LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
Lisa Guliani is a former internet-based political talk show host, political writer, researcher, activist, conscientious objector, "known protester', and self-described thought provocateur. When she's not engaged in some odd combination of the above, she's handing out smiles to the elderly, and also enjoys reading, music, cracking jokes, and hanging out with her buddy, Goose, who has yet to realize he's a dog. Her favorite sections of SOTT?
It's a three-way tie: Secret History, Puppet Masters and Society's Child.
Just wanted to share a documentary series done by a Jean Kilbourne, I don't know if she is a feminist(though she claims to be involved with the women's movement) but through her work you can see how the female has really been assaulted and had her role re-defined through decades of media manipulation(in this case through advertisements). There are 4 episodes the first done in the 70/80's I think, then the rest like a decade later up to the last one which was done in 2010.
Killing us softly 3 (1999):
[Link]
Killing us Softly 4 (2010):
[Link]
Seeing how much we (women and men alike) sacrified on the altar of feminism, it's mind-boggling to find that in so-called progressive circles even a slight, constructive critique of feminism is still an absolute taboo.
Great rant, and very well articulated. Keep them coming!
Henry Makow has been on to this scam from the outset.
All in all its just another brick in the wall in the battle against human solidarity.
The worry is what suckers we all all are for the latest trends established by the PTB's.
I am the 'baby/youngest" of six, my hubby is one of 6 kids and we have been Blessed with 6 kids and 7 Grandestkidz :) We CHOSE from the beginning of our marriage for Me/Mom, college graduate w post-Grad educational work, to STAY HOME and LOVE-RAISE our kids. We were dirt poor. Hubby worked 3 jobs & we drove 15+yr old cars to make this possible. He sacrificed to make this possible. We had a little 1000 sq ft house hubby was always fixing w ONE bathroom and an acre+ backing up on 100 acres of woods (our kids called them...'their' woods :) We cooked and baked from scratch and made our kidz clean up their own messes. We let them watch 1/2 hr of TV SOME days..Bill Nye the Science Guy or Mr. Rogers... then we moved our family overseas 4 the last 24 yrs, serving GOD thru serving others. We were still dirt poor but FAMILY & LOVE RICH. We were So BLESSED to take in 10 abandoned babies (! at a time) to raise until adoption. Our kidz have grown up with REALITY. I have also taught overseas for many years, on & off. Half of our kids and their families are now serving the Lord in hard places outside of the US and have also adopted abandoned babes. We Pray constantly that none will get sucked into the prevailing world mind-sets.
I LOVE being a MOTHER - the HARDEST & MOST Rewarding Calling on earth. I also Like my bras.
THANK YOU folks for your great articles and deep thinking, esp on Ponerology. the Creator begins & explains that study in Genesis 3-Bk of Beginnings. Man's 'bootstraps' are only 'so long',,,thus we NEED a Way Out of our Universal Mess- that would be Jesus.
Very good to read.
Well written, straight to the point and the most refreshing article I have read in some time.
You should also post a video on YouTube with the same energy as this article because I'm sure there are so many who feel this but cant connect the dots or even articulate the nagging, internal, unacknowledged sense that something is very wrong.
Thank you.
David (a man)
The right of women to "control their reproductive system"...
Recently there was a large rally of feminists and their supporters campaigning for equality and the right of women to "control their own reproductive systems," or in other words to have their pregnancies aborted as they desire (in other words the legal murder of helpless human babies in the womb).
The Vedic view is that women should always be protected (with love and care)-- independent women means exploited. In their childhood they should be protected by their father, after marriage by their husband and during old age by her sons. A women therefore always takes the position of being protected by people with her best interest. This system is nice as it stops prostitution and degradation within society.
Today the tendency is men want to exploit women to the maximum degree to satisfy their senses without being prepared to take any responsibility for protecting and providing for the women and children. If a women becomes pregnant it's her problem and she has to either have the child and bring it up as a single mother undergoing all the difficulties that entails or she has to kill the child by having an abortion. In other countries she depends on the government for welfare, thereby putting stress on the social support system or she has to work 3 jobs to support her children while they grow up watching TV, neglected to become disturbed citizens with no faith in the family system or anybody. This is the result of not protecting women.
There is no social outcry. Men are happy as they can have sex with as many women as they like without considering the consequences and many women, if not most, are happy because they enjoy being exploited by men in this way. Now the women want complete freedom to kill their children at their own free will because having children would interfere with their "lifestyle."
The times are changing
There has been a marked change in attitudes even within my memory. I can remember a time when within a family the parents put aside their own personal desires and worked for the good of the family. There were many cases of husband and wife staying together for the benefit of the children even though they were having difficulties in their relationship. There was a sense of responsibility, that we have become parents of these children and now we have a responsibility to give them a good upbringing. But this has changed. I'm sure there are still many caring families out there but I suspect they were not marching in this feminist rally.
Men don't want to be dominated by women
It is not in the woman's interest to become overly strong and domineering if she wants to attract a man. Of course they are trying to change the men as well, but still generally men don't want to be dominated by women. It is described in the Vedic literature a chaste women controls her husband not by becoming strong and overbearing but by her natural womanly qualities. Any man will be captivated by a wife who is completely chaste and who serves him nicely. She will actually control her husband, not by force but by her attractive womanly qualities. This is the way of nature and the way men and women were made for each other.
I have read passing passages that this issue goes all the way back to ancient egypt and maybe even before and is symbolized by the sphinx no less; well atleast what has happened to it.
That the head of the sphinx now is not the original head but one put there by a so called feminist(of herself). However, I don't know if this is true.
But I have also read that in each sex there is 2 types thanks to bad diets that have taken hold and caused carnage over thousands of years... The way I saw it described was as andric/gynic. I suspect the author of this article since the message of the feminists does not resonate with her is a gynic woman, a dying breed as the andrics have pretty much been in control. Same applies to men, plagued by the same disease where now we are but a shadow in a world ruled by shadows.. Also its interesting to see that what the feminist movement does is push the sexes close together in terms of function, almost as if there shouldnt be any gender at all, like we should all just be one gender. That's the direction its going... Equality for all. Man and woman finally the same.
