that national parliaments would never dare consider, because their members have to face voters. It's through UN treaties such as CEDAW and the UN Charter of Human Rights that homosexual relationships will achieve the legal status of marriage.

The most cursory glance over the countries that have signed and ratified CEDAW makes the whole thing a sick joke. The first three are Albania, Algeria and Angola, hardly well-known for their equal treatment of women. Burundi - where people regularly hack each other to death with machetes - has signed. So has Cambodia, of the killing-fields fame. China has signed too, even though it performs third trimester 'abortions' - read 'infanticide' - on unwilling women.

Needless to say, Canada and Australia, both of whose governments are heavily feminist influenced, have signed. To its eternal credit, the US has not.

So, that's the overall picture. Now let's look at what's behind feminism.


**********************
2. The Theory

Modern radical feminism is founded on contradictory lies. The fact that they're lies doesn't matter, because truth is always secondary for ideologues. The fact that they're contradictory is no source of shame, because feminists believe that logic is just a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women and that women have other, and superior, ways of knowing [4].

The first lie is that men and women are interchangeable, and that there aren't any differences between the sexes apart from anatomical ones. In fact, feminists claim that there aren't two sexes at all but at least five genders, which are socially constructed. They regard heterosexual men and women as being hopelessly repressed in gender stereotypes forced upon them by society. Their life's mission is to liberate us from these imposed stereotypes.

To achieve the interchangeability, feminists at first tirelessly promoted the traditional male life pattern of un-interrupted full-time work as the norm for women. Creches and childcare were demanded to free women from domesticity, whether they wanted to be 'freed' or not. In Australia, groups such as the Women's Electoral Lobby fought to change Australia's tax system from a family-friendly one to a profoundly unjust one where a married man with a family pays virtually the same tax as a single man. They won, and their victory clearly shows the contempt for ordinary women that is the hallmark of feminism.

But seeing as ignoring babies doesn't go down too well with most mothers, feminists have changed tack. If they can't force women to be like men, then they'll force men to be like women. The sexes MUST be interchangeable for their gender theory to work. This is behind the increasingly hectoring calls for men to avail themselves of the 'opportunity' of part-time work and to do more domestic work out of 'fairness'. Australian academic Ken Dempsey deplores the fact that most of the women in his surveys on domestic work perversely fail to see they're oppressed [5].

These academics can't even see how absurd, let alone insulting they are to the men and women of Australia. What business of theirs is it how couples organize their domestic life? In any case, their concern is hypocritical: feminist high-flyers don't share the domestic chores as they exhort the lower orders to. No, they employ household help. They don't have part-time work either. No, they have well-paying full-time careers [6].

The first lie was that there are no differences between the sexes. The second and contradictory lie is that women are in fact superior to men. Increasingly, feminists claim that maleness is some sort of pathology, in need of a cure. And so there is a widespread demonization of men in our culture, with disastrous effects on young males who are made to feel ashamed of their sex and to scorn the manly virtues. And then politicians, academics and social commentators have the hide to express concern about male suicide rates.

Increasingly men are being regarded and treated as second class citizens, being freely discriminated against in employment via affirmative action programmes. Feminists contemptuously dismiss the achievements of Western civilization as the product of 'dead white males'. And they're doing their best to overthrow it and replace it with their own socialist hell where every facet of life will be regimented, even down to doing the housework. It's already happened in one German state [7].

There are some chilling prospects in store for men if they win. For instance the president of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy in Washington DC, has proposed that men's fertility be controlled by mandatory contraception beginning at puberty. Boys would be forced to have contraceptive implants along with compulsory DNA fingerprinting. Doctors would have to report anybody who refused the implants or sought medical attention after trying to remove them himself [8]. This is not sci-fi, folks, this is now.

The strategies used to demonize men are stereotyping and disinformation, or in plain English, labelling and lies. Men are so routinely stereotyped as 'violent' now, that the slander is rarely challenged. And the lies keep being disseminated by governments, the bureaucracies, the schools, the media, and even to their shame, the churches.

Take rape. Organizing their annual "Reclaim the Night" marches, Australian feminists claim with a straight face that one in four women have been raped. But this is where the lies come in: 'rape' doesn't mean the same thing for feminists as it does for the rest of us. The feminist researcher's definition of 'rape' included women who simply had second thoughts in the morning because they'd been drunk or stoned at the time. As well, only a quarter of the women she regarded as having been raped agreed that they had been raped! [9]

Yet Australian feminists continue to feed the media with this arrant nonsense that one in four Australian women has been raped. And the lies continue, though I'm beginning to think they originate in stupidity more than malice. For instance, one feminist academic wrote the following nonsense to me after I politely chided her for slandering all men as violent.

She wrote, "The Women's Safety Survey, a national survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (most recently 1996) of 6,880,500 women aged 18 years and over, found that in the twelve months prior to the study almost half a million women had ... ". Blah blah blah. I replied saying: "This defies belief. I doubt that there ever was a survey of "6,880,500 women aged 18 years and over. I think you probably meant to say there was a survey of X numbers of women, from which researchers then extrapolated those figures from ABS statistics. A bit different."

She didn't have the grace to reply.

Domestic violence is certainly an evil, but the feminists have both grossly overstated its occurrence and denied the facts of female violence. For example, it is well documented that there is a high rate of domestic violence among lesbians [10]. Yet all governments uncritically accept the feminist propaganda that domestic violence is simply a matter of violent males abusing helpless women and children. Not so. There is now an abundance of research, including recent Australian research, which shows that most abusing men are in abusing couple relationships and that women instigate acts of violence more frequently than men [11]. Erin Pizzey, the founder of the women's shelter movement in England, has been saying the same for years but has been studiously ignored by feminists and bureaucrats. Feminists have no interest in the truth. They even deny it exists. Objective truth, logic, standards of evidentiary proof, linear thinking are all dismissed as the "White Male System" of rationality which is in no way superior to other ways of knowing.

At the institutional level, feminism has been spectacularly successful. I'd now like to look at a few specific areas.

