ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Get the race card ready

It's hard to argue with the Reverend Jesse Lee:
“I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,” Peterson says. “We should’ve never turned this over to women. And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction. And this probably was the reason they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman,” he adds. “They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen.”
I would just like to remind all of the women who are preparing to get their panties in a bunch over the outrageous notion that someone might hold their sex accountable for the way they have collectively voted for the last eighty years that it is objectively racist to claim that a black man is sexist.

Labels:

140 Comments:

Blogger Joshua_D May 08, 2012 9:16 AM  

I sense a disturbance in the farce. Much gnashing will ensue.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim May 08, 2012 9:20 AM  

And the comments to the article are mostly women and girly-men freaking out as soon as the idea is presented to them. It's like watching a kid jumping up and down screaming, "I'm not having a tantrum! WAHHHHH!"

Also, the reflexive and off-topic "right-wingers hate all blacks" theme is funny. More proof that suffragettes are not big on actual thought. ("Oh yeah? OH YEAH??? Well, none of your friends like you! So THERE! NYEAH!")

Good on Peterson for not backing down in the face of it.

Anonymous Wendy May 08, 2012 9:26 AM  

In the video, published to YouTube in March, Peterson explains that he believes women simply can’t handle “anything,” and that in his experience, “You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love.”

Hehe, and they just can't help proving him right.

Anonymous The One May 08, 2012 9:30 AM  

Will the homos side with feminists or the black man? The suspense is killing me!

Anonymous Josh May 08, 2012 9:31 AM  

I thought that women and blacks had already lost out to the gays for the status of most specialest minority

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 9:31 AM  

Roissy had this in his Twitter Updates the other day. I have not had the time to read more than 3-4 pages of it yet, but what I have read is wonderful. I will be saving this for my children to read and learn from when they are older.

Blogger Tiny Tim May 08, 2012 9:31 AM  

I know this is correct because of the fruit women's voting has produced. When Al Gore kisses Tipper at the convention and women all over America genuflect in response, I never have to wonder about where I stand on the matter again......

Blogger Joe A. May 08, 2012 9:41 AM  

The commentary is a bit depressing over there. Not unexpected, of course.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 9:45 AM  

Stingray... That book...is glorious.

Anonymous TLM May 08, 2012 9:58 AM  

Adams called women voting what it was back in the early days, the tyranny of the petticoat. What a prophet.

And the greatest line in the historically inaccurate movie 300 was when the Persian envoy to Sparta stated rather indignantly of the Spartan queen- Who is this woman that thinks she can speak among men. And then Gerard Butler kicked him in the well for sassing his bitch.

Anonymous HardReturn¶ May 08, 2012 10:01 AM  

All those early 20th century amendments were allegedly for "progress." What quaint naivete they had. The 18th was due to a fustercluck of do-gooders and went away soon enough. You can find lots of folks that would like the 16th amendment to go away, although political acolytes today would never allow Leviathon to be starved. You can even find some folks out there that advocate repeal of 17th to unravel the bifactional ruling party's monopoly. But to suggest repeal of the 19th amendment is unforgivable apostasy in democracy worship.

Anonymous Cheddarman May 08, 2012 10:03 AM  

I know a little bit about the Rev. Jessie Lee Peterson, as I have a friend who has worked along side Peterson's ministry in the pro life movement (Brotherhood of a New Destiny, BOND)

...Peterson is a legitimate pro life activist, and BOND participates in activities at major land grant universities where they compare abortion to lynching of blacks, both being forms of politically acceptable murder...they show large posters of lynched blacks next to posters of aborted fetuses, making the point that both are politically sanctioned forms of murder

the fact that Sean Hannity is member of Rev. Peterson's advisory board makes me wonder if Sean Hannity actually has some real conservative beliefs

Anonymous Salt May 08, 2012 10:08 AM  

The backlash, when it comes in earnest (and it has begun), will be horrific from the liberal perspective when it gets rockin. Question is, will it be via Christian or Islamic values?

Anonymous E. PERLINE May 08, 2012 10:09 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Steveo May 08, 2012 10:33 AM  

No justice, no piece.

Anonymous MeMyselfI May 08, 2012 10:43 AM  

Gee... you mean the story of Adam & Eve had a timeless theme to it? Imagine that...

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2012 10:45 AM  

In fairness, the move toward the totalitarian state in the Western world began long before women were given the right to vote. Laws providing for property taxes, public school systems, drug and alcohol prohibition, gun control, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the imposition of income tax were all passed without the help of women.