Even the Cs said it:
Are you ready to be hermaphrodites???
Seriously, there is more to this topic... Next to psychopathy, it might be THE topic of topics.
Unlike psychopathy however, you can't talk about it without pissing off a whole load of women and men equally. They'll literally have you head off for it.
This goes back all the way when there "appeared" a male God. Merlin Stone wrote about it in "The paradise Papers". Stone investigated this issue in 1976.(The height of women's lib movement !)
In "The secret history of the world" Laura wrote extensively about it.
I guess it comes down to monotheistic religion.
The issue of the female energy is imo the most important question/problem of our time/life.
Exactly Iron,
Excellent article Lisa, so funny yet oh so true.
You pulled that (mostly taboo) subject out into the light. By expansion I'd hate to imagine how many other ways we're being manipulated and controlled - and how quickly we come to regard the unnatural as natural. As far as dating goes, I've given up. Granting that there are two sides to every story, my own experience of women is that they seriously hate men. I guess the 'controllers' are winning this one.
I'd like to repeat what Maxtree wrote: "The issue of ...female energy is ...the most important question/problem of out time/life."
What will the destruction/perversion of our earth's female energy leave us with?
Finally ! (yes, me too)
I read a channel that says that the female side tries to rely on people, and the male one is about self-affirmation. If we simplify and take women for the feminine, men for the masculine : women tend to collaborate or to search an agreement with others, though men tend to have their own opinion even if they are to confront the group.
The feeling I have is that there is a strong lack of male energy. Men are submitted to every power. Women are terrified at the idea that they will have to tell an opinion of their own. You can not date them - that's right - cause they are angry you could force them to say no. They never - of course - try to date you, whatever magazines say. They can let you down without telling you.
I realize feminism is not about women taking their lives in charge, nor women becoming like men : it is at the opposite, an ethic of no responsability. Women can choose to have a baby or not, I cannot. In France - where I live - there is a law for they can abandon their baby, I can't. There is even judgements that say that men can't claim fatherhood if the mother has decided to let her baby down.
List : Certainty that every difference is an injustice to be corrected by force, not the choice people have made. Tendency to see feminine activities less valuable (project their own feelings on society). Tendency to feel a group identity (every woman becoming minister is a victory for women) and not a personal one...
... Absolutely best/freshest piece coming across this web page in years... Speechless other than to say GREAT WORK !!!!
For years and years -- starting in my twenties -- I've thought and thought about these issues, particularly as I went to a women's college where feminism was de rigeur. Now I'm 56 and see the fallout clearly, as do so many. It breaks the heart. Yes, of course I don't like oppression of any ilk; but this would have also to include oppression by our fellow women against those of us who see things differently. I LIKE being female, LIKE female energy, LIKE men, LIKE feminine things; and I do not understand and never have understood why some women want to masculinize themselves and adopt a hard, aggressive stance toward the world. What is wrong with the soft side? It never has meant that a woman has to be soft-brained or soft-willed. We are complementary to masculine energy as they are complementary to ours. Perhaps "raising consciousness" will begin to mean something else than it has since the '70s, when all this seems to have started -- leaving a lot of us females who were then in our teens very confused and not a little upset.
I am not a female but in my view, one of the main things the feminist movement does is subjugate other women and re-define there roles within society and the home. Most other women might feel uncomfortable with having these level of aggression forwarded towards them but what can they do when it's other women(the feminists) telling them this and they are acting like they somehow represent progress and liberation leaving the victim helpless at there assault. Thus they take control of normal women by proxy and normal women in turn adopt a twisted worldview which affects there kids and home life amongst other things. It isn't a far stretch of the mind to think that, alot of the subjugation of women might be coming from other women who take their collective subjugation by a psychopathic system and use it to gain trust of the victim by virtue of being the same gender and having won multiple political and social victories heralded by the media etc and further use it to further infect the victim.
Kind of like the same thing about the slave trade, sure white people were responsible but some black people were also responsible selling off there kind: not like they came with the boats, went deep into africa and started to round up people. Now you only hear about how the west is 100% responsible making it appear like the whole race of black people were just victims. Again with jews, blindsided by the fact that the enemy comes from within~(the zionists), not only from outside. But what can a jewish person do? Bring up the question and immediately get the whole nazi thing thrown in your face. Just left with no choice but to keep quiet and lets these zionists run rampant.
This tactic is just getting used up over and over again.
While you're right about the feminist movement, this statement:
"We don't NEED to date men anymore. We can date each other. Terrific. And while that appeals to a lot of women these days, it does NOT appeal to me."
is ridiculous. Even if it was intended to by hyperbole, which I don't think it was, it's nonsensical because gay women are with women because they love women - not because they hate men. It's as nonsensical as saying that men are with women because they hate men. It simply doesn't work that way and it's rather insulting to women to say that it does.
... I saw it as hyperbole, but even if not - don't think the greatness of the article suffers as a result!... I do recall a Thomas Malthus essay, Circa - 1798, mentioning that the passion between the sexes would likely always remain - but that it was conceivable that the passion could be extinguished over time !
fwiw I agree with you anart. But the way I read it was.. kind of like how it's all of a sudden "chique" to be gay for a lot of women. Like they don't actually love women per-se; they are just jumping on board with the pro-gay and all the new TV shows that make being lesbians the new thing you gotta try. Which degrades women and gay people equally of course. And it's a very poneroized ideology. But that's how I read it..
I really hope that statement was hyperbole, and I appreciate the article and agree that the author is spot on about the feminist movement. It is without a doubt, a most important 'movement', in light of our patriarchal, misogynistic society, that needs to be exposed and understood. If women were to see how their desire to express the feminine was co-opted and actually used against them, we might get to see a real movement of a true 'super power'.
But I think that statement as quoted does a great disservice to women and also to the article. It felt like a 'sexual stab' and a diversion from the point of the article. It reminded me of a 'feminine couple' I was close to once. They were sisters. They 'homesteaded' about 20 acres. One of the sisters was very comfortable keeping the house, cooking, knitting, and keeping the pets that lived in the home. The other was more comfortable mending the fences, keeping the cows, and working with the horses they both rescued from the glue factories. So many people would whisper that "they were 'lesbians'". "How else could two women live together like that". Their ignorance amazed me. I saw how well those women lived together and how well their 'children' fared because of it. I saw those comments as a 'sexual stab', they turned something good and productive and loving into some cheap 'sexual scandal'. They are Sisters for Christ's sake!!!
And that memory segued to a autobiography I read several years back "Land of the Burnt Thigh" by Edith Eudora Kohl. Described as 'A lively Story of Women Homesteaders On the South Dakota Frontier'. Woman now, and always have been strong. In heart, mind, spirit and in body. Some have become teachers of children, some plowers of fields, some have become writers and spreaders of knowledge and truth. Some are lucky to experience several fields of endeavor. (sorry, maybe off point of my post, but this was a great read and it enlightened me to what it means to be a woman, as well as how the PTB used us all to "Win the West')
Unfortunately, and with the help of the 'Women's Movement', alot of us have been forced to become 'men', struggling and competing in a 'Man's world'. All the while being told that we can "fry up the bacon, bring it home in a pan and never, ever let you forget you're a man". And our Men have been duped too, because really guys, how cool is that? When the truth is, that we don't really have the time or the energy for sex right now, and can you please clean these dirty diapers while I put the kids to bed, do the dinner dishes and pick up your dirty laundry so I can put them in the wash? We all, men and women and child, have been duped by the so-called feminist movement as this article clearly points out. And in many other ways not mentioned specifically. And both sexes loose dearly because of the manipulations of Psychopaths, who just love to throw Sex in the pot to heat up the stew.
Now, I remember alot about Women's Lib. I remember "I am Woman, Hear me Roar", and I remember how "We don't Need a Man". And, maybe I am too old, but I don't remember:
"We don't NEED to date men anymore. We can date each other. Terrific. And while that appeals to a lot of women these days, it does NOT appeal to me."
I guess I see this issue as one of women wanting to express the Feminine Principle, desiring to be seen and heard and felt. And how that desire has been co-opted and used against all of Humanity to our detriment. And this comment just opens up a tangent of thought that really doesn't apply to the point of this article, or the topic. Because in reality "gay women are with women because they love women - not because they hate men". I remember making a list of all the qualities I wished to find in the man of my dreams, and as it turned out, It seemed more apparent that "I should marry a woman". And that lead me to observe and try to understand how detrimental the 'suppression of the Feminine Energy/Principle is to All of Humanity, including Men.
And, as was pointed out in this article, the movement has been used to leave a taste of the 'hatred of men' in alot of women's mouths. And you gotta wonder why that would be. And you gotta wonder if they are trying to leave the hatred of one person loving another, a different sex, a different race, a different color, a different age, in the mouths of so many people.
I hope it was hyperbole.
I have read acouple of articles in magazines about how every woman in her life should endulge in a lesbian experience atleast once. They were selling it like it was some kind of delicacy and that you'd be missing out if you didn't try it.
As I read this in a physical magazine, I can't seem to locate the article but have found alternatives:
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
It seems that lesbianism is the in-thing right now, so that is how I read the comment in the article. The author was airing her dissatisfaction from this concerted drive telling a huge proportion of women that they are "bi-curious."
Can you imagine the same happening with men?
That every man should have atleast one gay experience in life or that more than half of all men are bi-curious...
Maybe it is true.
It also seems to me that this "selling" of a sexuality is done in such a way as to make it appear that it is cool, intriguing, logical etc making it appear like they almost have a hidden agenda.
Luke, just because some idiot writes an article about something doesn't mean it bears any relationship whatsoever to reality, and here I'm referring to the articles you've linked and are mentioning. The idea that anyone should 'indulge' in any sexual experience that is not who they are is ludicrous and the idea that just because someone writes an article that states that means that anyone - anyone at all - is actually doing it is equally ludicrous.
I hate to break it to you, but homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. The point here, however, directly relates to what lan8r has written about the denigration of loving relationships just because they happen to be between people of the same sex. It is a viewpoint based in ignorance and hate and one I can't sit quietly by and see promoted - it's really that simple.
Western society is so ponerized that people write articles denigrating and debasing pretty much everything, but that does not mean that normal human beings even vaguely resemble the statements made. The point here, at least from my perspective, is to realize that we are all much, much more alike than we are different and as soon as we forget that, the psychopaths win. Quite frankly, I think it says a lot about a person whether or not they are able to discern the finer points here, and discern reality, or they cannot; expressing viewpoints that do little more than highlight their own ignorance.
Your point about what the author has written being seen as denigrating to same sex relationships is true depending on how you interpret the message.
My interpretation was the PTB have been pushing articles like those that I linked to(which is why I linked to them on well read news/entertainment spaces) in numerous magazines that are read by numerous(millions of) people.
That is why I thought the author lashed out in this article because she has had enough of reading or hearing such stuff which is obviously lies or meant to vector to nefarious ends(not that she disagrees with same sex relationships). Normal people don't resemble what is written but what is written influences normal people.
"Even if it was intended to by hyperbole, which I don't think it was, it's nonsensical because gay women are with women because they love women - not because they hate men. It's as nonsensical as saying that men are with women because they hate men. It simply doesn't work that way and it's rather insulting to women to say that it does."
Perhaps, in light of the confusion, this statement is a bit limiting as well... Should read "woman are with woman because they like THAT woman... not because they like ALL woman and not because they hate all men"
I've seen a lot of "lesbians" switch teams over the years... This shouldn't be a big deal either... Why label it, why define it... Can't we just be with what ever we want, what should the gender matter? ( obviously it still does considering the fiery comments here )
what joe said. Thats how I took it. Excuse my last response since joe said it much better.
My experience is that when I was in high school a few years ago there were a few kids who identified themselves as "gay", "bi", or "straight", and had changed their "label" several times. I don't *know* how this relates to what adults are doing, but I'm guessing that there is a small number of adults who have done the same thing, possibly with influence from the outside via media and such.
In any case, I understood it the way Joe did. After all, the article is about how screwed up the "womens' movement" propoganda is, so I assumed she was ridiculing the propoganda - which does exist although it is extremist - and not gay people in general. I can understand why it might upset you though.
The main problem is in the phrase "while that appeals to a lot of women". What is "a lot"? Which women? What evidence? It's open to interpretation.
I agree Anart!
Look closely and this article is mostly just a bunch of incoherent ranting.
The author seems to be nostalgic for some mythical "good ol' days" when everyone was happy and women didn't work outside of the home, etc. But those "good ol' days" only existed on "Leave it to Beaver". Women have always worked "outside" the home, except the rich upper-class women. Even the biblical Proverbs 31 woman worked outside the home.
While the issues she brings up are valid they are not really about feminism per se. She had it right when she said men and women are equal now... "equally screwed". The main difference between now and before is that even upper-middle-class white women are no longer sheltered from the corrupt systems that run the world.
Feminism definitely deserves criticism for its misandry and dysfunctional discourse on social issues, but what is she doing attacking the right to vote and reproductive rights? In the past women were not happier, they were just more silent and had fewer choices. She hasn't thought this through. We do not want to go back to the days when women were forced to marry their rapists or have back-alley abortions, when women were barred from college and most professions.
Frankly the author just sounds bitter because she can't get a man and has to actually earn her own money instead of having a husband to buy everything for her.
What is better? To have few choices, and know that you have few choices, or to have more choices, but most of them are lies, and yet you think you are free? The point is not that we should revert from the current psychopathic system to the old one, but that the current system is just a New and Improved(!) version of the old one. The point of the article is that women are being "sold" out of one slavery and into another.
An article that is nothing more than the hyperbolic and ignorant ramblings of a clearly ignorant, homophobic and misogynistic women is read as a brilliant essay on truth and reality by a bunch of people who flatteringly think of themselves as enlightened and evolved?...
I really am shocked that such a poorly written piece that reads like something more in line with a "Tea Party" style manifesto is front page worthy, and so roundly praised. But then, nothing brings out the misogynists like rubbish like this.
This site talks about aliens...OK. The founders of this site start their own church..okaaay?....Well, I'm not here for that. I like the news, science etc. But printing a truly uninspired article that exposes the bigotry of the author and sounds like a screed from some MRA type, makes this site look even more suspect than it already is becoming.
When you think so highly of yourselves that you fail to think critically or step back to judge objectively, then you can convince yourself that anything you do, say, feel is correct, or morally justified or superior.
A site that talks extensively about psychopathy, is now trying to convince us that granting women the same basic rights afforded men, and to have the opportunity to participate in intellectual life, have biological autonomy etc, is the reason for today's problems. Not the work of psychopaths themselves. Not the war mongers, not the brutality and greed of the economists...but women who don't want exactly what our highly critical and uninformed authoress wants.
If anyone here wants another view about "tradition" and roles for women, try reading "Caliban and the Witch" by Silvia Federici. It ties in quite nicely with this sites interest in psychopathy, capitalism etc.
When you have an article that would fit quite nicely on "The Spearhead" you really should rethink who you consider a writer, or at least get a better editor.
Am I correct in assuming that sott.net will be returning all the tens of thousands of dollars of donations from the female readers and supporters of this site to assure us that you are not in fact hypocrites who would accept so much desperately needed money from participants in a system only designed to extract more tax?
I can't believe that I feel like I have to end this comment with a statement saying I support women's human rights, and LGBQT human rights. When the hell did women and gay women become something less than human?
The founders of this site have not "started their own church". Where, exactly, are you getting your information?
The accusation of misogyny is very rich. Abit like any person questioning the zionist agenda and immediately being accused of antisemitism. Brilliant.
I think you perhaps missed the point of the entire article. That 'women's liberation' has not helped women or society in general. It is not an attack on women's human rights or LGBQT rights, nor does it present anyone as less than human by definition. If you could perhaps point out where you see this idea conveyed, it would help to understand where you are coming from.
Thanks Lisa, excellent article.
On top of this, in the so called industrial nations we would not have to deal with unemployment, if women stayed at home. Though numbers like these are clearly not the message behind this article. The inversion of traditional values in order to make every single inhabitant of this planet "productive" as taxpayer or at least as consumer (commercials for the two-year-olds) is not the sole work of women´s lib, but feminism has done its share. Happyness and love are highly unproductive and not taxable, thus contraproductive and even dangerous for the reigning capital. A happy family might be something romantic, old fashioned and anacronistic, but even that we are validating it that way is part of this change in values. To some it is even more important fighting for the rights of lesbians and gays than founding a family.
Thank´s Lisa for this prvocative article. By the way, the woman in the foto has most beautiful legs.
Laura wrote an article stating they had started their own church in France where they live. Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind...make of that what you will.
PaleoChristianity, they claim.
Am wondering if articles like this are designed to weed out the ponerised types on sites like this. Like dangling a little hook in the waters to see how many bites one gets. I mean, an article calling women bitches and sluts, pretending Planned Parenthood is a one stop abortion shop ( when in reality only 3% of resources fund abortions, which, by the way, are mostly carried out on married women over 40 in committed relationships who already have children.), and all but saying women's right to vote is some sort of triviality, has to be a little trick sott is playing.
This article is totally disgusting, including the aggressive and arrogant writing style. It is interesting to see all the revolting little miseries come out from under the rocks, however.
All groups advocating women's rights, indigenous rights, anti war etc are ALL infiltrated. Is sott?
"All groups advocating women's rights, indigenous rights, anti war etc are ALL infiltrated"...
You would be surprised to find that any movement that starts with a just cause for the rights of all normal Human Beings has been and will be 'infiltrated'. It is SOP for the PTB.