3. The Achievements

1. The sexual harassment industry

Until recently, the workplace was one of the traditional places for making romantic attachments. But now it's a no-no, thanks to the feminists. They've generated a climate of hysteria about any expression of the normal sexual interest between males and females at work. In today's workplace, male interest - not boorish behaviour - but just interest, may be perceived as sexual 'harassment' if a woman chooses to regard it as such.

In response to this legal minefield, feminism has generated yet another parasitical growth industry: anti-harassment training is now big business costing millions a year, billions in the US.

But there is an acceptance of double standards. Adult men, even in all-male workshops, or the all-male crew of submarines, aren't allowed to put up girlie pictures as they have traditionally done on the grounds that it demeans women and reduces them to sex objects. But a Kolotex hoisery ad of a naked woman perched on a bound naked man was 'fun' - because it was created by an all-woman advertising agency.

The irony in all this sexual harassment nonsense is that before all the legal machinery was set up, women were much more independent, psychologically speaking. Any woman worth her salt could stop a man's unwelcome advances with a look that stopped him in his tracks from ten feet away. Girls smooched with boys in the back row of the cinema or at the drive-in, and they usually had the last word on 'how far to go'. Compared with those self confident young girls, today's adult 'victims' are pathetic specimens of womanhood.

2. The Affirmative Action Rip-off
In the feminist lexicon, the word, 'equality' doesn't mean equal opportunity; it means equal outcomes. So AA bureaucracies have been established to enforce the social engineering necessary to achieve equal outcomes.

But affirmative action has been premised on false assumptions. 1) Firstly, the claim that that under-representation of women in certain occupations is proof of discrimination is intellectually very shaky and even dated. Australian academic Faye Gayle has said that " ... universities could not, by definition, be led by the best brains since they had not achieved a 50-50 gender balance across all classifications ... especially in areas such as physics, chemistry and engineering...". [12]

But she's simply wrong. There's now an embarrassment of research into sex differences which clearly shows male and female variation in aptitudes and interests - which doesn't mean that girls can't become scientists. It's an indictment of intellectual life that most of this research has been done by women as the topic is too 'hot' for men. It's an indictment of feminism that when confronted with the evidence, promiment feminist Gloria Steinem responded by saying such research should be banned.

2) Secondly there's the experience of the kibbutzim. Despite indoctrination in socialist and feminist principles from birth, and despite the highest personal motivation, the kibbutzniks failed utterly to achieve a 50-50 society . The third generation reverted to the sexual division of labour along the lines found in most societies. There were few women in trades such as carpentry and plumbing, but they outnumbered men 9 to 1 in teaching. Even then, there were virtually no men in pre-schools, but 40% in high schools [13].

So was it a failure for the goal of sexual equality? No. It was a victory for common sense. Ideology gave way to reality: the kibbutzniks changed their ideas about what equality between the sexes means. They totally rejected the feminist idea that the sexes must be identical.

3) A third false assumption is that all women want be in full-time paid work. Because of feminist propaganda, most people are very surprised to learn that the participation rate of women in full-time work has hardly changed in thirty years. From 1966 to 1998, it rose by just 0.4% [14]. Most mothers still opt out of the full-time workforce during their peak child-bearing years. And it's not for lack of childcare either. Survey after survey shows that the majority of mothers and fathers still think that home care is best care, for babies in particular. It's not hard to see why. Australians standards specify one carer to every five children under two. That's not quality care in any man's language.

With AA being based on these false assumptions, the discrimination against men is unjustifed, particularly when men are the main providers for their families. And who benefits from AA? Overwhelmingly young tertiary educated women. The 50-50 workplace won't happen without massive social engineering and massive discrimination against men. That this is unjust is immaterial. Yes, according to feminists, justice too is a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women.

3. The Law
Speaking of justice, feminists have had enormous success in transforming society by transforming the law. According to them, the problem with the law is the male focus on universals, principles, rules, distinctions, and consistency. Their goal is "to rid the law of individual rights and transform it into a bundle of group rights." [15]

Canada and Australia are at the vanguard of feminist jurisprudence, and, just as in indigenous land rights, the two countries' activists feed off each other. For example, in 1990, Canadian Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson called for the transformation of the law along feminist principles, and for the re-education of her male colleagues in "summer schools on sexism." But Australian judges already attend such re-education courses.

Demonstrating a blatant bias against men, Wilson on the record as saying that, "women are ...less concerned than men with abstract notions of justice, less preoccupied with what is 'right' and 'wrong,' ".[16]. Imagine the furore if a male Supreme Court judge spouted such sexist rubbish. She has even castigated her fellow judges for relying too much on the evidence of a case instead of entering 'into the skin of the litigant and making his or her experience part of your experience and only when you have done that, to judge.' [17]

No wonder our countries are in decline: this feminist fruitcake is a Supreme Court judge! The law as we understand it, and the rights of individuals which have been so hard won over centuries of struggle, are being destroyed by feminism. Feelings and perceptions - but only of women - are becoming more important than facts and evidence. If a man is accused of rape, his belief that the woman consented is dismissed, because women never tell lies according to feminist ideology. Yet if a wife murders her sleeping husband, her belief that she was in danger of death is accepted as self defence.

The blindfold has well and truly been ripped from Justice. She is no longer impartial; she is a feminist with a mission to transform society.

4. The Military
Australian women have played an honourable role in the nation's defence forces. Currently, under a Sex Discrimination Act exemption, the ADF is allowed to limit women in combat roles. Women mustn't be put in a position where they would be likely to engage in hand to hand combat. This is common sense, but feminists still demand full combat roles for women because the armed forces are just another arena in their relentless goal to transform society. Men and women are interchangeable and consequently every institution of society must reflect it. The US experience should warn us not to go down this road.

In October 1994, a female US Navy Lieutenant was killed on an approach-landing to an aircraft carrier. While the Navy publicly said it was engine failure, privately it acknowledged it was pilot error. The poor woman was allowed to continue training despite recording seven crashes in combat conditions during (simulated) training. Why? Because an admiral under political pressure announced he wanted women in combat roles. Quickly. A male pilot would have been disqualified well before his seventh crash [18].

