Encouraged by Women's Response, Clinton Stresses Female Side

A woman would be more sensitive? Try a woman would kill morale.

50% of the voters now say hell no to Hillary. Why is she appealing to women? They can't get her elected.

If the Hildebeast gets elected, her cabinet will be staffed entirely by feminist women. She will call for and get a re-institution of the draft only she will PC-ize it to include women, who will be assigned to staff and back-field positions so no harm comes to them. [Hell, that may well happen no matter who wins-- it's just what flavor of insanity will it be?]

She will with a Democratic Congress either held at sword-point or with ravenous complicity get loads of feminist dream legislation passed. The war in Iraq will get bigger as men are herded into the armed forces and sent overseas in huge numbers while via legislation she effects a feminist take-over of the apparatus of government and private industry.

Let me be real clear: Men absolutely cannot let the Hildebeast win in 2008. Talk about this with every man you know. We need every vote to keep this from happening.

Women can't afford her, either. Bring back the draft, as a feminism social experiement? Yup, I can see that happening.

Women being more sensitive is another false accussation!! Women are in fact more callous!!

If you disagree...I challenge you to read Esther Villar's bestseller "The manipulated male"

At least their clits are sensitive.

I doubt very much she will be elected. And if she is, she will fuck up so badly maybe people will shut up about how wonderful it would be to have a woman president.

...that Hitlary is a radical feminist.

She is absolutely terrified that anyone will bring this up. In one instance, she went so far as to define herself as the "dictionary definition of a feminist."

It baffles me why MRAs don't swamp newspapers with letters alluding to her feminism while pointing out some of the real damage that toxic movement has done. I have. (But not a single letter has been printed--darn, that Lace Curtain is strong.) Once the press gets a whiff of blood in the water, they'll actually start investigating exactly what those harpies have been doing for 4 decades...maybe.

Remember that Aretha Franklin song? "Sisters are doing for themselves." What has Hillary ever done for herself? Nada. She's been riding a man-- and not a particularly honest or respectful one-- throughout her "career." Is that feminism? Don't these broads aspire to anything any more, other than helping compulsive liars falsely accuse men of rape?

It never was; anything born out of the Women's KKK is based in hatred and greed nothing more. It IS about lying and manipulating people to get women any and everything they want and more. This is the true nature of woman if man does not step in. The hell with justice and equality says feminism; equality to them is women getting everything they want when they want it. That's the height of female supremacy and an attitude that the majority of women have held for hundreds of years. You think you can change it by "agreeing" with them? When will men learn to stop believing the lies?

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

There is something particularlry perverse when the most liberated group the world has ever witnessed in terms of health, wealth, leasure time, and general life options (middle class white women).....constantly bombards the public with the victim rhetoric!!

Good article, I am posting it in three parts(Two if I can)

"Women are Oressed?

taking the P out of "Oppressed"

The biggest charge that feminism lays is that women have been and are victims of nasty patriarchal male oppression, in fact despite the widespread variations of feminism (a handy defensive tool in which any feminist can claim "Oh but I'm not that kind of feminist..) the one basic tenet of oppression is evident in every form of feminism. What follows is a fine blend of some of the better writing and profound points raised by people within the men's movement, some bits are direct, word for word, some have been edited by myself, the resultant cocktail is intended as a one page rebuttal against most of the charges thrown by feminism. There is a deliberate mixture between old and newer examples of "oppression". I have kept the graphic content low to help the entire page load quickly.

Lets have a look at this oppression or more to the point, let us see if they have a monoploy on it.

Firstly lets touch on the voting issue, what few feminists will tell you is that men couldn't vote through most of history, when voting did come about it was only allowed by wealthy landowners and it was a pretty long time before normal men had the right to vote. It was less than 100 years before women were also allowed, so the idea of men having always been in possesion of great power is a little flawed. Whilst feminists point at men as heads of huge coporations, captains of industry, prime ministers, moonlanders and claim "men" have all this power, when they point out the damage of war and how "men" choose war, they forget one simple point. Most men don't, most men aren't prime minister or head of Glaxo Wellcome or astronauts and few of the millions of men who have died in battle wanted to be in the middle of a war, fighting for their very survival under inhumane conditions, by choice they would have preferred to be at home with a beer.

If we look back at "patriarchal" tradition what do we see? Women were not expected to be responsible for their own actions, if a woman commited a crime it was her husband who was punished, the myth of the "rule of thumb" being about a certain sized stick has been debunked so often I wont repeat it here but check through the links provided and you will see that whilst a certain amount of chastisment was allowed this was in direct response to the fact the man was held accountable for what his wife did. One can hardly blame a man for another's actions if he is given no power to curb those actions yet even today a man is expected to pay for a woman's choice (a woman's body) to give birth when she has the option of abortion (which men have never had). A woman can birth, take the morning after pill, abort or have the child put up for adoption, the man has the choice of paying a chunk of his income for a minimum of 16 years or going to jail.

