The essence of Men Going Their Own Way

This is from What Men Are Saying About Women possibly from the Forbes forum dedicated to the now infamous "Don't Marry Career Women" article:

Where feminist see Attila the Hun, I see "Death of a Salesmen". The overwhelming majority of men took care of their families above and beyond, and still do as sure as women cooked and cleaned. We have just been slandered, painted by feminist with a brush full of hate. As sure as one can disbelieve that "all men are potential rapists", one can believe that "men abandon their wive's and kids on desert islands filled with lions" LOL.


The article suggest not that we catapult women back to the 50s without being held accountable. It suggests, no it presents opinion, desire in what men want (for a change). It does not suggest that women should no longer work, it moves way beyond that to not caring if they work, but with the understanding that we will no longer bend to their will but seek our own goals and desires. It moves beyond catering to women, to the women's movement, and a man standing up and stating what he wants in a woman, as well as suggesting to other men the right road to happiness.

Men don't see "earning potential" as power in a relationship, just the outside world, because we were never granted such as a tool of power over women. Our income was always directed toward the family. Women see "earning " as power in a relationship, but not in society because that is what they were taught....so they reject the argument of this article based on a false premiss.

Corporations and Free Speech

This from The Other Side of Kim on corporate America and Free Speech:

First, we have “reeducation”—it’s not enough to stop the behavior, we have to stop the thought behind the action— then comes an official “Watch it, buddy”—followed by execution, in the corporate sense. The difference between this and totalitarian government is that the latter doesn’t bother with all three steps, but uses either one of the first two followed by (inevitably) the third.

Now I’m familiar with the argument that corporations have a right to determine behavior on their premises or within their purview, and by and large I tend to agree with it. But, as with all things, the truth lies somewhere in the degree of the thing. Somewhere between extreme boorishness and extreme sensitivity lies the proper response, but corporations, ever wary of being accused of not responding to un-P.C. behavior and the litigation which follows, will always err on the side of 100% inoffensiveness, the craven lickspittles.

I agree that a company should be able to determine that Wendell Wolf can’t go around shouting that Sandra Slutty in Accounting has wonderful tatas. I also know that under current corporate rules, Wendell is not even allowed to look at said tatas—even if Sandra is wearing a tube top and no bra—because this constitutes “harassment”. And the punishment is the same three steps as outlined above. Even worse is the fact that Wendell can face the same consequences if reported not by Sandra, but by any other employee. So if Percy Prig catches Wendell leering at Sandra, he can report the “offense” and maintain complete anonymity.

Thus is the culture of the “confidential informant” created—yet another institution beloved of totalitarian government.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is all crap?

Here’s what I see arising from all this. Already, thanks to [spit] pay packet withholding, corporations (which exist solely at the behest of government) are doing most of the government’s work in terms of income tax collection. But in recent times, corporations have also been doing the government’s work for them when it comes to political correctness, speech- and thought control.

And let’s be under no illusions about the consequences of all this. By law, if prospective employer XYZ MegaCorp. calls Wendell’s previous employer ABC GlobalCorp. for references, and enquires after the grounds for termination, ABC will inform XYZ that Wendell was fired for sexual harassment. Anyone want to place odds on Wendell getting hired by XYZ?

The Reality Crash

Several people are predicting a financial crash sometime within the next 4-5 years. One of these people is Professor Laurence Kotlikoff. He's written a book on it called:

The Coming Storm

  • Subtitle: What You Need To Know About America's Economic Future
  • Author: Scott Burns, Laurence Kotlikoff
  • ISBN: 0262612089
He's also given a radio interview about it that can be found HERE.

You can also read two of the papers he has written on the financial situation of the US Govt.

"Is the U.S. Bankrupt?" November 2005

"Why Things Could Get Really Bad" Fortune Magazine, May 24, 2004.

If you can't download the files you can visit his main page HERE and scroll down to get these and other articles he's written.

A dim future for the West

More on the Population Implosion situation from the International Herald Tribune:

Europe, East and West, wrestles with falling birthrates
By Elisabeth Rosenthal
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2006

Pushing their newborns in strollers along Na Prikope, Prague's main shopping street, Jelena Heitmankova and her two friends get emotional as they describe their desire for more children. But, nearing 30, they know their broods will probably end with the one child each has now.

"Having children here is expensive, and there is no structure: no services, no baby-sitting," said Heitmankova, who is on maternity leave. "It would be nice if there were still nurseries, like when I was a child," she said, referring to free Communist-era day care centers.

Birthrates have reached a historic and prolonged low in European countries, from Italy and Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, straining pension plans and depleting the work force across the Continent.

The number of elderly already exceeds the number of young people in many countries, and the European Union's executive arm, alarmed by the trend, estimates that the bloc will have a shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030 if the low birthrates persist.

Immigration from non-European countries, already highly contentious across the EU, would not be sufficient to fill the gap even if Europe's relatively homogenous countries were willing to embrace millions of foreign newcomers, experts say.

"You just can't integrate so many people," said Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU spokeswoman for employment and social affairs. "It is a very sensitive issue."


Throughout Europe, women have delayed having children, or opted out entirely, as they have become more educated and better integrated into the labor market. But the free fall in births is most precipitous and most recent here in Eastern Europe, where Communist-era state incentives that made it economical to have children - from free apartments to subsidized child care - have been phased out even as costs have skyrocketed.


New vibrant market economies provide young people with tantalizing alternatives to family. Lukas and Lenka Dolansky, both journalists, would like a sibling for their 3-month- old son, but they are not sure that will be practical. "We want to go abroad, study, have a career," Lukas said. "Our parents didn't have those opportunities."


The result is birthrates that are the lowest in the world - and the lowest sustained rates in history: 1.2 per woman in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Latvia and Poland, far below the rate of 2.1 needed to maintain population.


West European countries are also suffering: Greece, Italy and Spain have had rates of 1.3 and under for a decade.


But Eastern Europe is faced with a desperate double whammy: plummeting birthrates combined with emigration to Western Europe for work, made easier by membership in the EU.

As countries begin to feel the demographic crunch, Europe's "birth dearth" [or what I refer to as "Population Implosion"] is becoming a political issue. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany pushed through a package of family-boosting incentives for working women in June, and President Vladimir Putin warned in May that Russia's population decline was critical. Almost all governments are increasing baby bonuses.

this is why the illeagal immigration issue IS A MOOT POINT:

As birthrates plummet across the developed world, politicians and demographers have been pondering whether immigration can provide the population boost needed by many countries to supplement shrinking labor forces and rebalance aging populations.

From Spain and Canada to the Czech Republic and Singapore, countries are creating and amending immigration laws to attract certain foreigners in order to expand their populations. New immigrants not only add to population numbers but also tend to have more children, providing aging societies with a much-needed infusion of youth.

In Europe, Spain has been spared the worst consequences of extraordinarily low birthrates, at least for now, by a massive influx of immigrants who have helped fuel the country's economic expansion.

There were 3.5 million immigrants in 2005, up from 900,000 in 2000, according to the Spanish National Statistics Institute. By far the greatest number were from Latin America, and so meshed naturally with Spain's language, religion and culture.

Elsewhere, countries like Canada and Australia have in recent years successfully recruited skilled immigrants to buttress their populations, providing fast-track citizenship for foreigners with university education, talent or cash to invest in the country.

what the future of Europe could look like in 50-100 years:

GENOA There are hundreds of stores in the Fiumara Mall - Sephora, Elan, Lavazza Café. But in a nation long known for its hordes of children, there is not one toy store in the sprawling mix, and a shiny merry-go-round stands dormant.

"This is a place for old people," said Francesco Lotti, 24, strolling with his fiancée in Genoa's medieval old town. "Just look around. You don't see young people." Even for people their age, "there are not many places - no clubs, for example." Playgrounds? He looks quizzically at his fiancée. They can count them on a few fingers.

While all of Europe has suffered from declining birthrates, nowhere has the drop been as profound and prolonged as in this once gorgeous Mediterranean city, the capital of Italy's graying Liguria region. Genoa provides a vision of Europe's aging future, displaying the challenges that face a society with more old than young, and suggesting how hard it will be to reverse the downward population spiral.

There are no longer children playing in the streets here, nor many family- friendly restaurants. Schools have closed for lack of students. Hospitals are overworked with the elderly. Medical costs are bankrupting the government. And the fewer the children in a society, the harder it becomes to have them.

"This is a society that was based on family ties and now there are few families," said Daniela Del Boca, a professor of economics at the University of Turin. "It's easy to bemoan low birthrates, but it's hard to have good ideas to solve the problem."

Most Genovese today have only one child or none and are unapologetic about the choice. The birthrate (7.7 births per 1,000 people) was about half the death rate (13.7 per 1,000) in Liguria last year, a frightening ratio even by European standards.

More problems we can be thankful for courtesy of feminism....

Patriot Day 2006


Virginia womens college to admit men this fall

This from Yahoo News:

Board votes to make women's college coed By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago LYNCHBURG, Va. - Amid boos and shouts of "traitors!" Randolph-Macon Woman's College officials announced Saturday that men would be admitted to the 115-year-old institution starting in 2007.

In the eyes of the board of trustees, going coed could help stabilize the school's finances as interest in all-women schools wanes. But when officials floated the idea last month, it drew a sharp response. Online petitions and campus protests decried the move, angry e-mail flooded in and one alumnae group even hired a lawyer to try to discourage the board by citing legal concerns.

Saturday morning, an agitated crowd of some 400 students, alumnae and their supporters greeted the board's announcement by drowning out trustees president Jolley Christman as she tried to explain.
"Today we begin to heal. We begin to write the next chapter in our history," Christman said, barely audible over the shouting. Christman said the 27-2 vote — she wouldn't say who the dissenters were — followed 2 1/2 years of study.

The board determined coeducation was the best way to preserve the school's mission of high academic standards for undergraduate students and said a coed version of Randolph-Macon Woman's College would emphasize glo
bal honors programs.

Interim President Ginger Worden told the students and supporters, "Do not, I implore you, turn your back on this college," but many in the crowd swiftly turned their backs on her in response. "I'm sad. I'm really sad," said Gabriella Medina, a freshman from Puerto Rico. "If we can't reverse this, I guess I'm going to transfer."




Before Saturday's vote, supporters of single-gender education gathered on campus, many wearing yellow T-shirts distributed by the students' Coalition to Preserve Women's Education. A red-brick campus wall was lined with bedsheets turned into banners, one reading: "115 Years of Women Can't Be Wrong."

College officials expected resistance but said the move was necessary. Enrollment this fall was about 700, down from a student body of nearly 900 in the 1960s.


Worden said the school has had to dip into its $140 million endowment for operations because of the large financial incentives required to attract good students. The retention rate has been about 61 percent.


Nationwide, only about 60 women's colleges remain, from nearly 300 in the 1960s, according to the Women's College Coalition, a national association of women's schools. Virginia is home to three others: Sweet Briar College, Hollins University and Mary Baldwin College, and two of those, Hollins and Mary Baldwin, admit men to some programs.


and my response to this story......



Latin Americas Socialism

Part of an article from Brazzil.com:

Richard Nixon famously remarked, "As goes Brazil, so goes Latin America". Perhaps he was right. Lula's brand of socialism is becoming a role model for the entire region. Analysts consider Nestor Kirchner's Presidential election victory in Argentina a boon to Mercosul (the customs union between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) and a serious setback for the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) negotiations with the US.

In fact, the entire South American continent may be getting off the train. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced he is not going to resign peacefully; Rebel leader Evo Morales may stage a coup or at least keep destabilizing the Bolivian government; FARC and ELN narco-terrorists are besieging Colombia's government; and leftist regimes are in power in Chile, Ecuador and spreading fast.

Fidel Castro's wildest revolutionary ambitions are being fulfilled right under the nose of the Bush administration. As Castro once said, "The US can't attack us if the rest of Latin America is in flames." It's time to put out the fire and restore faith in free markets and democracy in the Americas.

Feminist Hypocrisy

This story was linked at Men's News Daily it comes from the American Chronicle:

Nancy Levant
September 6, 2006

I begin by quoting myself from a previous article:

“Try disagreeing with a political feminist and discover what a dumb ass your free will has become. Try disagreeing with anything a political feminist has to say about anything. You would get the same attitude and look from a radical environmentalist – no compromise, no reflection, no regard or respect for the opinion of another - no deals. Feminists are unapproachable, arrogant, and believe themselves to be intellectual elites…”

If never ceases to amaze me how “feminism” insults and degrades women. Either you accept and forward political feminist doctrines, or you are an idiot. As such, one cannot help but to consider the world history of women. It has been, in so many respects, a terribly sad history and one in which the personal opinions of women were mostly disregarded. This strange and bizarre standard continues in many, many nations all across the world. Think of it – half of the world’s population over written history - one of two genders - and the systematic denial of their brainpower, their capabilities, their opinions, and their contributions to cultures and mankind. And now, in the 21 Century, women themselves have organized to further this bitter history. Worse yet, contemporary women fell hook, line, and sinker into another enslavement trap. Now the feminist movement crafts our opinions for us and leaves us with no options minus those of their invention.

Political feminism, in this writer’s opinion, has again degraded the brainpower and contributions of women. I think it is fair to say that American women have become enslaved to moneymaking, money spending, the “health” and “beauty” industries, and to pathological vanity. And as such, motherhood and marriage have become enemies of womanhood. But how can I make such a blanket summation?


You can read the rest of the atricle HERE.

Liberals to use strategic blogging to protest ABC 9-11 Film

This from The Rogue Jew at Men's News Daily:

Democratic-Underground.com have urged every Democratic blogger to post identical entries after the movie airs, all featuring the film’s title, so that any Internet search for the movie will turn up a liberal blog highlighting what they say are multiple inaccuracies in the film.

If the plan works, bloggers say they’ll be prepared to utilize the technique “at every turn” between now and November.

Simply put, Liberal Democrats plan to use Cyber Terrorism to fix the November elections. I’m really curious about the ACLU’s opinion on this attempt to squash Freedom of Speech.

the article continues:

Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today issueing a veiled threat:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. […]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

But they had no problem with “Fahrenheit 911

These Liberal Democrats are such freakin’ hypocrites. I don’t remember any of these schmucks threatening Michael the Mooron because of his crockumentary. So typical of this First Amendment yahoos who wax so eloquently about free speech WHEN ITS SOMETHING THEY AGREE WITH.

Read the rest of the article HERE.....

The Fairness and Accountability in Broacasting Act

This from the Accuracy In Media [AIM] web site on the "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act," bill, by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D):

Targeting Conservatives


Nationally, of course, the liberals were already in charge. The Big Three broadcast networks took their cue from the New York Times, which was read by the writers, reporters, anchors, and the higher-ups. The big three held "story meetings" early in the day to decide what would be on the evening news and what will be left out.


Conservatives had a national media voice only through radio and because of this they were targeted. John T. Flynn in While You Slept (1951) reported that the radicals of that day boasted they would force national conservative commentators such as Boake Carter, Upton Close, Henry J. Taylor, and Fulton Lewis, Jr. off the air.

Carter solved their problem by dying. Henry J. Taylor and Upton Close disappeared, though Taylor reappeared briefly later on. Fulton Lewis survived only by inventing a format that encouraged local sponsorship. Robert F. Hurleigh moved from CBS-owned WBBM in Chicago to the Mutual network, where he adopted Lewis's format.
It is interesting to note that Senator Jesse Helms, who would later wage a campaign to "become Dan Rather's boss" by encouraging conservatives to buy stock in CBS, started out as a local radio commentator in North Carolina.

Chilling Effect


But the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" had a chilling effect on these local broadcasters. If they wanted to take a conservative editorial position on a hot topic, they were discouraged.

Government-enforced "fairness" decreed that air time devoted to one point of view had to be matched by "equal time" for the opposing position.


It sounded reasonable. Any programmer could theoretically put a conservative on the air for three hours. But the station would then be pressured to put on a liberal talk-show host for another three hours, even if that liberal host could not attract advertisers. If the station manager couldn't afford to run three hours commercial-free, he was told, in effect, "Too bad. Put a liberal on the air or you're in violation of the Fairness Doctrine." As a practical matter, station managers usually decided that conservative commentary wasn't worth the hassle.


The Kennedy Administration pursued this approach. Kennedy Assistant Commerce Secretary Bill Ruder was quoted as saying, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." That strategy was recommended by longtime United Auto Workers president Walter Reuther.


Liberal Talk Radio?


The Fairness Doctrine effectively met its demise at the hands of President Ronald Reagan. Once again, the Gipper—derided by one establishment liberal as "an amiable dunce"—knew how to let the left-wingers keep underestimating him as he handed their heads to them.


A federal court had ruled in 1986 that the Fairness Doctrine lacked the force of law. So Congress passed a law giving the doctrine some teeth. President Reagan vetoed the law, anticipating that getting the government out of the media business would open up more alternatives. Congress did not override the veto, the FCC junked the policy altogether, and a media revolution was underway.


Since then, Americans starved for a multiplicity of voices have found refuge in federally licensed over-the-air broadcasts, and also through new outlets with content legally beyond the reach of the FCC—i.e., cable TV, cable radio (which regularly broadcasts George Putnam), satellite radio, and the Internet. Slowly—but steadily—the old-line media are losing their clout with the public, with fewer listeners, viewers and subscribers. Nonetheless, they remain dominant. The leftists are not satisfied with that. They want total control, apparently believing that given free and open discussion, their view will not resonate with the public.


Liberals, like conservatives, are free to promote their views. The reason, however, that liberal talk shows such as those on Air America cannot attract a significant number of listeners or advertisers is that the public has had its fill of the liberal line handed down on high from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, National Public Radio (NPR), PBS television, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and the formerly conservative U.S. News and World Report.

Liberals know that there are far more conservatives than liberals in American society, and that the conservative viewpoint is increasingly popular, as reflected in the rise of talk radio and Fox News. That is why liberals in and out of Congress are working to stifle conservative commentary on the air—not only by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but also by using the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to regulate and silence the media for "contributing" to one campaign or another.

Slaughtering Conservatives


Rep. Louise Slaughter's "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting" bill would bring back the Fairness Doctrine for over-the-air radio and television. But she has talked about applying its provisions to cable-TV as well.


She has bluntly stated—in an interview with commentator Bill Moyers—that the right of individuals simply to turn off a program they don't like "is not good enough" and that politicians have to enforce "the responsibility" of broadcasters "to use our airwaves judiciously and responsibly and call them to account if they don't." That euphemistic language spells government censorship, regardless of how Rep. Slaughter tries to dress it up with high-sounding ideals.

Slaughter's fellow New Yorker, Maurice Hinchey, a member of the House Appropriations Committee that decides such issues as how much money to give the FCC, has sponsored another pro-Fairness Doctrine bill that he calls the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005." He has hosted a Capitol Hill showing of the leftist film, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," which insists that Fox News is too conservative.

War against boys paved the way for Islamist

This from the Brussels Journal:

How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam

Some commentators like to point out that many of the most passionate and bravest defenders of the West are women, citing Italian writer Oriana Fallaci and others as examples. But women like Ms. Fallaci, brave as they might be, are not representative of all Western women. If you look closely, you will notice that, on average, Western women are actually more supportive of Multiculturalism and massive immigration than are Western men.

I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.

One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole.

The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.

The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now.

Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?

Another possibility is that Western feminists fail to confront Muslim immigration for ideological reasons. Many of them are silent on Islamic oppression of women because they have also embraced “Third-Worldism” and anti-Western sentiments. I see some evidence in support of this thesis.

[paragraph skipped]

the article continues:

Totalitarian feminists in Norway are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007, a Soviet-style regulation of the economy in the name of gender equality. I have read comments from Socialist politicians and leftist commentators in certain newspapers, such as the pro-Multicultural and feminist — critics would say Female Supremacist — newspaper Dagbladet, arguing that we should have quotas for Muslim immigrants, too.

What started out as radical feminism has thus gradually become egalitarianism, the fight against “discrimination” of any kind, the idea that all groups of people should have an equal share of everything and that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that this takes place. A prime example of this is Norway’s Ombud for Gender Equality, which in 2006 became The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud. The Ombud’s duties are “to promote equality and combat discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and age.”

Western feminists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political power through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness is all about. They have also demanded, and largely got, a re-writing of the history books to address an alleged historic bias; their world view has entered the school curriculum, gained a virtual hegemony in the media and managed to portray their critics as “bigots.” They have even succeeded in changing the very language we use, to make it less offensive. Radical feminists are the vanguard of PC.


Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the Taliban.

The irony is that in an Islamic state similar to the one the Taliban established in Afghanistan, certain groups of people, in this case non-Muslims, pay a special punishment tax simply because of who they are, not because of what they earn. Radical feminists such as Ms. Schyman are thus closer to the Taliban than Western men, although I’m pretty sure that irony would be completely missed on them.

Schyman’s battle cry is “Death to the nuclear family!” I have heard the same slogan repeated by young Norwegian feminists in recent years. Schyman seethed that today’s family unit is “built on a foundation of traditional gender roles in which women are subordinate to men. The hierarchy of gender, for which violence against women is the ultimate expression, has been cemented.” “Conservatives want to strengthen the family. I find this of grave concern.”

In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make things clear, she added, “no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much.”


There's much more to this but I don't want to give the whole thing away. Go read the entire article...

Translate Page Into Your Language

Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com



Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com









del.icio.us linkroll

Archive

Counter

Counter

web tracker

Widget

Site Meter

Blog Patrol Counter