Career officers who see difficulties arising from feminist demands are silenced through a high-ranking official Committee on Women's Issues, which has recommended that any disagreement with the 'women in combat' policy disqualifies officers from positions of leadership. Excellent male officers' careers have been sacrificed for expressing, even privately, reservations about women in combat.

According to David Hackworth, one of the US's highest decorated retired soldier, some U.S. Army infantry divisions have a battalion-equivalent of pregnant soldiers. During Desert Shield, the non-deployment of women soldiers was much higher than men because of pregnancy. The different non-deployment rates for the sexes aroused no official concern, despite it being an obvious injustice to the men who can't shirk their duty by getting pregnant.

It's ludicrous, but there were thirty eight pregnancies on the USS Eisenhower after the crew boarded. The Navy claimed there was no indication that any of the pregnancies resulted from sex aboard ship. Small comfort to the sailors' wives ashore, especially when one couple, both married to others, videotaped themselves having sex in a remote corner of the ship. There were also eighty pregnancies in the UN (US) peace-keeping forces in Bosnia. Hardly surprising, given there was mandatory integration of the sexes in sleeping quarters. The strong objections of servicemen's wives to women in combat roles are routinely dismissed in any discussion of the matter.

Consequently, the US army's morale is at an all-time low. Training standards have dropped: at the once prestigious Wrest Point, men don't have to run carrying heavy weapons anymore, because women can't do it. A recent congressional study found 40 percent of officers and 62 percent of enlisted personnel plan to leave military service when their time is up. More than 60 per cent of those interviewed cited "work circumstances" as the final straw that broke their commitment to the military. Hackworth's own informal survey of more than 3,000 serving soldiers and sailors a week confirms that "work circumstances" is code for problems with women. He claimed a soldier now in Basic Training told him that "five females in my platoon were so weak they couldn't pull the charging handle back on an M-16 (rifle)."[19]

Only feminist ideologues could fail to see that the presence of women on a battlefield weakens combat readiness. But for feminists, national security comes second to ideological purity. The sexes must be identical, and it look like Britain is set to jetison its military heritage and join the Americans in having women in combat.

5. Education
In education, the transformation starts with unsubtle brainwashing in pre-schools B. Believe it or not, Australian pre-schools have banned Cinderella and Superman.

Yes, the National Childcare Accreditation Council's handbook states that "anything that emphasises men and women in traditional masculine and feminine roles" is outlawed [20]. Along with Superman and Cinderella, favourite authors like Hans Christian Anderson and CS Lewis have also been given the boot. Staff are discouraged from telling little boys and girls that they look handsome or pretty respectively, and from providing 'stereotyped' toys. When the council's General Manager was challenged about promoting views so contrary to community standards she defended the guidelines claiming that they were voluntary . Well yes, I suppose if a childcare centre is happy to risk its accreditation and hence funding, it can choose to flout the 'recommendations'. Soft totalitarianism indeed.

The propaganda continues through all levels of education. As mentioned previously, school textbooks have all been vetted for gender stereotypes in all subjects. In the US, high school history textbooks have been re-written to give women an importance they simply didn't have in pre-contraceptive ages. In one popular science text, a 19th century astronomer called Maria Mitchell who discovered a comet gets more space than Albert Einstein [21].

And we all know, the university is the feminist's natural habitat. Feminism wouldn't have survived outside academia. In too many of them, what were once academic disciplines - such as history and literature - have been transformed into courses which 'deconstruct' history and literature for 'evidence' of oppression of women and minorities.

6. Religion
Showing good reasons for their increasing irrelevance, many Christian churches have succumbed to feminist demands. Some, such as the Uniting Church have fallen into line and dispensed with traditional beliefs, even accepting homosexual ministers. The ones who have retained traditional beliefs - orthodox Catholics and the so-called fundamentalist Christians - are loathed by feminists, precisely because they are the last institutions in society to resist the idea that the sexes are interchangeable. As such they are under unrelenting pressure and hostility.

This is the reason the ordination of women is so bitterly fought. Reasonable people would think if women want to be ordained, the sensible thing to do would be to leave the traditional churches for more congenial spiritual pastures. That the dissenters don't do so clearly shows they have no respect either for their own churches or for the diversity they profess to cherish, and that their real intent is to transform the churches according to feminist ideology.

That's not speculation either, they brag about it. At a 1993 conference in Minneapolis, delegates from 27 countries, sponsored by mainstream Christian churches and groups, even orders of Catholic nuns, claimed they were "signalling the dawn of the Second Reformation in a way "Luther or Calvin couldn't imagine" [22]. Addressing the conference, a bishop said the churches must free themselves from "the grip of sexism, racism, and classism." The faithful who financed the delegates might have been more appreciative had the bishop condemned sin and encouraged the practice of virtue.

At this Christian conference there was lots of drumming, scribble-writing, Hawaiian chants, Zulu songs, along with belly-dancing and the theology of darkness, the goddess, creation spirituality, midlife transitions and dreamwork.

Only in America? Sadly not. At the Sophia centre for women's spirituality at the Dominican convent at Cabra in South Australia, the Sisters have recognised the injustices in the world arising from the oppression of women. So instead of rolling up their sleeves and nursing the sick and teaching the children of the poor, they're now commited to "work towards the transformation of the consciousness and structures in our society, especially within the Church's sphere of action" [23]

Their inaguaral biennial conference in 1992 gives the flavour. In the keynote address, Sr Elaine Wainwright spoke of the superiority of feminine traits; the destructive elements in the patriarchal system; the need to de-construct, re-interpret, and reconstruct Scripture; the need to rid the world of androcentric bias and replace it with "the weaver woman goddess Wisdom in one of her many manifestations which included Isis, Lilith, Sophia and even Jesus/Christa." [24]

Also at the conference was a self-professed witch called Spider Redgold. She was facilitator for a workshop called: "The Mother of all Religions: can Christianity acknowledge the Goddess?" The Sophia centre claims to be Christian, but the word 'Sophia' is no longer is the personification of wisdom, but a name of the Goddess. The sisters' Outreach programme is spreading the feminist word and has reached a TAFE course, community centres, a girls' college, school staffs, the University of Adelaide and they've even linked with the Office of Women's Adviser to the Premier.