Another common charge is how women were treated as property but lets look at that in context. In those times property was a very rare and valuable thing, people had nothing in the way of a welfare fund, pensions and so on, literally what you possesed was your worldly wealth and you probably didn't posses much of it. Through practicality and a lack of pension children were considered a great asset for they would look after you in old age, keep the family business running and were essentially a family's future. As the wife had an important role to play, including the ability to bear children, she was a valuable asset to the family, for someone to kill or steal your wife would have much greater repercussions than it would on a modern family, one couldn't simply pop open some formula milk or a can of baby food whilst shoving the clothes in a washing machine and thumbing on the microwave. To compete against nature and other men it was necessary to have a good women behind you, it simply wasn't practical or possible for a man to perform both roles. As such the whole concept of her being "property" was in essence a reflection on her exceptional value, also I should point out that even today the law stands that you can use extreme or lethal force to protect your property. Yes, it can be said this was rather unbalanced, for example the woman couldn't actually own her husband as property, in fact could not even own property at one time but why was that? Was it simply an attempt to oppress women or was it simply keeping control in the hands of one individual, the individual who was bigger, more mobile and had fewer moodswings whilst being pregnant somewhat less often?

In the early years of the women's movement, an article in Psychology Today entitled "Women as Nigger" quickly led to feminist activists making parallels between the oppression of women and blacks. Men were characterized as the oppressors, the "masters," the "slaveholders." Black Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm was widely quoted for her statement that she faced more discrimination as a woman than as a black.

The parallel allowed the hard-earned rights of the Civil Rights movement to be applied to women. The parallel itself had only a germ of truth. But what none of us realized was how each sex was the other's slave in different ways and therefore neither sex was the other's "nigger" ("nigger" implies a one-sided oppressiveness).

...continued...

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

If "masculists" had made such a comparison, they would have had every bit as strong a case as feminists and I would argue more so. The comparison is useful because it is not until we understand how men were also women's servants that we get a clear picture of the sexual division of labor and therefore the fallacy of comparing either sex to "nigger." For starters....

Blacks were forced, via slavery, to risk their lives in cotton fields so that whites might benefit economically while blacks died prematurely. Men were forced to risk their lives on battlefields so that everyone else might benefit economically while men died prematurely. The disproportionate numbers of blacks and males in war increases both blacks' and males' likelihood of experiencing post-traumatic stress, of becoming killers in post-war civilian life as well, and of dying earlier. Both slaves and men died to make the world safe for freedom - someone else's freedom. Blacks are more likely than whites to volunteer for war in the hopes of earning money and gaining skills; men are more likely than women to volunteer for war for the same reasons.

Blacks were forced, via slavery, into society's most hazardous jobs; men are forced, via socialization, into society's most hazardous jobs. Both slaves and men constituted almost 100% of the "death professions." Men still do. Studies that have defined the 25 least popular jobs, taking into account stress, danger, dirt and unpleasant hours and so on, show 24 of those jobs are positions predominately filled by men - the "glass cellar". 19 of every 20 workplace deaths are male.

Slaves had their own children involuntarily taken away from them; men have their own children involuntarily taken away from them. We tell women they have the right to children and tell men they have to fight for children. This has become even more evident as feminists have done their best to destroy marriage, to gain full rights in the workplace for women whilst restricting men's rights in the home. Most of the men's groups in existence were formed by men outraged at having their children routinely stolen and being expected to pay for the honour without equal legal weight given to enforcing access and their rights as parents or their children's right to have a father.

When slaves gave up their seats for whites, we called it subservience; when men give up their seats for women, we call it politeness. Similarly, we called it a symbol of subservience when slaves stood up as their master entered a room; but a symbol of politeness when men stand up as a woman enters the room. Slaves bowed before their masters; in traditional cultures, men still bow before women. The slave helped the master put on his coat; the man helped the woman put on her coat. He still does. A slave was expected to remove his headgear in the presence of his master, men are expected to raise their hat "to the ladies". A slave is expected to open the door for his master, men still tend to open doors for ladies. A classic example of a "gentleman" is the famous incident when a slavemaster's cape was laid over a muddy patch to prevent the "slave" from getting her feet dirty. These symbols of deference and subservience are common with slaves to masters and with men to women. In earlier "gallant" times a man would wear a sword, he was literally expected to draw his sword against an equally well armed and lethal opponent in order to defend a woman, any woman, who's "honour" had been slighted. A woman's dignity was considered so precious that a man was expected to kill or be killed rather than allow her to be insulted. Even today we expect a man to defend a woman being attacked, unless it's by another woman in which case the modern man is in a bit of a quandry.

Blacks are more likely than whites to be homeless; men are more likely than women to be homeless by a wide margin.

Blacks are more likely than whites to be in prison; men are about 20 times as likely as women to be in prison, the difference between black or whites being sentenced is lower than the difference between men and women being sentenced, including 1st time offenders. Only in offences to do with drug running are women treated as harshly by western law courts as men.