Anonymous Orion May 08, 2012 10:46 AM  

Yes, Hannity on the board of BOND did seem rather incongruous. If Hannity refrains from pulling his support I'd have to concede there might actually be a spine in his carcass after all. I give it a couple of weeks before Hannity formally declares that he doesn't hold the same views as the good reverend.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat May 08, 2012 10:54 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat May 08, 2012 10:59 AM  

I hold out hope for Little Miss.

Lexington, kentucky's primary academic homeschool co-op is going through a terrible spell of legalism, primarily because of a couple of women who think the rules are more important than the kids. Last night, Little Miss asked us "What is it about women who get power?". I was so proud.

Number One Son is putting up with said women to get access to the girls who only go there. I'm not sure if that's a sign that he's got beta tendencies, or if he's simply sigma and capable of completely ignoring them. Milady and I made a deal with him: we won't actively antagonize the core group (and get him kicked out on purpose), but we won't hold our opinion back if asked or forced by other circumstances.

What set it all off? Some evil, sinful girls dared to show off the first couple of inches above the kneecap. Shame on them for forgetting their place... (Sorry, this whole subject still annoys me.) Just goes to show; the first thing women in power usually do is go after other women.

Anonymous Wendy May 08, 2012 11:00 AM  

Roissy had this in his Twitter Updates the other day.

That's a keeper.

Anonymous tiarosa May 08, 2012 11:05 AM  

Peterson probably won't be appearing on Fox News again, whereas the racist who called Tucker Carlson a "bow-tying white boy" is just fine with them.

Anonymous Josh May 08, 2012 11:06 AM  

In fairness, the move toward the totalitarian state in the Western world began long before women were given the right to vote. Laws providing for property taxes, public school systems, drug and alcohol prohibition, gun control, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the imposition of income tax were all passed without the help of women.

I'm not sure about the fed and the income tax, but all those other laws were passed because of women's groups lobbying for them.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 11:07 AM  

"Lexington, kentucky's primary academic homeschool co-op is going through a terrible spell of legalism, primarily because of a couple of women who think the rules are more important than the kids."

Wait...

Isn't not dealing with that garbage one of the benefits of homeschooling?

Anonymous MendoScot May 08, 2012 11:08 AM  

I know it's not voting, but I couldn't help but be amused by the news of Germany's Education Minister being accused of plagiarism in her thesis entitled "Person and conscience Studies on conditions, need and requirements of today's consciences".

But so far Mrs Schavan has remained tight-lipped over the affair saying only that she will be "happy to discuss her dissertation" and that 1980 was a long time ago.

Blogger Huggums May 08, 2012 11:09 AM  

"I would just like to remind all of the women who are preparing to get their panties in a bunch over the outrageous notion that someone might hold their sex accountable for the way they have collectively voted for the last eighty years that it is objectively racist to claim that a black man is sexist." - VD

No, I don't think that'll work. This is still gonna be fun though. Let's see how much the black male is able to get away with now. He'll no doubt be skewered by black feminists. That's probably who they'll sic on 'im. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRR maybe white feminists will feel safe enough to attack. I doubt any white male feminists will be able to get a word in edgewise.

This is one of the reasons I couldn't be a leftist anymore. I know everyone on this site has already knows what's happening here, but I just thought I'd put it out there. The attacks coming his way will have NOTHING to do with the arguments he puts forth or the statement he makes up there. His crime's perceived egregiousness will be entirely determined based on the relative position of his and the attacked group's ranking within some complex hierarchy of victimhood. The mode of attack will of course be calibrated with respect to his absolute position in the hierarchy (i.e. the venom directed at him or me will on average be less than the hate-filled bile and subsequent job-loss intended to cow the white man). The distribution of hate directed against him will be greater in higher groups (black women) and lesser in lower ones.

Dan Savage is white, male, and gay and almost appears to be able to get away with murder or he at least gets lots of second chances. Let's see how far being black, male, and straight gets ya.

Anonymous RC May 08, 2012 11:09 AM  

"Stingray... That book...is glorious." - Nate

Pdf file of full book "Thoughts on Female Suffrage" can be found at the following link for the next seven days.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/temp/async/2582321-1-24.pdf

Anonymous MInTheGap (@MInTheGap) May 08, 2012 11:12 AM  

Oh Vox, on the week before Mother's Day, seriously?!

Terrific timing.

Anonymous RC May 08, 2012 11:18 AM  

"This comment has been removed by a blog administrator" - E. Perline

Come now blog overlords. I found the mammalian female brain comment priceless.

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 11:19 AM  

RC,

There is a PDF link on the one I posted as well. Is that not the whole book?

Nate,

Yes. Yes it is. Incredibly written as well. I find it terribly amusing that the more women think they are achieving equality, the stupider they are.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 11:20 AM  

“I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,” Peterson says.

Are we worse off now as compared to ... whenever?

Some here complain about the Federal Reserve and the fiat dollar. It was not women who did this. Some here complain about the balkanization of the United States. It was not women who did this. Some here complain about effective birth control. It was not women who invented this.

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2012 11:21 AM  

"I'm not sure about the fed and the income tax, but all those other laws were passed because of women's groups lobbying for them."

Prior to 1920 there wasn't much of anything resembling lobbying in its present form, but yes, there were certainly groups of women advocating on these issues, and I believe they held a good deal of influence even though they could not vote. Ultimately, though, it was spineless men who were responsible for the bad laws passed at the federal level prior to 1920.

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 11:21 AM  

So, whose the idiot who could not compare the two sites herself? I compared the two PDF files and they are both the same. One can read the book in it's entirety at either site.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 11:25 AM  

Stringray
The very existence of the book exposes the idiocy of feminism. The quality of the writing... the obvious education... latin phrases dropped left and right.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat May 08, 2012 11:26 AM  

Wait...

Isn't not dealing with that garbage one of the benefits of homeschooling?


That's why I came this close to telling #1 Son's hormones to go take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

However, the local community college's Pre-Calculus and HS Physics classes cost twice as much, and I don't like the idea of a 15 year old boy who looks 20 out on a college campus just yet. He doesn't like online classes, so that alternative was out too. (Not to mention, I just can't help but doubt the quality of a "virtual physics lab".)

After these two classes, he's done with said co-op. Little Miss isn't attending there at all. Milady and I are consoling ourselves with helping a different co-op work on an alternative high school program.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 11:28 AM  

He'll no doubt be skewered by black feminists.

Recall Clarence Thomas.

Blogger Giraffe May 08, 2012 11:29 AM  

@Nate

Stringray
The very existence of the book exposes the idiocy of feminism. The quality of the writing... the obvious education... latin phrases dropped left and right.


That is one thing I find interesting. Read anything written during that period and the language used is much more sophisticated. A glaring indictment of our education system.

Anonymous TheExpat May 08, 2012 11:30 AM  

So, whose the idiot who could not compare the two sites herself? I compared the two PDF files and they are both the same. One can read the book in it's entirety at either site.

Yes, but one lets you download the whole thing much easier.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 11:30 AM  

"and I don't like the idea of a 15 year old boy who looks 20 out on a college campus just yet."

Yeah that's a bad idea. Not liking online classes is gonna make a lot of things tougher.

Blogger Matthew May 08, 2012 11:31 AM  

Nate: Isn't not dealing with that garbage one of the benefits of homeschooling?

Too many homeschoolers are actually school-at-homers. They're like refugees from Gomorrah who found New Gomorrah the next day.

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 11:38 AM  

Nate,

Absolutely. The other thing I think that book alludes to is the type of men suffragettes were marrying vs. the type of men these women were attracting. As I said before, I have only read the first few pages so far. However, Madeline Dehlgren states that she implicitly trusts the men in her life to vote with her and other women's best interests at heart. I think one would find that the suffragettes did not trust their men to do this. They would not submit to them as they were likely too beta and therefore wanted to continue to get more control.

Bah, you could explain it much better than I can, I am sure. But I think you get my point.

Anonymous Josh May 08, 2012 11:39 AM  

Rothbard:

Of all the Yankee activists in behalf of statist "reform," perhaps the most formidable force was the legion of Yankee women, in particular those of middle- or upper-class background, and especially spinsters whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of home and hearth.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 11:39 AM  

"Bah, you could explain it much better than I can, I am sure."

where-in we reaffirm out notion that Stingray is a good wife.

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 11:46 AM  

VD: I would just like to remind all of the women who are preparing to get their panties in a bunch ...

Is this a general reminder to all women? 'Cuz it seems like the women who still read your blog (or at least comment here) are tediously reasonable. I kind of miss the days when there was a commenter or two who got her panties in a bunch.

Nate: However, Madeline Dehlgren states that she implicitly trusts the men in her life to vote with her and other women's best interests at heart.

I had a friend back in college who was like this, only he was a guy. He allowed his non-citizen wife to vote for him (in a state where people could vote using mail-in cards), and assumed she would make better choices than he would.

