Betty Friedan, Who Ignited Cause in 'Feminine Mystique,' Dies at 85

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/02/05/national/05friedan2_184.jpg

By MARGALIT FOX

Published: February 5, 2006

Betty Friedan, the feminist crusader and author whose searing first book, "The Feminine Mystique," ignited the contemporary women's movement in 1963 and as a result permanently transformed the social fabric of the United States and countries around the world, died yesterday, her 85th birthday, at her home in Washington.

The cause was congestive heart failure, said Emily Bazelon, a family spokeswoman.

With its impassioned yet clear-eyed analysis of the issues that affected women's lives in the decades after World War II — including enforced domesticity, limited career prospects and, as chronicled in later editions, the campaign for legalized abortion — "The Feminine Mystique" is widely regarded as one of the most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century. Published by W. W. Norton & Company, the book had sold more than three million copies by the year 2000 and has been translated into many languages.

"The Feminine Mystique" made Ms. Friedan world famous. It also made her one of the chief architects of the women's liberation movement of the late 1960's and afterward, a sweeping social upheaval that harked back to the suffrage campaigns of the turn of the century and would be called feminism's second wave.

In 1966, Ms. Friedan helped found the National Organization for Women, serving as its first president. In 1969, she was a founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as Naral Pro-Choice America. With Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and others, she founded the National Women's Political Caucus in 1971.

Though in later years, some feminists dismissed Ms. Friedan's work as outmoded, a great many aspects of modern life that seem routine today — from unisex Help Wanted ads to women in politics, medicine, the clergy and the military — are the direct result of the hard-won advances she helped women attain.

For decades a familiar presence on television and the lecture circuit, Ms. Friedan, with her short stature and deeply hooded eyes, looked for much of her adult life like a "combination of Hermione Gingold and Bette Davis," as Judy Klemesrud wrote in The New York Times Magazine in 1970.

A brilliant student who graduated summa cum laude from Smith College in 1942, Ms. Friedan trained as a psychologist but never pursued a career in the field. When she wrote "The Feminine Mystique," she was a suburban housewife and mother who supplemented her husband's income by writing freelance articles for women's magazines.

Though Ms. Friedan was not generally considered a lyrical stylist, "The Feminine Mystique," read today, is as mesmerizing as it was more than four decades ago:

"Gradually, without seeing it clearly for quite a while, I came to realize that something is very wrong with the way American women are trying to live their lives today," Ms. Friedan wrote in the opening line of the preface. "I sensed it first as a question mark in my own life, as a wife and mother of three small children, half-guiltily, and therefore half-heartedly, almost in spite of myself, using my abilities and education in work that took me away from home." [Excerpt From 'The Feminine Mystique']

The words have the hypnotic pull of a fairy tale, and for the next 400 pages, Ms. Friedan identifies, dissects and damningly indicts one of the most pervasive folk beliefs of postwar American life: the myth of suburban women's domestic fulfillment she came to call the feminine mystique.

Drawing on history, psychology, sociology and economics, as well as on interviews she conducted with women across the country, Ms. Friedan charted a gradual metamorphosis of the American woman from the independent, career-minded New Woman of the 1920's and 30's into the vacant, aproned housewife of the postwar years.

The portrait she painted was chilling. For a typical woman of the 1950's, even a college-educated one, life centered almost exclusively on chores and children. She cooked and baked and bandaged and chauffeured and laundered and sewed. She did the mopping and the marketing and took her husband's gray flannel suit to the cleaners. She was happy to keep his dinner warm till he came wearily home from downtown.

The life she led, if educators, psychologists and the mass media were to be believed, was the fulfillment of every women's most ardent dream. Yet she was unaccountably tired, impatient with the children, craving something that neither marital sex nor extramarital affairs could satisfy. Her thoughts sometimes turned to suicide. She consulted a spate of doctors and psychiatrists, who prescribed charity work, bowling and bridge. If those failed, there were always tranquilizers to get her through her busy day.

A Nebraska housewife with a Ph.D. in anthropology whom Ms. Friedan interviewed told her:

"A film made of any typical morning in my house would look like an old Marx Brothers comedy. I wash the dishes, rush the older children off to school, dash out in the yard to cultivate the chrysanthemums, run back in to make a phone call about a committee meeting, help the youngest child build a blockhouse, spend fifteen minutes skimming the newspapers so I can be well-informed, then scamper down to the washing machines where my thrice-weekly laundry includes enough clothes to keep a primitive village going for an entire year. By noon I'm ready for a padded cell. Very little of what I've done has been really necessary or important. Outside pressures lash me though the day. Yet I look upon myself as one of the more relaxed housewives in the neighborhood."

"The Feminine Mystique" began as a survey Ms. Friedan conducted in 1957 for the 15th reunion of her graduating class at Smith. It was intended to refute a prevailing postwar myth: that higher education kept women from adapting to their roles as wives and mothers. Judging from her own capable life, Ms. Friedan expected her classmates to describe theirs as similarly well adjusted. But what she discovered in the women's responses was something far more complex, and more troubling — a "nameless, aching dissatisfaction" that she would famously call "the problem that has no name."

When Ms. Friedan sent the same questionnaire to graduates of Radcliffe and other colleges, and later interviewed scores of women personally, the results were the same. The women's answers gave her the seeds of her book. They also forced her to confront the painful limitations of her own suburban idyll.

Bettye Naomi Goldstein was born on Feb. 4, 1921, in Peoria, Ill. Her father, Harry, was an immigrant from Russia who parlayed a street-corner collar-button business into a prosperous downtown jewelry store. Her gifted, imperious mother, Miriam, had been the editor of the women's page of the local newspaper before giving up her job for marriage and children. Only years later, when she was writing "The Feminine Mystique," did Ms. Friedan come to see her mother's cold, critical demeanor as masking a deep bitterness at giving up the work she loved.

Growing up brainy, Jewish, outspoken and, by the standards of the time, unlovely, Bettye was ostracized. She was barred from the fashionable sororities at her Peoria high school and rarely asked on dates. It was an experience, she would later say, that made her identify with people on the margins of society.

At Smith, she blossomed. For the first time, she could be as smart as she wanted, as impassioned as she wanted and as loud as she wanted, and for four happy years she was all those things. Betty received her bachelor's degree in 1942 — by that time she had dropped the final "e," which she considered an affectation of her mother's — and accepted a fellowship to the University of California, Berkeley, for graduate work in psychology.

At Berkeley, she studied with the renowned psychologist Erik Erikson, among others. She won a second fellowship, even more prestigious than the first, that would allow her to continue for a doctorate. But she was dating a young physicist who felt threatened by her success. He pressured her to turn down the fellowship, and she did, an experience she would later recount frequently in interviews. She also turned down the physicist, returning home to Peoria before moving to Greenwich Village in New York.

There, Ms. Friedan worked as an editor at The Federated Press, a small news service that provided stories to labor newspapers nationwide. In 1946, she took a job as a reporter with U. E. News, the weekly publication of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America.

In 1947, she married Carl Friedan, a theater director who later became an advertising executive. They started a family and moved to a rambling Victorian house in suburban Rockland County, N.Y.

Ms. Friedan, whose marriage would end in divorce in 1969, is survived by their three children, Daniel Friedan of Princeton, N.J.; Emily Friedan of Buffalo; and Jonathan Friedan of Philadelphia; a brother, Harry Goldstein, of Palm Springs, Calif., and Purchase, N.Y.; a sister, Amy Adams, of Chapel Hill, N.C., and nine grandchildren.

"The Feminine Mystique" had the misfortune to appear during a newspaper printers' strike. The reviews that appeared afterward ran the gamut from bewildered to outraged to cautiously laudatory. Some critics also felt that Ms. Friedan had insufficiently acknowledged her debt to Simone de Beauvoir, whose 1949 book, "The Second Sex," dealt with many of the same issues.

Writing in The New York Times Book Review in April 1963, Lucy Freeman called "The Feminine Mystique" a "highly readable, provocative book," but went on to question its basic premise, writing, of Ms. Friedan:

"Sweeping generalities, in which this book necessarily abounds, may hold a certain amount of truth but often obscure the deeper issues. It is superficial to blame the 'culture' and its handmaidens, the women's magazines, as she does. What is to stop a woman who is interested in national and international affairs from reading magazines that deal with those subjects? To paraphrase a famous line, 'The fault, dear Mrs. Friedan, is not in our culture, but in ourselves.' "

Among readers, however, the response to the book was so overwhelming that Ms. Friedan realized she needed more than words to address the condition of women's lives. After moving back to Manhattan with her family, she determined to start a progressive organization that would be the equivalent, as she often said, of an N.A.A.C.P. for women.

In 1966, Ms. Friedan and a group of colleagues founded the National Organization for Women. She was its president until 1970.

One of NOW's most visible public actions was the Women's Strike for Equality, held on Aug. 26, 1970, in New York and in cities around the country. In New York, tens of thousands of woman marched down Fifth Avenue, with Ms. Friedan in the lead. (Before the march, she made a point of lunching at Whyte's, a downtown restaurant formerly open to men only.)

Carrying signs and banners ("Don't Cook Dinner — Starve a Rat Tonight!" "Don't Iron While the Strike Is Hot"), women of all ages, along with a number of sympathetic men, marched joyfully down the street to cheering crowds. The march ended with a rally in Bryant Park, behind the New York Public Library, with passionate speeches by Ms. Friedan, Ms. Steinem, Ms. Abzug and Kate Millett.

Not all of Ms. Friedan's ventures were as successful. The First Women's Bank and Trust Company, which she helped found in 1973, is no longer in business. Nor were even her indomitable presence and relentless energy enough to secure passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Though widely respected as a modern-day heroine, Ms. Friedan was by no means universally beloved, even — or perhaps especially — by members of the women's movement. She was famously abrasive. She could be thin-skinned and imperious, subject to screaming fits of temperament.

In the 1970's and afterward, some feminists criticized Ms. Friedan for focusing almost exclusively on the concerns of middle-class married white women and ignoring those of minorities, lesbians and the poor. Some called her retrograde for insisting that women could, and should, live in collaborative partnership with men.

Ms. Friedan's private life was also famously stormy. In her recent memoir, "Life So Far" (Simon & Schuster, 2000), she accused her husband of being physically abusive during their marriage, writing that he sometimes gave her black eyes, which she concealed with make-up at public events and on television.

Mr. Friedan, who died in December, repeatedly denied the accusations. In an interview with Time magazine in 2000, shortly after the memoir's publication, he called Ms. Friedan's account a "complete fabrication." He added: "I am the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting by a reckless driver savagely aiming at the whole male gender."

Ms. Friedan's other books include "It Changed My Life: Writings on the Women's Movement" (Random House, 1976); "The Second Stage" (Summit, 1981); and "The Fountain of Age" (Simon & Schuster, 1993).

The recipient of many awards and honorary degrees, she was a visiting professor at universities around the country, among them Columbia, Temple and the University of Southern California. In recent years, Ms. Friedan was associated with the Institute for Women and Work at Cornell University.

Despite all of her later achievements, Ms. Friedan would be forever known as the suburban housewife who started a revolution with "The Feminine Mystique." Rarely has a single book been responsible for such sweeping, tumultuous and continuing social transformation.

The new society Ms. Friedan proposed, founded on the notion that men and women were created equal, represented such a drastic upending of the prevailing social norms that over the years to come, she would be forced to explain her position again and again.

"Some people think I'm saying, 'Women of the world unite — you have nothing to lose but your men,' " she told Life magazine in 1963. "It's not true. You have nothing to lose but your vacuum cleaners."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05friedan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Leo Kanowitz, 81; wrote first book about gender discrimination in law

By Valerie J. Nelson
August 23, 2007

Leo Kanowitz, a law professor who wrote the first book that examined legal discrimination against women and that influenced law schools across the country to establish it as a field of study, has died. He was 81.

Kanowitz, a longtime professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, died Saturday from complications of diabetes and heart failure at his Berkeley home, said his wife, Elizabeth.

“What Leo did that was so distinctive was lay the intellectual foundation for being able to look at these issues, not just as women’s rights issues but as human rights and civil rights issues,” said Herma Hill Kay, a UC Berkeley law professor.

In his landmark 1969 book, “Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution,” Kanowitz helped shape the dialogue about sex discrimination issues at colleges and in Congress at a time when there were few female law professors to take up the cause.

One measure of his success: Once there were enough qualified female law professors to teach the subject, it became politically incorrect for him to do so at the college, said Marsha Cohen, a Hastings law professor.

In 1970, The Times referred to “Women and the Law” as “the most important work in the field.”

The book documented “massive evidence of sex-based legal inequality,” the Journal of Marriage and the Family reported in 1971. It outlined the differential treatment of men and women in areas as diverse as marriageable age, minimum-wage laws, married names, alimony support and property rights.

The book also helped proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment bolster their arguments at Congressional hearings. In 1970, Kanowitz testified in favor of the ERA, arguing that “it is necessary for all branches of government to demonstrate an unshakable intention to eliminate every last vestige of sex-based discrimination in American law.”

Another of Kanowitz’s 10 books – “Equal Rights: The Male Stake” (1981) – argued that abolishing sex discrimination required eliminating all gender-based legal distinctions, including those that favored women.

“That was also influential and helped propel the argument even further,” said Kay, who co-wrote an early casebook on sex-based discrimination.

The fourth and last child of Jewish immigrant parents, Kanowitz was born in 1926 in Brooklyn, N.Y., to Morris and Jennie Kanowitz. His father was a garment worker.

In high school, Kanowitz would skip class to attend the opera. After graduating at age 15, he earned a bachelor’s degree in comparative literature from City College of New York in 1947. He joined the Army at 18, but World War II ended before he could be sent overseas.

Kanowitz studied comparative literature at the Sorbonne in Paris, and after returning to New York, he hitchhiked with a friend to Los Angeles. He later moved to the San Francisco Bay Area and worked as a longshoreman at a Heinz tomato-processing plant, becoming a labor organizer in the 1950s.

Back problems pushed him to ponder another career. He went to law school at UC Berkeley, graduating in 1960, and furthered his legal studies at the University of Aix-Marseilles in France and Columbia University in New York.

Disliking private practice, he became a law professor at St. Louis University and the University of New Mexico. He taught at Hastings from 1973 to 1991, specializing in labor and contract law in addition to women’s legal rights.

In retirement, he stayed active as an arbitrator, working into his late 70s.

“He was a highly principled person, and he was never afraid to stand up for things he thought were incorrect,” said Joseph Grodin, a Hastings colleague and former California Supreme Court justice.

When Kanowitz stood firm against attempts to establish racial quotas at Hastings in the 1970s, protesters chanted “can, can, Kanowitz,” Grodin recalled.

At 58, Kanowitz began teaching himself Japanese so he could translate a hefty Japanese labor law book into English. He was already fluent in French, German and Yiddish.

“He was a fascinating, curious person who was interested in everything,” Grodin said. “He just had an insatiable, voracious appetite for ideas.”

In addition to Elizabeth, his wife of nearly 60 years, Kanowitz is survived by daughters Toni Gardner of Walnut Creek, Calif., and Carrie Niederer of Sonoma, Calif., three grandsons and two great-grandsons.

Instead of flowers, the family requests donations be sent to the American Diabetes Assn., www.diabetes.org, or Sutter VNA and Hospice, 1900 Powell St., Suite 300, Emeryville, CA 94608.

–

valerie.nelson@latimes.com

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/23/local/me-kanowitz23

"Betty Friedan, Feminism, and Jewish Identity"

excerpted from
Joyce Antler
The Journey Home: How Jewish Women Shaped Modern America
New York: Shocken, 1998

On August 26, 1970, on the fiftieth anniversary of the passage of the vote for women, 50,000 women marched down Fifth Avenue to demand equal rights and a political voice of their own. This Women's Strike for Equality, the first nationwide women's action since the suffrage victory, had been organized by Betty Friedan, the writer whose expose of the so-called "feminine mystique" sparked a new wave of feminist activism. The size of the march considerably altered depictions of the resurging women's rights movement. No longer could the media portray the movement as a fringe action, for it was clear that it attracted a large and significantly mainstream following.[1]

At the defining moment of the march, as Friedan came forward to address a vast, cheering throng in Bryant Park behind New York's Public Library, she found herself speaking—and revising—the ancient Hebrew prayer which Orthodox Jewish men recited every morning. "Down through the generations in history," Friedan declared, "my ancestor prayed, "I thank Thee, Lord, I was not created a woman. From this day forward women all over the world will be able to say, "I thank Thee, Lord, I was created a woman."[2]

Unable to remember ever having heard the prayer before, Friedan was startled by her own words. But the joining together of her feminism to her Jewishness at this historic moment was not as strange as it seemed. Friedan confessed to having always had "very strong feelings" about her Jewish identity; it is not unlikely that this Orthodox prayer, emblematic of gender differences in Jewish religious roles, now emerged from the recesses of Friedan's memory. For Friedan, it had become necessary to confront "the anti-woman aspects of the Jewish tradition in order to accept both feminism and Judaism." She had the sense that "having broken through the feminine mystique to affirm my authentic full identity as a person, as a woman, brought me to confront my Jewish identity."[3] Because feminism insisted on making the personal political, her exploration would inevitably become a public one, as her oratory in Bryant Park signalled.....

In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan explodes the myth of domestic contentment, which she argued had infantilized women, "burying them alive" in their suburban homes as if in a "concentration camp." Like the victims of the Holocaust, she suggests that they, too, had undergone "progressive dehumanization" and could not fight back.[4] Friedan's appropriation of Holocaust imagery did not attract much attention or criticism, nor did Friedan seem especially troubled that she had broken an unstated taboo by contrasting ordinary, albeit disturbing, social ills to the moral enormities of the Jewish catastrophe.

Friedan used the language of the Holocaust not merely as a metaphor, or as a tactic to shock readers, but because of the link she had already made between the oppression of women and that of Jews. Her family history provides evidence that these repressions had long been joined in her own experience.

Born Bettye Goldstein in Peoria in 1921, she was the oldest of the three children of Harry Goldstein, then 40, and his wife, Miriam Horwitz Goldstein, 18 years younger; a sister came a year and a half later, and a brother five years later. Harry Goldstein had immigrated with his family from a village near Kiev when he was still a boy; leaving the rest of the family in St. Louis, where they settled, at age 13 Harry went on to Peoria, peddling collar buttons on street corners. Eventually he owned the finest jewelry store in the community—the "Tiffany's of the Midwest" according to Betty—and put his youngest brother through Harvard Law School.[5] Goldstein became a leader of Peoria's business elite and a prominent member of its Jewish community.

No matter this success, to his wife, Goldstein was a failure because he could not provide either social acceptability, or especially during the Depression, sufficient material comforts. Friedan believes that her mother's scorn for her father sprang not only from these alleged deficiencies but from Miriam's dissatisfaction with her own role as housewife and mother.

