Friday, January 09, 2009

It takes a village? It takes a family.

Like many, I was pleased by the election of Barack Obama, and not just because he marks the end of the Bush administration, which has been a highly embarrassing global disaster. I was pleased to see Obama elected also because it meant that Hillary Clinton had failed. I was reminded of her today when I came across a few of her statements.

'It takes a village to raise a child'.
Reference

Her agenda seems to be to relieve women of the responsibility of having to care for the children that they themselves chose to have. Having a child is now simply a lifestyle choice for a woman; it is no longer a joy or profound responsibility. Raising that child is society's job, so if something goes wrong it is society's fault, not the mother's. This may be an appealing message to certain selfish, immature women (the kind who become feminists in fact), but it has profoundly disquieting implications. It is a licence for far-reaching government involvement in private life. It is, in effect, a call for the abolition of the family.

"As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." Reference

OK. Does that mean I can approach other people's children on the street just as if they were my own, and give them a cuddle and some candy, and I need not fear the mob? And everyone else can do the same?

Jonah Goldberg argues: "But here's the thing: There really is such a thing as somebody else's child. I don't want to live in a country where there's no such thing as somebody else's child, because that means there's no such thing as my child. And the fact is, my child is mine and nobody else's (save, of course, for her mother). Almost as important, I don't want to live in a country where I am a "subversive" simply by offering political or ideological debate against this vision."

Seemingly unaware of the irony of what she was saying, she continued,
"For that reason, we cannot permit discussions of children and families to be subverted by political or ideological debate".

Has it not occurred to her that feminism is itself just such an ideology, and that the feminist-led Left of which she is a leading member has done more to damage children than anything else in recent decades?

'No woman is illegal'.
Reference

On being told that a certain woman was an illegal alien, this was Hillary's response. It raised a cheer from the fascist sisterhood, but yet again shows just how far gone this woman is. One can only assume that in Hillary's universe, a man can be illegal? She certainly implies as much, otherwise she would have said "No one is illegal". One can only presumes that if she ever became President, she would apply immigration laws differently to men and women. That could be quite funny to watch. On a discussion board about IMBRA that I came across, one guy demanded "Free visas for hot foreign babes". Given the increasingly popular marriage strike, we might find that Western men start thinking and behaving like that man in larger numbers, thus hastening the day of glorious reckoning.

In struggling to understand Clinton's mentality, I am pondering the choices on offer. Is she a shameless political whore who will do anything for votes? Is she a cold, psychopathic manipulator? Is she so stupid that she cannot remember what she said from one minute to the next? Is she a woman who exists in a world of sentiment, for whom logical analysis is the mental equivalent of a foreign country?

Many think that Obama has offered her a job because she remains a dangerous player, and it is better to have her on-side. Dangerous is the operative word.

Male politicians (and editors) often ask their female colleagues to deal with 'family' issues, as they believe that women are somehow best placed for the job. In practise, these women increasingly constitute the profoundest threat to family life. All feminists want to do with the family is abolish it.

This attitude of men's has got to change. Men have just as much right, and ability, to formulate family policy as women have. Probably more in fact. The belief that the family is somehow women's domain is an old-fashioned sexist belief, but one that feminists like Hillary do not seem to be very keen on challenging. Funny that.

12 comments:

steve said...

I dont know what the answer is, but Im getting rather sick of the question.

If things dont improve in the UK, I will move away, and I'll take my inventive business mind and determination to succeed with me, to a new country, because my quality of life here is poor.

Im struggling to see how much worse it could get (yes I know it could get worse!).

perhaps the best thing would be to simply move away to somewhere less 'developed', and try to get involved in their political system and system of law, to point to the example of Britain and to try and steer that new residence away from where we currently find ourselves.

hundreds of thousands are leaving the UK every year because they too are sick of it. perhaps its just how this thing 'works'.

well maybe thats what needs to happen.

My only concern is the kids, but then this is life and suffering is inevitable for some. besides I could use my skills to help the kids in my new country.

we as intelligent men can talk all we like, but we are not only fighting women and the feminists, we're fighting the male drones aswell. Im not sure its a battle we can win. Im not sure it makes the best use of our time and effort. think about it. all the time we spend in frustration when we could be working to make things better. Its like pushing water uphill.

you know, I was shopping earlier this week, and I heard a father say to his son "what are you doing? you weirdo? and I just thought British men are not in control of their own minds. the reason I say that, is because men have never used the word 'weirdo' to describe other men, it is a female word to describe men they dont like. and yet here is a father, calling his 6 or 7 year old son a 'weirdo' for normal childlike behaviour.

these men are puppets of women. how the hell do we engage them?

so why are we even bothering to make things better for these drone males, who dont help us and actually make things worse, because they dont have the brain or the balls to stand up to their women?

Im starting to think that they will only sit up and take notice when it affects them all individually, and even then they've still got no balls.

why dont we just move away, and let the country collapse naturally?

I have a feeling this is the natural course of things.

(you dont have to publish this rant, Heretic! just thought I'd bounce a few ideas around ;)

Coffee Catholic said...

The Obamassiah isn't any better.

He wants to create a "Mom Friendly America" ~ in other words, taxpayers pay for childcare so that "strong" and "independent" career women can "do it all" (via the Sugar Daddy Government of course...)

BrusselsLout said...

If things dont improve in the UK, I will move away, and I'll take my inventive business mind and determination to succeed with me, to a new country, because my quality of life here is poor.

Exactly the reason I left. I now live in Luxembourg (although I've worked in 3 other Euro-countries as well).

The life here is great, and as I recently said in an earlier post, you don't feel apologetic for being a man. You're understood, and by both men and women. There is no demonsization of men here.

You don't need to move to an undeveloped country (although that itself would be a great thing if that's what you fancy). It's all here across the Channel.

Im not sure its a battle we can win. Im not sure it makes the best use of our time and effort. think about it. all the time we spend in frustration when we could be working to make things better. Its like pushing water uphill.

Whether or not it's a battle can win Steve, it's still a battle we have to fight. The responsibility is on us.

There is only one realistic channel available to us at the moment, and that's the Internet. The mass media -- which would be the most effective channel -- have no interest in our position. If they did, it would make all the difference. But the media is run by 2 kinds of women, those with penises and those without.

It's as if they want to hide the very fact we exist. We are not even mentioned in a negative context, as in cliched fembo terms like "bunch of misogynists".

But this may be encouraging though. It's almost as if they've got something to fear.

Significant MM figures like Angry Harry and Heretic have good informational websites and blogs. But if you don't have their knowledge, then you can do as I do, and join blogs like the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" to argue our case out.

these men are puppets of women. how the hell do we engage them?

I've found this impossible. The depth to which they have been brainwashed is incredible.

But there is a positive note here. I was one such brainwashed idiot until about 10 years ago. If I can wake up, so can others!

Good luck with your future business in India or China or Zimbabwe!

Mark said...

I was reasonably optimistic that guys could wake up to the situation myself. Then I saw this and it disabused me of that notion pretty quickly.

Check it out. You might like to have your mouse over the pause button and pause it after the guy responds (9-10 secs or so). Then, guess what happens next...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Jat7Z24ZUQs

thecomicrelief said...

As CoffeeCatholic already mentioned, you might want to hold your joy over Obama's impending coronation. He's just as much in the pocket of the feminist establishment as Frau Clinton is a part of it.

SellCivilizationShort said...

"we as intelligent men can talk all we like, but we are not only fighting women and the feminists, we're fighting the male drones aswell. Im not sure its a battle we can win. Im not sure it makes the best use of our time and effort. think about it. all the time we spend in frustration when we could be working to make things better. Its like pushing water uphill."

There comes a time to cut one's losses. There comes a time to walk away.

It doesn't surprise me that the human race now has humiliation-centered game shows. Disengage from that. It's less dignified than cock-fighting or human gladiators.

Ithaca Men's Rights said...

Hey there Heretical,

A little background on myself: I am a white, blue collar man living in Ithaca, New York. Ithaca is a little bubble community, a miniature version on San Fransisco, which has it's own long history of radical politics and liberalism. Next to SF, it's probably one of the most feminized communities in America.

I've been a strong supporter of MRA and MGTOW for years. Living in Ithaca has me entirely fed up! EVERY woman here, save for a few, buys into all the BS about rape, sexual harassment, and the stereotypes of how men are. I've started my own blog and I'm seeking out men in the community to participate in a local MR chapter.

My blog is located here: http://ithacamenrights.blogspot.com/ and I would appreciate if you linked to me or helped me a bit. I'm new to blogging and I'm not very eloquent when I write, and I don't have access to all the resources I'd like to.

steve said...

-------------------------------------
BrusselsLout said...

Whether or not it's a battle we can win Steve, it's still a battle we have to fight. The responsibility is on us.
-------------------------------------

I agree, the responsibility is on us.

I have been thinking about this thread, and my comment since I wrote it last friday.

I was almost ashamed of myself the next day.

thankfully, I soon felt better, and went back to what motivates me most in life:

1. to keep society civilized so that we can continue moving forward and not waste the immense amount of suffering we have had to go through just to get to this point. I believe we're trying to get somewhere, but it seems to me women only want to destroy it.

and

2. revenge.

thats right, revenge for all the shit I have had to take from the female sex over my lifetime.

one day society will have had enough and wake up and realize what these animals are capable of, and what harm they do, and I want to be a part of exposing that.

BrusselsLout said...

Steve

1. to keep society civilized so that we can continue moving forward and not waste the immense amount of suffering we have had to go through just to get to this point. ...

Agreed 100%.

... I believe we're trying to get somewhere, but it seems to me women only want to destroy it.

It's NOT women. It's feminists. And, of course, it's politicians and the media. But these groups are all intertwined. How?
Firstly, politics is full of feminists. These are those mouthy daddy's girl types like Jaqui Smith, Harriet Harman and (although she doesn't know it) Theresa May, who all grew up on boy-hatred. Their feminism is nothing more than this boy-hatred carried through into adulthood.

Secondly, politicians have adopted feminist dogma and based policy decisions on it. One example is the claim that domestic violence is a form of "male oppression". Another is that rape is rife and under-reported. (Both of which are proven tosh.) Politicians can then use this as a means to scare voters and win their votes by bringing in ever tougher new laws. Women particularly scare easily (and also have a greater propensity to vote!). Women want a more authoritian culture because they believe (falsely) that it protects them better.

Thirdly, the media run scare stories (invariably starring men as the monsters) to sell papers. This also serves to convey the fear that politicians want to spread. It also helps spread feminist anti-male propaganda. Indeed, there are many feminists in the media.

2. revenge.

No. This I disagree with.

The aims of the Men's Movement should be by and large to:

(a) Promote the fact that the differences between the sexes are both many and vast, and to press for government and business policy to be based on these differences. The education system should be acutely aware of these differences, and should base teaching material and methods on them.

(b) To promote good relationships between men and women, between men and other men, and between women.

Vengence is what feminized newspapers like the tabloids are calling for in their screams for ever tougher laws. In my opinion at least, there should be no place for vengence in the Men's Movement.

steve said...


BrusselsLout

It's NOT women. It's feminists


I disagree.

At the fundamental level I think it goes deeper than feminist meddling.

I do agree that the feminist movement has capitalized on the female state, but I believe feminism mirrors the female-animal at the base level, and I think we have to look at the very nature of women to find the answers.

Look at groups of females.

Their behaviour towards each other can be appalling. Gossip, mental bullying, the way they as a group they ostracize other females, and actively 'rub their noses in it'.

so this destructive behaviour can and doeshappen between females alone without any 'feminist' motivation.

Because of this (and other observations), I believe the vast majority of women are closer to the 'animal' world than the 'human' world.

Animals are insecure about their survival. Fear is the main driver of their behaviour, it makes them selfish and destructive to those around them.

what disturbs me most of all, is that women continue being selfish and destructive, and even more so, now that they have every advantage and opportunity.

a group that had been 'opressed' (as they see it), should, when gaining equality with their 'opressors' move from the animal state to the human state, and start asking itself questions, such as "are unreasonable attacks on men justified? is feminism wrong to demonize men?". I dont see much evidence of questioning from the the vast majority of women. They are animals and its not in their interest (as they see it).

why is it that the mens movement doesnt want to attack the nature of individual women, and say that ALL women are potential false rape accusers, the same way as the feminists attack and implant in the subconcious that ALL indivdual men are potential rapists?

Because most men reason that it would be wrong.

Animals however, lack reason and have an overwhelming desire to survive, and so most womenallow the feminist attacks on individual men to continue.

I think this is why I got so down in my first post last friday, because I take the view that women are animals, and taking to them simply wont work, they are just trying to survive, and that makes them dangerous, as we are now finding out, through their shady proxy, feminism.

I think the two are inseperable.

Masculist Man said...

Because of this (and other observations), I believe the vast majority of women are closer to the 'animal' world than the 'human' world.


Very true. I believe it was ex-NOW leader Patricia Ireland who said women's rights are animal rights.

Novaseeker said...

I would say that rather than seeking to abolish the family, feminists are seeking, and have been seeking for a few decades now, to redefine the meaning of the word.

In other words, the grand project of deconstructing and reconstructing the concept of "family" results in family being understood as "mother and her children".

There is to be no such thing as a "father" as a part of the concept of "family" -- a "father", rather, is someone who bears financial responsibility towards a woman's children, and the woman herself. We can see this in the trend for family courts to award "equitable paternity" (making men support children financially who are not their own) and discount the importance of DNA testing for paternity and the like. The key is that "father" is destined to become a legal/social concept simply meaning "he who is responsible to pay a woman". But "father" in the sense of being a participating unit in the concept of "family" is no longer to be the case -- and in fact is to be erased from the concept of family. If women "choose" to have the "father" participate in family life, that is her option, and she has the option to jettison "father" at any time for no reason, while keeping him on the hook financially.

So, in reality, "family" has been redefined to mean a woman and her children. This massive social change will have profoundly negative social consequences as we are already seeing reflected in study after study. The idea of "it takes a village" recognizes that reality, and seeks, instead of the more obvious choice of reinstituting fatherhood and reinstating fathers' place in the family, to create a social environment whereby the state/society replaces the role of father in child-raising. Feminists are well aware that single motherhood is leading to social problems, even though they are loathe to admit this. Hillary's book and ideas on this are simply a way to address the issue while leaving "father" out of the concept of family, and "keeping men in their place". In effect, it's a retrenchment effort, because they are worried that when the social issues around single motherhood rise to crisis levels, there will be a lot of social pressure to reinstate fathers -- which they see as a rollback to their revolutionary efforts to depose and marginalize fathers.