[Valpal1]

How about masculinizing our boys and feminizing our women?

BTW, the author is a racist pig who hates women. They were attuned to saving maidens and the sheltering from life's storms of white Christian motherhood.

Not for one minute do I believe that women jumped ship first. It was men who shirked responsible leadership and women responded with feminazism.

The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking.

Looks like an interesting basis for a vanity.

[RLK]

The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war,

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

After 35 years of study I agree with you to some extent. Playboy philosophy started the war. But the women also decided they liked the action in bed and eagerly took the bait. However, they didn't like the consequences of having taken up the life style.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"How about masculinizing our boys and feminizing our women?"

I enjoy Fred's humor immensely. But it only took your question to wipe the smile off my face. By turning our boys over to the sole care of selfish women via divorce, single motherhood, and the feminized public school systems, we have committed cultural suicide. By the time men as a social force realize that "enough is enough," there will be too few of us left to do anything but slink into mountain caves to wait for civilization to destroy itself.

[Askel5]

BTW, the author is a racist pig who hates women.

I tend to agree. Here's a better take, IMHO, from a reply within Mothers in Combat Boots.

But one must beware of some guy who is intimidated by women unless she's in a subservient or traditional position or some who want to keep women down and out.

Spoken like one who has a true contempt for women and their role as life-bearers and mothers and believes it is somehow "empowering" for women to split themselves in two so as to handle (by half the usual measure) the responsibilities of fulltime career and fulltime mother.

Perhaps it is you who are intimidated by women who aren't "leveled" down to a male-based homogenous form of New Man with the right to be unpregnant at will and a sexual predator (when she's being degraded on prime-time HBO for entertainment purposes or gang-raped, razor-bladed or copulating with animals for some pornographer's Pink Ballet).

Further to the author's quotes about the Socratic observation of human nature which the feminists seek to destroy with their unisex toilets, boys that must drugged until they behave like girls and women who must have every accomodation in order to act like men ...

... Clearly, life-affirmation is one source of gentleness and protectiveness toward women. But woman has another claim to male reverence and self-control -- her beauty. Why? Beauty is an immediately perceptible experience of perfection, of the ideal, of the sacred, therefore of God. Beauty is God's manifestation of His Goodness and perfection in the material world – whether in a sunset or a woman's person.

As Simone Weil aptly put is, "Beauty is eternity here below." this is confirmed by one's typical response to natural beauty, including beautiful women: wonder, awe, even reverent fear akin to "fear of the Lord." Often, too, one experiences a painfully intense tenderness and protectiveness for the beautiful.

Dwelling in an imperfect, often painful world, we need reminders that God exists and that perfection is possible. Beauty is that reminder. It keeps our longing for and awareness of the divine from being worn away by the frustrations and travails of daily life. Beauty affirms that life is good and worth living [AND WORTH FIGHTING FOR]. Beauty, then, is food for the soul – just as vital as food for the body.

When the beautiful is destroyed, damaged or degraded, we are the less for it; our souls have been robbed of an object of one of their deepest needs and yearnings.

Reverence for beauty and reverence for women and indissolubly linked, the first naturally evoking the second, the second a manifestation of the first. Women are indisputably the custodians of much of the world's beauty, certainly of humanity's – and not physical beauty only but a beauty of the soul … in their capacity for love, manifested in gentleness, sweetness, devotion and empathy. Women thus manifest the perfection our souls seek, hence are precious.

It follows that reverence, gallantry and protectiveness are the appropriate response to female beauty and are the women's due.

… Woman's fecundity and beauty, then, have profound significance. In them God's creativity, perfection and goodness are manifest. In them too woman is, properly understood, a bridge to the transcendent; they prompt us to cherish her, and in cherishing her we grow in virtue; as Goethe pointed out in concluding Faust, woman ever draws us higher toward perfection.

Who honors woman, the vessel of life and beauty, honors them and the God who is their author. A life-affirming, beauty-honoring civilization – which is to say a religious one – will honor women and regard chivalry as ideal.

All too clearly, we no longer inhabit such a civilization … If life is not a miraculous divine gift, but something that just happened for no explicable reason or purpose, then it has no intrinsic value. As the bearers and nurturers of life, women are the natural targets of nihilism.

… Misogyny, then, is not merely hatred for women but hatred for that which defines them as women and entitles them to Reverence and Self-Restraint; their beauty and life-bearing … The perfect example of this is the Marquis de Sade …

Long deemed virtuous and passive, women, in the sadist's world, are the appropriate victims. And woman's physical softness, apparent vulnerability, and beauty which in a civilized world inspire protectiveness, reverence and tenderness, in a sadist's inverted world only prompt cruelty.

… Woman thus now lives in a civilization seethingly hostile to life and beauty, her central defining characteristics as woman. She lives too, as the foregoing evidence also shows, in a civilization which is rejecting restraint, including self-control, all across the board, and becoming increasingly savage.

She lives, in short, in a Sadean death culture. And repudiation of beauty, life and restraint leads inexorably to rejection of and cruelty to she who personifies the first two and thereby has a claim on the third.

Like Sade, Romanticism glorified self-will. Solipsism and self-will are epitomized in sexually victimizing woman. Cruelty, rape and other defilement are praiseworthy; they manifest the triumph of the will, the victory of the active and assertive over the passive. Atheist Ayn Rand, an enormously influential pioneer of modern libertarianism, a self-proclaimed Romantic whose motive was "the projection of an ideal man," worshipped assertive male self-will. In Randian eyes, rape is romantic and heroic; the greater her beauty or achievements, the greater his triumph. [Several paragraphs on the rape of Dominique, etc. omitted.]