Avana wrote: "Am wondering if articles like this are designed to weed out the ponerised types on sites like this. Like dangling a little hook in the waters to see how many bites one gets. I mean, an article calling women bitches and sluts, pretending Planned Parenthood is a one stop abortion shop ( when in reality only 3% of resources fund abortions, which, by the way, are mostly carried out on married women over 40 in committed relationships who already have children.), and all but saying women's right to vote is some sort of triviality, has to be a little trick sott is playing.
This article is totally disgusting, including the aggressive and arrogant writing style. It is interesting to see all the revolting little miseries come out from under the rocks, however."
Avana what are you talking about?
Lisa wrote:
"And HEY, while we're at it, let's just keep on sucking down the backwash that ALL MEN are the enemy, because that feeds into this Hegelian divide and conquer strategy, this socially engineered school of thought we've allowed ourselves to be herded into, that most of you don't even know exists, because you only think about entertaining yourselves, about gathering more dollars, about your appearance, about sex, about whatever Lady Gaga wore last night, and whatever your TV tells you to think. Most of you are too distracted: by your iphones, by stupid cell phone games, by the whole concept of the empowered whore, an 'ideal' promoted and encouraged by the fake Feminist movement and by watching these sluts on the idiot box who struggle with their image of 'self' while juggling casual affairs like they're in a circus. Women seriously relate to these bitches? And we have the nerve to get pissed off when men don't respect us? Try wearing some panties. It's a start."
Perhaps you should read this article
[Link]
which will make it clear what Lisa is talking about when she says "empowered whore". The point is that women are not classy the way they used to be. Women are bombarded with images of what a woman should be when in reality it's far from what a classy woman is. I mean Lady Gaga is not really a Lady you know, she just calls herself that and we're supposed to agree? She hardly wears clothes and when she does it can barely be considered clothes. She even covered herself in a "meat dress" do you not see how degrading THAT is to women? Those type of people are who Lisa is calling a "bitch" . And perhaps "bitch" is a colorful word that has sparked so much anger in you, but think about who you're defending here! It's not women, it's Lady Gaga!
And the women's right to vote is a JOKE because the whole election system is a joke! It doesn't matter if you're man or woman, both your votes equally count to nothing! In other words, equal rights for women is an illusion! Just like racism being abolished in America is an illusion. It's still there, it's just evolved into a more underhanded form and not as obvious as having slaves. But if you really think about it both women and men now work for slave wages, (every day of the week for some) and barely get by. How is that for equality?
Lisa's article was written passionately. Yes it's not "traditional writing", but it has heart and it expresses her point quite clearly for most people (though apparently it went way over your head).
And yes it's true that Most groups are "infiltrated", but Sott has one thing most groups don't. Knowledge of Ponerology and I'm sure that at any sign of "infiltration" Laura will pull the plug on the whole thing if she has to rather than have it become something she hates. So it's good to doubt and always be skeptical ; but there is also coming to someone else's house and be completely rude and offensive which you are being. So take it easy, it's about discussing and learning.
Not inflitrated: erring, mislead and misguided. Are you trying to put up theories of conspiracy? Feeling better that way?
One might argue about Lisa´s writing style. Then, it has earned her "bites", hasn´t it? Exemplary you are picking out two aspects: right of free abortion and the right to vote. Lisa named these two to compare these achievements with what had to be invested and now is forgotten and lost. But you do not care for what you have lost. Lisa speaks about values. You only see the [i]currency[/i] that you are being paid with (which includes granting those "important" free rights), but not the values that life is offering you that you have invested, ignored and (probably) lost. Naming prices when others speak about values: THAT is truly sarcastic and arrogant. And dumb.
Condescending much?
Really, the creepy crawlies are coming out with this one.
It isn't conspiracy, just fact. And nothing about women's rights, indigenous rights or peace is misguided.
You are a misogynist trying to sound like an intellectual pining for some sadists golden age when women were happy to be second class citizens.
Lisa's writing style could be classed as "ranting delusional blogger", which, one would hope is not a recurring theme on what WAS a respectable site.
Still, I find this bloody article totally unbelievable! But by all means everybody, keep on with the misogyny! I love revelations and brutal truth! Masks coming unstuck left and right!
I still think this has to be some sort of joke.
Laura is such a smart women whose education and mind far eclipse mine. What on earth does she have to say about this article. I would really be interested.
I think the point Lisa was trying to make is that women THINK they have been liberated, but in fact they have just been enslaved like men.
Whereas before, they were mothers (the importance of which is severely underrated in modern society, IMO), now they are cogs in the psychopathic machine. Oh sure, women can vote, but so what? Votes are rigged. Sure, women can be CEOs of corporations, but guess what? It is exactly those psychopathic corporations that destroy our world every day.
So now, instead of men destroying everything all by themselves while at least children are cared for by their mothers, we have men and women destroying the world together.
It's not that women should stay at home and not vote and be good mothers; it's that women should not believe they have been "liberated" when they have simply taken on the same ponerized roles that were formerly the domain of men only.
In my book, that's not progress. True progress would be for women to realize that they don't have to "play like men" to be equal, but rather that they should band together and come up with completely new and creative solutions. Instead, feminists march around declaring that it's all good and women are so free - when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
In short, feminism is nothing more than another psyop. It may have started out on the right foot, but it was quickly derailed and disfigured into a pale shadow of what it COULD have been.
If I did my research?...
Don't speak arrogantly to me.
My words were not meant to sound naive, it's just a fact. No matter that a group meets in public or in "cyberia". That's kinda known by alot of people.
But oy, do they ever sound naive... and seriously, did you do your research?
I don't speak arrogantly, I only ask. Did you do your research?
You speak of facts....
Avana... It seems this article has perhaps touched on some programs running inside of you... Is there a way for you to step back and look at the article objectively and not emotionally? Perhaps write your own article or addendum dealing with the same subject matter but in a way that you think is more or less objective?
The author is not the first woman to make the points she has made about the feminist movement. Maybe she is the first to make it using such colourful language but that is besides the point. A search on google brings up multiple links from various sources and if one took the time to read them you see many women and men alike are complaining about the same stuff the author is complaining about:
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
Amongst many many more. There is nothing the author has said here that hasn't been said in numerous other places by many women and men.
"second class citizens"
That´s what you say. And this is exactly the kind of brainwashing terminus that is used to make clear neutral thinking impossible. "Misogyny" is another (I actually love women). Obviously you need your thoughts categorized and well chewn (by others, by Laura?) before you use them. As if you needed an intellectual handrail. Unintelligent. Sad.
haha! Are you serious?!
Love them? Sure, totally comes across.
And please, if the subject changed slightly to terminating the rights of someone coz of the colour of their skin, how would you describe yourself then?
I can't take you seriously. Describing me as sad? Unintelligent? Come on brother, your flailing now!
Unfortunately, TPTB have a penchant for "fixing" injustices in society e.g. sexism, homophobia and health&safety , by measures that are also very damaging in other areas. The above is a good example of this. That said, I think that it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater and assume that there were no problems to start with. The fact of the matter is that women were and are treated less favourably than men. It is also true that fear of homophobia still prevents some people from accepting their own sexuality.
So please don't collude with TPTB who would still benefit from our tearing ourselves apart after we have rumbled their scams.
So are we all going to start a movement to eradicate voting rights for men now that voting is such a con?...Or maybe not?...
Oh, and I would really like to hear from Laura simply because she is one of the people that started this site, and am wondering if there is any quality control or if it is a bit of a free for all. This wasn't a random article pulled from some source, it was from sott.
Maybe you didn't like the writing style of the author of this article, maybe it clogged up your thinking by pushing all the wrong emotional buttons.
Read this:
[Link]
The writing style is easier but the points are the same. You can't argue with the logic and facts and figures which are abundant in that article.
Also this to bring home one of the really dark sides:
[Link]
If that is to dark, this is delivered much more easier to digest:
[Link]
After all that, if you still think the feminist movement is a beacon of hope, then I don't know what to say.
Lisa does not speak for all women. Germain Greer does not speak for all women...and on it goes.
The right to education, participation in intellectual life, access to healthcare, a voice in your community and society, getting a job, biological autonomy...etc, these are human rights. You can't sideline one group of people based on personal disgust. Nor can you have such a solipsistic outlook to think YOU are woman, or your experiences are THE experience of being a woman.
What one woman does does not equal what represents all women. Good or bad or inbetween.
Re-read that article, it was totally disgusting. I find misogynistic women unfathomable! I really do.
Society is not controlled by men, or women. We seem to be enduring the rule of psychopathy. No-one is "liberated", but some of us are less liberated than others.
"The right to education, participation in intellectual life, access to healthcare, a voice in your community and society, getting a job, biological autonomy...etc, these are human rights."
That is the psychopath's definition of "human rights".
"Education"... What's the average reading level in the USA? Education? LOL!
"Intellectual life" means you're supposed to talk about a bunch of crap that's unimportant while the world burns, all the while convincing yourself that you're so smart and liberated.
"Access to healthcare" means that we should put our children on mind-numbing substances when they simply act like children, all the while telling ourselves how lucky we are to have Big Pharma poisoning us when there are much better and more effective paths towards good health.
MLK was a true voice in his community, and look what it got him.
Men have all these things, and they are all complete BS. So, the feminists' brilliant solution is to demand the same slavery for women? That does not compute. Frankly, I believe that women really do have the power to change the world for the better. But that won't happen as long as they are chasing after a dream created by psychopaths.
Equality isn't even the point. IOW, we all must stop trying to play the game by the "rules". Of course, it helps to realize that those rules of how we are supposed to think about everything ARE the first problem.
really?
"So are we all going to start a movement to eradicate voting rights for men now that voting is such a con?"
Are you suggesting that Men should have more rights when it comes to voting?
Can you not see that voting IS such a con. And the 'right to vote' has been used many times. It was so graciously afforded to women to make them feel that they may have a say, it was also afforded to the blacks for the same reason. A mere concession. A manipulation. Let us give you something you Think is valuable, what Should be valuable, what Everyone will think is valuable and generous. And while you are excited about the gift you thought you worked so hard to receive, we will roll over in laughter, because we know that Voting is such a Con. Oh and yes that also includes the votes of Men. Actually the votes of Menschen. Of all People regardless of gender or race. Wow, the only thing given to us so freely by our Government that is no longer sexist, or racist. That should give one pause.
Yes my " wise" lan8r, I think a lot of folks know voting is a con. Even here in little old New Zealand, we have the four yearly theater production of pretending we decide.
My comment was merely highlighting the comments that seem to think women voting was somehow a sign of the apocalypse.
The ideals of feminism are human rights. It is very simple.
How can anyone deny that the majority of the human population has been treated as inferior with no voice?
Human rights are not physical things. There is no limit to how many people can be afforded them. Human rights won't run out the more people there are.
The voices of feminists were so very important as they were the first cries of a new conciousness. They were vital and needed. Like with any ideal, people have different ideas, opinions and preferences. Not everything claiming to be feminism is helpful or thoughtful. But how anybody claiming affording women rights is somehow the beginning of the end is just bullshit.
Avana, I accept that human rights is very important. I am not attacking you so please hear my point because I have read and thought about all of yours. My impression is that this topic means alot to you but that can also mean that emotions can come into the picture and block your thinking.
Women WERE NOT considered as persons over a century ago. They had to fight very hard to get to vote, open bank accounts etc etc. It is AMAZING that women can do that now.
BUT modern feminism has gone to far. It has taken the victories won in those early days and pushed the "liberated" women into corners where she is now as "imprisoned" as she ever was.
For example: The hyper-sexualization of women is in part due to modern feminism, the right of the woman to be an "empowered whore" as put forward in the article. That is NOT a good place to be.
This is true, you can't argue against it because it surrounds us everywhere in the modern world.
Feminism has re-branded what it means to be a woman, that WHAT it used to mean to be a woman is seen as inferior. It used to mean, that you took care of your kids, put them first, was the cornerstone of the family, that you had dignity. Now it means, kids are nothing but an obstacle to career realization and the family is a burden that is not worth your time.