Miriam Horwitz Goldstein was the only daughter of a prominent Illinois physician and his wife. The family delighted in the apocryphal story that as an immigrant from Hungary, Miriam's father had gone through high school and college in one year; he graduated in the first class of Washington University Medical School and eventually become health commissioner of the state. Despite her father's status, Miriam grew up "fairly isolated as a Jew," resentful of the community's snubs. After attending the local college, she became women's page editor of the Peoria newspaper, a job she loved. But, as was customary at the time, Miriam gave up her work when she married. She never recovered from that loss. Thereafter, "nothing my father did, nothing he bought her, nothing we did ever seemed to satisfy her," Betty notes.[6] "Beautiful, self-possessed, poised," Miriam nonetheless lacked fulfillment, and lived vicariously through her children, especially the bright and able Betty.[7] "She could hardly wait until I got into junior high," Friedan notes, "to put the idea into my head to try out for the school newspaper, to start a literary magazine in high school. She could hardly wait for me to go to the college she had no chance to go to, to edit the newspaper there."[8]

While her father also encouraged her, it was Miriam who "lavished all the 'oldest son' treatment" on Friedan, no doubt regarding her daughter's accomplishments as justification for the career she had relinquished.[9] Her mother's unhappiness caused her not only to live through her children, but to snipe at her husband. "It was obvious she belittled, cut down my father because she had no place to channel her terrific energies," Betty recalled.[10] She hated "waking up in the middle of the night to hear them arguing," mainly about money. It was the Depression, and her mother was "insatiably greedy and dissatisfied about material things. She was always [spending] her allowance, building up huge charge accounts, trying to get out of the hole by gambling and then losing and having to admit all to my father, who had a terrible temper." In revenge, Harry Goldstein entered into "a sort of complicity" with Friedan about Miriam, always wanting to talk about her faults, which made Friedan uncomfortable and evasive.[11]
Friedan blamed Miriam for "dominating the family," for being "hypocritical" and selfish.[12] "Discontented, running the Sunday School one year, Hadassah the next, the Community Chest, talking about 'writing,' though she wouldn't or didn't do it, taking up ... fads," Miriam was a terrible role model. "When I still used to say prayers, even as a child, after the 'now I lay me down to sleep' and the Schema Yisrael—I would pray for a "boy to like me best' and a 'work of my own to do' when I grew up. I did not want to be discontented like my mother was...."[13] Years later, when asked what had motivated her to write The Feminine Mystique, Friedan responded that "a combination of circumstances" in her own life, along with the "massive crisis of identity already brewing in my mother's generation," had done so. The first specific cause she names is her "mother, and her discontent, which I never understood."[14]

Friedan was not unaware of the specifically Jewish dimension to her mother's discontent. Despite Harry Goldstein's prominence in Peoria, the Goldsteins had not been accepted socially. People who associated with her father in business would not associate with him elsewhere; the family was not allowed into the Peoria country club, where all the children's friends belonged.[15] This discrimination hit her mother hardest. But Miriam blamed her husband rather than the community for the isolation and ostracism the family experienced, faulting Harry Goldstein's immigrant background, accent, lack of education. Recalling these years, Betty acknowledged that her mother had in fact become an "anti-Semitic Jew" like many Jews in smaller cities who distanced themselves as far as possible from other Jews and Judaism. These were "people who changed their names and did something to their noses, tried not to talk with their hands ... and denied the very richness, the warmth, the specialness, the good taste of their own background as Jews."[16] Although Friedan told herself that her family "was somehow better, finer, more sensitive, smarter" than their neighbors, she, too, could not avoid internalizing some part of Peoria's anti-Semitic prejudices. She grew up feeling "marginal," with "the sense of being an outsider, apart, special, not like the others." Though she attended Sunday School and enjoyed family seders, she quickly became disconnected with the religious elements of Judaism. A month before her confirmation, she announced to her rabbi that she no longer believed in God. The rabbi told her to keep it to herself until the ceremony was over. "Actress that I am," Friedan recalled years later, "I gave the flower offering, raising my eyes to the heavens."[17]

It was about this time that the first "real trauma" of her life erupted. "The other girls all got into high school sororities, and I didn't, and they 'dropped me.' They made me feel like I was a leper." Throughout her teenage years she was isolated and "terribly lonely." Friedan blamed this rejection partly on her shyness and perceived unattractiveness, but mostly on "being Jewish"—on not being "one of 'them'."[18] The painful experiences of her youth strengthened her social conscience. "Ever since I was a little girl," Friedan muses, "I remember my father telling me that I had a passion for justice. But I think it was really a passion against injustice which originated from my feelings of the injustice of anti-Semitism."[19]

When Friedan was 17, she had vowed to herself that "if they don't like me at least they're going to have to respect me...."[20] She made good on that vow at Smith College, becoming editor of the newspaper, starting a literary magazine, and graduating summa cum laude. Yet even at Smith Friedan encountered anti-Semitism and the phenomenon of the anti-Semitic Jew. In her freshman year, just before the outbreak of World War II, she lived in a house with four wealthy Jewish girls from Cincinnati; when the president of the college initiated a petition urging President Roosevelt to relax the immigration quotas for refugees from Nazism, offering to admit college-aged girls among them to Smith, many of Friedan's housemates argued against the proposal. But Friedan was most shocked by the fact that the four Cincinnati girls refused to sign the petition—"they were the type that spoke in whispery voices ... because they did not want to be known as Jews."

In a short story she later wrote entitled "The Scapegoat," Friedan dramatized the plight of "Shirley," not, as Wouk portrayed her in Marjorie Morningstar, a sexual tease who matures into a bourgeois housewife, but an all-too-Jewish college girl who has a nervous breakdown when she is scorned by fellow Jews who curry favor with their Gentile housemates. Friedan's professor commented that although the theme was somewhat familiar, the "factor of race prejudice, and the less usual device of having it written by a Jewish girl," were "probably to the good."[21] Upon graduating, Friedan came home to speak at Peoria's Reform Synagogue on "Affirming One's Jewishness"—turning anti-Semitism "against oneself instead of affirming one's identity." The talk was "strong meat" for the community but one which helped her come to terms which the anti-Semitism which she believed had been the "dominant menace" of her childhood.[22]

While she continued to associate Peoria with anti-Semitism, by the time Friedan left college—where she had dazzled friends and teachers with her brilliance and experienced a virtual transformation of personality, her awkward shyness disappearing—Friedan had ceased to imagine that her Jewishness was a detriment to achievement. Nonetheless, the experience of childhood "marginality" could not be erased: periodically even at Smith she could feel "awkward," painfully isolated, and ugly. A lifelong battle with asthma began; the condition was so severe that in her sophomore year she burst one lung. Beneath the surface of her image as "big woman on campus" lay unadorned "panic."[23]

When Friedan left Smith, she dropped the "e" from her first name, perhaps signalling that she was no longer the girl from Peoria.[24] Yet at the University of California at Berkeley, where she began postgraduate work in psychology in 1942, her panic grew worse. The top student in her research group, Friedan discovered that her brilliance frightened away potential suitors. Blaming her achievements for "keeping [her] from love," she quit her studies and moved to Greenwich village to take up newspaper work. When, after a while, she found herself having affairs with "various maimed men" and suffering from terrible writing blocks, she began psychoanalysis. The treatment did not touch upon issues regarding Friedan's gender or ethnic identity, but it did allow her to vent "hatred of [her] mother."

In 1947, Betty married Carl Friedan, a returning G.I. interested in theater. For a while, she was extraordinarily happy. In fact, however, she had begun to repeat her mother's pattern, looking down upon a husband who was less educated than she and retreating from her own work. As Friedan recalled, " 'Career woman' in the fifties became a pejorative, denoting a ball-busting man-eating harpy, a miserable neurotic witch from whom man and child should flee for very life."[25] There would be three children, three suburban homes, and part-time work as a journalist, but the marriage soured and Friedan's self-esteem plummeted. Although after college, she had been "very political, very involved, consciously radical .. concerned about the Negroes, and the working class, and World War III," now "Dr. Spock .. took the place of politics.[26] "With all my high-powered education and brilliant promise," Friedan admitted,

I too embraced and lived that feminine mystique. Determined that I would find that feminine fulfillment which had eluded my mother, I first gave up psychology fellowships and then even newspaper reporting jobs. I lived the life of the suburban housewife that was everyone's dream at that time.[27]

Friedan's awakening came after she spent a year analyzing alumnae questionnaires about the experiences of her Smith college classmates 15 years after graduating. When magazine editors turned down the article that resulted, Friedan determined to write a book.[28] Completed five years later, The Feminine Mystique shocked even Friedan's agent, who refused to handle it, and the publisher printed a small first edition.

Although the unhappy housewives Friedan portrays in The Feminine Mystique have no specific ethnicity, there is an almost exact convergence between the portrait of Miriam Goldstein that appears in Friedan's memoirs and the women of her 1963 book. Moreover, these housewives resemble many of the Jewish mothers in the 1950s and 1960s fictions of Herman Wouk and Philip Roth—Marjorie Morningstar, Goodbye Columbus, and Portnoy's Complaint—books that defined the Jewish American Princess and Jewish American Mother in the popular mind. Like Miriam Goldstein, the Mesdames Morgenstern, Patimkin, and Portnoy are members of the new Jewish, suburban middle-class; pushy and materialistic, they dominate their families, living through their children and belittling their weak and ineffectual husbands. Though they belong to Hadassah and other Jewish or community charities, neither these volunteer activities nor their families provide adequate scope for their innermost desires. The failure to realize their potential is destructive to all around them. Based on these characters, Wouk and Roth would have agreed with Friedan's comment in The Feminine Mystique that "there is something dangerous about being a housewife."[29]
But whereas Wouk and Roth indict Jewish women for the crass materialism and smothering excesses which they see as symptomatic of the Jewish middle-class' rise to postwar prosperity, Friedan, as a daughter, is more able to empathize with the plight of women like her mother. Whatever the timing or mix of sources involved in the development of her feminist consciousness, Friedan's breakthrough was to acknowledge that the feminine "mystique" was not an individual—and not a Jewish—problem. She recognized her mother's "impotent rage" as a "typical female disorder" perpetuated by Freudian psychoanalysts, functionalist sociologists, advertisers, business leaders, educators and child development experts.[30]

The Feminine Mystique, and Friedan's subsequent establishment of the National Organization of Women, assured her a leading role in the women's rights movement and eventually facilitated her return to Judaism. Having rejected religion early in life and identified with an "agnostic, atheistic, scientific, humanist" tradition, she had no feeling for the spiritual "mystery of being Jewish." Friedan's sons were given "aesthetic bar mitzvahs" appropriate to Rockland County where most Jews were Unitarians; her daughter did not receive confirmation or Bat Mitzvah. Feminism, however, by leading her to explore her gendered identity, started her journey to reevaluate her religious heritage. After the 1970 suffrage anniversary march when she publicly connected the reform of patriarchal Judaism to feminist goals, Friedan took her first trip to Israel as part of her attempt to "get in touch with my Jewish roots." She was shocked, however, to find herself attacked by the Israeli press as a radical "women's libber" and generally treated as a "leper"; Golda Meir, then prime minister, refused to see her, a particularly disappointing affront since Friedan had met with the Pope and many world leaders.[31] But Friedan made contact with a few women eager to confront the gender inequalities in Israel; along with other prominent American feminists, she worked with them over the next years helping to start a women's rights movement in Israel.

At home, Friedan began to explore her relationship with the American Jewish community, becoming co-chair of the American Jewish Congress' Task Force on Jewish Women. Unhappily, she found that organized leaders seemed as disturbed by feminism as had Israelis. Even though Jewish women had been prominent in the women's rights movement, Jewish leaders seemed more profoundly threatened by feminism than non-Jews.[32]

Friedan's journey back to Judaism continued with her participation in a havurah and her study of Jewish texts. As a newly self-aware Jewish feminist, she was concerned about myriad issues facing Jewish women, including the perpetuation of "obscene" travesties about the Jewish mother. Friedan wants to "take back" the denigrating images of possessive, manipulating Jewish mothers spooning out chicken soup to control their children's lives and show Jewish women as strong, energetic, and nurturant as they have been throughout history. "I hereby affirm my own right as a Jewish American feminist to make chicken soup," she declares, "even though I sometimes take it out of a can."[33] Thus in later life she has joined the modern aspirations of feminism with the popular emblems of her Jewish heritage, understanding that the myth of a controlling, aggressive Jewish mother has been as dangerous to the self-esteem of Jewish women (including her own) as the earlier "feminine mystique" was to all women.

excerpted from: Joyce Antler, The Journey Home: How Jewish Women Shaped Modern America, 1998 (New York: Shocken)

http://jwa.org/discover/weremember/friedan/antler/

What an ugly kike-pig-beast! she sure has created a lot more ugliness with the many kwan women that bought into her shit.

promoter of shit, genocide, and national ruin.

who would want a female that follows this hideous jew-pig-BEAST!!!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1131/1389599260_8385ee06c3.jpg?v=0

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/05/bettyfriedan_narrowweb__300x367,0.jpg

http:////www.nmwh.org/images/news/Betty%20Friedan.jpg

http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2006/02/06/1139225542_6854.jpg

Jewish Attitude Toward Divorce

Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.

Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.

This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all.

The Process of Obtaining a Divorce

According to the Torah, divorce is accomplished simply by writing a bill of divorce, handing it to the wife, and sending her away. To prevent husbands from divorcing their wives recklessly or without proper consideration, the rabbis created complex rules regarding the process of writing the document, delivery, and acceptance. A competent rabbinical authority should be consulted for any divorce.

The document in question is referred to in the Talmud as a sefer k'ritut (scroll of cutting off), but it is more commonly known today as a get. The get is not phrased in negative terms. The traditional text does not emphasize the breakdown of the relationship, nor does it specify the reason for the divorce; rather, it states that the woman is now free to marry another man.

It is not necessary for a husband to personally hand the get to the wife. If it is not possible or desirable for the couple to meet, a messenger may be appointed to deliver the get.

It is important to note that a civil divorce is not sufficient to dissolve a Jewish marriage. As far as Jewish law is concerned, a couple remains married until the woman receives the get. This has been a significant problem: many liberal Jews have a religiously valid marriage, yet do not obtain a religiously valid divorce. If the woman remarries after such a procedure, her second marriage is considered an adulterous one, and her children are considered mamzerim (bastards, illegitimate).

Inequality of the Sexes

The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal one. According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her. Later rabbinical authorities took steps to ease the harshness of these rules by prohibiting a man from divorcing a woman without her consent. In addition, a rabbinical court can compel a husband to divorce his wife under certain circumstances: when he is physically repulsive because of some medical condition or other characteristic, when he violates or neglects his marital obligations (food, clothing and sexual intercourse), or, according to some views, when there is sexual incompatibility.

A peculiar problem arises, however, if a man disappears or deserts his wife or is presumed dead but there is insufficient proof of death. Under Jewish law, divorce can only be initiated by the man; thus, if the husband cannot be found, he cannot be compelled to divorce the wife and she cannot marry another man. A woman in this situation is referred to as agunah (literally, anchored). The rabbis agonized over this problem, balancing the need to allow the woman to remarry with the risk of an adulterous marriage (a grave transgression that would affect the status of offspring of the marriage) if the husband reappeared. No definitive solution to this problem exists.

To prevent this problem to some extent, it is customary in many places for a man to give his wife a conditional get whenever he goes off to war, so that if he never comes home and his body is not found, his wife does not become agunah.

http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm

Good finds Mike. Just more proof that Jews really are the most destructive parasitic scum ever to walk the face of the Earth. More proof that we will HAVE to rid our lands of them if we are ever to live in accord with our nature again.

And in addition to being an hideous Jewess, this vile bitch was the archetypical "feminist": a bitter, ugly female with a small amount of intelligence (i.e. she can string words together coherently) which she used to lash out at all the men of the world who didn't want to bang her.

Not only was feminism pushed by these ugly Jewish pigs in order to destroy family life and promote Communism, but it was financed and promoted by the Jewish bankers, Jewish lawyers and Jewish politicians as a means of getting more women into the work force so that they could be taxed.

The FED bankers get most of their money from government bonds. These loans are paid back plus interest by taxing the People through the IRS. The small bankers get their money from loans for buying houses and stuff. And when people earn a regular income then they usually buy bigger items like houses and cars on credit through bank loans.

So, if only men are working for wages and women are staying at home raising families, then that is half of the potential work force that is not buying stuff and paying taxes. So by promoting equality of the sexes, the Jew-Banker-Commies could promote equality in paying taxes. But at the the same time, they set up the tax system so that married couples paid higher taxes than two unmarried people living together and paying taxes separately. Thus, the Jews could increase their profits while decreasing the marriage rate and child-rearing rate among the non-Jews.

Poke a social pimple or festering boil with a stick and out will ooze a Jew everytime.

Betty Friedan and her Lies

Betty Friedan was one of the founders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a co-signer of the original (1966) Agenda of NOW. Judging from some of the statements that the original Agenda of NOW contained, it may seem that what feminism was about in those days was nothing more than an attempt to get women a place in the sun. The 1966 Agenda of NOW stated:
"NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life." [my emphasis -WHS]

It was further said that:
"With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child- rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women's lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance." and:

"We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other." and further:

"WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility-hers, to dominate-his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of "half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes." [my emphasis -WHS]

That doesn't sound so bad at first glance. But regardless of what it sounds like, it is but one way by which to attempt to entice women, the majority of whom are found in poll after poll to prefer to be stay-at-home, married moms, to enter the work force. Why would anyone promote an idea that most women don't like? The answer to that question may be found in the fact that the goal to bring women into the work force is an ancient goal of communism and that, as Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz states in his new book "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique" Betty Friedan was well into her thirties a devout and active functionary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A..
As per a book review by professor David Horowitz (no relation), published in Salon Magazine Jan. 1999:

...the author of that book establishes beyond doubt that the woman who has always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on her groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind. In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for over a decade before the publication of "The Feminist Mystique" launched the modern women's movement.

The review by professor Horowitz states further:
Professor Horowitz documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America's Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Her famous description of America's suburban family household as "a comfortable concentration camp" in "The Feminine Mystique" therefore had more to do with her Marxist hatred for America than with any of her actual experience as a housewife or mother. (Her husband, Carl, also a leftist, once complained that his wife "was in the world during the whole marriage," had a full-time maid and "seldom was a wife and a mother").
It is fascinating that Friedan not only felt the need to lie about her real views and life experience then, but still feels the need to lie about them now. Although Horowitz, the author of the new biography, is a sympathetic leftist, Friedan refused to cooperate with him once she realized he was going to tell the truth about her life as Betty Goldstein."

Already in the original Communist Manifesto produced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848/49 it was made clear that no society could be successfully restructured unless all established cultural and moral traditions would be abolished – amongst the objectives of Marx and Engels was the liberation of women from the servitude to commerce and industry that 19th century feminists had fought so hard and successfully to achieve.
Hence, one of the major goals of all communist leaders had been to destroy families and to bring women into the work force. "Free love,"* as sexual promiscuity was called then, became "sexual liberation" and today's "sexual freedom." It is the primary lure by which communists attempt to "liberate" women from the bonds of social convention, and Betty Friedan, although not an important leader of communism, promoted the same goal by calling for the inclusion of women in the work force.

In the introduction to his web site at which Carl Friedan recounts the incidents of terror and violence that were such a large part of his marriage to Betty Friedan, he states:
Betty Friedan
I am incensed about misleading allegations of spousal abuse made by my ex-wife, Betty Friedan. They are all delusions, but in challenging these flights of fantasy I carefully make a huge divide between, one, her historical role in leading the feminist cause and, two, her current revamping of our personal history. I am proud of what she did for the world, but am appalled by her misrepresenting our personal family past with outright falsehoods just to satisfy her own legacy.

No matter how happy Betty Friedan may be about the misery she is causing her ex-husband, what is there to be proud about in seeing that one's ex-wife brought about that a good portion of the Communist Manifesto became reality in the U.S.A.? Can what has been achieved in American Society, indeed, in much of the world, through the efforts of Carl Friedan's ex-wife be that easily separated from the fact that it was his marriage to her and the funds and security that he contributed to that marriage gave Betty Friedan the social and financial means by which she could pursue the implementation of the destruction of not only Carl Friedan's family but a very large portion of all of the families in civilization?
Carl Friedan is not entirely gracious in his account of the history of his marriage to the violent Betty Friedan. He states that he loves beautiful women and promises to deliver an explanation of why he got married to a woman who was, in his words making no bones about it, quite plainly ugly. However, although I read his account fairly thoroughly, I could not find any evidence that he made good on his promise. The only comment that I could find that comes close is that he stated that Betty Friedan was clearly violent in their relationship before they even got married, so that he should have had plenty of warning.

However, what he doesn't touch on at all is the fact that he, too, was involved in communist activism at that time. He implies that Betty Friedan got the better deal in their marriage because he took her out of a dirty one-room factory loft in New York, where she struggled, writing for a newspaper. He would have done a considerable service if he would have told which newspaper she was writing for. It would perhaps also given us the explanation as to why they got involved with one another. They shared the same ideology.
The newspaper she was writing for, so Daniel Horowitz reports in the biography mentioned by David Horowitz (Feminism's Dirty Secret) was a communist newspaper. Betty Friedan, as a professional Stalinist-Marxist propagandist of many years, says Horowitz, was



Not at all a neophyte when it came to the "woman question" (the phrase itself is a marxist construction), she was certainly familiar with the writings of Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the subject and had written about it herself as a journalist for the official publication of the communist-controlled United Electrical Workers union.

Nevertheless, Carl Friedan's version of the story must be true to a considerable extent, because, as David Horowitz reports in Feminism's Dirty Secret,

The ex-Mrs. Friedan, meanwhile, has softened her charges, telling Good Morning America, "I almost wish I hadn't even written about it, because it's been sensationalized out of context. My husband was no wife-beater, and I was no passive victim of a wife-beater. We fought a lot, and he was bigger than me."

Considering that
...as Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation) revealed in his book Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminist Mystique, Betty was not very candid about the facts of her own life and the sources of her radical perspective. She was hardly a suburban housewife when she wrote those words, but a twenty-five year veteran of professional journalism in the Communist Left, where she had been thoroughly indoctrinated in the politics of "the woman question" and specifically the idea that women were "oppressed."

how much of the communist ideology that was such large part of Betty Friedan's life and, indeed, formed her life, made it into the ideology of the oppressive feminism that now covers all aspects of our lives, of society and civilization and threatens to smother us all? Far-fetched? Judge for yourself.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto:
The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited cooperatively and naturally can't think of anything else but that the lot of cooperatives will also affect the women as well....

There was no exploitation of Betty Friedan in her marriage to Carl Friedan. She most certainly wasn't for him what anyone would call an instrument of production. If anyone got exploited, it was Carl Friedan. He was held hostage, and had no more of a chance to escape than any of the millions of battered husbands who ever fell victim to the battered husband syndrome.
Just like the feminists, who base so much of their ideology on the Communists Manifesto, so Marx and Engels quite clearly envisioned the logical progression after the destruction of the family and its replacement with universal prostitution (now it should more properly be considered universal promiscuity). Marx and Engels said in their manifesto:

The communists have been accused, furthermore, that they want to abolish the fatherland, the national identity. The workers don't have a fatherland. It isn't possible to rob them of what they don't have. Because the proletariat must first of all conquer political rule, elevate itself to a national class (45), constitute itself as a nation, it will itself be national, even though by no means in the meaning of the bourgeoisie.

Nobody should have any illusions that the feminists consider any of the ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto to be outdated and archaic. The feminists use it as their bible. Erin Pizzey tells, when she speaks of her experiences with the radical feminists that usurped the women's shelter movement, that a commonly stocked book on their book shelves was Mao's Little Red Book, and that Mao's face was ever-present on posters in their living rooms. Mao most definitely based his ideas on the Communist Manifesto.
Do Betty Friedan's and NOW's objectives differ from, say, Mao tse tung's? This is what Mao had to say about the structure of society with respect to the family:

A man in China is usually subjected to the domination of three systems of authority [political authority, clan authority and religious authority].... As for women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, they are also dominated by the men (the authority of the husband). These four authorities - political, clan, religious and masculine - are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people, particularly the peasants. How the peasants have overthrown the political authority of the landlords in the countryside has been described above. The political authority of the landlords is the backbone of all the other systems of authority. With that overturned, the clan authority, the religious authority and the authority of the husband all begin to totter.... As to the authority of the husband, this has always been weaker among the poor peasants because, out of economic necessity, their womenfolk have to do more manual labour than the women of the richer classes and therefore have more say and greater power of decision in family matters. With the increasing bankruptcy of the rural economy in recent years, the basis for men's domination over women has already been undermined. With the rise of the peasant movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women's associations; the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband is getting shakier every day. In a word, the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system is tottering with the growth of the peasants' power.

"Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan"
(March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 44-46.
[The Little Red Book, Chapter 31. WOMEN, Full text
Look it up. It's only a little more than one page.]

Just in case you should be wondering what the aim of all of this was, it is no more than what Marx, Engels and today's feminists clamour for: the liberation of women from the drudgery of housework and from the raising of children. But why would anybody be crazy enough to fight revolutions over that and to turn all of society on its head? Well, the answer is in the rest of Chapter 31 of The Little Red Book. Here are just two more quotes from that chapter.
[In agricultural production] our fundamental task is to adjust the use of labour power in an organized way and to encourage women to do farm work.

"Our Economic Policy" (January 23, 1934), Selected Works, Vo1. I, p. 142.

With the completion of agricultural cooperation, many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labour. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labour front....China's women are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build a great socialist country.

Introductory note to "Solving the Labour Shortage by Arousing the Women to Join in Production" (1955), The Socialist Upsurge in China's Countryside, Chinese ed., Vol. II.

Reading Carl Friedan's account of his marriage to Betty Friedan leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that he was the one being oppressed, even terrorized. Any claims to the contrary are outrageous lies.
Just as Betty Friedan lied persistently about her subordinate role as a stay-at-home wife and mother, she is also quite persistent in lying about other aspects of her marriage to Carl Friedan.
That upset Carl Friedan so much that he felt it necessary to establish a web site at which he gives his own account of his life with his violent ex-wife. Consider that not a single one of the claims that Betty Friedan ever made about his violence was ever brought into court and that Carl Friedan never has been found guilty of committing any of the violent acts his ex-wife accuses him of. Consider also that Carl Friedan never ever dreamed of bringing any charges against his ex-wife for any of the numerous incidents of personal injury and destruction of property she committed. Not only that, but, as mentioned above, even Betty Friedan is now making retractions.

FLASH - May 11, 2000 - The New York Times in a long Betty interview repeats Betty's lies of physical abuse as they appear in her new book, Life So Far. By this time Betty tries even more desperately to withdraw the book's most blatant charges, knowing they are false. When questioned about the abuse issue, the Times now reports her saying, " Don't make too much of that. He was no wife beater and I was no passive victim." She's slowly moving toward the truth.
PHONE CALL: (April 28) - Betty phoned me to say she didn't realize that the press would focus on these passages of her book and that she was "livid" at GEORGE Magazine for doing so. I hurriedly, but politely, hung up on her.

FLASH! - April 25, 2000 - GEORGE Magazine (May issue) has just run a cover story claiming that I beat up on my then wife, Betty Friedan. One of my friends, a confirmed male chauvenist pig, cheered, "Bravo! I hope you gave her a good uppercut for me." Another one chimed in "If you clipped her, she probably deserved it."
Ok, back off, fellows, it never happened. Betty is fantazising and GEORGE accepted her story of abuse as real rather than what it was - an S&M fantasy....TIME's coverage of the book makes her out a sexpot. Are they kidding? Betty Friedan a sexpot? Come on, now! Let's be sane! In all 19 years of marriage she never gave me a blow job. That's a sexpot?
ARTICLE - April 24, 2000 - Back at the beginning of winter a year or so ago , the net's Salon magazine reported Betty was at an airport heading somewhere when her bag accidentally flew open and a slew of S&M magazines spilled out. You figure this one out. The article is really there somewhere in the Salon archives.


Carl Friedan is still being terrorized, although this time he may not have to fear for his life and health any longer but only for his reputation. Consider that he is now 80 and that the quarter of the life that he spent with his ex-wife still has a controlling influence on his life. The reality of his marriage to Betty Friedan was like this:
In the period between The Mystique and our splitting ('63-'67) she was a weight loss speed freak which compounded the venting of her violent temper. Betty already tottered on a thin line just this side of sanity. Amphetamines intensified it.
Being with her was like walking a field of land mines. Bang! She'd explode unexpectedly, often out of the clear blue sky with no provocation at all. She was the most violent person I have ever known. I've seen women frightened by her. Men, too. In my desperate attempts to subdue and bring her frequent hysterial attacks and screaming under control we would both get hurt. This explains why she had an occasional black eye and my face was scarred by deep gouges. Did you ever try to fend off the attack of a wild, man-eating tiger? Spousal abuse has no gender.



In the section "The Big Picture" at his web site, Carl Friedan tells:


A year or so ago I had dinner with Betty and, always on the make, she asked me, "Are you still as good in bed as you use to be?"
"Better," I answered. I only wish. The plumbing goes down hill by 80. At least mine did - somewhat. I can't talk for Strom Thurmond.
Betty and I had become friendly again in our old ages and so I was reluctant to talk publicly about the dark side of our relationship. Not too long ago my bowels would squirm at the mere mention of her name, but the ulcers went into remission in recent years as we shared mutual delight at the success of our three offspring, their strong marriages and the nine grandchildren they produced. I never expected to swear at her again, and would not have, not until this new book of hers came out attacking me. I was quite surprised, but it was in character for her to hit below the belt. So all bets are off. Marquis of Queensbury rules be damned.
Quite vivid in my mind is a midnight in about 1967 - a year or so before Betty and I separated for good. We were living at our Dakota apartment then - Betty disagreed with something I said (that's all it took), went into one of her raging uncontrollable fits, screaming , her face twisted in hate and insane anger, "You fucking no good prick you, you no-good bastard, you fucking bastard, " meanwhile sprinting into the kitchen. Back she came straight at me brandishing two large kitchen knives. "You fucking Goddamn sonofabitch, I'm going to cut your fucking cock off - your big cock it doesn't mean a thing to me." At this I calmly picked up a kitchen chair, nailed her to the wall like a lion-tamer and took the knives away. And that was just a minor incident during that period when her explosive personality was further inflamed by amphetamines she was taking for weight loss, reinforced by alcohol.


There are many more accounts of Betty Friedan's violence in the chapter "Living with Insanity." Here are a few excerpts:
There are enough witnesses to the kind of behavior I describe and also witnesses to her raging fits and near-raging fits to make all this credible even to her most loyal followers. There were often eye-witnesses to the kind of episodes related here but mostly not, because they occurred behind the four walls.
In the summer of 1963 we rented Teddy White's bay cottage in Fair Harbor on Fire Island, a long sliver of barrier beach on the ocean....
...After a late barbecue dinner we, Pepi and Mark all relaxed and soon it was eleven o'clock. I started thinking of bed. Mark and Pepi had already gone to sleep upstairs. And then it seemed like the house exploded.
Betty went wild. I do not remember what motivated this fit, or what preceded it, if anything. She could never stand being contradicted, even on the tiniest detail. She fought with nearly everyone. Argued with everyone - sooner or later. It could have been a political discussion that set it off or someone's assertion that she disagreed with. Or, it is possible, she might have sixth-sensed that I was attracted to our female guest. I made no obvious sign of that, but Betty always reacted hostilely to pretty women. Possibly it was as simple as that.
This episode started, as usual, with the decibel range of her voice rising. I tried as usual to calm her down. That did not deter her from turning her hysterical screaming into insane action. With the unbridled fury of a madman, she seized a narrow lamp base, the shade shoved to the floor, and proceeded to dart through the house using the lamp as a club, smashing the window panes one after the other after the other, screaming a stream of foul epithets at me. A cacophony of screeching and breaking glass resounded throughout the house."
I took off, fled from there, something I instinctively did, if possible, when she went into one of her crazy spells. My not being present deprived her of her target, often diminshing her fury....
It took all that day and another for a glazier to repair the windows – 27 panes of glass. I remember the number – 27, often wondering if Teddy White ever noticed and what he thought of his new glass.
That next morning no reaction from her. It was as if it had never happened. Except for the glazier's putty knife at work, life went on as usual. Pepi and brother Mark left that day and never returned to visit us at Fire Island again.

A really terrible episode occurred when in late summer of 1966 we made a weekend visit to my parents in Sharon, Mass. ...
Saturday night we left the kids at the motel to have dinner with an old friend of mine and his wife from Hingham, an historic New England town about twenty miles from Sharon. ...
Bob and Dottie had just returned from Yugoslavia where he had been invited by the government to confer with the blueberry commissar of that country. ...
At dinner that night he regaled us with a story of their trip. They had met the Yugoslav blueberry commissar in Debrovnik, ... The commissar arrived at the meeting on the following day with a volunteer translator in tow. It turned out to be Nikita Khrushchev, ...
After coffee and bill paying we said our goodbyes. We got in our car on the parking lot outside the restaurant and I started driving onto the highway back to the motel when Betty suddenly started screaming at me, "You never took me to Europe...you cheap sonofabitch, you never took me to Europe". I remember those words distinctly - they are etched in my brain because this episode was the most harrowing of any I have ever experienced in my life.
There had been no time for any argument to develop. We had little if any conversation in the interval between leaving the restaurant and reaching the car. This was truly spontaneous combustion.
The meaning of what she screamed is difficult to recall because it came out of her in such uncontrollable frenzied bursts. None of it made sense.
I slowed down and tried to calm her. "For Christsakes, Betty, stop this, stop this. What is this about?" But she was beyond logic. She was raging about this Europe thing, completely out of control.
With no letup in her fury she suddenly propped her back against the passenger side door and started kicking me furiously - while I was speeding along the highway. Then she lunged at my face with her nails. I felt my shirt being ripped and my chest bloodied.
That's how these fits usually happened - right out of the blue. Then, suddenly she opened the car door and threatened to jump out. "I'm getting out of this car", she yelled. That was a scenario I had become use to, her opening the passenger side door while I was driving - it had happened a number of times before.
This was sheer hell - here I am with my hands on the wheel, driving through the darkness, being furiously attacked by a raging woman, and the passenger door hanging out by its hinges. I managed somehow to hold her off with my right hand and to hold on to the wheel with my left. This is how I made my way back to the motel.
The moment I stopped in front of our bungalows she rushed out of the car running up and down the highway shrieking wildly. I went looking for her for fear she could get killed by the speeding cars, but lost track of her in the pitch black of the night.
I was standing by the curb peering into the darkness when suddenly she reappeared and started mauling me all over again with her claws. I fended her off, pushing her away as I did during these fits. That's how she acquired her "black eyes", just being pushed away. Eyes and faces are easily bruised. It doesn't take much, Just pushing her away can do it. It's like ribs -- it just takes a few pounds of pressure to crack a rib. In her case I often had to use some force simply to contain her.
I fled to the motel rooms....She came screaming after me pounding on the door hysterically, and then, I really couldn't believe this - I guess maybe I could - I heard the screen on the window tear and there she was climbing through the window, breaking the screen on her way. She landed on the floor, but by that time I had ran out of the cabin into the night. She followed me threatening to call the police. I was too embarrassed to ever call the police. But in this state nothing embarrassed her. "Here's a dime" I said, "Go right ahead and call them" By that time it was I who needed the police. The police finally came and took us both to the Sharon police station.
The sargeant at the desk looked me over, pointed to my gougings and asked, " Where did you get all that?' " It's pretty self-evident, isn't it" I answered. My wounds were far greater than hers. While she had minor bruises, I had bleeding wounds. He separated us - I went to my folks' house, she to the motel. This incident has to be among the records of the Sharon Police Dept. I am quite sure it was late summer of 1966.
The next day she acted as though nothing had happened. I often thought that she remembered nothing of these episodes much like an epileptic who is not consious during a seizure. She only knew what was in the present - that she had some black and blue marks and I think she actually believes to this day that she was abused, that I unilaterally beat her up. That was surely part of her insanity. It certainly wasn't sane.

This latter episode would have taken place at about the time that Betty Friedan was working on getting N.O.W. off the ground, perhaps just about at the time she was finalizing the draft of the 1966 Agenda of N.O.W., in her attempts to improve the lot of women.
However, what Carl Friedan perhaps doesn't realize is that if any of these incidents would have happened not even 30 years later he would have been arrested, likely thrown into and kept in jail until the time of his trial and would most likely have been barred from receiving any access to his children by having a restraining order placed against him — all on account of the successes his ex-wife had in promoting women's "rights."
Well, in love and war all things are fair. What nobler war could there be than the destruction of our families. If Betty Friedan's own family got destroyed in the process, and if a few – or a lot – of lies got told during and after the destruction of the Friedan family, what does it matter? It comes with the territory.

The New York Times promoted and published very biased reporting about Joseph Stalin's mass murder of Russian peasants. More than 14 million died, but the Times reported very favourably on the evolution of the "workers' paradise."
Privately, Duranty, the New York Times' correspondent in Russia at the time, stated that at least 10 million Russians had deliberately been starved to death, but said, "They're only Russians." However, in connection with that Duranty also coined the phrase that has become very popular, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."
Officially, though, he manufactured (with the help of people like George Bernard Shaw) the myth that great and benevolent social changes were taking place in Russia. That's obviously a tradition that Betty Friedan perpetuates, this time in relation to getting women and not just mere workers "a better deal." As I said, even if the war is being waged against our families, in love and war all things are fair — although that appears to be true only in the minds of some people who apparently don't possess a full set of functioning faculties.
Nevertheless, after reading Carl Friedan's account of being married to a terrorist, I got the firm impression that, as Erin Pizzey said in her discussion paper "Working With Violent Women," one should not negotiate with terrorists and just keep his distance.


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

The consequences of our refusal to concede female contributions to violence are manifold. It affects our capacity to promote ourselves as autonomous and responsible beings. It affects our ability to develop a literature about ourselves that encompasses the full array of human emotions and experience. It demeans the right our victims have to be valued. And it radically impedes our ability to recognize dimensions of power that have nothing to do with formal structures or patriarchy. Perhaps above all, the denial of women's aggression profoundly undermines our attempts as a culture to understand violence, to trace its causes and to quell them.

— Patricia Pearson, When She Was Bad
Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence

http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/truth_a_la_friedan.htm

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev Pat Robertson agreed, quoted from John F Harris, "God Gave US 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)


And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F Harris, "God Gave US 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)


I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their problem. ~Jerry Falwell

Jerry Falwell had some good quotes....

Calling the jew Betty Friedan a pig only insults pigs.

Please THINK before posting. If you'll notice, this entire subforum is set up to give white families a one-stop shop for specific information on how jews are behind the nasty things they notice in their everyday lives. The last thing we need in here are nasty porn quotes.

Don't post in these threads unless you have a serious contribution.

Letty Cottin Pogrebin

Statement

The Preview issue of Ms., which hit the newstands in January 1972, speaks volumes about the concerns of Second Wave feminism and the commitments of the magazine's five founding editors, myself among them.

The multi-armed, blue-skinned cover image – we purposely chose an iconic figure to avoid racial favoritism – embodies the burdens and obligations of the female role. Mother, worker, housekeeper, cook, car-pool driver, keeper of the social life, slave to time, seeker of beauty, object of the male gaze, she is weeping because she cannot do it all. She cries because her labor is unseen, taken for granted, unrewarded. She cries because she is dancing as fast as she can and has no energy left for herself. She is Everywoman, and she is exhausted.

Our goal at Ms. was to make such lives visible, to honor women’s work, and to expose the legal, economic, and social barriers that stand in the way of women’s full humanity. Ms. provided a forum where disparate voices – housewives, lesbians, political radicals, cancer survivors, victims of rape, violence, and incest, brave feminist trouble-makers – could be heard on issues that were being ignored by mainstream women’s magazines and papered over by “feminine” propriety in the public square. Ms. showcased women writers and artists. We publicized grass-roots organizations and local feminist leaders. We reported on street demonstrations, consciousness- raising groups, cutting-edge lawsuits, and legislative initiatives. We advocated for the beleaguered and the silenced. We were rabble-rousers. We helped make a revolution.

The cover lines on the Preview issue are illustrative of where we began: Gloria Steinem’s paean to sex pride and sisterhood. The fight to legalize abortion. Sylvia Plath’s luminous fiction. Jane O’Reilly’s epiphanic essay on housework. My piece on sex role stereotyping and how it squelches children’s dreams.

There is no question in my mind that my 20-year involvement in Ms. – like my 35-year commitment to the women’s movement, both secular and Jewish – is rooted in faith and family. I grew up in a home where advancing social justice was as integral to Judaism as lighting Shabbat candles. My parents, both passionate Zionists, were active volunteers in our synagogue and the wider Jewish community. Having learned from them to stand up for my dignity as a Jew, I suppose it was natural for me to stand up for my dignity as a woman, which, after all, is what feminism is all about.

Biography

Letty Cottin Pogrebin earned her B.A. from Brandeis University and became a writer and strong advocate for women’s rights in the early 1970s. In 1971, she was one of the founding editors of Ms. magazine, where she worked for 17 years, and a co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus. She was also a consultant on Free To Be You And Me, an album of non-sexist children’s stories and songs, and edited Stories for Free Children. When the United Nations International Women’s Decade Conference equated Zionism with Racism in 1975, Pogrebin was provoked to combat anti-Semitism within the women’s movement just as she fought sexism within Judaism. Over the last three decades, Pogrebin has been a fixture in feminist, Jewish, and Jewish-feminist causes, as well as an outspoken political activist on issues including hunger, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Black-Jewish relations. She is a prolific author whose publications include Getting Yours: How to Make the System Work for the Working Woman; Growing Up Free: Raising Your Child in the 80s; Deborah, Golda, and Me: Being Female and Jewish in America; and Three Daughters.

I started working on this article in the fall of 1980, in response to the anti-Semitic incidents that had besmirched the United Nations conference in Copenhagen. I wanted to discover whether those outbursts were peculiar to women operating in an international context, or whether some comparable form of anti-Semitism existed among feminists in the United States. So I spent 18 months doing in-depth interviews with more than 80 women from all parts of the country and writing the piece entitled “Anti-Semitism in the Women’s Movement” that eventually appeared in the June 1982 issue of Ms.

The minute the magazine hit the newsstands, I was invited to discuss anti-Semitism on television and radio, at universities from Yale to UCLA, and at public forums sponsored by Jewish groups ranging from the New England Anti-Defamation League to the Jewish Center of Dallas. The article was reprinted twice and was photocopied innumerable times as a catalyst for friends and enemies to discuss the problem in classrooms, meetings, and living rooms from Anchorage to Miami, from Toronto to Jerusalem.

Things have changed since my article was published in 1982. An affirmative Jewish feminism has flourished in secular contexts. But while thousands of women have claimed or reclaimed their Jewishness in proud, positive ways, Jewish negativity and shame are also flourishing.

After evaluating the results of my anti-Semitism survey and writing the article for Ms., I saw the importance of being a public, affirmative Jew – even when ethnicity or religion “didn’t matter.” As much as I might wish for a world of universalist values and de-emphasized differences, I would no longer tolerate a women’s movement in which Jews are the only group asked to relinquish their own interests while other women were allowed to push their private agendas and subvert feminist ideals when it suited them. I would no longer assume all women were my sisters.

I still have universalist dreams – visions of one world without the rancors of nationalism, tribalism, and patriarchy – but now I dream them only when fully awake, and I take my inspiration not from some naive UNICEF greeting card but from a pluralist feminism founded on a mutual respect for each other’s “identity politics,” which include the particularities of culture, peoplehood, and history.

Adapted from Deborah, Golda, and Me, Crown Publishers, 1991.

http://jwa.org/feminism/_html/JWA058.htm

http://jwa.org/feminism/_html/JWA102.htm

Relevent story in a way in my jewspaper today about feminism and it's retarded goals to destroy civilization.
Aprons capture 100 years of homemaking
By: Bill Redekop

Updated: August 3 at 12:25 AM CDT

NEUBERGTHAL -- What is an apron, Mom?

That should be a simple question. Instead, it cuts through one hundred years of feminism and social history.

"An apron was once worn all day," explained Karen Martens, co-curator of an exhibit on aprons and their expression as a feminine art form.

"I don't think a woman got up in the morning without an apron on. It was to protect your dress. They didn't have many dresses" and only washed every two to three weeks.

Then aprons started to disappear with the advent of washing machines and other technological advances, as well as larger wardrobes. With the advent of modern feminism, they came to be a viewed as symbol of domestic servitude.

"My kids will never remember me with an apron on, but I remember my mom and grandma with aprons on," Martens said.

The catalyst to the exhibit was artist Margruite Krahn's discovery of a box of clothes in the attic of an old herdsman's building. Included were a dozen bright, colourful aprons nearly a century old.

To indulge in art was considered a waste of time in the Mennonite community back then, Krahn said. "So women expressed themselves artistically through sewing, including aprons."

Aprons came in many decorative forms, including gingham (checked fabric) with decorative stitching; appliqu © (where an ornament is cut from cloth and overlaid on the material); and crocheted aprons, like one on display made by a grandmother for her granddaughter. Some were made from flour sacks or sugar sacks -- the latter were made of stiffer, coarser material.

There were bibbed aprons and smock aprons (pullover). "They used older aprons to cook, and, when guests arrived, would throw on their special occasion aprons," Martens said.

Aprons mirrored the fashions they were trying to protect. "Notice the length," Martens said. "The older ones are quite long. As you get into the 1950s and '60s, they get shorter."

Aprons have evolved into the barbecue aprons of today with slogans and advertisements, she said.

The apron had many functions besides protecting clothes. Women would pick up the corners and make a basket for collecting eggs, vegetables or kindling. It was used as a pot holder, for wiping hands, for hiding shy children, and to quickly dust furniture when unexpected company arrived.

The exhibit of about 50 aprons runs until Sept. 30 in Friesen Housebarn and Interpretive Centre in Neubergthal, a heritage village 10 minutes southeast of Altona. The exhibit's run coincides with that of the new Gallery in the Park in Altona.

Viewing is by appointment, except for the Sept. 6-7 weekend, when it will be open for the Pembina Valley Artists Tour. Otherwise, call Karen Martens, 1-204-324-1567 or Margruite Krahn, 1-204-324-1612 for an appointment.

bill.redekop@freepress.mb.ca

The Devil's Work: Feminism and the Elite Depopulation Agenda

February 20, 2002

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

As my readers know by now, I believe the world has for the last hundred years or more been in the grips of a conspiracy by an ultra rich elite whose goal is nothing less than the destruction of civilization, as we know it. I believe we are in the advanced stage of a gradual decline into a "New World Order" which combines monopoly capitalism with communist totalitarianism.

Believe me, this is an argument I would be delighted to lose.

We have been conditioned to scoff at the mention of conspiracy The idea that people might plan something without telling the intended victims is much too farfetched! Nor would they ever disguise their aim! My purpose is not to convert you to my view. Rather, I want you to seek information that either confirms or refutes it.

We are like the passengers on a bus that keeps having "accidents" which cause untold death and suffering. These are wars, depressions and epidemics etc. We have just completed the bloodiest century in human history: Auschwitz, Dresden, Ruanda, Hiroshima, Cambodia. Over a hundred million people were murdered, and that's not counting abortions.

We keep changing the 'driver' but the accidents do not cease. This is because the drivers all take their orders from the same diabolical source.

Because the human race keeps running off the road, we are not reaching our destination. The road is G-d's plan. For Christians, this is Jesus' Gospel of Love. The destination: to know G-d. Mankind evolved for this purpose. G-d wishes to be known by His Creation.

Our purpose is to know ourselves to be Divine. G-d is the principle of our evolution, both personal and collective. Truth and Goodness are Absolutes: they are G-d. All great religions teach us to listen for G-d's voice and obey it.

When we deny the existence of G-d, we are denying the principle of our own evolution and stunting our development. When we deny God, we deny ourselves. When we deny man's divinity, we open the door for genocide.

A reader "Pat" wrote last week that he has "a hard time believing that a group of elites could agree on anything, let alone a far reaching evil agenda...[It] seems like the process of achieving this agenda is too slow for any bad people...requires too much flawless, seamless, secretive, cooperation...The only entity with that kind of plan and patience with that kind of plan and patience would have to be the devil himself, wouldn't it?"

I replied that he was on to something. At the beginning of the 20th Century, huge fortunes were built by monopoly capitalists like J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller. The "D" stands for "devil." What is monopoly but the desire to "have it all," and to drive everyone else out of existence. Evil is the spiritual cancer that seeks to "fulfill" itself not in G-d, but in limitless material acquisition and sensual excess.

It was not a large leap for a J.D. Rockefeller to go from owning the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry etc. to wanting to own the whole world. This is the reason that Rockefeller and his foundation have been in the forefront of the population "control" and eugenics movement. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the earth's population for the simple warped reason that the less there is for you and me, the more there will be for J.D. and his cronies.

The elite just loves birth control. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner are among the ultra rich that have donated billions to spreading the gospel of contraception, abortion, and feminism using the United Nations and "US Aid." Rockefeller funded the invention of the pill, the IUD and owns the rights to the abortion drug RU-486. In the last 50 years, billions of public dollars have been spent on "family planning" designed to limit population by deceit and coercion, including compulsory abortion and infanticide. In "The War Against Population (1988)," Dr. Jacqueline Kasun writes that in 1981, a directory of population control agencies in Washington DC listed 92 private (but mostly publicly funded) agencies, 12 United Nations and 57 agencies of the US government (p. 198). "The real problem of government family planning is not one of families out of control but of planners out of control," she wrote (p.211).

For the same reason, the Elite is behind "sexual liberation" and "gay liberation." Through funding and media control, they make us regard sex as a recreation/physical release rather than as the expression of a spiritual bond (i.e. a loving marriage) resulting in children.

The Elite modus operandi is to finance and promote disgruntled minorities in order to destabilize and undermine the world. Feminism is a prime example. It pretends to be about giving women equal opportunity in the workplace when in fact it is devoted to discouraging women from seeking fulfillment in motherhood.

In the bible of modern feminism, "The Feminine Mystique" (1963) Betty Frieden makes this obscene comparison between housewives and Nazi concentration camp inmates:

"They were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others..."(306)

Clearly Frieden is talking about mothers. Comparing the nurturing of their children to the brutal slavery and poisoning of Auschwitz inmates is psychological warfare of the most vicious kind. Friedan, who hid the fact that she was a paid Communist activist, should have been denounced as a hate monger. Instead she was celebrated as the new oracle and received honorary degrees and fellowships at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. Saturday Review called her book "a scholarly work, appropriate for serious study" and anthropologist Ashley Montegu said it was "the wisest, sanest, soundest, most understanding and compassionate treatment of American woman's greatest problem."

Do we need further proof that the world is one-horse company town, and J.D. and his cabal own the company? They decide which politicians, universities and academics get funding, which books get published and reviewed, which movies get made. We are condemned to look into mirrors that don't reflect reality. That's why we are so skeptical of conspiracy. That's why most people on this web site don't get published. On the other hand, Eve Eisler, is reading her pornographic play "The Vagina Monologues" on HBO this month. This "play, " which features women looking at their genitals with hand mirrors and describing steamy scenes of lesbian sex with minors, masquerades as feminist empowerment. In fact, it is an invitation to lesbianism.

Feminism fits the elite's depopulation agenda. Since 1963, when "The Feminine Mystique" was published we have experienced an unprecedented breakdown in the family. More than half of all children are now born out of wedlock; the number of single parent households has tripled. In "The Broken Hearth," William Bennett writes: "Most of our social pathologies, crime, imprisonment rates, welfare, educational underachievement, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, depression, STD's, are manifestations, direct and indirect, of the crackup of the American family (p.4)."

We are now suffering from underpopulation. The US birthrate has been cut from 4 to 2 children per woman, the European and Canadian is 1.5. (We need 2.2 just for replacement.) Russia (1.17 children) will see its population plummet from 145 million to 115 million by 2015. In the "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan argues that population decline is responsible for the inevitable extinction of the West.

Reproduction requires the most delicate care. In the case of human beings, the female must be prepared for motherhood and honored for her contribution to society. The male must be shown that the standard of manhood is to provide leadership and sustenance for mother and children. Both mother and father must be able to give their children intellectual and spiritual guidance.

Instead, in schools and universities, the tender shoots of feminine sexuality are crushed under the feminist jackboot. Young women are taught that heterosexual sex, marriage and family are inherently oppressive. Homosexuality on the other hand is an act of rebellion that is "chic" and "normal."

Frieden's comparison of mothers with the concentration camp inmates is pertinent. Betty Frieden, agent of the elite cabal, has put mothers in the concentration camp. Mothers!? The ultimate aim is genocide. The Elite want the world's population to be much smaller. Can there be any question that this is the devil's work?

www.theoccidentalobserver.com/articles/MacDonald-Women'sStudies.html

Openly asserting a leftist platform, Women's Studies Department basically says there is no room for opposing views. T.J.B.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45739000/jpg/_45739033_007275145-1.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8034946.stm

Marilyn French, author of The Women's Room and regarded as one of the great feminist writers, has died of heart failure aged 79 in New York.

The native New Yorker died on Saturday in a Manhattan hospital, said Carol Jenkins, a friend [m'kay...] and president of the city's Women's Media Center.

Her 1977 novel about a housewife's rebellion against male domination :rolleyes: sold 20m copies and was widely translated.

French's final novel is due to be published this autumn.

She was also working on a memoir.

French is survived by her son, Robert French, and her daughter Jamie French.

'Not a man-hater'

In a 2004 poll of listeners to BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, The Women's Room was voted one of the five books that have most changed the way women see themselves.

Set in 1950s America, the novel follows the fortunes of Mira, a conventional and submissive young woman who ends up in a traditional marriage.

When it ends in divorce, Mira seeks a new life at Harvard as a graduate student.

Plunged into a world far removed from her own experience, she nonetheless encounters the same problems with male-female power politics as she did in her marriage.

French was dubbed anti-male for having a character in the novel say: "All men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."

Carol Jenkins rejected the allegation about the late author's work.

"Those words came from a character, and she was not a man-hater, and never said that in her personal life," she told The Associated Press. [Yeah - right.]

"But she wanted men to accept their part in the domination of women."

The novel, Ms Jenkins added, "connected with millions of women who had no way before of claiming their anger and discontent".

Cancer survivor

The theme of male subjugation of women runs through French's novels, essays, literary criticism and her four-volume, non-fiction From Eve to Dawn: A History of Women.

Born in Brooklyn, she graduated from Long Island's Hofstra University with a master's degree, studying philosophy and English literature. She taught there in the 1960s.

After her divorce, she earned a doctorate from Harvard and was an English professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.

A smoker, she survived a battle with oesophageal cancer in 1992 which included a 10-day coma she described in Season in Hell: A Memoir.

Sorry to bust your bubble folks, but White European Women promote feminism just as much as Jews do. Indeed, they would have mainstreamed feminism to the point of hegemony - the point it is at today - without Jewish assistance.

Sooner or later you are going to have to confront the indigenous poisons circulating within own culture.

Project/obscure this as much as you want, it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Sorry to bust your bubble folks, but White European Women promote feminism just as much as Jews do. Indeed, they would have mainstreamed feminism to the point of hegemony - the point it is at today - without Jewish assistance.

Sooner or later you are going to have to confront the indigenous poisons circulating within own culture.

Project/obscure this as much as you want, it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

The only bubble to bust is your own blindness. White European Women have had more than 100 years of Jewish Media brainwashing. And without the Jews, there would be no Feminism since the Jewish devils invented it.

You are not facing the facts. The poisons circulating are all Jewish poisons.

The only bubble to bust is your own blindness. White European Women have had more than 100 years of Jewish Media brainwashing. And without the Jews, there would be no Feminism since the Jewish devils invented it.

You are not facing the facts. The poisons circulating are all Jewish poisons.

Utter rubbish.

Utter rubbish.

As I said, sooner or later you're going to have to face facts.

Your projection and obscuranticism on the issue of feminism is counter-productive.

In other words, you are just another troll who comes to VNN to garble the truth and fictionalize reality with your false assertions.

You obviously know nothing about the subject. It's either that, or you are purposely telling lies.
T.J.B.

In other words, you are just another troll who comes to VNN to garble the truth and fictionalize reality with your false assertions.

You obviously know nothing about the subject. It's either that, or you are purposely telling lies.
T.J.B.

Keep your head stuck firmly in the sand like a good Goyim sheep.

It's a tendency for Goyim sheep - excuses for European men - to behave like this; to disengage their brain; to disengage logic.

I repeat again:

Sorry to bust your bubble folks, but White European Women promote feminism just as much as Jews do. Indeed, they would have mainstreamed feminism to the point of hegemony - the point it is at today - without Jewish assistance.

Sooner or later you are going to have to confront the indigenous poisons circulating within own culture.

Project/obscure this as much as you want, it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

I know plenty of white women who hate all other women. Never has a single one of them uttered a word of support for feminism, and when it really comes down to it, they denounce it's current form, at least. Only skanky bitch white women, and fat disgusting dykes support feminism.

Keep your head stuck firmly in the sand like a good Goyim sheep.

It's a tendency for Goyim sheep - excuses for European men - to behave like this; to disengage their brain; to disengage logic.

I repeat again:

You can repeat and repeat but repeating your lies doesn't make them true. You know nothing about the substantial and major Jewish creation and support and promotion of Feminism.

What kind of logic do you have when it is nothing but lies?

I know plenty of white women who hate all other women. Never has a single one of them uttered a word of support for feminism, and when it really comes down to it, they denounce it's current form, at least. Only skanky bitch white women, and fat disgusting dykes support feminism.


Just had this conversation with an older women I met in my office yesterday, we both agreed Womens lib was a terrible thing to happen to this country.

Background

One of the major issues being highlighted in this series of essays concerns the Marxist imposition of equality. Having intended to write this essay after part two, an essay which discussed how imposing artificial equality among and between the races flies in the face of Mother Nature, I will now discuss how imposing equality between the sexes has had a catastrophic effect upon Western societies. It is best read with the issues raised in part two in mind, I had intended it so but one or two more pressing matters meant the chronology was disrupted.

I think if I stated that if one were to observe Western societies with a neutral stance to assess how the enforced Multicultural social experiment is progressing, it would be difficult to assert that Multiculturalism is working. Despite being brow-beaten with the "we're all equal" mantra, clear differences continue to arise between races and cultures because reality stubbornly refuses to fall in line with this childish Liberal fantasy of equality of all in a tranquil rainbow Shangri-la.

Throughout the West, vast numbers of alien immigrants shun the culture of their host society, preferring instead to maintain their own languages, traditions and cultures and demanding ever more tolerance and acceptance of their way of life. Meanwhile, back in their lands of origin, their cultures and traditions are entirely persevered and in the case of the Middle East, alien cultures and traditions are strictly - and very forcibly - forbidden.

Making such an observation and also comparing the West with other societies, it is crystal clear that major differences exist between races and that the predominantly white West is behaving in ways that other societies - societies from where most immigrants to Britain originate - do not and this means that our own culture and our own traditions are now in decline, indeed one could honestly claim that we are well along the road to colonisation and this is a damning indictment on Multiculturalism and its supporters.

But what is not so easy to discern is how the imposition of equality between the sexes is playing a major part in causing a disastrous and ongoing collapse of the greatest civilisation ever created in human history. It is an imposition of superficial equality that has been as equally destructive as forcibly imposing equality between the races. It has happened once again by creating a "victim" group, in this case women, and championed by male-hating feminists, the imposition of equality between the sexes has severely handicapped the West and although some advances - much needed in my humble view - have been achieved, sexual equality has also unwittingly achieved an undesirable result of enslaving and oppressing Western women far more than they have ever been, not least because equality for all has a logical conclusion of leading women into a nightmare of oppression and slavery as I will now explain.

I assert that feminism is therefore self-destructive as all pursuits of illusions - in this case equality of the sexes - are. But before I continue, let me make clear that we are not talking about the worth of a person or even an infantile "one sex is better than the other" high-school debate but rather the differences inherent between the sexes as bestowed by Mother Nature and how these differences have played a part throughout human evolution.

Natural Born Leader

When we talk about equality in Multicultural societies, remember that we're talking about equality Marxist-style. Marxists loathe the strong and pity the weak and this is the inversion of morality explained throughout the series so far. The goal of Marxists is to weaken the strong and empower the weak and so, to impose equality between the sexes, the white male must therefore be weakened.

Human beings are dominant pack animals, they have evolved into the most dominant animal on planet earth without question. In the natural world, dominant pack animals have a strict pecking order, with the strongest male - the Alpha male - imposing his leadership. The role of the leader is to maintain the pack order, to establish and mark territory containing resources for the pack to survive and importantly, to defend the pack from attack. He will also face challenges from his pack for leadership and if he fails a challenge a new leader is established. As the male is the stronger of the sexes, females do not lead the pack, but will support the leader in maintaining order and defending the pack along with their natural role as bearer and nurturer of their young.

The goal of the pack is to survive, each day is a struggle to find food and it has to compete not just with packs of the same species, but other species as well for precious resources to survive. Dominant pack animals became dominant because of their success at competing and therefore surviving. From the leader through to the young, the role of each member of the pack is known and those who stray will be put in their place by the seniors or even the leader himself. It is the alpha male who will lead and place the interest of his pack first, its survival paramount.

This is an absolute fact for pack animals: Leadership must exist, there has to be a leader to organise the pack so its survival is ensured. Weak leaders are never respected in nature and this applies to humans too. All races have leaders and by logical extension, the strongest race will lead the weaker races. If it doesn't the weaker races will sense this and challenge for territory and dominance. That is what happens with dominant pack animals in nature - packs continually compete for territory and resources and the strongest packs will dominate. At this moment in history, the West - that is, the white race - is now acting against this because it is handicapping the strong and falsely elevating the weak and in doing so is establishing weak leaders with the result that the West - the territory - is now being invaded and conquered.

Feel Like A New Man

Traditionally, the roles of the sexes were quite clear: Man was the hunter, the breadwinner, the protector, the leader of the family, his pack, and woman was his supportive partner who bore his offspring, nurtured and raised them and made the home. Based on Judeo-Christian values, the nuclear family was at the heart of society and helped to make the West and especially Great Britain, such strong nations who advanced and therefore succeeded in the game of life, far better than any others.

Re-enforced by a strong work ethic, a sense of duty and of service to God and nation along with strict moral values, the man's role as provider for his pack from the fruits of his labour along with the woman's role as his wife and mother of their children was crucial to the family's survival and although life was harder back then, providing for his family gave a man an important purpose and a sense of pride and self-respect. For his wife, this would mean security to care for her family, and again, a sense of duty, purpose, service and fulfilment from being a mother and wife.

Contrast this, an albeit basic overview of how important family life along with clearly defined roles of the sexes was during Britain's golden era with what is happening today, where the roles of the sexes have changed dramatically and are now more about self-interest than family life.

Let's take men. Today's male in the main cuts a very different pack animal from his forefathers. In the Multicultural utopia, where the nuclear family has been all but trashed, many males are engaging in long-lasting childish or feminine behaviours such as the following which I seem to see on an almost daily basis wherever I go:

Adult males riding skateboards or roller-blading. Playing computer games night after night or watching TV for hours on end mindlessly lapping up the Multicultural propaganda spewed out by the deceitful media. Then there is the quite asinine mimicking of how blacks speak "lak is da cool fing mans innit" and males will even write in this retarded style. Modern man, sometimes referred to as "Metrosexual" will also be obsessed with appearance and fashion, from hair gel and facial scrub to designer labels and expensive after shave, men have adopted feminine attitudes to personal grooming and preen before mirrors as though they were beauty queens. Style over substance is now key and many young men will have no qualms about piling up debt to boost their image, flash cars being perhaps the most obvious example.

And we've not even mentioned the rise and rise of homosexuality.

Excessive drinking and drug-taking further anaesthetise the minds of many young British males. From smoking weed to dropping ecstasy from heroin to cocaine, drug taking is rife and to be fair, Western women are also joining in the "fun", there's equality for you! Shamefully, the West is awash with hardcore pornography, many men - and to be fair, women too - will watch this base "adult entertainment" every day.

That there is nothing "adult" about it matters not a jot in the Liberal "we tolerate everything" world. Watching consenting adults sexually debase themselves with beautiful girls performing a variety of sexually explicit and extreme acts is surely not what a mature adult considers entertainment? It is degenerate behaviour, a sign of a morally bankrupt and deteriorating society yet "open-minded" Liberals will claim porn flicks are evidence of "a celebration of sexuality because women can now freely express and share their sexuality and can now fully enjoy sex as equally as men without fear or guilt."

Can I humbly ask: Is porn and the glorification of what should be private acts really a sign of progress for women? And is porn evidence of a progressive society based on equality of the sexes?

You tell me.

Addicted to depravity, booze and narcotics and constantly manipulated by the Marxist controlled media, an awareness of how important territory is and how important it is to ensure freedom is the precious gift you need to preserve for future generations is virtually non-existent.

The modern Western male is Multiculturalist, he has abandoned the Judeo-Christian values that shaped the mighty West, is in the main anti-war and is meekly surrendering territory to invaders rather than defend it and in so-doing, bargains away freedom and robs it from future generations to enjoy a secure life. Football also provides an insight into how confused modern males now are. There's the childish and asinine chants directed at the opposition, e.g. "You're scum and you know you are", including abusing the officials, the players and staff of opposition teams including abusing them for their physical appearance which will often then escalate into mindless violence between rival supporters. Yet these same mature wise men will become apoplectic with rage should anyone dare criticise other races or even other faiths especially Islam and again resort to violence amid hysterical cries of "Racist". Point out that football supporters behave in this way towards each other and they will explain fierce hate-filled football rivalries as "it's territorial" or "it's tribal" totally oblivious to the colonisation of their nation in a war which is most definitely "territorial" and certainly "tribal" and with a far greater price at stake.

I find it odd that many males will display such misguided passion for their football team but have zero passion or patriotism for their own nation. Football is nothing in the grand scale of things, it is now an entertainment business, a money generating scheme for the rich elite that wouldn't make a difference to life if it ended tomorrow. But your nation, your territory, is everything, it is crucial to your survival and the survival of your family, your children and your children's children yet many childish men regard football as being far more important to their lives.

This is not conjecture by the way, I've tried to debate and explain Islam to my fellow supporters on several football forums and I have been banned from all of them and vilified as a...well, insert your favourite well-worn smear for those who dare speak the truth about Islam here, I've been on the receiving end of all of them and not just on football forums either. However, I watch with interest the British Defence Leagues that have arose from various football "firms" as they protest against the Islamisation of Britain.

While Western men ogle their porn, quaff their beers, smoke their pot, fret over their wardrobes, gel their blow-waved hair and spend hours aimlessly zapping aliens, armies of alien males filled with hate and a steely resolve to conquer the West amass on our territory. Whilst men of other races still lead their packs and prepare for war against us to claim more territory and more resources, the Liberal-Multicultural Western male is preparing his "partner's" dinner, fretting about how he can be more tolerant, smugly priding himself with the knowledge that he isn't "racist" or "misogynist" or "homophobic".

That enemies are now in our territory preparing to conquer us isn't just the fault of the modern metrosexual male. Because the fairer sex has also changed and has contributed enormously to the current plight the West is now in.

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves

The progression of feminism throughout the 20th Century to the present has presented a challenge to the Western male which quite frankly he has continually refused to rise to. What began as a struggle to give women the vote gradually morphed into a struggle to establish women as the equals of men - employment, property rights, education, marital rights, sexual freedoms and legal status.

Having secured a victory to establish women's suffrage, feminists then moved onto the next issue, then the next issue, then the next, continually citing "inequality" and "oppression" and demonising their menfolk as "enslavers" at each step of the way, demanding equality at all levels presenting a determined challenge to male leadership.

Each victory spurred on feminists to the next. Except true equality isn't the goal, the goal is leadership and that is now exactly what is happening. Pack animals must have leaders and women are now challenging for this role but they have to be aided in their quest.

Equality of the sexes doesn't exist and cannot exist. To artificially establish equality in the Multicultural Shangri-la, the strong must be unfairly penalised which is camouflaged by the Orwellian phrase "Positive discrimination". This is happening right now to the Western - British - male. Companies are forced by law to employ people based on sex or colour meaning that the best candidate cannot be selected if it means legal quotas of ethnic minorities or women will not be met.

Conversely, check out which sex does most of the fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. No rush to establish quotas there on the violent blood soaked battlefields of course and this is not a flippant remark, in fact the reason underpins this entire essay.

Feminists have also trashed completely the traditional role of wife and mother whilst at the same time elevating the virtues of work and encouraging a fiercely competitive "we're independent, we don't need men, we can do everything for ourselves and we can do it just as well if not better". Inspired by cultural Marxism, feminists have demanded the right to sexual freedom, the right to end marriages and claim half of the man's wealth as part of divorce and usually, custody of the children will be awarded to the mother and all of this places a wholly unequal burden of risk on the male as well as making marriage a not too attractive prospect for either sex for very different reasons. The divorce rate is sky-high and this doesn't account for the thousands and thousands of couples who live together only to part company before even a year has passed.

Greater sexual freedoms have also resulted in women now having the right to kill their babies under the "right to choose" abortion laws and liberal attitudes to sex, along with the widespread availability of pornography, results in promiscuity being promoted as being a healthy lifestyle choice with a strong emphasis on pleasure and self-gratification.

The rise in single parent families resulting from liberal attitudes to sex has brought about the quite ridiculous and, in my humble opinion, demeaning spectacle of a woman having as many children as she pleases and demanding the state step in and act as surrogate father to provide food and shelter. With the father - or now in many cases, fathers - absent from the home, children are raised with only a female authority figure without strong discipline or a masculine influence.

By trashing the role of wife and mother within the nuclear family, and elevating the values of work and female independence instead, feminists have so transformed the role of women in the pursuit to establish themselves as pack leaders that many women simply don't have enough time or even the desire to reproduce and the birth-rate in Western societies is now so low it may be impossible for the West to recover and reproduce itself sufficiently to maintain its survival and you can bet your last penny that our enemies who absolutely despise us and are chomping at the bit to conquer us will have noticed this and they'll know that victory will soon be theirs.

But a more pressing issue to consider is that with such a catastrophically low birth-rate, there will be less strong males to protect the pack from attack and right now the West is under attack from a variety of other packs, packs whose birth-rates are far higher, where the males are dominant pack leaders, packs whose goal is to conquer our territory and subjugate us or even annihilate us.

Taking The Bait

My contention is that what started out as a perfectly just fight to establish suffrage has morphed not just into a battle for equality but outright hatred for the white male. This hatred for men - misandry - has been seized upon by Marxists and promoted as healthy yet there will be very unhealthy - make that devastating - consequences.

The promotion of misandry and of feminist issues hasn't just empowered women it has demoralised Western men to the point of self-hatred. These self-hating "men" have sided with feminists and follow the lead of females having fallen hook, line and sinker for the Marxist "we're all equal" propaganda.

One could even go as far as saying that instead of making a better society by promoting a healthy respect and true equality between the sexes by reducing conflict, feminism has resulted in greater mistrust and hostility between the sexes and as men-haters like the demented Harriet Harman clearly demonstrate, it is a war to humiliate and discriminate against indigenous males to weaken them and empower women via numerous "positive discrimination" laws.

Let's not forget that these laws are in addition the "positive discrimination" laws forcing the equality of the races. Oh, and let's also not forget that those who hate us and seek to conquer and destroy us do not pass such laws in their own territories. Do you think that may be, perhaps, for a very good reason?

This Marxist promotion of feminism also encourages society to adopt feminine attitudes and traits such as equality, tolerance, compassion, understanding, peace, non-discrimination, non-judgemental, these are weak feminine traits that have now been adopted by weak males, many of whom adopt these traits to impress females, especially those who are Liberal-Multiculturalists and to my embarrassment I write from years of experience as a one time dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. I too swallowed this equality garbage lock, stock and barrel and honestly as I write this series of essays, I cannot believe I fell for it. I know I'm just one of millions who were brainwashed from childhood to accept the Multicultural ideology and although I had no idea of the ensuing very serious consequences, ignorance is no excuse and sadly, the majority of Westerners believe strongly in Multiculturalism.

Such is the astuteness and the cunning of our Marxist enemies.

The more feminine attitudes are adopted the weaker society becomes. Criminals are treated like children. Murderers, child abusers and drug pushers - utter scum - receive light punishments as their human rights are sacrosanct and must not be violated. The death penalty, abolished on the since oft-broken promise that a life sentence will mean life, is no longer an option, and our prisons now provide all home comforts for those who prey upon society and who have no mercy or compassion for their victims. And have you noticed how women are often portrayed in the media and in Hollywood as warriors and fighters who are as strong as men yet reality reveals a vastly different picture? Look at violent crime for example. Men will commit the vast majority of violent crimes, there are very few female armed robbers and gangs are dominated by males. Brutal, violent males at that.

Ridiculously, criminals even have the right to sue the Police if they think their rights have been violated as happened with one of the armed robbers arrested during the raid on the millennium dome. Crime is rife in our society, criminals are using the law to their own advantage and gang crime blights inner cities all because we lack the courage to severely punish criminals and this is another sign of how feminine traits such as compassion and pity weaken Western society.

Yet unlike myself and many other former Liberals, not once have I heard a prominent Liberal in society ever question their beliefs and say: The evidence is showing us that we're getting it badly wrong. Not once have I heard any of our leaders in the lib/lab/con admit that their Multicultural pursuit of equality between the races and the sexes is not working. None of them ever look further than the now and deploy a little bit of insight and warn of the dire consequences future generations are now destined to face. Not one. Instead, as always with the power mad self-serving elite, the reason things are going badly awry is because there simply isn't enough equality so the answer is more of the same: more legislation to punish the strong and artificially empower the weak, more propaganda and lies to support the childish Multicultural utopian fantasy piling yet more problems on top of existing ones.

When a society adopts a feminine perspective, it will smear masculine males as "racists", "thugs", "xenophobes" or "fascists", handicapping their own men who are competing with other races - packs - and who want to defend their pack from attack or defend their territory and resources from invaders who are determined to conquer and plunder them. This only serves to empower our enemies because it weakens the ability of the entire pack to defend itself and preserve its territory whilst empowering our enemies. Such self-destructive behaviour is akin to asking a boxer to fight with two hands tied behind his back. While his opponent wears head-guards and body pads, just in case.

Such stupidity is a complete denial of how nature works, it is a catastrophic undermining of the strong pack-leaders to handicap them from defending the entire pack and ensuring the safety and progression of the entire pack from predators who are competing AGAINST them. This is how life is, it is competitive and territory and the resources within it are absolutely essential. Those who refuse to defend their territory and protect their resources will not survive because other stronger and more determined enemies will attack and get what they can to ensure their own success in the fight for survival and the struggle to establish dominance in the harsh competition of life.

What feminists and their self-hating male sympathisers fail to grasp is that when the pack and its territory is threatened, it is the stronger sex, the male, who will have to fight and defend it. By propagating feminine attitudes throughout Western society, another quite alarming issue is now raised.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Equality of the races and equality between the sexes is being vigorously pursued by the ruling Marxist elite with an almost fanatical religious zeal. Anyone who dares to oppose this unnatural equality is smeared, de-humanised and criminalised. Equality can only be imposed by force and that means handicapping the strong.

Should any man reach down and find a pair and dare to criticise feminists they will be met with an hysterical outrage along with more smears and slurs: Haters, misogynist, male-chauvinist pig, bigot and "typical male", these of course in addition to all of the other insults hurled his way for wanting to preserve his identity and perform his natural role as provider and protector for his pack, these idiotic slurs along with the tired out brickbats trotted out by totalitarian Marxists to stifle debate, to silence opposition: Racist, Nazi, fascist, thug, Islamophobe. All as predictable as they are tiresome and bankrupt.

But there is a self-destructive consequence for a society that chooses to adopt weak feminine traits and perspectives and imposes an unnatural equality between the sexes and the races. In doing so, Liberal-Multiculturalists are making the white male a demon to all people, even to his own women, women who are so busy handicapping and dis-empowering their menfolk all they are doing is serving the interests of aliens who hate the entire West, who want to loot and pilfer the bounty created by the West and are busy going about occupying the territory of the West. And the women who are part of it are building the chains of their own oppression and bondage link by link and one day those they have sided with will force them to wear the chains they've constructed.

Blinded by their own desire to be the equal of the male and an arrogant belief that they possess an absolute and unquestionable moral justification, all these people can see is the here and now and they simply don't acknowledge that in the future, the utopian equal society they are busy building may have to face a very serious attack. Now obviously, if a society - a pack - is lead by women, then it is in serious trouble because women may well lead society but they will be wholly incapable of fighting for it and defending it.

That job, as history and other packs teach us, always falls to the stronger sex, the male. Now let me ask you a question:

If a male is brainwashed into believing that his forefathers were evil and guilty of oppressing weaker races; into believing that all races are equal and that because his nation and his people colonised other lands and stole their wealth his people must now atone; that his race is responsible for causing all of the conflicts and wars; that it is only right and proper for other races to share the abundant resources of his land and that his womenfolk are not just equal to him but are superior to him and actually hate him then is it possible that such a disgruntled male might ask:

Why on earth he should fight and defend his territory and his pack if such a society - his pack - holds him in such low esteem?

I mean, if you have no bond with your nation and your people, if you have no family because you've been divorced and punished punitively for committing the crime of marriage and if your society affords more rights and privileges for other pack animals and discriminates against you at every turn then maybe, just maybe, you will have as much desire to fight and defend your territory from attack as a Muslim has to co-exist in peace with the dirty kuffar.

The last sentence is very pertinent because there is something else I want to bring to your attention regarding how women are perceived by our enemies that feminists and their merry band of Liberal-Multiculturalists ignore at their peril.

To the fanatical jihad army of Islam, the women of kuffars in the lands of Dar al Harb are "war booty". This means that when a land is conquered into Dar al Islam, the kuffar women will be enslaved and used as sex-objects for their Islamic masters. Using dirty kuffar women as sex-slaves is an example personally set by the Islamic paedophile prophet Mohammed and it is an example that Muslims not only will follow should Great Britain become Al Britannia, Muslim jihadists are following it right now in many communities throughout the realm and indeed throughout Europe.

British women will then discover to their horror the consequences of their battle to establish equality between the sexes and that not all are sold on their fantasy of a rainbow Shangri-la where all are equal and where all live in peace and harmony. The evidence is there for them to see it but they prefer to turn a blind eye, yet all they have to do is open their eyes and look at the barbaric horrors endured by their sisters throughout Dar al Islam where rape, stoning, wife-beating, honour killings and mutilations aren't just common they are legal and where under Sharia law the life of a Muslim female is valued as half of that of a Muslim male and where women are afforded virtually zero rights in either marriage or divorce and many other inequalities I'm sure you could add.

But the point that needs to be made is: Whose civilisation is in decline and whose is in the ascendancy? One is very masculine, the other increasingly feminine. Take a wild guess as to which civilisation is going to prevail.

Eyes On The Prize

It isn't just Muslim jihadists who see women as spoils of war, as sexual objects to fulfil not just their own perverted sexual gratification but to humiliate white women and their menfolk. Gang rape of white women is now rife in the West, and along with Muslims following the example of their perverted prophet, gangs of black males delight in gang raping white women over and over again, a diabolical crime committed by blacks wherever they go, from the United States, to Britain and Europe but especially in South Africa where gang raping the poor victim in front of her husband, her parents or her children is common.

But the long tradition of men being the leaders and the protectors of the pack has been abandoned in white societies thanks to the advent of Marxism and feminism. Only the strong lead but now in white societies, women have been elevated to the equals of men and are competing to lead at every turn and Western men are allowing a feminisation of society and the establishing of women as equals and leaders.

Other societies and races do not allow women this prominence in their societies and this poses an interesting question: when whites become a minority in the West, will women enjoy the same freedom and equality the feminists have fought for and demanded whilst supporting the rights of a tsunami of immigrants flooding our lands?

Well if the evidence is anything to go by, they will timidly submit before their new masters. Take rape for example. Feminists become incandescent with rage and hatred for men who say that they raped a woman because she was dressed provocatively. They say a woman has the right to dress how she chooses without being raped by a lust-crazed sex-beast and of course, this is quite correct.

But when Muslim males rape dirty kuffar women in the lefty rainbow lunatic asylum of Sweden, these same feminists sided with the Muslims who cited the issue of provocative dress as the reason for their assault - al taqqiya of course - and so-called feminists advised Swedish women to dress in a less provocative fashion. And shamefully, whilst writing this essay, a woman from Amnesty International spoke out AGAINST a film depicting the horrific and barbaric stoning of women in Iran. This absolute washout of a woman who is supposed to be concerned about human rights was more interested in protecting the barbarian mullahtocracy of Iran and in true nauseating Liberal style whined "this film will not help".

What utter morally bankrupt cowards these weasels are! They won't even defend their own principles when other races and minorities trample all over them even to the cost of their sisters. This is what weak leadership based on feminine traits - compassion, non-judgemental, pity etc. - is all about and it will lead women into a very real horrific nightmare.

It is this weak leadership that continually makes excuses to tolerate the abuse of women by hate-filled aliens who commit these crimes, the very people feminists warmly welcomed into the West. Yet it has been these same feminists who have been blaming their own menfolk for oppressing them, for enslaving them in marriages, for abusing and raping them, for denying them opportunity. It is feminists who have continually competed for and demanded equality, who, egged on by Marxists who filled them with resentment for the traditional roles of mother and home-maker, who painted family life as a prison, and who demanded an end to "gender apartheid", another Marxist false construct to denote victim-hood.

What needs to be realised - and quick - is that we're not here to have a competition to see which sex is the better, the stronger, the more intelligent, the more independent. We're here to compete and survive in the game of life and those who play by Mother nature's rules will flourish and those who do not will perish and at this moment in time the West is engaging in an artificial pursuit of racial and sexual equality whilst subjugating itself before enemies who are instead engaging with reality. The message we're sending is loud and clear: We are ripe for the taking and our enemies know it.

Poisoned Minds

Another symptom of the feminisation of Britain is the lamentable fact that we do not make anything any more. Thriving industries that made Britain strong and independent - mining, shipbuilding, engineering etc. - have all been absolutely decimated along with the communities who provided the labour. Nowadays, more and more men are employed in "unisex" jobs, especially as civil servants, the pen pushers who serve the growing and parasitical state Titan as wealth distributors helping it to destroy our nation. These are the men who are now performing a variety of unnecessary government jobs that regulate and interfere with the daily lives of people, robbing them of their hard-earned wealth and their even harder won freedoms.

This while our armed services have been cut-down to the bare bones yet which is better? Employing an army of bureaucrats who weaken the nation or an army of soldiers who can protect and defend the nation? In 21st Century Britain, there are too many people doing things we simply do not need and that contribute little of worth to our society and not enough people doing things we desperately need to make our nation self-sufficient, strong and able to protect and support its people.

It's all happened because of a concerted attack by Marxists on the very foundations of our once strong society. Fuelled by a seething hatred for success, Marxists have been tearing down the standards behaviours and morals that lead to success to weaken our once strong society all performed with relish by people who hate success because they are incapable of contributing anything of worth to society. So they maliciously ruin everything that contributes to a successful life and they've done it by promoting failed practices as healthy throughout the print and broadcast media: Promiscuity, equality, hatred for religion especially Christianity, and self-indulgence including binge drinking and drug abuse. They have force-fed their Multicultural propaganda with its equality of the sexes, equality of races and equality of cultures down the throats of the British people at every level of our society including the schools educating our children. Sorry, my mistake, make that "brainwashing our children".

For women, this has meant the trashing and demeaning of one of the most precious roles in nature: That of mother. Women have been made to feel that they are victims because of their natural role as child-bearer. Marriage too has been portrayed as female oppression and work and independence - including sexual freedom - have now been assigned far greater importance. Feminists have blamed men for their oppression yet it seems to me that feminists are in fact battling against nature.

In 21st Century Britain, if a woman doesn't want her child she can abort it. If she tires of her marriage she can end it and even if marital breakdown is caused by a straying wife, the legal system will still side with her and award her custody of children along with half of her husband's wealth. Should a woman want a child, she can even have one without having met the father, knowing full well the state will provide for all of the family needs.

A Liberal attitude to sex, where immediate pleasure and gratification are the overriding priorities and damn the long-term consequences has been unashamedly promoted. But it isn't as liberal as suggested. It has all been deliberately designed to trash the sanctity of marriage, the honour of woman, the respect between husband and wife to ruin the quiet, contented and vitally important bond between a man and woman and the raising of children in the security of family life.

Marxists have filled people with petty jealousies and even rancour for the opposite sex by making them believe they are missing out, that they are being trapped, that married life and family life robs them of precious life time. Along with the rest of the issues raised in this series, the promotion of behaviours that lead to failure have all been maliciously calculated to destroy the white race by portraying successful lifestyle choices as harmful and flawed lifestyle choices as desirable thus leading to a catastrophic and probably irrecoverable decline in the birth-rate of the race.

Along with the feminisation of males and the elevation of women to pack leaders whilst other males in other races continue to be raised with masculine, aggressive and dominant attitudes, Great Britain, a nation that created the greatest Empire in human history, has sewed the seeds of its own destruction and its conquest is a very real prospect that the latest generations of Britons could well witness in just 50 years.

Conclusion

Weak feminine leaders are not respected, certainly not in nature by any dominant pack animal. The feminisation of Western societies has lead to men adopting feminine traits and attitudes such as compassion, pity, non-judgemental and more emotional. It has been noticed by our enemies who know that Liberals and Multiculturalists are weak, faint-hearted and war-averse. They hear the anti-war, "let's all live in peace as equals" rhetoric, they know that the West will not put the interests of its own people before alien invaders and they know a simple truth:

These lily-livered cowards are the dominant demographic in Western society. They know feminised males in the West are too cowardly to compete with other races who are chomping at the bit to pilfer and destroy the West and who are exploiting the cowardice of the West to the max.

The West is now acting in a way that is removed from reality: that life is all about survival and working against the balance of nature is placing our long term survival under threat because we are failing to recognise the competitive nature between and among species. The more territory you hold, the greater resources you control and the greater you increase your chances of survival. The more you weaken and reduce the competition the better. It is all about territory and failing to dominate and protect your territory isn't just catastrophic, it's suicidal.

We are in a competition for territory yet because of the imposing of weak feminine attitudes on Western society, we are meekly surrendering our territory to invaders who seek to become conquerors and masters to further the interests of their own tribes. They have no problem in using our tolerance against us to further their aims and if we ever do try to defend what is rightfully ours, they too will dehumanise us as racists, fascists etc. knowing full well that many of our own will side with them - i.e. collaborate with the enemy - to help them strengthen their foothold in the West. It is very difficult to fight and defend your territory when your own pack is fighting against you and helping invaders to settle in your territory.

Take a look at the societies of two of our enemies, the host societies of the parasitical alien packs invading our nation, particularly Africa and the Middle East. See with your own eyes what Africans are doing to whites and see the harsh and decidedly unequal reality of how Islamic countries truly are behind the "Religion of Peace" veil. And check out the birth rates there and if you can, have a search for equality and Multiculturalism.

Mother nature is doing her very best to tell us: "All are not equal, only the strong survive, defend your territory or perish. Heed well my warning."

From Titans To Lemmings: The Suicide Of The White Race

http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-titans-to-lemmings-suicide-of.html

Background

One of the major issues being highlighted in this series of essays concerns the Marxist imposition of equality. Having intended to write this essay after part two, an essay which discussed how imposing artificial equality among and between the races flies in the face of Mother Nature, I will now discuss how imposing equality between the sexes has had a catastrophic effect upon Western societies. It is best read with the issues raised in part two in mind, I had intended it so but one or two more pressing matters meant the chronology was disrupted.

I think if I stated that if one were to observe Western societies with a neutral stance to assess how the enforced Multicultural social experiment is progressing, it would be difficult to assert that Multiculturalism is working. Despite being brow-beaten with the "we're all equal" mantra, clear differences continue to arise between races and cultures because reality stubbornly refuses to fall in line with this childish Liberal fantasy of equality of all in a tranquil rainbow Shangri-la.

Throughout the West, vast numbers of alien immigrants shun the culture of their host society, preferring instead to maintain their own languages, traditions and cultures and demanding ever more tolerance and acceptance of their way of life. Meanwhile, back in their lands of origin, their cultures and traditions are entirely persevered and in the case of the Middle East, alien cultures and traditions are strictly - and very forcibly - forbidden.

Making such an observation and also comparing the West with other societies, it is crystal clear that major differences exist between races and that the predominantly white West is behaving in ways that other societies - societies from where most immigrants to Britain originate - do not and this means that our own culture and our own traditions are now in decline, indeed one could honestly claim that we are well along the road to colonisation and this is a damning indictment on Multiculturalism and its supporters.

But what is not so easy to discern is how the imposition of equality between the sexes is playing a major part in causing a disastrous and ongoing collapse of the greatest civilisation ever created in human history. It is an imposition of superficial equality that has been as equally destructive as forcibly imposing equality between the races. It has happened once again by creating a "victim" group, in this case women, and championed by male-hating feminists, the imposition of equality between the sexes has severely handicapped the West and although some advances - much needed in my humble view - have been achieved, sexual equality has also unwittingly achieved an undesirable result of enslaving and oppressing Western women far more than they have ever been, not least because equality for all has a logical conclusion of leading women into a nightmare of oppression and slavery as I will now explain.

I assert that feminism is therefore self-destructive as all pursuits of illusions - in this case equality of the sexes - are. But before I continue, let me make clear that we are not talking about the worth of a person or even an infantile "one sex is better than the other" high-school debate but rather the differences inherent between the sexes as bestowed by Mother Nature and how these differences have played a part throughout human evolution.

Natural Born Leader

When we talk about equality in Multicultural societies, remember that we're talking about equality Marxist-style. Marxists loathe the strong and pity the weak and this is the inversion of morality explained throughout the series so far. The goal of Marxists is to weaken the strong and empower the weak and so, to impose equality between the sexes, the white male must therefore be weakened.

Human beings are dominant pack animals, they have evolved into the most dominant animal on planet earth without question. In the natural world, dominant pack animals have a strict pecking order, with the strongest male - the Alpha male - imposing his leadership. The role of the leader is to maintain the pack order, to establish and mark territory containing resources for the pack to survive and importantly, to defend the pack from attack. He will also face challenges from his pack for leadership and if he fails a challenge a new leader is established. As the male is the stronger of the sexes, females do not lead the pack, but will support the leader in maintaining order and defending the pack along with their natural role as bearer and nurturer of their young.

The goal of the pack is to survive, each day is a struggle to find food and it has to compete not just with packs of the same species, but other species as well for precious resources to survive. Dominant pack animals became dominant because of their success at competing and therefore surviving. From the leader through to the young, the role of each member of the pack is known and those who stray will be put in their place by the seniors or even the leader himself. It is the alpha male who will lead and place the interest of his pack first, its survival paramount.

This is an absolute fact for pack animals: Leadership must exist, there has to be a leader to organise the pack so its survival is ensured. Weak leaders are never respected in nature and this applies to humans too. All races have leaders and by logical extension, the strongest race will lead the weaker races. If it doesn't the weaker races will sense this and challenge for territory and dominance. That is what happens with dominant pack animals in nature - packs continually compete for territory and resources and the strongest packs will dominate. At this moment in history, the West - that is, the white race - is now acting against this because it is handicapping the strong and falsely elevating the weak and in doing so is establishing weak leaders with the result that the West - the territory - is now being invaded and conquered.

Feel Like A New Man

Traditionally, the roles of the sexes were quite clear: Man was the hunter, the breadwinner, the protector, the leader of the family, his pack, and woman was his supportive partner who bore his offspring, nurtured and raised them and made the home. Based on Judeo-Christian values, the nuclear family was at the heart of society and helped to make the West and especially Great Britain, such strong nations who advanced and therefore succeeded in the game of life, far better than any others.

Re-enforced by a strong work ethic, a sense of duty and of service to God and nation along with strict moral values, the man's role as provider for his pack from the fruits of his labour along with the woman's role as his wife and mother of their children was crucial to the family's survival and although life was harder back then, providing for his family gave a man an important purpose and a sense of pride and self-respect. For his wife, this would mean security to care for her family, and again, a sense of duty, purpose, service and fulfilment from being a mother and wife.

Contrast this, an albeit basic overview of how important family life along with clearly defined roles of the sexes was during Britain's golden era with what is happening today, where the roles of the sexes have changed dramatically and are now more about self-interest than family life.

Let's take men. Today's male in the main cuts a very different pack animal from his forefathers. In the Multicultural utopia, where the nuclear family has been all but trashed, many males are engaging in long-lasting childish or feminine behaviours such as the following which I seem to see on an almost daily basis wherever I go:

Adult males riding skateboards or roller-blading. Playing computer games night after night or watching TV for hours on end mindlessly lapping up the Multicultural propaganda spewed out by the deceitful media. Then there is the quite asinine mimicking of how blacks speak "lak is da cool fing mans innit" and males will even write in this retarded style. Modern man, sometimes referred to as "Metrosexual" will also be obsessed with appearance and fashion, from hair gel and facial scrub to designer labels and expensive after shave, men have adopted feminine attitudes to personal grooming and preen before mirrors as though they were beauty queens. Style over substance is now key and many young men will have no qualms about piling up debt to boost their image, flash cars being perhaps the most obvious example.

And we've not even mentioned the rise and rise of homosexuality.

Excessive drinking and drug-taking further anaesthetise the minds of many young British males. From smoking weed to dropping ecstasy from heroin to cocaine, drug taking is rife and to be fair, Western women are also joining in the "fun", there's equality for you! Shamefully, the West is awash with hardcore pornography, many men - and to be fair, women too - will watch this base "adult entertainment" every day.

That there is nothing "adult" about it matters not a jot in the Liberal "we tolerate everything" world. Watching consenting adults sexually debase themselves with beautiful girls performing a variety of sexually explicit and extreme acts is surely not what a mature adult considers entertainment? It is degenerate behaviour, a sign of a morally bankrupt and deteriorating society yet "open-minded" Liberals will claim porn flicks are evidence of "a celebration of sexuality because women can now freely express and share their sexuality and can now fully enjoy sex as equally as men without fear or guilt."

Can I humbly ask: Is porn and the glorification of what should be private acts really a sign of progress for women? And is porn evidence of a progressive society based on equality of the sexes?

You tell me.

Addicted to depravity, booze and narcotics and constantly manipulated by the Marxist controlled media, an awareness of how important territory is and how important it is to ensure freedom is the precious gift you need to preserve for future generations is virtually non-existent.

The modern Western male is Multiculturalist, he has abandoned the Judeo-Christian values that shaped the mighty West, is in the main anti-war and is meekly surrendering territory to invaders rather than defend it and in so-doing, bargains away freedom and robs it from future generations to enjoy a secure life. Football also provides an insight into how confused modern males now are. There's the childish and asinine chants directed at the opposition, e.g. "You're scum and you know you are", including abusing the officials, the players and staff of opposition teams including abusing them for their physical appearance which will often then escalate into mindless violence between rival supporters. Yet these same mature wise men will become apoplectic with rage should anyone dare criticise other races or even other faiths especially Islam and again resort to violence amid hysterical cries of "Racist". Point out that football supporters behave in this way towards each other and they will explain fierce hate-filled football rivalries as "it's territorial" or "it's tribal" totally oblivious to the colonisation of their nation in a war which is most definitely "territorial" and certainly "tribal" and with a far greater price at stake.

I find it odd that many males will display such misguided passion for their football team but have zero passion or patriotism for their own nation. Football is nothing in the grand scale of things, it is now an entertainment business, a money generating scheme for the rich elite that wouldn't make a difference to life if it ended tomorrow. But your nation, your territory, is everything, it is crucial to your survival and the survival of your family, your children and your children's children yet many childish men regard football as being far more important to their lives.

This is not conjecture by the way, I've tried to debate and explain Islam to my fellow supporters on several football forums and I have been banned from all of them and vilified as a...well, insert your favourite well-worn smear for those who dare speak the truth about Islam here, I've been on the receiving end of all of them and not just on football forums either. However, I watch with interest the British Defence Leagues that have arose from various football "firms" as they protest against the Islamisation of Britain.

While Western men ogle their porn, quaff their beers, smoke their pot, fret over their wardrobes, gel their blow-waved hair and spend hours aimlessly zapping aliens, armies of alien males filled with hate and a steely resolve to conquer the West amass on our territory. Whilst men of other races still lead their packs and prepare for war against us to claim more territory and more resources, the Liberal-Multicultural Western male is preparing his "partner's" dinner, fretting about how he can be more tolerant, smugly priding himself with the knowledge that he isn't "racist" or "misogynist" or "homophobic".

That enemies are now in our territory preparing to conquer us isn't just the fault of the modern metrosexual male. Because the fairer sex has also changed and has contributed enormously to the current plight the West is now in.

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves

The progression of feminism throughout the 20th Century to the present has presented a challenge to the Western male which quite frankly he has continually refused to rise to. What began as a struggle to give women the vote gradually morphed into a struggle to establish women as the equals of men - employment, property rights, education, marital rights, sexual freedoms and legal status.

Having secured a victory to establish women's suffrage, feminists then moved onto the next issue, then the next issue, then the next, continually citing "inequality" and "oppression" and demonising their menfolk as "enslavers" at each step of the way, demanding equality at all levels presenting a determined challenge to male leadership.

Each victory spurred on feminists to the next. Except true equality isn't the goal, the goal is leadership and that is now exactly what is happening. Pack animals must have leaders and women are now challenging for this role but they have to be aided in their quest.

Equality of the sexes doesn't exist and cannot exist. To artificially establish equality in the Multicultural Shangri-la, the strong must be unfairly penalised which is camouflaged by the Orwellian phrase "Positive discrimination". This is happening right now to the Western - British - male. Companies are forced by law to employ people based on sex or colour meaning that the best candidate cannot be selected if it means legal quotas of ethnic minorities or women will not be met.

Conversely, check out which sex does most of the fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. No rush to establish quotas there on the violent blood soaked battlefields of course and this is not a flippant remark, in fact the reason underpins this entire essay.

Feminists have also trashed completely the traditional role of wife and mother whilst at the same time elevating the virtues of work and encouraging a fiercely competitive "we're independent, we don't need men, we can do everything for ourselves and we can do it just as well if not better". Inspired by cultural Marxism, feminists have demanded the right to sexual freedom, the right to end marriages and claim half of the man's wealth as part of divorce and usually, custody of the children will be awarded to the mother and all of this places a wholly unequal burden of risk on the male as well as making marriage a not too attractive prospect for either sex for very different reasons. The divorce rate is sky-high and this doesn't account for the thousands and thousands of couples who live together only to part company before even a year has passed.

Greater sexual freedoms have also resulted in women now having the right to kill their babies under the "right to choose" abortion laws and liberal attitudes to sex, along with the widespread availability of pornography, results in promiscuity being promoted as being a healthy lifestyle choice with a strong emphasis on pleasure and self-gratification.

The rise in single parent families resulting from liberal attitudes to sex has brought about the quite ridiculous and, in my humble opinion, demeaning spectacle of a woman having as many children as she pleases and demanding the state step in and act as surrogate father to provide food and shelter. With the father - or now in many cases, fathers - absent from the home, children are raised with only a female authority figure without strong discipline or a masculine influence.

By trashing the role of wife and mother within the nuclear family, and elevating the values of work and female independence instead, feminists have so transformed the role of women in the pursuit to establish themselves as pack leaders that many women simply don't have enough time or even the desire to reproduce and the birth-rate in Western societies is now so low it may be impossible for the West to recover and reproduce itself sufficiently to maintain its survival and you can bet your last penny that our enemies who absolutely despise us and are chomping at the bit to conquer us will have noticed this and they'll know that victory will soon be theirs.

But a more pressing issue to consider is that with such a catastrophically low birth-rate, there will be less strong males to protect the pack from attack and right now the West is under attack from a variety of other packs, packs whose birth-rates are far higher, where the males are dominant pack leaders, packs whose goal is to conquer our territory and subjugate us or even annihilate us.

Taking The Bait

My contention is that what started out as a perfectly just fight to establish suffrage has morphed not just into a battle for equality but outright hatred for the white male. This hatred for men - misandry - has been seized upon by Marxists and promoted as healthy yet there will be very unhealthy - make that devastating - consequences.

The promotion of misandry and of feminist issues hasn't just empowered women it has demoralised Western men to the point of self-hatred. These self-hating "men" have sided with feminists and follow the lead of females having fallen hook, line and sinker for the Marxist "we're all equal" propaganda.

One could even go as far as saying that instead of making a better society by promoting a healthy respect and true equality between the sexes by reducing conflict, feminism has resulted in greater mistrust and hostility between the sexes and as men-haters like the demented Harriet Harman clearly demonstrate, it is a war to humiliate and discriminate against indigenous males to weaken them and empower women via numerous "positive discrimination" laws.

Let's not forget that these laws are in addition the "positive discrimination" laws forcing the equality of the races. Oh, and let's also not forget that those who hate us and seek to conquer and destroy us do not pass such laws in their own territories. Do you think that may be, perhaps, for a very good reason?

This Marxist promotion of feminism also encourages society to adopt feminine attitudes and traits such as equality, tolerance, compassion, understanding, peace, non-discrimination, non-judgemental, these are weak feminine traits that have now been adopted by weak males, many of whom adopt these traits to impress females, especially those who are Liberal-Multiculturalists and to my embarrassment I write from years of experience as a one time dyed-in-the-wool Liberal. I too swallowed this equality garbage lock, stock and barrel and honestly as I write this series of essays, I cannot believe I fell for it. I know I'm just one of millions who were brainwashed from childhood to accept the Multicultural ideology and although I had no idea of the ensuing very serious consequences, ignorance is no excuse and sadly, the majority of Westerners believe strongly in Multiculturalism.

Such is the astuteness and the cunning of our Marxist enemies.

The more feminine attitudes are adopted the weaker society becomes. Criminals are treated like children. Murderers, child abusers and drug pushers - utter scum - receive light punishments as their human rights are sacrosanct and must not be violated. The death penalty, abolished on the since oft-broken promise that a life sentence will mean life, is no longer an option, and our prisons now provide all home comforts for those who prey upon society and who have no mercy or compassion for their victims. And have you noticed how women are often portrayed in the media and in Hollywood as warriors and fighters who are as strong as men yet reality reveals a vastly different picture? Look at violent crime for example. Men will commit the vast majority of violent crimes, there are very few female armed robbers and gangs are dominated by males. Brutal, violent males at that.

Ridiculously, criminals even have the right to sue the Police if they think their rights have been violated as happened with one of the armed robbers arrested during the raid on the millennium dome. Crime is rife in our society, criminals are using the law to their own advantage and gang crime blights inner cities all because we lack the courage to severely punish criminals and this is another sign of how feminine traits such as compassion and pity weaken Western society.

Yet unlike myself and many other former Liberals, not once have I heard a prominent Liberal in society ever question their beliefs and say: The evidence is showing us that we're getting it badly wrong. Not once have I heard any of our leaders in the lib/lab/con admit that their Multicultural pursuit of equality between the races and the sexes is not working. None of them ever look further than the now and deploy a little bit of insight and warn of the dire consequences future generations are now destined to face. Not one. Instead, as always with the power mad self-serving elite, the reason things are going badly awry is because there simply isn't enough equality so the answer is more of the same: more legislation to punish the strong and artificially empower the weak, more propaganda and lies to support the childish Multicultural utopian fantasy piling yet more problems on top of existing ones.

When a society adopts a feminine perspective, it will smear masculine males as "racists", "thugs", "xenophobes" or "fascists", handicapping their own men who are competing with other races - packs - and who want to defend their pack from attack or defend their territory and resources from invaders who are determined to conquer and plunder them. This only serves to empower our enemies because it weakens the ability of the entire pack to defend itself and preserve its territory whilst empowering our enemies. Such self-destructive behaviour is akin to asking a boxer to fight with two hands tied behind his back. While his opponent wears head-guards and body pads, just in case.

Such stupidity is a complete denial of how nature works, it is a catastrophic undermining of the strong pack-leaders to handicap them from defending the entire pack and ensuring the safety and progression of the entire pack from predators who are competing AGAINST them. This is how life is, it is competitive and territory and the resources within it are absolutely essential. Those who refuse to defend their territory and protect their resources will not survive because other stronger and more determined enemies will attack and get what they can to ensure their own success in the fight for survival and the struggle to establish dominance in the harsh competition of life.

What feminists and their self-hating male sympathisers fail to grasp is that when the pack and its territory is threatened, it is the stronger sex, the male, who will have to fight and defend it. By propagating feminine attitudes throughout Western society, another quite alarming issue is now raised.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Equality of the races and equality between the sexes is being vigorously pursued by the ruling Marxist elite with an almost fanatical religious zeal. Anyone who dares to oppose this unnatural equality is smeared, de-humanised and criminalised. Equality can only be imposed by force and that means handicapping the strong.

Should any man reach down and find a pair and dare to criticise feminists they will be met with an hysterical outrage along with more smears and slurs: Haters, misogynist, male-chauvinist pig, bigot and "typical male", these of course in addition to all of the other insults hurled his way for wanting to preserve his identity and perform his natural role as provider and protector for his pack, these idiotic slurs along with the tired out brickbats trotted out by totalitarian Marxists to stifle debate, to silence opposition: Racist, Nazi, fascist, thug, Islamophobe. All as predictable as they are tiresome and bankrupt.

But there is a self-destructive consequence for a society that chooses to adopt weak feminine traits and perspectives and imposes an unnatural equality between the sexes and the races. In doing so, Liberal-Multiculturalists are making the white male a demon to all people, even to his own women, women who are so busy handicapping and dis-empowering their menfolk all they are doing is serving the interests of aliens who hate the entire West, who want to loot and pilfer the bounty created by the West and are busy going about occupying the territory of the West. And the women who are part of it are building the chains of their own oppression and bondage link by link and one day those they have sided with will force them to wear the chains they've constructed.

Blinded by their own desire to be the equal of the male and an arrogant belief that they possess an absolute and unquestionable moral justification, all these people can see is the here and now and they simply don't acknowledge that in the future, the utopian equal society they are busy building may have to face a very serious attack. Now obviously, if a society - a pack - is lead by women, then it is in serious trouble because women may well lead society but they will be wholly incapable of fighting for it and defending it.

That job, as history and other packs teach us, always falls to the stronger sex, the male. Now let me ask you a question:

If a male is brainwashed into believing that his forefathers were evil and guilty of oppressing weaker races; into believing that all races are equal and that because his nation and his people colonised other lands and stole their wealth his people must now atone; that his race is responsible for causing all of the conflicts and wars; that it is only right and proper for other races to share the abundant resources of his land and that his womenfolk are not just equal to him but are superior to him and actually hate him then is it possible that such a disgruntled male might ask:

Why on earth he should fight and defend his territory and his pack if such a society - his pack - holds him in such low esteem?

I mean, if you have no bond with your nation and your people, if you have no family because you've been divorced and punished punitively for committing the crime of marriage and if your society affords more rights and privileges for other pack animals and discriminates against you at every turn then maybe, just maybe, you will have as much desire to fight and defend your territory from attack as a Muslim has to co-exist in peace with the dirty kuffar.

The last sentence is very pertinent because there is something else I want to bring to your attention regarding how women are perceived by our enemies that feminists and their merry band of Liberal-Multiculturalists ignore at their peril.

To the fanatical jihad army of Islam, the women of kuffars in the lands of Dar al Harb are "war booty". This means that when a land is conquered into Dar al Islam, the kuffar women will be enslaved and used as sex-objects for their Islamic masters. Using dirty kuffar women as sex-slaves is an example personally set by the Islamic paedophile prophet Mohammed and it is an example that Muslims not only will follow should Great Britain become Al Britannia, Muslim jihadists are following it right now in many communities throughout the realm and indeed throughout Europe.

British women will then discover to their horror the consequences of their battle to establish equality between the sexes and that not all are sold on their fantasy of a rainbow Shangri-la where all are equal and where all live in peace and harmony. The evidence is there for them to see it but they prefer to turn a blind eye, yet all they have to do is open their eyes and look at the barbaric horrors endured by their sisters throughout Dar al Islam where rape, stoning, wife-beating, honour killings and mutilations aren't just common they are legal and where under Sharia law the life of a Muslim female is valued as half of that of a Muslim male and where women are afforded virtually zero rights in either marriage or divorce and many other inequalities I'm sure you could add.

But the point that needs to be made is: Whose civilisation is in decline and whose is in the ascendancy? One is very masculine, the other increasingly feminine. Take a wild guess as to which civilisation is going to prevail.

Eyes On The Prize

It isn't just Muslim jihadists who see women as spoils of war, as sexual objects to fulfil not just their own perverted sexual gratification but to humiliate white women and their menfolk. Gang rape of white women is now rife in the West, and along with Muslims following the example of their perverted prophet, gangs of black males delight in gang raping white women over and over again, a diabolical crime committed by blacks wherever they go, from the United States, to Britain and Europe but especially in South Africa where gang raping the poor victim in front of her husband, her parents or her children is common.

But the long tradition of men being the leaders and the protectors of the pack has been abandoned in white societies thanks to the advent of Marxism and feminism. Only the strong lead but now in white societies, women have been elevated to the equals of men and are competing to lead at every turn and Western men are allowing a feminisation of society and the establishing of women as equals and leaders.

Other societies and races do not allow women this prominence in their societies and this poses an interesting question: when whites become a minority in the West, will women enjoy the same freedom and equality the feminists have fought for and demanded whilst supporting the rights of a tsunami of immigrants flooding our lands?

Well if the evidence is anything to go by, they will timidly submit before their new masters. Take rape for example. Feminists become incandescent with rage and hatred for men who say that they raped a woman because she was dressed provocatively. They say a woman has the right to dress how she chooses without being raped by a lust-crazed sex-beast and of course, this is quite correct.

But when Muslim males rape dirty kuffar women in the lefty rainbow lunatic asylum of Sweden, these same feminists sided with the Muslims who cited the issue of provocative dress as the reason for their assault - al taqqiya of course - and so-called feminists advised Swedish women to dress in a less provocative fashion. And shamefully, whilst writing this essay, a woman from Amnesty International spoke out AGAINST a film depicting the horrific and barbaric stoning of women in Iran. This absolute washout of a woman who is supposed to be concerned about human rights was more interested in protecting the barbarian mullahtocracy of Iran and in true nauseating Liberal style whined "this film will not help".

What utter morally bankrupt cowards these weasels are! They won't even defend their own principles when other races and minorities trample all over them even to the cost of their sisters. This is what weak leadership based on feminine traits - compassion, non-judgemental, pity etc. - is all about and it will lead women into a very real horrific nightmare.

It is this weak leadership that continually makes excuses to tolerate the abuse of women by hate-filled aliens who commit these crimes, the very people feminists warmly welcomed into the West. Yet it has been these same feminists who have been blaming their own menfolk for oppressing them, for enslaving them in marriages, for abusing and raping them, for denying them opportunity. It is feminists who have continually competed for and demanded equality, who, egged on by Marxists who filled them with resentment for the traditional roles of mother and home-maker, who painted family life as a prison, and who demanded an end to "gender apartheid", another Marxist false construct to denote victim-hood.

What needs to be realised - and quick - is that we're not here to have a competition to see which sex is the better, the stronger, the more intelligent, the more independent. We're here to compete and survive in the game of life and those who play by Mother nature's rules will flourish and those who do not will perish and at this moment in time the West is engaging in an artificial pursuit of racial and sexual equality whilst subjugating itself before enemies who are instead engaging with reality. The message we're sending is loud and clear: We are ripe for the taking and our enemies know it.

Poisoned Minds

Another symptom of the feminisation of Britain is the lamentable fact that we do not make anything any more. Thriving industries that made Britain strong and independent - mining, shipbuilding, engineering etc. - have all been absolutely decimated along with the communities who provided the labour. Nowadays, more and more men are employed in "unisex" jobs, especially as civil servants, the pen pushers who serve the growing and parasitical state Titan as wealth distributors helping it to destroy our nation. These are the men who are now performing a variety of unnecessary government jobs that regulate and interfere with the daily lives of people, robbing them of their hard-earned wealth and their even harder won freedoms.

This while our armed services have been cut-down to the bare bones yet which is better? Employing an army of bureaucrats who weaken the nation or an army of soldiers who can protect and defend the nation? In 21st Century Britain, there are too many people doing things we simply do not need and that contribute little of worth to our society and not enough people doing things we desperately need to make our nation self-sufficient, strong and able to protect and support its people.

It's all happened because of a concerted attack by Marxists on the very foundations of our once strong society. Fuelled by a seething hatred for success, Marxists have been tearing down the standards behaviours and morals that lead to success to weaken our once strong society all performed with relish by people who hate success because they are incapable of contributing anything of worth to society. So they maliciously ruin everything that contributes to a successful life and they've done it by promoting failed practices as healthy throughout the print and broadcast media: Promiscuity, equality, hatred for religion especially Christianity, and self-indulgence including binge drinking and drug abuse. They have force-fed their Multicultural propaganda with its equality of the sexes, equality of races and equality of cultures down the throats of the British people at every level of our society including the schools educating our children. Sorry, my mistake, make that "brainwashing our children".

For women, this has meant the trashing and demeaning of one of the most precious roles in nature: That of mother. Women have been made to feel that they are victims because of their natural role as child-bearer. Marriage too has been portrayed as female oppression and work and independence - including sexual freedom - have now been assigned far greater importance. Feminists have blamed men for their oppression yet it seems to me that feminists are in fact battling against nature.

In 21st Century Britain, if a woman doesn't want her child she can abort it. If she tires of her marriage she can end it and even if marital breakdown is caused by a straying wife, the legal system will still side with her and award her custody of children along with half of her husband's wealth. Should a woman want a child, she can even have one without having met the father, knowing full well the state will provide for all of the family needs.

A Liberal attitude to sex, where immediate pleasure and gratification are the overriding priorities and damn the long-term consequences has been unashamedly promoted. But it isn't as liberal as suggested. It has all been deliberately designed to trash the sanctity of marriage, the honour of woman, the respect between husband and wife to ruin the quiet, contented and vitally important bond between a man and woman and the raising of children in the security of family life.

Marxists have filled people with petty jealousies and even rancour for the opposite sex by making them believe they are missing out, that they are being trapped, that married life and family life robs them of precious life time. Along with the rest of the issues raised in this series, the promotion of behaviours that lead to failure have all been maliciously calculated to destroy the white race by portraying successful lifestyle choices as harmful and flawed lifestyle choices as desirable thus leading to a catastrophic and probably irrecoverable decline in the birth-rate of the race.

Along with the feminisation of males and the elevation of women to pack leaders whilst other males in other races continue to be raised with masculine, aggressive and dominant attitudes, Great Britain, a nation that created the greatest Empire in human history, has sewed the seeds of its own destruction and its conquest is a very real prospect that the latest generations of Britons could well witness in just 50 years.

Conclusion

Weak feminine leaders are not respected, certainly not in nature by any dominant pack animal. The feminisation of Western societies has lead to men adopting feminine traits and attitudes such as compassion, pity, non-judgemental and more emotional. It has been noticed by our enemies who know that Liberals and Multiculturalists are weak, faint-hearted and war-averse. They hear the anti-war, "let's all live in peace as equals" rhetoric, they know that the West will not put the interests of its own people before alien invaders and they know a simple truth:

These lily-livered cowards are the dominant demographic in Western society. They know feminised males in the West are too cowardly to compete with other races who are chomping at the bit to pilfer and destroy the West and who are exploiting the cowardice of the West to the max.

The West is now acting in a way that is removed from reality: that life is all about survival and working against the balance of nature is placing our long term survival under threat because we are failing to recognise the competitive nature between and among species. The more territory you hold, the greater resources you control and the greater you increase your chances of survival. The more you weaken and reduce the competition the better. It is all about territory and failing to dominate and protect your territory isn't just catastrophic, it's suicidal.

We are in a competition for territory yet because of the imposing of weak feminine attitudes on Western society, we are meekly surrendering our territory to invaders who seek to become conquerors and masters to further the interests of their own tribes. They have no problem in using our tolerance against us to further their aims and if we ever do try to defend what is rightfully ours, they too will dehumanise us as racists, fascists etc. knowing full well that many of our own will side with them - i.e. collaborate with the enemy - to help them strengthen their foothold in the West. It is very difficult to fight and defend your territory when your own pack is fighting against you and helping invaders to settle in your territory.

Take a look at the societies of two of our enemies, the host societies of the parasitical alien packs invading our nation, particularly Africa and the Middle East. See with your own eyes what Africans are doing to whites and see the harsh and decidedly unequal reality of how Islamic countries truly are behind the "Religion of Peace" veil. And check out the birth rates there and if you can, have a search for equality and Multiculturalism.

Mother nature is doing her very best to tell us: "All are not equal, only the strong survive, defend your territory or perish. Heed well my warning."

From Titans To Lemmings: The Suicide Of The White Race

http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-titans-to-lemmings-suicide-of.html

How I feel exactly. It really is pathetic more people don't have the sense to see what is happening. Open borders is suicide. Every other race identifies with itself and acknowledges it's strengths. Blacks are black, Asians are asian, Indians are indian etc. But mention that you are white and that you feel a common kinship with other whites and you are looked at as the most evil being on the planet. It's pathetic. Hell we go out of our way in the US to protect native americans and give them their own land designated solely for themselves but we can't protect OUR people?

Jewish feminists

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and additions are welcome.

* Bella Abzug
* Kathy Acker
* Rachel Adler
* Larisa Alexandrovna
* Gloria Allred
* Rebecca Alpert
* Hanne Blank
* Lisa Bloom
* Judy Blume
* Daniel Boyarin
* David Brooks (journalist)
* Susan Brownmiller
* Judith Butler
* Aviva Cantor
* Judy Chicago
* Hedwig Dohm
* Andrea Dworkin
* Eve Ensler
* Susan Estrich
* Susan Faludi
* Shulamith Firestone
* Betty Friedan
* Sarah Michelle Gellar
* Ruth Bader Ginsburg
* Emma Goldman
* Lynn Gottlieb
* Blu Greenberg
* Charlotte Haldane
* Nina Hartley
* Tova Hartman
* Judith Hauptman
* Dorothy Ray Healey
* Brenda Howard
* Sara Hurwitz
* Paula Hyman
* Elfriede Jelinek
* Erica Jong
* Roberta Kalechofsky
* Michael Kimmel
* Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner
* Naomi Klein
* Edith Konecky
* Barbara Kruger
* Anna Kuliscioff
* Michele Landsberg
* Lori Hope Lefkovitz
* Gerda Lerner
* Ariel Levy
* Fanny Lewald
* Rosa Luxemburg
* Frederica Sagor Maas
* Hana Meisel
* Annie Nathan Meyer
* Jennifer Miller
* Haviva Ner-David
* Martha Nussbaum
* Tillie Olsen
* Judith Plaskow
* Rachel Pollack
* Katha Pollitt
* Sally Priesand
* Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
* Tamar Ross
* Muriel Rukeyser
* Zalman Schachter-Shalomi
* Rosika Schwimmer
* Mendel Shapiro
* Christina Hoff Sommers
* Susan Sontag
* Daniel Sperber
* Gertrude Stein
* Gloria Steinem
* Sandra Steingraber
* Cathy Young
* Yona Wallach
* Wendy Wasserstein
* Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
* Naomi Weisstein
* Ruth Westheimer
* Naomi Wolf
* Joel B. Wolowelsky
* Elizabeth Wurtzel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_feminists

Jewish Feminism: The Destruction of Family - YouTube

http://i44.tinypic.com/2vs23ao.jpg

Adrienne Rich

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Audre_Lorde%2C_Meridel_Lesueur%2C_Adrienne_Rich_1980.jpg/220px-Audre_Lorde%2C_Meridel_Lesueur%2C_Adrienne_Rich_1980.jpg
Rich (right), with writer Audre Lorde (left) and Meridel Le Sueur (middle) in Austin Texas, 1980

Adrienne Cecile Rich (May 16, 1929 – March 27, 2012) was an American poet, essayist and feminist. She has been called "one of the most widely read and influential poets of the second half of the 20th century",[1][2] and was credited with bringing "the oppression of women and lesbians to the forefront of poetic discourse."[3]

Her first collection of poetry, A Change of World, was selected by the senior poet W. H. Auden for the Yale Series of Younger Poets Award; he went on to write the introduction to the published volume. Rich famously declined the National Medal of Arts, protesting the United States House of Representatives and Speaker Gingrich's vote to end funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Life and career

Early life

Adrienne Rich was born in Baltimore, Maryland, the older of two sisters. Her father, the renowned pathologist Arnold Rice Rich, was the Chairman of Pathology at The Johns Hopkins Medical School, and her mother, Helen Elizabeth (Jones) Rich,[4] was a concert pianist (before she married) and a composer. Her father was from a Jewish family[5], and her mother was Southern Protestant;[6] the girls were raised as Christians. Adrienne Rich's early poetic influence stemmed from her father who encouraged her to read but also to write her own poetry. Her interest in literature was sparked within her father's library where she read the work of writers such as Ibsen,[7] Arnold, Blake, Keats, Rossetti, and Tennyson. Her father was ambitious for Adrienne and "planned to create a prodigy." Adrienne Rich and her younger sister were home schooled by their mother until Adrienne began public education in the fourth grade. The poems Sources and After Dark document her relationship with her father, describing how she worked hard to fulfill her parents' ambitions for her—moving into a world in which she was expected to excel.[7]

In later years, Rich went to Roland Park Country School, which she described as a "good old fashioned girls school [that] gave us fine role models of single women who were intellectually impassioned." [8] After graduating from high school, Rich gained her college diploma at Radcliffe College, Harvard, where she focused primarily on poetry and learning writing craft, encountering no women teachers at all.[8] In 1951, her last year at college, Rich's first collection of poetry, A Change of World, was selected by the senior poet W. H. Auden for the Yale Series of Younger Poets Award; he went on to write the introduction to the published volume. Following her graduation, Rich received a Guggenheim Fellowship, to study in Oxford for a year. Following a visit to Florence, she decided to cut short her study at Oxford and spend her remaining time in Europe writing and exploring Italy.[9]

Early career: 1953–1975

In 1953, Rich married Alfred Haskell Conrad, an economics professor at Harvard University, whom she had met as an undergraduate. She had said of the match: "I married in part because I knew no better way to disconnect from my first family ... I wanted what I saw as a full woman's life, whatever was possible." [9] They settled in Cambridge, Massachusetts and had three sons. The birth of David in 1955 coincided with the publication of her second volume, The Diamond Cutters, a collection she said she wished had not been published.[9] That same year, she also received the Ridgely Torrence Memorial Award for the Poetry Society of America.[10] Her second son, Paul, was born in 1957, followed by Jacob in 1959.

"We are, I am, you are
by cowardice or courage
the one who find our way
back to this scene
carrying a knife, a camera
a book of myths
in which
our names do not appear.“

From "Diving into the Wreck"
Diving into the Wreck: Poems 1971-1972 (1973)[11]

The 1960s began a period of change in Rich's life: she received the National Institute of Arts and Letters award (1960), her second Guggenheim Fellowship to work at the Netherlands Economic Institute (1961), and the Bollingen Foundation grant for the translation of Dutch poetry (1962).[10][12][13] In 1963, Rich published her third collection, Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law, which was a much more personal work examining her female identity, reflecting the increasing tensions she experienced as a wife and mother in the 1950s, marking a substantial change in Rich's style and subject matter. In her 1982 essay "Split at the Root: An Essay on Jewish Identity", Rich states "The experience of motherhood was eventually to radicalize me." The book met with harsh reviews. She comments, "I was seen as 'bitter' and 'personal'; and to be personal was to be disqualified, and that was very shaking because I'd really gone out on a limb ... I realised I'd gotten slapped over the wrist, and I didn't attempt that kind of thing again for a long time."[9]

Moving her family to New York in 1966, Rich became involved with the New Left and became heavily involved in anti-war, civil right, and feminist activism.[13] Her husband took a teaching position at City College of New York.[13] In 1968, she signed the “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” pledge, vowing to refuse tax payments in protest against the Vietnam-America War.[14] Her collections from this period include Necessities of Life (1966), Leaflets (1969), and The Will to Change (1971), which reflect increasingly radical political content and interest in poetic form.[13]

From 1967 to 1969, Rich lectured at Swarthmore College and taught at Columbia University School of the Arts as an adjunct professor in the Writing Division. Additionally, in 1968, she began teaching in the SEEK program in City College of New York, a position she continued until 1975.[10] During this time, Rich also received the Eunice Tietjens Memorial Prize from Poetry Magazine.[10] Increasingly militant, Rich hosted anti-war and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment; tensions began to split the marriage, Conrad fearing that his wife had lost her mind.[9] The couple separated in mid-1970 and shortly afterward, in October, Conrad drove into the woods and shot himself.[9][13]

In 1971, she was the recipient of the Shelley Memorial Award from the Poetry Society of America and spent the next year and a half teaching at Brandeis University as the Hurst Visiting Professor of Creative Writing.[10] In 1973 that Rich wrote Diving into the Wreck, a collection of exploratory and often angry poems, which won the National Book Award for Poetry in 1974, which she shared with Allen Ginsberg.[15] Declining to accept it individually, Rich was joined by the two other feminist poets nominated, Alice Walker and Audre Lorde, to accept it on behalf of all women.[16] The following year, Rich took up the position of the Lucy Martin Donnelly Fellow at Bryn Mawr College.[17]

Later life: 1976–2012

In 1976, Rich began her lifelong partnership with Jamaican-born novelist and editor Michelle Cliff. In her controversial work Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, published the same year, Rich acknowledged that, for her, lesbianism was a political as well as a personal issue, writing, "The suppressed lesbian I had been carrying in me since adolescence began to stretch her limbs." [9] The pamphlet Twenty-One Love Poems (1977), which was incorporated into the following year's Dream of a Common Language (1978), marked the first direct treatment of lesbian desire and sexuality in her writing, themes which run throughout her work afterwards, especially in A Wild Patience Has Taken Me This Far (1981) and some of her late poems in The Fact of a Doorframe (2001).[18] In her analytical work Adrienne Rich: the moment of change, Langdell suggests these works represent a central rite of passage for the poet, as she (Rich) crossed a threshold into a newly constellated life and a "new relationship with the universe".[19] During this period, Rich also wrote a number of key socio-political essays, including "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence", one of the first to address the theme of lesbian existence.[9] In this essay, she asks "how and why women's choice of women as passionate comrades, life partners, co-workers, lovers, community, has been crushed, invalidated, forced into hiding".[9] Some of the essays were republished in On Lies, Secrets and Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978 (1979). In integrating such pieces into her work, Rich claimed her sexuality and took a role in leadership for sexual equality.[9]

From 1976 to 1979, Rich taught at City College as well as Rutgers University as an English Professor. In 1979, she received an honorary doctorate from Smith College and moved with Cliff to Montague, MA. Ultimately, they moved to Santa Cruz, where Rich continued her career as a professor, lecturer, poet, and essayist. The two women took over editorship of the lesbian journal Sinister Wisdom in 1981. Rich taught and lectured at Scripps College, San Jose State University, and Stanford University during the 1980s and 1990s.[20] From 1981 to 1987, Rich served as an A.D. White Professor-At-Large for Cornell University.[21] Rich published several in the next few years: Your Native Land, Your Life (1986), Blood, Bread, and Poetry (1986), and Time’s Power: Poems 1985-1988 (1989). She also was awarded the Ruth Paul Lilly Poetry Prize (1986), the Elmer Holmes Bobst Award in Arts and Letters from NYU, and the National Poetry Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Art of Poetry (1989).[10][15]

Janice Raymond cited Rich in the acknowledgments section of her 1979 book The Transsexual Empire, writing "Adrienne Rich has been a very special friend and critic. She has read the manuscript through all its stages and provided resources, creative criticism, and constant encouragement." In the chapter "Sappho by Surgery" of The Transsexual Empire, Raymond cites a conversation with Rich in which Rich described trans women as "men who have given up the supposed ultimate possession of manhood in a patriarchal society by self-castration".[22]

Rich's work with the New Jewish Agenda led to the founding of Bridges: A Journal for Jewish Feminists and Our Friends in 1990, a journal of which Rich served as the editor.[23] This work coincided explored the relationship between private and public histories, especially in the case of Jewish women's rights. Her next published piece, An Atlas of the Difficult World (1991), won both the Los Angeles Times Book Award in Poetry and the Lenore Marshall/Nation Award as well as the Poet's Prize in 1993 and Commonwealth Award in Literature in 1991.[10][15] During the 1990s Rich became an active member of numerous advisory boards such as the Boston Woman’s Fund, National Writers Union and Sisterhood in Support of Sisters in South Africa. On the role of the poet, she wrote, "We may feel bitterly how little our poems can do in the face of seemingly out-of-control technological power and seemingly limitless corporate greed, yet it has always been true that poetry can break isolation, show us to ourselves when we are outlawed or made invisible, remind us of beauty where no beauty seems possible, remind us of kinship where all is represented as separation."[24] In July 1994, Rich won the MacArthur Fellowship and Award, specifically the "Genius Grant" for her work as a poet and writer.[25] Also in 1992, Rich became a grandmother to Julia Arden Conrad and Charles Reddington Conrad.[10]

"There's a place between two stands of trees where the grass grows uphill
and the old revolutionary road breaks off into shadows
near a meeting-house abandoned by the persecuted
who disappeared into those shadows.

I've walked there picking mushrooms at the edge of dread, but don't be fooled
this isn't a Russian poem, this is not somewhere else but here,
our country moving closer to its own truth and dread,
its own ways of making people disappear."

From "What kinds of times are these?"[26]

In 1997, Rich declined the National Medal of Arts in protesting against the House of Representatives’ vote to end the National Endowment for the Arts as well as other policies of the Clinton Administration regarding the arts generally and literature in particular, stating that "I could not accept such an award from President Clinton or this White House because the very meaning of art, as I understand it, is incompatible with the cynical politics of this administration...[Art] means nothing if it simply decorates the dinner table of the power which holds it hostage".[13][27][28] Her next few volumes were a mix of poetry and essays: Midnight Salvage: Poems 1995-1998 (1999), The Art of the Possible: Essays and Conversations (2001), and Fox: Poems 1998-2000 (2001).

In the early 2000s, Rich participated in anti-war activities, protesting against the threat of war in Iraq, both through readings of her poetry and other activities. In 2002, she was appointed a chancellor of the newly augmented board of the Academy of American Poets, along with Yusef Komunyakaa, Lucille Clifton, Jay Wright (who declined the honor, refusing to serve), Louise Gluck, Heather McHugh, Rosanna Warren, Charles Wright, Robert Creeley, and Michael Palmer.[10] She was the winner of the 2003 Yale Bollingen Prize for American Poetry and applauded by the panel of judges for her "honesty at once ferocious, humane, her deep learning, and her continuous poetic exploration and awareness of multiple selves."[15]

Rich died on March 27 2012, at the age of 82 in her Santa Cruz, California home. Her son, Pablo Conrad, reported that her death resulted from long-term rheumatoid arthritis.[29] Her last collection was published the year before her death. Rich was survived by her sons and Michelle Cliff.[30]

Selected awards and honours
Yale Younger Poets Award (1950) for A Change of World.
Guggenheim Fellowship 1952
National Institute of Arts and Letters Award (1960)
Shelley Memorial Award (1970)
National Book Award for Poetry (1974, a split award) for Diving into the Wreck[31]
Honorary Doctorate Smith College (1979)
Inaugural Ruth Lilly Poetry Prize (1986)
Honorary doctorate from Harvard University (1989)
National Poetry Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Art of Poetry (1989)
William Whitehead Award for Lifetime Achievement (for gay or lesbian writing) (1990)
Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service (1991)
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1991)[32]
Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize (1992)
Poets' Prize (1992) for Atlas of the Difficult World
Frost Medal (1992)
Academy of American Poets Fellowship (1992)
MacArthur Fellowship (1994)
Wallace Stevens Award (1996)
National Medal of Arts (1997) (refused)
Lifetime Achievement Award from the Lannan Foundation (1999)
National Book Foundation Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters (2006)[33]
Lifetime Recognition Award from the Griffin Poetry Prize (2010)

Rich's works

Nonfiction books
Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton. 1976. ISBN 978-0-393-31284-3.
On Lies, Secrets and Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978, 1979
Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose, 1979–1985, 1986 (Includes the noted essay: "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence")
What Is Found There: Notebooks on Poetry and Politics, 1993
Arts of the Possible: Essays and Conversations. W.W. Norton. 2001. ISBN 978-0-393-05045-5.
Poetry and Commitment: An Essay, 2007
A Human Eye: Essays on Art in Society, 1997–2008, 2009

Poetry collections
A Change of World. Yale University Press. 1951.
The Diamond Cutters, and Other Poems. Harper. 1955.
Snapshots of a daughter-in-law: poems, 1954-1962. Harper & Row. 1963.
Necessities of life: poems, 1962-1965. W.W. Norton. 1966.
Selected Poems. Chatto & Hogarth P Windus. 1967.
Leaflets. W.W. Norton. 1969. ISBN 978-0-03-930419-5.
The Will to Change: Poems 1968-1970. Norton. 1971.
Diving into the Wreck. W.W. Norton. 1973. ISBN 978-0-393-31163-1.
Poems: Selected and New, 1950-1974. Norton. 1975. ISBN 978-0-393-04392-1.
Twenty-one Love Poems. Effie's Press. 1976.
The Dream of a Common Language. Norton. 1978. ISBN 978-0-393-04502-4.
A Wild Patience Has Taken Me this Far: Poems 1978-1981. W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated. 1982. ISBN 978-0-393-31037-5. (reprint 1993)
Sources. Heyeck Press. 1983.
The Fact of a Doorframe: Poems Selected and New, 1950-1984. W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated. 1984. ISBN 978-0-393-31075-7.
Your Native Land, Your Life: Poems. Norton. 1986. ISBN 978-0-393-02318-3.
Time’s Power: Poems, 1985-1988. Norton. 1989. ISBN 978-0-393-02677-1.
An Atlas of the Difficult World: Poems 1988-1991. Norton. 1991. ISBN 978-0-393-03069-3.
Collected Early Poems, 1950-1970. W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated. 1993. ISBN 978-0-393-31385-7.
Dark Fields of the Republic: Poems, 1991-1995. W.W. Norton. 1995. ISBN 978-0-393-03868-2.
Selected poems, 1950-1995. Salmon Pub.. 1996. ISBN 978-1-897648-78-0.
Midnight Salvage: Poems, 1995-1998. Norton. 1999. ISBN 978-0-393-04682-3.
Fox: Poems 1998-2000. W W Norton & Co Inc. 2001. ISBN 978-0-393-32377-1. (reprint 2003)
The School Among the Ruins: Poems, 2000-2004. W. W. Norton & Co.. 2004. ISBN 978-0-393-32755-7.
Telephone Ringing in the Labyrinth: Poems 2004–2006. 2007. ISBN 978-0-393-06565-7.
Tonight No Poetry Will Serve: Poems 2007-2010. 2010. ISBN 0-393-07967-8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrienne_Rich


March 29, 2012

Motherhood, 'Otherhood' Inspired Adrienne Rich

By Debra Nussbaum Cohen

Adrienne Rich has died, and a voice who provided invaluable insight to the discourse on motherhood, on feminism, on Jewish identity and on sexual politics, has been stilled.

Rich, who was 82, died Tuesday at her home in California. Described in her New York Times obituary, as “a poet of towering reputation and towering rage,” Rich was a prolific writer who authored 32 books of poetry and prose, and indefatigable political activist.

Born to a Gentile mother and a Jewish father, Rich grew to identify strongly as a Jew. When a student at Radcliffe, she married a man from an observant Jewish family, and together they had three sons. Though her early poetry had been praised by W.H. Auden, she stopped writing, for a time, when she married. It was domestic life that brought her back into writing, and into her evolving identities.

In her brilliant 1982 piece, “Split at the Root: An Essay on Jewish Identity,” Rich wrote, “The experience of motherhood was eventually to radicalize me; but before that I was encountering the institution of motherhood most directly in a Jewish cultural version; and I felt rebellious, moody, defensive, unable to sort out what was Jewish from what was simply motherhood, or female destiny.”

“Split at the Root” is a meditation on identities both suppressed and expressed. Rich wrote of her dawning Jewish consciousness, the awareness of being “other,” imposed on her by anti-Semitism that was both aggressive and internalized by her father, by characters she met in literature, by her crowd in college, and by random strangers she encountered.

Her awareness of being “other” also grew as she began to explore her identity as a lesbian, after she separated from her husband in 1970. Shortly after their separation he killed himself. In 1976 Rich began a relationship with writer Michelle Cliff, which lasted until her death this week.

Her political engagement spanned her artistic and Jewish identities. Rich was involved with the New Jewish Agenda, and she was a founding co-editor of Bridges: A Jewish Feminist Journal when it began in 1990. Bridges ceased publication last year.

Rich was awarded many prizes and fellowships for her writing, including Guggenheims, a MacArthur and the National Book Award. She turned down the National Medal of Arts in 1997, to protest the House of Representatives’ decision to end the National Endowment for the Arts and the Clinton administration’s policies on the arts and literature.

For Rich, there was no separation between art and life, politics and art, or life and politics. She lived her beliefs.

Something she wrote in “Split at the Root” makes me think of the ever-more contained public comportment expected of Haredi women, though Rich was writing about the pressure in her family to act “more Gentile”:

“We — my mother, sister and I — were constantly urged to speak quietly in public, to dress without ostentation, to repress all vividness or spontaneity, to assimilate with a world that might see us as too flamboyant.”

The world is a poorer place for no longer having Rich’s voice in it. But I am grateful for what she left us.

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/153952/motherhood-otherhood-inspired-adrienne-rich/#ixzz1qh6yy7TO

ed> (jewess Rosin, born in Israel, is a writer for Atlantic Monthly)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_hive/2010/11/there_will_be_blood_pricks.html


Quote"........But it also feels to me (a feminist) like a dazzling glimpse into the future; Rosin flits from point to point with such natural grace that one barely notices the effort she’s taken to distill four years of headlines and obscure science into a handy, candy-colored manifesto. The inside cover claims that “‘the end of men’ has entered the lexicon as indelibly as Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘second sex’ and Betty Friedan’s ‘feminine mystique,’” but that’s disingenuous.

"This is a feminist work, but it is neither philosophical nor polemical. There is nothing of Beauvoir’s mysticism and only the slightest hints of Friedan’s rage; instead, Rosin deploys fact after fact with brutal precision.

" It’s not so much that she brooks no opposition to her argument—that we now live in a world where women will naturally come to dominate almost every field of productive endeavor—as that her factual fog masks any possibility of opposition (falsely, as we’ll see later). First-world patriarchy comes across like an iceberg in the age of climate change, melting faster the further it shrinks—and the Arctic isn’t getting any colder..."

The book’s general thesis, restated multiple times per chapter, also appears quite clearly in the introduction: “In the past, men derived their advantage largely from size and strength, but the postindustrial economy is largely indifferent to brawn. A service and information economy rewards precisely the opposite qualities—the ones that can’t be easily replaced by a machine. These attributes—social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus—are, at a minimum, not predominantly the province of men. In fact, they seem to come more easily to women.”

The words “at a minimum” show a restraint Rosin won’t often display later on, though she mostly lets experts do the trash-talking—statistical and otherwise—in her stead. Women are “plastic”—flexible, adaptable, realistic—while men are “cardboard,” “fixed in cultural aspic” (critic Jessica Grose), “the new ball and chain” (unnamed college senior), and sometimes “freeloading, bloodsucking parasites” (a married executive in Washington, D.C.). Rosin explains clearly that her goal is not to insult or attack men, and I believe her, but her on-the-ground reporting shines a light on a new, Friedanesque “problem that has no name”—the plight of women climbing a wobbly corporate latter without reliable partners to stabilize the bottom. A presentation from Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg, in a chapter on females crowding into the 1%, stood out. “Your most important career decision is who you marry,” she tells a group of businesswomen. “And if you can be a lesbian, definitely do it.”

Rosin structures her argument well, moving from sex (hook-up culture as symbol of social freedom, marriage avoidance in Midwestern state schools) to family (the media’s lionizing-and-or-emasculation of stay-at-home fathers, “seesaw marriages” where spouses swap who earns more) to business (women ruling in 12 of the top 15 fastest-growing jobs, female CEOs outperforming the rest of the Fortune 500).

. Thirty pages on South Korea seems excessive, even as a case study; one Amazon reviewer notes that the nations with the world’s highest birthrates are dominated by restrictive gender roles (and in some cases sex-selective abortion, still used most commonly to guarantee sons).

And why doesn’t homosexuality enter the picture? Much of the “feminization” of upper-class men Rosin refers to might have something to do with greater societal acceptance of non-traditional gender roles—and is that a victory for women, or just a victory for humanity? (Not that I’m faulting her for the title; books are hard to sell these days.) When every American can pursue any role in life for themselves, it seems inevitable that women will “catch up” in some areas (salary, leadership) and men in others (child-rearing, hours in the office). Is the “Rise of Women” really just a great balancing?


. My only regret is that lower-middle-class men with a high-school education or less—those closest to drowning in the modern economy—aren’t likely to open it (the pink-and-yellow cover doesn’t help). If and when it arrives in paperback, you could give copies as Christmas gifts to the manly men you know; they may not thank you for it, but when they read about Calvin’s recent pursuit of a nursing degree, they might just consider switching from cardboard to plastic.

Final note: I liked the book, but with serious reservations. Other readers had further misgivings or thought Rosin simply went too far in massaging the truth. Here are some links to alternate perspectives, in case you’re interested (also recommended for those who’ve already read The End of Men).

Aaron Gertler:jew: is a sophomore in Yale College. He is a contributing writer for Broad Recognition.

Disgusting matriarchal kikes.

If you have plans tonight, cancel them. Instead, sit down in front of your TV to watch “MAKERS: Women Who Make America” on PBS at 8:00 PM EST. (Check local listings if you live in other time zones.)
http://www.pbs.org/makers/home/
Otherwise, you will miss a remarkable three-hour journey through 50 years of the women’s movement.
http://forward.com/image/2/290/0/5/assets/images/articles/b-sisterhood-friedan-122712-copy.jpg
Even for those of us familiar with the history of the feminist revolution — either by having lived through it, or from studying it — this documentary is an eye-opening experience. As someone born just as the women’s liberation movement was picking up initial steam, I was already aware of most of the historical and legal developments recounted in the film. But not until now have I truly understood how they all fit together to bring us to where we are today — mostly for the better, but with still far to go toward the ultimate goal of equality, both nationally and internationally.

As a Jewish writer and feminist, it was a point of pride to see so many women with Jewish backgrounds interviewed and highlighted for their instrumental roles in the advancement of women’s rights in the United States. It’s not as though Jewish women’s involvement at the forefront of the movement has been a secret, but it was nonetheless exciting to see so many of these faces and names on the screen. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Nora Ephron, Alix Kates Shulman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Judy Blume, Bella Abzug, Susan Brownmiller, Barbara Walters, Erica Jong and Sherri Finkbine are featured, among many others.

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/171869/the-making-of-american-feminism/#ixzz2M2EOCY7V

Can the Traditional Family Survive Feminism?
Quite possibly not. It is certainly in decline and Jews are at it. Destroying the basic building block of civilization is their objective - except in Israel, the Stolen Land of course.

http://www.sunray22b.net/can_the_traditional_family_survive.htm