7. Language
George Orwell knew that those who control the language control the debate, and changing our language was one of the first and major successes of feminism. We let it happen because we thought it was too silly to be taken seriously, but they've had the last laugh. The average Australian who is outside of academia and the bureaucracies would be shocked at the level of linguistic intimidation in this country.

Chapter 8 of the Australian government's Style Manual is titled "Non-sexist Language". It uncritically accepts the feminist assertion that Standard English is sexist, even though as recently as thirty years ago feminists themselves used Standard English.

Nevertheless Femspeak is winning among the elites. They've managed to ban generic 'man' along with any words with 'man' as a prefix or suffix. There is a three page list of offensive man-words. I'm not joking.

You can't man the pumps, the desk or the phones any more. The man in the street is now the average citizen. The faith of our fathers and the brotherhood of man get the chop. You can't master a language or a musical instrument any more. Cleaning ladies and housewives are out. The sentence, "A Brunswick mother of four has been appointed to the board" is deemed offensive because it mentions the M word. It says a lot about feminism that to mention the word 'mother' is seen as offensive and demeaning to woman. Brave New World indeed.

Language does change over time, but so-called inclusive language is not an organic change to the English language, but rather an ideological assault relying on very shonky scholarship. It thrives only in academia, government bureaucracies, the ABC and religious orders. That list says it all - there's your classic herd of independent minds!

End of Speech

Original url
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/pdocs/feminismgoal.htm

I'm stealing yet another post. This time it's from Outcast Superstar's (I think) repost of The Black Misogynist:

First off, Merry Christmas to the 6 of you who read
this blog according to my stat counter.

I touched on this subject in an entry last month and
now I am going to expand on it. Anybody who has ever
heard a Black woman rant and rave about how white
women "steal" all the good successful black men away.
Well, It is basically the same situation here with
Asians and White girls.

More and more white women are running off with the
morons while young hot and dumb and after they are
done they hope/pray and expect a straight edge guy
with his life together to sorta come by and pick them
up and most often their fatherless kids as well. The
term that best describes these guys is "Captain
save-a-ho." Problem nowadays is that those guys who
would have played that role are being met and picked
up by Asian women in droves especially foreign born
ones or ones from real traditional families that are
born here.

First came across this hate a few years back as a
teenager working in a Wendy's. A late 20 something
year old white woman who still looked great for her
age was complaining about a man she had set her sights
on. Seemed she knew him from a few years back and she
knew he had a thing for her but she wasn't interested.
Now she was all of a sudden for you see. She had a kid
by some thug and had to work in a fast food restaurant
as a second job to get enough money. While said guy
worked some odd job in a law firm making plenty of
money. But didn't seem to be showing the same interest
he once did.

If that sounds familiar to those six readers who come
here. It is because of this blog entry. Seems to be
the norm eh? A few days later her hopes were dashed
however and she ended up sad and a few female
coworkers were consoling her. He wasn't interested in
her anymore because he was already involved with an
Asian woman. Turns out she wasn't alone in this as all
of a sudden multiple girls started giving her their
own experiences of evil Asian women dashing their
hopes for a good man. One even at the young age of 18.
The thought that perhaps she should have dated him
before instead of the thug she did and got pregnant by
didn't cross her mind. Wasn't her fault she wanted an
exciting bad boy. But it was that Asian woman's fault
for picking the nice guy with his life together.

A few years later in college I'd run into the Asian
hate once again. This time by a group of racist
feminist while on a group lab project. Don't even
remember how the subject came up. But the bigotry
flowed. With the blanket idea that all Asian women are
ignorant and weak willed, poor, Horny sluts and
prostitutes. Then there was the so similar story of
some guy who was doing well that one was dating. She
claimed that he dumped her and is now going to marry a
Chinese girl who couldn't speak English because she
was that stupid[because only intelligent people know
English?]What got me was the reason she claimed he
broke it off with her. "He couldn't handle me because
I am too strong and independent. What a weak sexist
pig to go with some weak slutty chink girl he can
dominate and oppress."

WOAH, Isn't that some sh*t. The near exact excuse
Black women use to explain away black men who date
white women.It is bullsh*t for Black women and it is
just as bullsh*t coming out of their mouths. On a
forum I witnessed an argument over a guy saying he
used a dating website to find his wife of then going
on 4 years. A few women launched into how much of a
loser he had to be that he had to look overseas for a
wife. He admitted that in a way it was true. He did it
because a friend used the same agency and his marriage
looked great while he couldn't get a date. Ready for
some deja vu? He started telling everybody his past
dating life. Technically they were right he was a
loser to women around him. He is an unimposing guy and
was shy. No "edge" to him that domestic women his age
wanted. So he was snubbed over and over and over
again. Till he met somebody else with the same problem
who solved it by getting an attractive loyal Thai who
didn't mind that he didn't know how to play any sort
of dating game.

That is the real difference it seems. A lot of Asian
women seem to look past the silly games and don't mind
a guy that just treats her well. They directly pick up
the captain save-a-ho and bypass the stupid sh*t other
women are doing. So he asked all the women
complaining. What should he have done? Stayed alone
and dateless till some woman any woman would have him?
If no American woman wanted him then why can't he find
an attractive Filipino girl who did want him? Their
answer? One was bold and actually said yes, He
should've stayed alone. One said he was a weak man who
only did it because he couldn't handle the strength of
Modern women.

Another woman gave an interesting answer. That he
should have waited longer. Why? Here comes some more
deja vu. Because the way he is NOW he would have been
able to attract many American women. Why? Because he
would have been dealing with older more mature women
and that is when they want nice decent men like him
who have his life together. Indeed he did have a good
job and had quite a nice house.
Ding.

That is the bottom line folks. That is the reason more
white women are jumping on the "I hate Asian women"
bandwagon. Because Asian women are swooping in and
picking up the guys white women are trying to save for
later. They are fast losing their place as the most
wanted type of female that they have enjoyed for the
longest of time. White women just like black women are
spending too much time with the wrong type of men.
Then get angry when the decent men are picked up by
others and they are stuck with more losers.

Unlike black women however, White women actually have
political power here in the states and they are too
bratty and spoiled to just accept this.
Soon I am sure there is going to be a law passed that
somehow stops men from finding Asian wives and
bringing them here. Or at the very least attempt to
shut down the websites that help men do it.

Tonight is part 2 of 3 articles on the history of civil rights and the democratic party. Again from the now defunct Calpatriot.org here is:

Right of Way
Escaping from the bondage of racial liberal politics

Orginally post at:
http://www.calpatriot.org/february03/bondage.html


Black Americans are being held in ideological bondage by a party that demands full political allegiance but offers no valuable returns. Though
black leaders attempt to reduce all their followers to the same
leftist-centered dogma, the Democratic Party is not the sole
custodian of black interests.

The reality of increasing black influence and leadership
from both sides of the party divide illustrates that the GOP
may also offer relevant solutions to issues that concern black Americans.



Unfortunately, black conservatives who break with this tradition
of blind allegiance to the Left are denounced by other black
Americans. Former head of the NAACP, Benjamin Hooks, denounced
black conservatives as a "new breed of Uncle Tom . . . some of
the biggest liars the world ever saw."


This attempt to purge black America of individuals who hold differing
views is cowardly and shameful. Ironically, the individual success
stories of blacks are now being shunned simply because they do not
conform to the ideological stereotype perpetuated by black America
and the NAACP. This only retards the progress of diversity in our
nation and is clearly counterproductive.



While the Left claims to champion black advancement and special
interests, it often hurls anathemas at many of the black community's
firmly held values and beliefs regarding abortion, the death penalty,
education, and religion.

On the topic of abortion, in 1990, a Gallup poll reported that 40 percent
of black Americans felt the statement "abortion is just as bad as killing
a person who has already been born; it is murder" best
described their feelings on abortion.

Blacks stand to make great gains most from reforms in education.
A 1999 survey by Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research group, found that
68 percent of blacks favor school vouchers.


If black Americans have conservative leanings on these critical issues,
how then has the Democratic party managed to maintain the largely
overwhelming support of the black community and its leaders?

The dispute over affirmative action on American campuses provides
provocative insight. Statistics show that an overwhelming majority
of blacks support the Democratic platform on the issue of racial
preferences. However, affirmative action ironically implies the view
of blacks as intellectually inferior and unqualified under
regular standards.

Democrats would like to portray themselves as the singular guardians
of black interests to maintain their voter stronghold.

But the respect gained by blacks in the Bush administration's two years
demonstrates that the Republican Party is no longer an enemy camp.



Rather, it is the Left that holds the black voters in a stranglehold.
They demand full allegiance for any economic advances and employment
opportunities enjoyed by the black community, implying individual blacks
could not have accomplished these things by way of their own merits.

Successful blacks in this country have not advanced into their
influential roles because of the government's helping hand.

These exceptional politicians, intellectuals, and professionals have
achieved great successes through education, personal motivation, and
determination. The success of blacks, especially those who support the
Republican ideology, is an example of the progress America has made and
will continue to make in the future. From this, we should hope for a
stronger and more diverse political party as conservatives continue
to offer innovative solutions to the issues of black America.

Firing more shots over the bow:



Tonight the first of three post regarding the history of Democrats as guardians of the civil rights movement.

Anyone who really knows their history will know that this is not true. Unfortunately, thanks to the media, academia and the entertainment industry liberals have become synonymous with civil rights.

That's why I decided to repost this article that's been gathering digital dust on my hard drive.

This article was posted at the now defunct Calpatriot.org. The site featured conservative students from different California colleges whom posted articles about current events, opinion pieces and articles like the one you see below...

So, for anyone that's still in the dark about the real history of the democratic party then I suggest you read this one through throughly..

The Dark Side of the Democratic Party

Orignally posted at:
http://www.calpatriot.org/february03/erasing.html

The racist left is revealed through historical
analysis

Those on the left of the political divide, especially
ones of the Democratic variety depict themselves as
champions of racial justice while portraying
Republicans as demagogues of hate. They will list all
Republican injustices, real or imagined, while
conveniently forgetting innumerable Democratic sins:
Woodrow Wilson’s segregationism, William
Jennings Bryan’s support of the Ku Klux Klan,
and Franklin Roosevelt’s indifference to
anti-lynching legislation. Fortunately, in the light
of history, their arguments fall far from the truth.

Many have forgotten that Democrats were not just the
party of slavery, they were the party of Jim Crow, of
segregation, of “separate but equal,” and
until as recent as the 1960s, the party that required
blacks to count the number of jellybeans in a jar as a
“test” to be registered to vote. President
Bush’s National Security Advisor and close
friend Condoleeza Rice, arguably the most powerful and
influential black woman in the history of America,
likes to tell the story of how her father became a
Republican because Democrats would not allow him to be
registered to vote. Let it be known that in the 26
major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of
Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80
percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican
majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of
the votes! If one were to peel back the layers of
history even further, one party has stood on the
grounds of racial equality and civil rights, and that
party is the Republican Party.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) was
largely based on Civil Rights legislation sponsored by
Republicans in years past that had been watered down,
defeated by segregationist Democrats, or struck down
by Democrat-controlled courts. Republicans, the
minority party at the time, voted in higher
percentages for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than
Democrats. In the House of Representatives,
Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 80
percent to 20 percent, 138-34. The Democrats margin
was 152-96, or 61percent to 39 percent.

However, the most important vote for civil rights
legislation was the vote for cloture of the anti-civil
rights filibuster where two-thirds of the Senate was
needed. On June 10, 1964, Senate Republican leader
Everett Dirksen made an impassioned speech before all
100 senators for ending the filibuster.

"There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked
and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said
that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his
diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all
the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time
has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of
government, in education, and in employment. It must
not be stayed or denied."

Civil Rights legislation was not stayed nor denied.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly to break the
filibuster by 81.8 percent (27-6), while 65.7 percent
(44-23) of Democrats voted for cloture. Nine days
later the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the senate
73-27 with 6 Republicans and 21 Democrats opposing.

With the subsequent passage of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, one has to ask why it took a century after
the end of the civil war to achieve civil rights for
Black Americans.

It is to be said that Democrats, from Andrew Johnson's
presidency to Lyndon Johnson's, sought to reassemble
the Jacksonian coalition of northern machines and
southern segregationists. In 1924, Franklin Roosevelt
advised Democrats to raise only issues of importance
to the entire nation--which meant that they should
abstain from the questions of integration and racial
equality. While Truman did integrate the military and
Kennedy did enforce court orders to integrate Southern
state universities, their support for civil rights was
luke-warm at best. FDR, Truman, and JFK looked upon
civil rights advocates primarily as interests to be
managed rather than integral parts of their electoral
coalitions.

As a matter of record, John F. Kennedy's civil rights
record before 1963 was neither a rejection of civil
rights legislation nor a clear endorsement. Southern
segregationists preferred jury trials to bench trials
because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil
rights violators. Well aware of this fact, Kennedy
still voted to allow juries to hear contempt cases. As
a Massachusetts senator, Kennedy had the opportunity
to vote in favor of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
Unwilling to jeopardize his presidential ambitions,
Kennedy elected to pass along the legislation to the
Senate Judiciary Committee--dominated by
Democrats--where it would have been shelved.

To be fair, John F. Kennedy was a Democratic
politician of his time, and like all politicians of
any party, his first priority was to gain and maintain
power. In his narrow win over Richard Nixon in the
1960 election, Kennedy needed to keep the old
Jacksonian coalition together and as a result barely
mentioned civil rights as part of his presidential
campaign. After his election, JFK did not produce any
new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. During
this period the civil rights movement generally
proceeded without Presidential Support. However, by
1963 American opinion had forced the issue.

A poll conducted by The National Opinion Research
Center of Northern Whites in 1963 determined that the
number of Americans who approved neighborhood
integration had risen 30 percent in twenty years, to
72 percent in 1963. Support for integration of schools
was even higher at 75 percent. Democrats could no
longer appease southern segregationists and win in the
north. Years of peaceful protests by blacks and whites
made civil rights the most important issue in the
coming election for a substantial segment of the
American populace. As a result Northern Democrats
overwhelmingly joined the Republican Party in
supporting civil rights.

Democratic politicians did not lead the charge on
civil rights, they merely took credit. Although
Republicans have for decades voted in great majorities
for civil rights, neither Democrats nor

Republicans can claim sole credit for the passage of
the Civil Rights. It was efforts by Protestant and
Catholic clergy, Urban Leagues, the NAACP, Martin
Luther King Jr., and countless other groups and
individuals of all races that forced civil rights to
be crafted into federal law. However, the group that
deserves the most credit for bringing upon civil
rights is black Americans. During their 250 years of
bondage and 100 years of segregation, black Americans
conducted themselves with nothing less than dignity,
perseverance, and bravery. Black contributions as
fighting men in both World Wars coupled with the hard
work of millions of blacks, their families, and their
churches were the keys to success in the civil rights
movement.

Realignment and the Rise of Southern Republicans

When Lynden Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of
1965, he ruefully quipped that he had just delivered
the South to the
Republican Party for the next generation. Many people
attribute this to the South’s racism; however
they tend to forget that at that time the overwhelming
majority of blacks in the south were Republicans.
Blacks in Georgia alone accounted for 70% of the
Georgia Republican Party. Lynden Johnson clearly
thought he gave Republicans millions of votes across
the south that were disenfranchised in previous
elections.

However, when given the ability to vote those Black
Republicans became Democrats. This process started in
1933 when northern blacks joined Roosevelt’s New
Deal coalition and began a gradual realignment of
blacks towards the Democratic Party. As late as 1960,
Richard Nixon still received 32 percent of the black
vote. The Republican share of the black vote in 1964
dropped to a mere six percent and a Republican
candidate has not received above 15 percent since
then. What happened between 1960 and 1964 to make the
black vote almost unanimously Democratic?

Whereas Lyndon Johnson supported the civil rights
bill, his opponent in the 1964 presidential campaign,
Barry Goldwater, opposed the bill on the grounds that
its public accommodations section violated
people’s rights to do business with whom they
pleased. Goldwater felt that discrimination in the
workplace was morally wrong, but feared government
would “require people to discriminate on the
basis of color or race or religion.” Although
called a racist by the left, Barry Goldwater, a
pro-choice libertarian-conservative, was perhaps one
of the least racist politicians in America. Goldwater
was a staunch NAACP supporter who had voted
affirmative for every previous civil rights bill. In
his state of Arizona, Goldwater desegregated the
National Guard before Truman desegregated the
military. Alas, Goldwater is proof of how one
politician can change the perception of an entire
political party for decades to come. Martin Luther
King Jr., who had remained neutral in the 1960
presidential race, enthusiastically endorsed LBJ in
the 1964 race. While King declared that Barry
Goldwater was not racist, his positions gave aide and
comfort to racists.

Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act of
1964 coupled with his 1962 statement that electorally
Republicans should “go hunting where the ducks
are” convinced blacks that the Republican Party
was hostile to blacks and hastened their political
realignment. Although Republicans delivered the
overwhelming margins needed to pass Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and were champion of previous civil rights
legislation, Goldwater’s tactics severed black
America’s link to the Party of Lincoln.
Furthermore, the GOP’s opposition to big
government policies such as the Great Society in later
years strengthened that view.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Goldwater’s
opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the
subsequent shift of blacks to the Democratic Party,
did not send a flood of segregationist whites towards
the Republican Party. The GOP did not, and has not
become a racist party. Only one Democratic Senator who
voted against civil rights shifted allegiances to the
Republicans. That Senator, Strom Thurmond, later
renounced his segregationist past and voted for the
Voting Rights Act of 1980. Most democrats who opposed
civil rights such as Albert Gore Sr., J. William
Fulbright, and future Democratic Senate Leader
(1977-1988) and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd (who
democrats now call the conscience of the senate)
remained Democrats. The vast majority of southern
segregationist did not become Republicans.

Segregationist created the Dixiecrats and returned to
their party of origin- the Democratic Party- when the
civil rights movement succeeded. Republicans did not
make gains in the south till much later, when a new
breed of Southerners emerged and thousands of
Northerners began moving south. In the 1968
presidential campaign began, polls showed that Nixon
was at 42 percent; Humphrey at 29 percent, and
segregationist Democrat George Wallace was at 22
percent. When the presidential race ended, Nixon and
Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13
percent. The 9 percent of the “racist”
vote that Wallace lost had gone to Humphrey.
Nixon’s southern strategy was not based on race
as his critics have claimed.

When Richard Nixon began his campaign for president in
1968, he penned a column on the South that declared
the Republican Party would build its foundation on
states rights, human rights, small government and a
strong national defense. In that letter he declared he
would leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney
and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political
juice out of the rotting fruit of racial
injustice.” In this campaign Nixon only endorsed
those Republicans who were not members of the John
Birch Society. During the Nixon presidency, budgets
for black colleges were doubled and the share of
Southern schools that were desegregated from 10
percent to 70 percent. Among Nixon’s more
notable achievements on Civil Rights was his work on
the passing the 1957 Civil Rights Act, for which
Martin Luther King Jr. thanked personally.

During the 1960s and 1970s Republicans only mustered
one-fifth of the white vote in southern congressional
elections. As the old Southern Democrats began to lose
power (or die), a new type of non-segregationist
Southerners grew. The South’s shift away from
the Democratic Party to the Republican Party largely
occurred during the Reagan Era. Exit polls taken in
eleven southern states in 1982 showed the GOP’s
weakness among white voters: on average, 45 percent of
southern white voters were Democrats and only 23
percent were Republicans. Ronald Reagan’s
platform of racial equality, cultural conservatism,
family values, low taxes, federalism (i.e. small
government), a strong military, and a hawkish stance
vis-à-vis the Soviet Union began to attract Southern
white voters. It was not until the 1990s when the GOP
gained an advantage in party affiliation and 1994
marked the year Republicans captured a majority of
southern house and senate seats. In this past
election, the state of Georgia elected the first
Republican governor and senator since reconstruction!

With the rise of southern Republicans, the Republican
Party has become a truly national party that is
competitive in every state. While it is true that the
Republican base is centered in the Western and
Southern states while the Democratic base is centered
in the North Eastern states and California. The states
where Democrats enjoy the largest percentage of
registered voters - Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Connecticut - all have
Republican governors.

The Republican rise in power in the south and
consequently the entire US was not predicated on race
as commonly trumpeted in our universities and the mass
media. Our party’s position on civil rights
since the age of Lincoln has been constant: we believe
government should be color blind and that all people
should be judged equally as individuals in the eyes of
the law. Unfortunately, the left believes that not
supporting items on their agenda all comes down to one
issue: race.

They charge that voting against massive transfer
payments from one group to another is a display of
racism. If you don’t believe in preferences for
any group of Americans, you are racist. If you
don’t believe in high taxes and an expansion of
government programs, you are racist. Fifty years ago
Democrats campaigned by stirring up racial fears,
opposing color-blind laws, and silencing those who
oppose them. In many ways they still do.

So there you have it. Liberals haven't always been so quick to support the rights of blacks after all. I'll have some more on this tomorrow night.

I just changed the layout of this blog for I think the 4th time, however this one might be permanent. I saw that the links I posted were clipped by the links and other material on the side of the blog.

So now all of the extra stuff is at the bottom of the page and not blocking any of the post.

Now it's just like one great big web page.

I hope that this will be better for the readers of this blog and you'll be able to reap the full benifits of being able to see all of the information posted here.

Well that's it for now. Thanks for visiting and good night...

As a MRA blogger keeping you real identity hidden from others is an aboslute must. But how to go about doing that is the question. The obvious part is the user name or pen name that you'll be using to blog with.

If you're the creative kind then you probably don't need any help in that department. However, for others who may get stuck at this point here are some tips. First off, if you can try not to pick an obvious name like Indiana Jones, or Homer Simpson, or other well-known famous characters.

Pick names from lesser-known films or fiction books.

If that don't work then there is always the online name generators:


http://www.bannerblog.com.au/2007/03/mini_action_name_generator.php

http://noemata.net/nbng/

http://www.myprecious.us/name_generator.php

http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/

http://gangstaname.com/

http://www.chriswetherell.com/hobbit/

http://www.rinkworks.com/namegen/

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/toys/namegen/

Okay, next you need to know about anonymous browsing. The best thing you can do is use something like

Incognito:

http://www.patdouble.com/content/blogsection/3/6/

It's a live operating system that runs directly from the computers cd tray. The only thing with Tor is if you use it to do a lot of searching then you may find yourself blocked from certain search engines, this is why I don't use it.

Just pick something from one of these links and use it when you want to do your posting to the internet:

http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/debian.htm

http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php

http://www.linuxbasis.com/distributions.html

http://lwn.net/Distributions

http://www.securedvd.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LiveDistros

http://www.linux.org/dist/



Now you need to find some hosting. Unfortunately at this time there doesn't seem to be many options. But I do have 3 host (besides blogger and wordpress) that can be used:

https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net

http://yohost.org/

http://www.cotse.net/

and here you can find a few more tools, more on how to protect yourself, and also what you can and cannot do as a cyber activist:


http://web.media.mit.edu/~nicholas/Wired/WIRED6-10.html

How Tor works:

http://tor.eff.org/overview.html

Anonymizer's Anonymous Surfing:

http://www.anonymizer.com/anonymizer2005/1.5/

A list of fired bloggers:

http://morphemetales.blogspot.com/2004/12/statistics-on-fired-bloggers.html

The Bloggers' Rights Blog:

http://rights.journalspace.com/

A Technical Guide to Anonymous Blogging (An Early
Draft), by Ethan Zuckerman:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/?p=125

EFF's Legal Guide for Bloggers, a larger, more
comprehensive look at the legal issues facing
bloggers:

http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/


http://www.torproject.org/

http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-privacy.php

http://www.pcmesh.com/anonymous-surfing-faq.htm

http://www.anonymousspeech.com/

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html

http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/net-anonymity.part1-4/msg00001.html

http://faqs.org/popular/popular1.html

http://faqs.org/faqs/faqsearch.html

http://www.anonymousspeech.com/anonymous_payment.aspx

http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi

http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/blog-anonymously.php

http://www.freeproxy.ru/#english

http://www.shadowbrowser.com/

http://www.katzglobal.com/hosting/hosting.html

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/privacy/anon-server/faq/use/part1/