Blacks die earlier than whites; men die earlier than women. If anything this was became more pronounced as the gap in the genders life expectancy widened, however with more women working long hours under stress, rushing unhealthy meals and so on, essentially behaving more like men, the gap is beginning to narrow again. In 1920 the gap was one year, it stretched to 7 years and is now back down to 5.

Blacks are less likely than whites to attend college or graduate from college. Men are less likely than women to attend college (46% vs. 54%) and less likely to graduate from college (45% vs. 55%).

Apartheid forced blacks to mine diamonds for whites; socialization expected men to work in different mines to pay for diamonds for women. (Nowhere in history has there been a ruling class working to afford diamonds they could give to the oppressed in hopes the oppressed would love them more.)

Blacks are more likely than whites to subject themselves to the child abuse of boxing and football in the hopes of earning money, respect, and love; men are more likely than women to subject themselves to the child abuse of boxing and football and other gladiatorial sports, with the same hopes.

Women are the only "oppressed" group to systematically grow up having their own private member of an "oppressor" class (called fathers) in the field, working for them. Traditionally, the ruling class had people in the field, working for them-called slaves. Among slaves, the field slave was considered the second-class slave; the house slave, the first-class slave. The male role (out in the field) is akin to the field slave-the traditional female role (homemaker) is akin to the house slave.

Women are the only "oppressed" group to share the same parents as the "oppressor"; to be born into the middle-class and upper-class as frequently as the "oppressor"; to own more of the culture's luxury items than the "oppressor"; the only "oppressed" group whose "unpaid labor" enables them to buy most of the fifty billion dollars' worth of cosmetics sold each year to encourage their enslavement,; the only "oppressed" group that spends more on high-fashion, brand name clothing than their "oppressors"; the only "oppressed" group that watches more TV during every time category than their "oppressors", the only "oppressed" group that controls over 70% of all spending decisions, the only "oppressed" group that has more money spent on their healthcare than the oppressors, the only "oppressed" group whose "oppressors" commit suicide at a rate of 400% higher, the only "slave" group that in the event of danger would have their slavemansters yell "slaves and children first!", the only "oppressed" group that are excused direct war combat, the only "oppressed" group that are enslaved by the oppressor begging on their knees and asking nicely with diamonds, the only "slave" group that grows long fingernails and decorates them, the only "slave" group that habitually wears long hair and impractical clothes and shoes, the only "oppressed" group that can have an oppressor thrown in jail for touching them, the only "slave" group that law courts award continous "slave pay" for years after they have withdrawn their services, the only "oppressed" group that still expects the oppressors to pay for their entertainment and meals out whilst demanding and getting equal pay.

...continued...

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

"It would be hard to find a single example in history in which a group that cast more than 50% of the vote got away with calling itself the victim. Or an example of an oppressed group which chooses to vote for their "oppressors" more than it chooses to have its own members take responsibility for running. Women are the only minority group that is a majority, the only group that calls itself "oppressed" that is able to control who is elected to every office in virtually every community in the country. Power is not in who holds the office, power is in who chooses who holds the office. Blacks, Asians, Jews, the disabled, homosexuals, lesbians and Native Americans never had more than 50% of the vote - combined.

Blacks who are heads of households have a net worth lower than heads of households who are white; men who are heads of households have a net worth lower than heads of households who are women. (No oppressed group has ever had a net worth higher than the oppressor.)

Feminists often compare marriage to slavery-with the female as slave. It seems like an insult to women's intelligence to suggest that marriage is female slavery when we know it is 25 million American females who read romance novels, often with the fantasy of marriage. Are feminists suggesting that 25 million American women have "enslavement" fantasies because they fantasize marriage? Is this the reason Danielle Steele is one of the best-selling authors in the US? Never has there been a slave class that has spent a lot of time dreaming about being a slave and purchasing books and magazines that told them "How to Get a Slavemaster to Commit." Either marriage is something different than slavery for women, or feminists are suggesting that women are unintelligent.

The difference between slaves and males is that African-American blacks rarely thought of their slavery as 'power', but men were taught to think of their slavery as power. If men were, in fact, slavemasters and women slaves, then why did men spend a lifetime supporting the slaves and the slave's children? Why weren't the women supporting the men instead, the way kings were supported by their subjects? Our understanding of blacks' powerlessness has allowed us to call what we did to blacks 'immoral', yet we still call what we do to males 'patriotism' and 'heroism' when they kill on our behalf, but 'violence', 'murder' and 'greed' when they kill the wrong people the wrong way at the wrong time. If a woman has many children we consider her to be hard working and put upon, if a man is responsible for a large number of employees we call him powerful.

Understanding that what we did to blacks was immoral led us to to assuage our guilt with affirmative action programs and welfare. But by thinking of men as the dominant oppressors who do what they do for power and greed, we feel little guilt when they die early in the process. Believing that women were an oppressed slave-like class, we extended privileges and advantages to women that had originally been designed to compensate for our immorality to blacks. For women to take advantage of this slavery compensation was its own brand of immorality. For men to cooperate is it's own brand of ignorance.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek