Posted on 01/13/2006 2:04:44 AM PST by rhema
Some women protest, "I'm a feminist, just not a radical feminist." Kate O'Beirne is impatient with such qualifications. She is not any kind of feminist, and when you finish her sparkling new book "Women Who Make the World Worse," you won't be one either.
Feminism, far from promoting the happiness and well-being of women and society, has instead left great swaths of melancholy in its wake. O'Beirne cites "One large study of well-being data on one hundred thousand Americans and Britons from the early 1970s to the late 1990s found that while American men had grown happier, women's well-being had dramatically fallen during the period . . . women were 20 percent less happy."
The so-called "women's movement" was and is a misnomer. Most women reject the anti-male, anti-family bias of the professional feminists. But a dedicated cohort of humorless, bitter, crusading women — mostly from miserable families — was able to dictate policy in some of the most important realms of life.
Feminists now claim that they were never against marriage and family. But O'Beirne has kept the quotes in her files. In 1971, Ms. Magazine founder Robin Morgan called marriage "a slavery-like practice," adding that "We cannot destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Australian feminist guru Germaine Greer recommended that all women leave their husbands in search of more satisfying "rambling organic structures" (sounds vaguely unhygienic). And Jessie Bernard, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist, asserted that the "destructive nature" of marriage was both figuratively and literally making women sick.
Strangely, while feminists were burning with indignation toward men, they also enthusiastically endorsed promiscuity. O'Beirne quotes Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, who notes that early feminists who sought the vote and other rights "saw that the ready availability of abortion
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Misuse of the word "conservative". You mean as they become more religious or even more feminist (to the point of becoming lesbian). Chastity and feminism often actually go together. Look at Cher's daughter. Please read The New Victorians.
[Not at all. There is a huge difference between a nice girl who is saving herself for marriage, and a bitter harridan who uses sex, or the withholding thereof, to whipsaw men.] Correct, in your vision that they are opposite extremes of a vast continuum. But the true feminists wouldn't even bother to try to whipsaw you, so busy would they be with promoting lesbianism and sex with anti-capitalist males. Then, you can find plenty of bitter harridans in the USA who are fundamentalist Christians who will brag that the ultimate withholding of sex is a great way to whipsaw men. Please read The New Victorians to see how feminism is defined as being mostly against males and females getting to know each other sexually or otherwise.
There is no reason to leave the USA if you want a woman who will aggressively tell you what she wants and not care what you might want. If what you want is chastity...there is plenty of that in the USA. You'll find your match, but you might be playing by her rules and not yours, and there is no reason why a fundamentalist Christian women in America today wouldn't openly call herself a feminist. Plenty on FR fit this category. Chastity is not a feature alien to feminists.
I know plenty of American guys who go to Eastern Europe to find a marriage partner. The few fundamentalist Christians among them are living a fantasy if they think their newfound virgin would seriously insist on remaining so if he asked her not to. I've dated the strictest Russian Orthodox women. IMHO, the most stubborn fundamentalist Christian women on Earth will be the few fundamentalist Americans under 25...and not because they are more virtuous...but because the high standard of living in the USA makes them more proximal to American males and the liberal and man-hating competition is such that they can afford to withhold and state their own terms until the bargaining time runs out or they just grow out of religious fundamentalism. The new crop of South Park Conservative women will significantly reduce the power of fundamentalist Christian women in the USA as well as foreign women, because American men will find more conservative women next door who aren't into leftist feminism or Christian feminism.
I would agree with any FReminist here who would tell you that you don't have to leave the USA and marry Asian women to get fundamentalist Christian or Islamic values.
If you are making the rules, that is fine (to include if you think God is making the rules). But if you are suggesting that women should make the rules in dating, Take away the bitter harridan part and replace her with a nice American woman who just wants to find a nice guy to date...and the issue of sex is neutralized for most men. He may still not like the fact that this woman voted for John Kerry. He may still not like the fact that "and that American women better learn not to be so friendly with men, because it really turns American men off how friendly American women are." There is a big difference between "friendly" and "willing to put out."
Sorry. The last paragraph in that post of mine means nothing. I accidentally hit the post button before I edited.
lol
He is right. I have very few women friends, because they are so darn hard to get along with. Men are a lot more logical, and enjoyable as well.
Some of the women I have met in my lifetime are hideous and I don't know how some men can put up with them.
There is a big difference between "friendly" and "willing to put out."]
Yes there is. But seen on the vast continuum of how you could, conceivably, be treated as a man...the difference is not as great as the difference between other behaviors. In other words, it is no reason to reject a conservative young woman who loves you because she (gasp) would be willing to sleep with you tonight, your 17th date.
In fact, a man who would reject his woman only for saying she'd sleep with him on the 17th date...comes across as a cad. Few such men exist in this world for obvious reasons.
"Misuse of the word "conservative". You mean as they become more religious"
If one continues to develop in a conservative direction, and does not become stalled or fixated, atheism and agnosticism become untenable. IOW, "more religious" is, by definition, "more conservative."
"Chastity and feminism often actually go together. Look at Cher's daughter."
Rug-munching falls within no rational definition of chastity.
"Then, you can find plenty of bitter harridans in the USA who are fundamentalist Christians who will brag that the ultimate withholding of sex is a great way to whipsaw men."
I think we have a real disconnect on this whole "fundamentalist Christian" thing. You keep bringing that up as though you think it is as bad as liberalism or Islamic radicalism.
" If what you want is chastity...there is plenty of that in the USA."
I don't want anything. I've been married to a Japanse woman for 19 years. We have six children.
I *advocate* chastity as a much better way to find happiness than sexual adventurism.
"there is no reason why a fundamentalist Christian women in America today wouldn't openly call herself a feminist."
Actually, there is. I admit that many women (and men) do not understand that, and might call themselves both Christian and feminist, but to the degree that they believe and follow the tenets of feminism, they are following Satan and spitting in Our Lord's face.
"South Park Conservative"
A "South Park Conservative" is just a person who hasn't progressed very far along the road, and so hasn't yet come to terms with what consistent conservatism requires.
[A "South Park Conservative" is just a person who hasn't progressed very far along the road, and so hasn't yet come to terms with what consistent conservatism requires.]
I love your honesty.
Someday South Park Conservatives might develop as the ideology requires. Logically of course.
So any feelings of "patriarchal entitlement" will evolve into what Queen Victoria decided "conservatism" had to be. The imperialistic British Secretary of State, Lord Palmerston, the patriarchal figure who thought it was OK to sleep with the Queen's ladies in waiting, was no conservative I guess. :-(
Because of his interest in sex (but really because of his lack of interest in preserving 12 monarchies across Europe), Queen Victoria did everything to get him sacked and finally succeeded in convincing a liberal government to get rid of this politically conservative Secretary of State.
It is pretty weak when a supposedly conservative queen has to get a left wing British parliament to sack a popular conservative politician because she doesn't like his views on sex.
But the British conservative male public loved this guy! Lord Palmerston became Prime Minister Palmerston in 1855. Queen Victoria had to accept the fact that she just didn't have much power anymore.
Except in America. Her brand of "matriarchal conservatism" caught on and is still evident to this day on FR. Hardly anywhere else but FR.
Victorianism isn't on its way back and it doesn't define "conservatism". It defines what half the people on FR believe and what the other half does not believe in.
Anyone who studies Victorian England knows about the big argument between Lord Palmerston and Queen Victoria. It was about patriarchy vs matriarchy. Both were conservatives. Meanwhile, the Old Testament Patriarchs, including Solomon and David, were not exactly conservatives in the way that you would define it.
You said "nothing is off the table" politically. Can you name an instance in the past 5 years where a Republican candidate has expressed views even similar to yours?
Also, imagining a nuclear winter where conservative militias have to reconstruct a new American society...do you think young male soldiers would fight for a new society that outlaws premarital sex? Lets say 5 new societies develop in different regions of a nuked USA and only one outlaws premarital sex. Would the others attack that one in the interest of human rights and conduct regime change? And would the young soldiers of the "conservative" society fight back?
The answer is obviously No, Yes and No.
I am sure that you intended to be consistent, and only want FReepers that have read the book with Amazon accounts to post positive commentary....
;-)
[If one continues to develop in a conservative direction, and does not become stalled or fixated, atheism and agnosticism become untenable. IOW, "more religious" is, by definition, "more conservative." ]
OK. Let's read the FR Mission statement:
"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life."
Pro-God is the only endorsement of "religion" on FR. People like you and me actually do fit under this umbrella. I would have been zotted long ago, otherwise. You would have been zotted long ago if this were not the case.
FR is "not a liberal debating society" in the above words. Reference is made to liberal trolls.
If you're going to have a hard time making your argument on FR, it will be impossible in the real world.
[I am sure that you intended to be consistent, and only want FReepers that have read the book with Amazon accounts to post positive commentary....;-)]
Actually, no. I wanted FReepers to post one-liners stating that they had not read the book and, like the left wing commenters, should have their posts deleted.
That would force Amazon to delete all posts that were clearly not written by someone who read the book.
I find it really bad taste that so many people post their political beliefs on Amazon book reviews, openly stating why they will read or will not read the book in question.
This attitude frightens me actually.
Does she have brothers?
"I love your honesty."
Sure you do.
"Someday South Park Conservatives might develop as the ideology requires. Logically of course."
Oh, come on, don't argue like a liberal. The clear meaning of my statement is, "Someday South Park Conservatives might develop as the *the truth* requires."
Success in the search for the truth leads one in the direction of conservatism. Failure, or the failure to try, leads one in the other direction.
"Queen Victoria decided "conservatism" had to be."
Please don't try to cloud the issue by conflating what we mean by conservatism today with what previous epochs meant by it.
"but really because of his lack of interest in preserving 12 monarchies across Europe"
If he was not interested in preserving monarchies, by what possible stretch is he called a conservative (as the term was defined in the 19th century)?
"It is pretty weak when a supposedly conservative queen has to get a left wing British parliament to sack a popular conservative politician because she doesn't like his views on sex."
That's a comic-book caricature of some very interesting history.
"Her brand of "matriarchal conservatism" caught on and is still evident to this day on FR. Hardly anywhere else but FR."
Do you see many other things that no one else sees?
"Victorianism isn't on its way back and it doesn't define "conservatism".
Victorianism is a myth invented by leftists to help them in their efforts to discredit morality per se, much as McCarthyism was invented by the American left to discredit anti-communism.
So, no, that fiction does not define conservatism; however, conservatism as a world view, as we use the word today, leads one to a morality that is indistinguishable from Judeo-Christian morality.
"It defines what half the people on FR believe and what the other half does not believe in."
You have people here at various way stations along the road. The only problem with that is that the group that "does not believe in" morality doesn't realize that they are on a road at all. They think they've arrived at the destination.
"Both were conservatives."
What they were is in no way illuminating of any discussion of conservatism in America in the 21st century.
"Meanwhile, the Old Testament Patriarchs, including Solomon and David, were not exactly conservatives in the way that you would define it."
Oh? And what tenets of conservatism did they reject?
"You said "nothing is off the table" politically. Can you name an instance in the past 5 years where a Republican candidate has expressed views even similar to yours?"
Five years isn't even half a heartbeat in human history.
"Also, imagining a nuclear winter where conservative militias have to reconstruct a new American society"
Why in the world would I do that? Is that what you imagine conservatives do all day?
"do you think young male soldiers would fight for a new society that outlaws premarital sex?"
Firstly, I haven't proposed "outlawing" premarital sex. That out of the way, there were laws against fornication on the books in many states as young men rushed to the recruiting offices in 1942. Many young women went to the altar as virgins. There was much less sexual libertinism then than today. And yet the young men fought.
In the end, you seem to be defining a worthwhile society as one that approves of a great deal of extramarital sexual activity, as though the function of government is to make sure you get laid a lot. It ain't.
"The answer is obviously No, Yes and No."
The only thing obvious about those answers is that they are obviously wrong. The only way those groups would survive in the first place would be by paring away the non-essentials and returning to a form closely resembling the Jews in Moses' time or pre-Columbian American Indians.
The only reason they would be attacking each other would be to take desirable territory or to steal other things of value, such as women of childbearing age. You know, like American Indians used to.
It would be a thousand years or more before they had enough wealth to worry about human rights.
Many, many societies have had taboos regarding pre-marital sex -- the Apaches, to name one; the Zulu, to name another -- and there is no recorded instance of young men refusing to fight for such a society on those grounds.
Interestingly, the one thing that all secular utopian movements (including communism) over at least the last 500 years have had in common is a promise of sexual libertinism.
"Pro-God is the only endorsement of "religion" on FR. People like you and me actually do fit under this umbrella. I would have been zotted long ago, otherwise. You would have been zotted long ago if this were not the case. FR is "not a liberal debating society" in the above words. Reference is made to liberal trolls. If you're going to have a hard time making your argument on FR, it will be impossible in the real world."
I am unable to imagine what point it is that you are trying to make with that post. I have said nothing about any "liberal debating society," and "pro-God" sounds like a pretty strong endorsement of religion to me.
Further, my remarks concerned the nature of conservatism and not the FR mission statement, which which I have become rather familiar over the past several years.
["Meanwhile, the Old Testament Patriarchs, including Solomon and David, were not exactly conservatives in the way that you would define it."
Oh? And what tenets of conservatism did they reject?]
You are a great debater, by the way.
The tenets David and Solomon would have rejected, if conservativism in 1400 BC meant what you say it means today, were the idea that a man of great power should settle for less than 300 wives and 400 concubines.
Patriarchal conservatism has followed examples like that (or of Mohammed) for thousands of years and it includes the sexual behavior of many in the Catholic priesthood for 2000 years (sadly, this entitlement is often now directed at little boys).
The majority of men in this world who call themselves "conservative" would be thinking of this patriarchal view...even if, schizophrenically, some adhere to religions that want to keep women under control whom other conservative men don't want controlled.
Conservative men fought conservative men for 6000 years of recorded history...over resources and women. It is all about who gets control.
But this I don't understand about religion:
Suicide bombers kill themselves to get a patriarchal job servicing 72 virgins. Foreign insurgents in Iraq are enticed by tales of Iraqi women wanting sex with freedom fighters. Yet they support a religion in this life that stops young women from even being nice to them.
I don't understand how any Muslim man can call himself "conservative" who wouldn't want the opportunity to get what he clearly wants. But we all know how these bozos get around that: they go to Australia and rape innocent women for not wearing veils. Our job in the WOT is to turn these guys into real conservatives by deprogramming them out of a religion that is counterproductive to what men really want...and start teaching them how to grasp what they really want conservatively, not religiously.
The WOT clearly shows that religiousity is not always conservative. Look at the alliance, albeit a fake one, between Islamic extremists and the western left. That may be a bad example, because they are so far following a conservative principle of attempting to completely defeat their conservative enemy (the USA) rather than ally with us. But they sure as heck all vote liberal. Why would they put out their eye to spite their nose? Answer: religious people, at the lower levels, often don't think conservatively when organized religion tells them how to behave against their personal interests.
What you call Judao-Christian would be more "Paulist" to me. But that is a whole different discussion of organized religion. Suffice it to say that the Catholic priesthood and the Vatican wasn't always about morality and religion. It was conservative only in that it wanted power (and sex) and was willing to use various control mechanisms to get it.
And if I said the Catholic priesthood was only acting "conservatively" when they took advantage of people under their control...I hope I don't sound like a fascist.
Lord Palmerston was conservative because he wanted world control (and sex) at all costs even if it meant that England would be friends with the anti-monarchists in France who had long since executed their royalty. He was a realist and the conservative men approved of him and his womanizing more than they approved of Queen Victoria. He was one of the MEN who created the British Empire...while Queen Victoria watched and fretted about "moral values" in the same way that liberals today fret about the "morality of it all" when they condemn us modern conservatives who are shaping the world in the manner that we want and securing the oil for future maintenance of our superpower status and standard of living.
If I sound like I, like so many British conservative men of her day, did not like Queen Victoria's attitude, I hope I don't sound like a fascist.
Yet Queen Victoria, ridiculed by men in England, became popular in what was becoming a moralistic matriarchal American society. The legacy popularity of Queen Victoria in the USA and her influence on the modern American evangelical movement cannot be easily dismissed as a myth.
Nor can we ignore the matriarchy/patriarchy debate.
There is a reason why premarital sex is off the political table in the 21st century. Conservative men are split on the issue. And increasingly, so are women. It won't be back on the table in our lifetimes.
Someone at Amazon actually made a cogent comment when she noted that some "conservatives" in America might run like lemmings to buy a book that condemns sex...and not know that they are taking the Republican Party over a cliff in thinking that this book is supposed to be part of the "culture war they want to have". It concerns me that the liberals might perform jujitsu on Republicans who overreach. They'll let us have our "culture war" until a red line is silently crossed.
Lord Palmerston and the British conservatives would demand that this woman author go back to the kitchen. To them it would be Queen Victoria mouthing off. Apparently to a lot of guys on FR today...this woman author is automatically our spokesperson if we haven't read her book.
Single males who completely disagree with your idea of sexual morality (maybe 20 million who vote) aren't so enamored of the word Republican that they would vote for a continued matriarchy if that were the main issue in an election.
Let's stick to condemning the homosexual political agenda. You know: the one where we grant them the socalled right to "marriage" and then their next policy is to win the "right" to donate blood. We can all agree that this is a left wing nightmare. On heterosexual "rights" there is very little agreement as reflected by the past 10 years of no Republican policy on the matter.
By the way, the above is no defense of libertarianism nor do I "approve" of the way Lord Palmerston may or may not have thought of women as sex objects.
I just point out that there is a long history of patriarchal conservatism that competes with that of the Apostle Paul.
Plus, the definition of liberal and conservative really do alter drastically in place and time. Julius Caesar was a liberal. Anyone who fought for his interests against certain Roman families was a liberal. Plus "conservative" in Germany today means being against cigarette smoking while liberals here think that George Bush is responsible for banning cigarettes in the USA...so they smoke "to spite Bush".
Politics can get to be a bad joke when things like the Iranian nuclear crisis don't make it so damned serious.
I meant "libertinism". I never use that word because its not a philosophy one has to adhere to when one simply states that a woman should decide for herself what is best regarding sex with a man she really likes.
I always thought the Women's Movement turned feminists into unpaid whores.
She wants marriage and children.
I am not available to her because I have a girlfriend.
I wonder why she's not looking for a husband where she lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.