… Profound woman-hatred also informed modernity's ugly, decidedly unwomanly ideal of female beauty: thin, stringy arms and legs; a hard flat abdomen; vestigial breasts. New York writer Dalma Heyn lauded "the miracle of female bodies; the reproductive significance of those curves and bulges, the sumptuous glory of it all" - and added perceptively that women accepting the starveling

boyish ideal suffer from "revulsion at looking female" and "self-loathing," and "battle our own intrinsic femaleness." If a woman's normal voluptuousness has "reproductive significance" and sumptuous glory," draw your own conclusions about how an ideal of resembling "a well-developed adolescent boy" values life and beauty.

Radical feminism is a misogynistic Sadean rebellion against metaphysically-given existence, repudiating womanhood, aiming to "liberate" women from it.

… In 1948, Richard Weaver wondered "whether modern civilization wishes to survive" (Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19481, P. 185). Half a century later, we have our answer.

Modernism's crowning suicidal lunacy
in an era full of them
is feminism's campaign to force women into combat.

Now women too can die horrible deaths chillingly like Sade's "murderous passions": tortured to death as POWs, dismembered by artillery, crushed by tanks, roasted alive with napalm. Instead of admitting that the whole modern project which began with the Enlightenment has been a lethal error and a ghastly flop, feminists and other moderns keep stripping woman of her few remaining protections, prating all the while of how they are setting her free.

Excerpted from John Attarian's Women and the Sadean Death Culture (Culture Wars 12/97, pp.14-21)

Also on point (where the deconstruction of male common sense and divesting him of the self-discipline and assumption of responsibility from which flow his rightful authority and keep him impervious to the attempts of the State to manipulate him) ... Eyeless in Gaza: Sexual Liberation as Political Control

[Harrison Bergeron]

"The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking."

Thanks for clearing that up. I fell for the old story about abortion-on-demand, liberal social welfare policies, and "divorce on demand" being responsible for the destruction of the family and marginalization of the father. Now I know the problen was really caused by guys looking at racy pictures, reading dirty jokes, and learning how to tell the difference between a Lamborghini and a Ferrari.

[Let's Roll]

Playboy and the pill came along about the same time to enable us to find ourselves, if it feels good do it etc. And the bottom line - the reason we even have gender and physical attraction and sexual relations etc.- the raising of healthy children of character and worth - was just swept aside.

[Pistias]

We could spend a lot of time better suited to other things arguing who jumped ship first, but it matters little. The fact is we have a f****d up situation, and two big factors in it can be easily seen: the sexual revolution and the pill--equality in licentiousness via the deconstruction of female modesty and freedom from the biological consequences of that licentiousness. Some women will give it up, so what man uneducated by higher principles would choose one that won't? And I submit that female modesty helped in a great degree to give substance to the ideal that the education (which necessarily required a strong "role model" in the father to demonstrate as much as it required a more subtle and gentle "role model" in the mother) aimed at inculcating in the next generation.

Now that modesty is publicly ridiculed and, in fact, young women are assailed day after day by the prominent mouthpieces of our culture to liberate themselves from "rigid gender roles"--that is, to assume the same freewheeling sexual promiscuity heretofore understood as a feature of the young male which required taming by the charms of female modesty--it stands to reason that many men will no longer fulfill the roles they have in the past, now that they are not honored for it (indeed, are demonized as rapists for it), nor are they assured that such a condition will be appreciated or even be lasting (no-fault divorce, the Church's lightening of its standing on divorce).

[The Giant Apricots]

the author is a racist pig who hates women....

What proof do you have of the second half of that?

[IronJack]

The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war

Hogwash. With the caste system that excluded women from the franchise, the entire system was male-dominated. Women had "a place" in society and they could not step beyond it. With suffrage, they not only claimed the vote, they also knew that they could break the unseen chains that bound them in social isolation. When they effectively replaced men in factories during the Second World War, there was no turning back. They demanded -- and were given -- the rights to act as depraved and indulgent as men had for centuries.

No such "liberation" has come mens' way. Ever. No, ma'am. If men have changed at all, it is because women have.

[lentulusgracchus]

Not for one minute do I believe that women jumped ship first. It was men who shirked responsible leadership and women responded with feminazism.

The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking.

Playboy appeared when, in 1952? Ten years before Betty Friedan's screed appeared, The Feminine Mystique. Do you for an instant think she'd not have written it, if only Hefner had never published his rag, nor opened a club?

The nexus between Gloria Steinem and Hefner's club chain (which was still growing in 1965, and not yet what it became later) is an interesting collision of feminism with the "Playboy philosophy" (excuse the oxymoron), but it isn't definitive, and it doesn't describe cause and effect. Feminism was a reaction to middle-class family life, not to Hefner and his clubs. A better hornbook for the dissatisfaction of middle-class married life was made by Paul Newman and his RW wife in the film Mr. and Mrs. Bridge, which I confess I've yet to see. But that was what feminism was about -- that, and Friedan's having given up a place in college to pursue a boyfriend who later jilted her. Hers was a tale a million times told by people of both genders, of promises made and then broken -- but her monumental ego had to transmogrify it into a national cause celebre, spitefully to repay the male gender a thousand times for her hurt, her disappointment, and her annoyance. In the end, the tale will lie where it belongs, at her feet.

Steinem has given us a key by marrying late in life, and giving the lie to her infamous mots like "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." The correct answer to which is that, she may not, but her children damn sure do.

In the end, I think history will remember feminism as the wonderful organizationally-magnified realization of Friedan's monumental tantrum, and Steinem's dissatisfaction with her boyfriends.

[J.R.R. Tolkien]

Not for one minute do I believe that women jumped ship first. It was men who shirked responsible leadership and women responded with feminazism.

Actually, no. You are incorrect. Try again.