Obviously I am excluding men, men need to take there responsibility in the home but it is no lie when I say, the MOTHER is the cornerstone of the home, it doesn't matter if the husband cooks, does the dishes etc etc, the mother has something, a sort of command in the house that the father will never have. Feminism has taken that something and spat over it.
These are just the few things that modern feminism has done. Not to take away from the original victories, but don't you agree that it is possible that the movement has now been co opted??
Luke, my sister is a stay at home mother to two tiny perfect boys. Her fiance works overseas for weeks/months at a time. She is a great mum, and even though myself, I have no desire for her life, I am happy if she is happy. Now, if she chooses that, great. The point is that a woman must have options, just like a man. Some women wanna be mums, some don't. Motherhood is not innate to some women. We are not all the same. I can't agree with you about the mother being some mythic type cornerstone...Women are people first, not roles or what people expect of them. I don't devalue any woman for deciding to be a stay at home mother as I think it is SUPER hard. I looked after my nephew for the first time in my life a couple of months ago and it was bloody stress! And he's an angel :) When my ceiling caught fire a few weeks ago, having to put that out on my own was LESS stressful than being responsible for a kid! haha
Hypersexualisation of women is driven by capitalism. People make money off it. I think it's crazy to have an ad for shampoo that looks like soft core porn! Ridiculous. But if we pervert normal sexuality, it will make itself known more perversely. Like we pushed Aphrodite off the pantheon and now this extroverted gal is acting all sorts of inappropriate! If I walk down the street and see some gratuitous billboard of a near naked woman trying to sell me tyres, I don't think, wow, women can do anything! How great a giant naked female! Go woman! I think how that company is tacky, has no respect for this street and is forcing their objectifying attitude down my throat. A naked woman isn't offensive, very beautiful in fact! It's the exhibitionism that is inappropriate. It's about acting right in public, as a grandma would say!
Perhaps this empowered whore archetype is, for some women, a way to reclaim and express their sexuality. If they have consensual partners, I have no problem with it. Everybody has different attitudes and needs, and some are more extraverted , some more muted.
I am not a capitalist so I definatley don't support prostitution as healthy. I support the decriminalisation of it as so many disenfranchised women resort to it out of desperation or addiction. Sex workers need support from a community because they are vulnerable to all sorts of abuse. We can't support the creation of a outcast group of people with apathy for their situation or disgust based on our personal preferences. That isn't ethical
Like I said in a comment earlier, ALL human rights movements have been co-opted. But I love the word feminism because it is so polarising! I love people coming out of their dark closets and lifting their masks! Truth is super! Sometimes uncomfortable, but always necessary.
I have never in my life commented on sott, but this article was appalling!! I was completely disheartened to read it on a site I have really come to appreciate. It was on here that I discovered psychopathy. I grew up with it. I finally had words for what I endured. Truth! Talk about the antidote to the poison! Brilliant. And this lead me to books that were like maps out of hell!. So misogyny being one of the hallmarks of psychopathy, that irrational and vicious evil, I was shocked to see such crap written here.
I see your points. I think the disagreement you have with the article is based on your worldview. My personal view is that yes, both men and women are people first but we are also locked into our biological bodies. Be it male or female and that means the rush of chemicals we get make us different from each other. The roles we play follow from that.
For example, you are in a house at night with your husband: You hear a bang coming from downstairs. Who takes the lead to go check it out?? Generally it is the man. I think the reason is because of how we were wired by nature.
This video illustrates this: [Link]Notice the men react first in such a situation. Now similarly, in my view, there are things women are better at and more naturally prone to than men. So for me the main point about modern feminism that woman and man are exact equals is misleading, or that a woman can be everything a man is and do everything a man can do is misleading and in some cases impossible. We are equal but we are also different and how we act should take into account those differences.
I think you are just super-liberal in this issue. As far as I can tell, you think that women can/should do whatever and so whatever they do is ok and thus feminism is always ok by you. It doesn't matter if it pushes women to sell there bodies(they got them to vote after all), that is just fine because it is coming from feminism, it doesn't matter if thanks to feminism women are pushed to devalue there kids(did I mention they got them to vote?), as long as it is a choice THEY are making then fine etc. But the thing is that it is not a choice THEY are making(but how many times can I say they got them to vote), they are being vectored into making that choice by a movement. Maybe that is ok aswell, because we are always being vectored, either by ideology, biology or whatever.
In short, I think its good you shared your views and for me I got to see that people can have different views and none is more right or wrong than the other and so disagreements can ensue indefinitely. However, I do think you side-stepped the issue of hyper-sexualization and sold out by simply saying capitalism is 100% responsible...
Ok to be fair you didn't say capitalism is 100% responsible... You said capitalism drives it... You just didn't want to talk about the role feminism plays in that arena. That is what I meant by sidestepping.
Apologies.
I don't live in America. I am from New Zealand.
Healthcare means more than anything to do with "Big Pharma" does it not?
Education is not just going to public school...come on, surely you understood what I meant.
"Like I said in a comment earlier, ALL human rights movements have been co-opted. But I love the word feminism because it is so polarising! I love people coming out of their dark closets and lifting their masks! Truth is super! Sometimes uncomfortable, but always necessary."
Here's some truth: You sound like a blushing fake.
What is a "blushing fake" exactly?
the article is not blaming the feminism movement for the ills of the world but rather is attempting to point out how this movement like all others have been ponerized in order to make a buck in addition to exerting control over the thoughts and subsequent actions of others.
While I think it was great that so many women joined the fight in an effort to make the voices of women heard, unfortunately based on some (not the whole) of the results, it does seem that the movement itself has been derailed. This does not mean that no one is grateful for those who took a stand but rather that something needs to change. This can only be done in the minds of the individual.
While I have always felt strongly about women in general being able to be who they are, I've hesitated using the word feminist. I also wouldn't classify myself as being with the civil rights movement though I also feel strongly about the rights of "minorities".
Both those movements (and others) ended up very differently from the original intent because they were co-opted and used as a means to further separate people and has made it increasingly difficult for an open dialogue to be had that could possibly foster a greater understanding for all parties.
This is a difficult conversation - so many women have felt blamed as well as men - and when one feels blamed and unappreciated, defenses go up and signal easily becomes perceived as noise. I think it's also very difficult for those who have invested themselves for so long to feel that once again, the work they've been doing is thankless. This is definitely not the case.
It's hard for anyone to accept that they've been had, been robbed, been lied to when they've invested so much of themselves into trying to do what's right yet the truth must be told. Something is very wrong. To be clear, this is not the fault of women or men in general, but psychopaths specifically who come in every gender, race, creed and religion. It's time to stop the blame and licking of wounds and face the enemy and name it.
When we see sexism on either side, call it out. When we see racism, call it out. The same goes for homophobia, religious persecution, etc. For those who are fortunate enough to have people in their lives who are willing to hold them accountable, listen. And then get angry. Not at the person across from you but where the true blame lies - at those who would have us continue fighting each other while they do evil. That's the truth of the matter. Anything else is meaningless distraction.
In my opinion, it's this evil that the author is attempting to point out. It's time for us to start seeing the forest from the trees.
As truthseeker has pointed out:
"the article is not blaming the feminism movement for the ills of the world but rather is attempting to point out how this movement like all others has been ponerized have been in order to make a buck in addition to exerting control over the thoughts and subsequent actions of others."
You might want to take a moment, calm down, and re-read the article with that in mind. In any case, the inferences you are drawing from the article are not there. They were not intended by the author.
Amen Lisa! anart + lan8r .... you need some fresh air period and bring your friends along period
Lindee-lou,
I am not sure I understand your comment, but it seems like you are trying to take a personal stab at two people you believe to be gay. It sounds very homophobic. Of course, I could be wrong. But, why do you think Anart and I would need some fresh air period with our friends along period? Although I do enjoy Picnics. I don't get it?
@ lan8r... Great article but the comments are getting really odd... Firstly, I think your making connections that I would have never dreamed were there.( the title of the post was "Lots of flames" which I would assume to be in reference to the self apparent mini flame war going on here, which i don't really think is a flame war, but an impassioned difference of opinion ) Secondly if your open minded - what would be wrong with a suggestion of you being a homosexual - you seem sensitive on this ?
Dizzy - My apologies, I should have been more clear myself. I read it several times cuz I just didn't get it. "Lots of Flames" - a reference to the derogatory phrase 'flaming homosexuals'? It was addressed to Anart and Myself, who both posted similar interpretations of the "We don't NEED to date men, we can date ourselves..." sentence from the article. and 'take your friends along'?
I ask only for the sake of clarity. I actually laughed, could she really be saying that? I simply want to understand what she was trying to tell me.
I'm way late to the party, but for the record, I think "Lots of flames" is a reference to "flame wars" that can happen in chat rooms, forums, comment sections, etc. If not familiar with the term, you can read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29
[Link]
It seemed to me like she was meaning that anart and lan8r were getting overly emotional, thus the "fresh air" comment. But maybe I'm wrong. It is sort of strangely written.
For me we are not all the same.
For example every single car out there is essentially the same. All cars.
But you can't take a ferrari and drive it at 100mph on a bumpy dirt road shouting "it's ok because its the same as all other cars". Or likewise, I can't take a Humvee stick it on tarmac against a ferrari and expect it to out-pace the ferrari. BS.
We are not the same. We have differences.
Couldn't have said it better. I am definately going to share this article.
Last Mon I was fired from my job for, essentially, being "too sick"--I'm dealing with chronic anxiety & depression, a number of weird muscular/orthopedic things, and post-herpetic neuralgia (basically, intolerable pain that many people get after contracting shingles). They're playing CYA over the legalities, although if I got the right lawyer I could end up owning their asses. But what did I do instead? Cry. I'm an introvert and "highly sensitive." I have a wife and two kids to support. I called my shrink, who got me in on Weds and cranked my Valium WAY the fuck up. Like, Valley of the Dolls levels. I was still a wreck, slowly recovering, desperately trying to find a job w/ benefits before our health ins. runs out.
What should I have done when my a-hole boss snatched my laptop told my hands and said, "This isn't working out; it's your last day," after three years of me killing myself for them, never missing a deadline, never having a complaint of the quality of my work? I should've kicked him in the balls. Instead I ran away crying *because they knew that's what I'd do.* I ran away and started swimming in Valium just so I could get out of bed w/o sobbing uncontrollably. Fortunately, Valium's cheap; the other meds I take to compensate for not being a heartless Type A personality are not so cheap.
In the meantime, the *best* job I currently have a shot at involves a $12k annual paycut. Who's pocketing that? If my wife and I decide that we can afford COBRA, at least for a few months, who'll pocket that? Who's lining their pockets while I fight panic attacks and sobbing fits in front of my small boys, who are learning FAR too early that Life Sucks, Work Sucks, and everyone's out to suck you dry?
Jared Diamond was right. We need to overthrow economics, overthrow agriculture, overthrow the Bossman/Chief/King/President/CEO, overthrow the pocketers. The "market" is more of a myth than Zeus ever was; we need to stop worshiping that false god and either stop worshiping altogether or start worshiping one another's sanctitude and dignity. Do I blame this all on tens of thousands of years of patriarchy? Well, pretty much, yeah, but I don't know that a pure matriarchy would've been much better. At any rate, this is beyond feminism--it's humanism. It's time for us to transcend our great-ape roots and adopt some of the adaptive mechanisms of our simian and other animal cousins.
... so many questions :-)
1. keep focused
2. never judge a book by its cover
3. the four agreements is a good read
4. fresh air is healthy...
Finally! You guys get round to this topic...
Feminist movement as we know it is probably one of the biggest deception going. Essentially anti-feminine at its core.
The funny thing about it aswell is you can't argue against it because then you have to define what it is to be a female(if they don't chew your head off first), a healthy female and the feminists are anti-that and are re-defining what feminism is really meant to be(in there twisted worldview). It's all twisted and screwed, everything is twisted and screwed!
I hope this subject is explored more.