Monday, July 16, 2007

Hitler, Jo and the Bull Dyke.

My friend Jo is a social work manager. She specialises in geriatric care. She has a radical lesbian feminist on the team who hates her, because she wanted her girlfriend to get the promotion instead of Jo. She has always tried to make Jo’s life difficult at work.

I have no doubt that it was not just about promoting her girlfriend for personal reasons. It is about promoting the agenda, colonising the department. They recommend each other for jobs, just as paedophiles do.

The first time Jo had to chair a team meeting, she was, understandably, feeling slightly nervous.

“Has anyone on the team got any issues they would like to raise?”

There was a long, embarrassing silence.

Jo was made to squirm.

No-one on the team dare speak without the bull-dyke’s permission.

The inexperienced manager’s embarrassment was drawn out to maximum effect.

Eventually, after a very long, very awkward silence, the bull dyke stirred.

“Yes. I have”, she announced.

“I propose that we ban the use of the word ‘lady’ when addressing our female clients”.

There was an embarrassed pause, while this sunk in.

“How should we address them, then?”, asked Jo.

“We should address them as ‘women’. To call them ladies is sexist and demeaning”.

Jo told me this story in the pub afterwards. “But ‘lady’ was a term of respect in those days”, she protested, “It still is”.

Jo’s female clients are, on average, around eighty years old. The Second World War generation.

In those days, Britain was a very class-based society. The army embodied this more than many other institutions, and the army was – obviously - a very important institution; most of those old ladies had been in uniform themselves. The class system was semi-formalised in military terminology. Officers had ‘ladies’; NCOs had ‘wives’; other ranks had ‘women’. Calling a female of that generation a ‘woman’ is a bit like calling her a cheap slut.

The radical feminists are the ones failing to show respect. They are the ones lacking sensitivity. But then, they are not really concerned about women. All they are concerned about is power.

Interestingly, the women of the Second World War generation don’t seem to feel that they were victims of an oppressive Patriarchy. That is a social pose invented by Leftist middle-class women sometime after 1965. For the women of the previous generation, and the men for that matter, the war against Hitler was the defining event of their lives.

We can all be thankful that the radical feminists like those at Greenham Common had no influence at that time. Imagine the effect of them agitating for the women to leave the anti-fascist effort, split off and form their own anti-fascist effort; demanding that we should not go to war against the Nazis, but instead seek peace at all costs; blaming the men around them for the fact that the war had started; sabotaging the war effort from the outset. We’d probably all be speaking German now. But ironically, they would have been lobbying for their own destruction. How many lesbians would be walking the streets today if Hitler had won?

Anyway, let us not forget that many feminists, including former Suffragettes, were heavily involved in fascist movements at that time. Reference. The British fascist leader Oswald Moseley stated that his women members were the most fanatical. Take a look at Mary Sophia Allen: "After meeting Hitler in 1934 she became a fervent admirer, Nazi sympathiser, and took to wearing jack-boots. Allen was an active supporter of General Francisco Franco and his Nationalist Army during the Spanish Civil War and associated with Sir Oswald Moseley. She was also Chief Women's Officer of the British Union of Fascists and a member of the the Right-Club."

Feminists don’t like to talk about that.

Their absurd ideology is a luxury only possible an affluent, peaceful and free society. The very society that those same old ladies had struggled to create. We have tried ignoring them, and it hasn’t worked. It is high time to confront them head on.


Anonymous said...

One reason why femhags don't understand reality (apart from being bonkers) is that they,as yet, pay NO price for their destructive behaviour.
Unlike the 'old days', when older people were doing their bit with no complaints-todays society is relatively stable and comfortable beyond compare.There's enough slack to take a fair amount of reality abuse by fems...but it can't, and won't, last much longer.
Men are involved, having allowed many minor fenmbot issues to build to a sense of credibilty that defies belief.Mostly in the pro PC business ,law,education and social work- but it a growing state sector which amplifies feminazms' impact.
Let's see who is going to sort out the mess !!!
Any volunteers...Nah mate ! ...but I personally would look after the interests of the old dears who never asked for such a modern mess up and deserve better do many wrongly treated men /fathers and also children of both sexes.
Of course- while people lose their homes- to survive old age...diversity programs are going well....
Yes- an interesting comparison over the years.
Have these harridens learned anything from history-or just invented mega-stregth B/S for their own ends?
I think we know the answer to that one ...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Richard Ford said...

Did you know that Gaddafi employs only female bodyguards? His stated reason is that women are not ideological and that they have no difficulty in killing women and children if needs be. General De Gaul had them too.

Heretic said...

Im not sure about women not being ideological. They are generally more religious, and more superstitious, than men.

Richard Ford said...

The Gadaffi argument is that women are loyal to him on a personal basis as if he were their husband. Thus he may reverse policy time and again and yet still receive loyalty from them.

Loyalty to his ideology would be very dangerous because he changes his mind so much.

MikeeUSA said...

It is high time to confront them head on.


Anonymous said...

Indira Ghandi was assasinated by her (male) sikh bodyguard because she had ordered an attack on a sikh holy site. It spawned anti sikh riots that selectively targeted men. Adam Jones wrote about it on