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/07/newbies-guide-t.html

http://www.mutemail.com/anonymous-email-service-faq.html

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Anonymity_with_Tor_and_Privoxy

http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ

http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub6717.pdf

http://www.nodezilla.net/install_guide.html

http://www.iusmentis.com/technology/remailers/index-penet.html

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/fighting-back/anonymous-remailer-faq

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Internet/E-mail/Anonymous_Mailers/

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/alt/alt.privacy.html

http://www.anonymitychecker.com/faq.html

http://www.my-proxy.com/

http://www.openssh.com/

http://www.offshore.com.ai/security/

http://maildropguide.com/

http://www.perfectlyprivate.com/

http://network-tools.com/

http://privacysig.com/

http://privacy.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server

http://www.s-mail.com/

http://blacklogic.com/

http://www.openprivacy.org/

http://www.stayinvisible.com/

http://www.anonymize.net/faq.html

http://pps.nntime.com/faq.html

http://www.hackerz.ir/e-books/remailer.html

http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net/faq.shtml

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/info20b.htm

http://www.cyberslapp.org/about/page.cfm?PageID=7

https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/12/10/213152/57

http://www.inetprivacy.com/a4proxy/a4p_support.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/communications/cmc-list/internet-cmc

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/advocacy/anonymous-blogging-with-tor/

http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Human_Rights_and_Liberties/Privacy/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Internet/Privacy/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Internet/Privacy/Products_and_Tools/Free/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Products_and_Tools/Cryptography/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Internet/Privacy/Products_and_Tools/

http://www.w3.org/Security/Faq/www-security-faq.html

http://www.andrebacard.com/privacy.html

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/9648/pgut-links.html

Here are some newsgroups you can subscribe to:

sci.crypt, comp.society.privacy, alt.privacy, sci.answers, comp.answers

alt.answers, news.answers

alt.privacy, alt.privacy.anon-server

Along with THIS post you should now have all of the knowledge necessary to do some anonomus activism.

Thanks for reading and good luck...

I've decided to fire a few show over the bow before Christmas I wanted to post a little something about the early 20th Century anti-feminst movement. Some of you probably didn't even know that there was and anti-femist movement way back then, well there was.

They spanned the lenght of the country from New York to Nebraska to Missouri and probably a number of other places in between, only back then it was known as the anti-suffrage movement becuase women didn't yet have the right to vote.

Without further adieu here are the links:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hkfp7

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/booklist.htm

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/suffrage/history.htm

http://www.mainememory.net/bin/Detail?ln=5470

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/suffrage/home.htm

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2twra9

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/ny-petition.html

http://www.hsd.org/Women_AntiSuffragist_Thompson.htm

http://www.salzburgseminar.org/ASC/csacl/progs/reform/suffragists.htm

http://www.aspenhistory.org/antisuf.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/suffrage/victory/dandyhubby.html

http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-anti-suffrage.html

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbcmil.scrp6005403

http://www.jsu.edu/depart/english/robins/waysta/way02tpb.htm

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbcmil.scrp1009301

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism

http://preview.tinyurl.com/36t8he

http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7300

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/TT/vbtvw.html

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/Period_4/antisuffrage.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/03sep/0309suffrage.htm

http://www.ioba.org/newsletter/archive/v13/rd1.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_National_Anti-Suffrage_League

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/37.2/sparacino.html

http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail309.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/vfwhtml/vfwhome.html

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/13_10_17.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/bio/fbi-file.pdf

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/index.htm

http://www.tcr.org/tcr/essays/CB_Female_Suffrage.pdf

http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html

http://www.42explore2.com/suffrage.htm

http://www.primaryresearch.org/suffrage/

http://winningthevote.org/res_anti.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SUanti.htm

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/suffrage.html

http://www.spub.ksu.edu/ISSUES/v100/FA/n005/cam-suffrage-riley.html

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/us19thamendment.htm

http://preview.tinyurl.com/8v84

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0604almanac.htm

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3x2vct

http://www.fact-index.com/w/wo/women_s_suffrage.html

http://www.marxist.com/womenandmarxism.asp

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/4dads/4dads5.html

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/newpage7.htm

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/SocPlatformSuffrage.htm

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/Consequences.htm

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/workingwomen.htm

http://www.newsoftheweird.com/cgi-bin/search/newsweird.cgi?query=gable&num=1


-------------------------

Take this post with you. Then go here and type in the link to this post and have it sent you the email address or your choice:

Free Pdf Convert

http://www.freepdfconvert.com/

This from Angry Harry's activism page (link):


UK MRAs wanted for TV programme ...

Dear Harry,

I apologise for contacting you out of the blue but I am researching a new TV programme and wondered if you could help...

I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex and/or gender-specific movements (feminism etc).

As one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers, [did he say 'one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers'? Huh! This man needs a lesson or two on how to flatter far more effusively a man of my most magnificent stature!] I wondered if you could write a piece on your blog about what I'm looking for and encourage people to get involved.

andy.cadman at endemoluk.com

Many thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.

Andy

So, there you go, Boys - and Girls. Here is your chance to let rip and have a really good moan about all those horrible feminist wimmin out there. Show them no mercy. Eat them alive. Squash 'em like pesky bugs.

Rip out their throats. Stomp on their heads. And then whack their behinds till they blister and burn.

Saw them in half. Boil them in oil. Pulverise them with ...

Goodness, I don't know what came over me.

I feel faint.

But, before I pass out, if you've got nothing better to do - and, let's face it, if you're hanging around here then you clearly have got nothing better to do - then email Andy and check out the angles.

Just found two new resources that might be useful to readers here:


Shared Book Blog Printing

Allows you to print blogs just like a book and take it with you.

http://blogger.sharedbook.com/

HP Smart Web Printing

Allows you to turn any web site into pdf(s) file(s).

http://h71036.www7.hp.com/hho/cache/482779-0-0-225-121.html