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 11:47 AM  

Whoops, darnit. That should be Stingray sayin' that, not Nate.

Anonymous a good ROI May 08, 2012 11:51 AM  

"where-in we reaffirm out notion that Stingray is a good wife."

Tailing on this, I just want to say that I happen to notice Stickwick and Stingray commenting on other sites and I always find their comments to be a breath of fresh air, sprinkled with a liberal dose of logic, reaffirming our notion that they are not only good wives as Nate said, but great girls in general.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 11:53 AM  

Indeed ROI

I've long believed Stickwick and Stingray would make excellent harem additions.

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2012 11:54 AM  

I don't disagree with Rothbard, but all the bluster from Yankee women activists didn't force even one man to vote against liberty. Men did that of their own free will.

Anonymous Curlytop May 08, 2012 11:56 AM  

"Stingray... That book...is glorious." - Nate

Pdf file of full book "Thoughts on Female Suffrage" can be found at the following link for the next seven days.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/temp/async/2582321-1-24.pdf"


Oooh, sweet! I so love it when the Ilk provide me with more reading material.



Stickwick said: "I had a friend back in college who was like this, only he was a guy. He allowed his non-citizen wife to vote for him (in a state where people could vote using mail-in cards), and assumed she would make better choices than he would."

Oh dear lord! I so hope they weren't able to procreate!

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 11:58 AM  

Read anything written during that period and the language used is much more sophisticated. A glaring indictment of our education system.

Perhaps it also indicates publisher bias? Smaller markets of educated men with leisure time to read rather than farmers and workers putting in twelve hour days six days a week? What someone found worthy of the effort of web posting now?

Reading Nate's recommended book of Proslavery one sees quoted mass-audience tracts that contain spelling and grammatical errors.

The quality of a writing reflects on the author and the intended audience. The education system in place at the time is a secondary matter.

Anonymous Curlytop May 08, 2012 11:58 AM  

Nate: I've long believed Stickwick and Stingray would make excellent harem additions.


Whoa, ladies! This is quite an endorsement. And your harem is up to, how many at last count?

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 12:04 PM  

"I don't disagree with Rothbard, but all the bluster from Yankee women activists didn't force even one man to vote against liberty. Men did that of their own free will."

Tangentially... ask yourself... if men could not vote... and only women could... do you think they would have been so charitable?

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2012 12:06 PM  

"Tangentially... ask yourself... if men could not vote... and only women could... do you think they would have been so charitable?"

Hell no.

Anonymous Suomynona May 08, 2012 12:12 PM  

This woman here should be the poster child for why women should not have the vote: 9/11 Defense Attorney in Hijab Asks Court to Order Other Women to Wear ‘Appropriate’ Clothing - proving that neither education nor a profession can overcome the inherent stupid in women. It also validates the very compelling r-K theory discussed in a previous thread.

Anonymous buzzkill May 08, 2012 12:15 PM  

The comment section of the Peterson link says it all.

Another man speaking uncompromising Truth being shouted down by the mob.

Anonymous Not Likely May 08, 2012 12:17 PM  

Keep it up gentlemen. This is how you never win another election.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 12:20 PM  

"Keep it up gentlemen. This is how you never win another election."

Look... how cute... it thinks elections matter.

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 12:21 PM  

Nate and ROI,

Thank you.

Curlytop,

Alas, Nate has said that he is no longer taking applications. So, the number has been, unfortunately, fixed. ; )

Anonymous Anonymous May 08, 2012 12:21 PM  

@Hard Return

They're called amendments for a reason. So they can be amended. Can we get rid of the 14th too?

Anonymous Rippin' Richie May 08, 2012 12:24 PM  

I listen to Jesse's radio show podcasts on iTunes all the time.

He has black preachers on the show and always asks them if they were called by God or called by their momma.

He's not intimidated by the left at all. It's refreshing.

The first time I saw him was on Fox News during the Clinton years. He said that most blacks like Clinton because they're immoral just like him.

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2012 12:24 PM  

"Keep it up gentlemen. This is how you never win another election."

You mean we might end up with Obama for another term instead of Romney?? Oh, the horror!

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 12:25 PM  

"Reading Nate's recommended book of Proslavery one sees quoted mass-audience tracts that contain spelling and grammatical errors."

That's highly unlikely. Methinks what you're seeing as spelling and grammar errors are in fact not errors, but the accepted way things were done.

Example... there are copies of the US constitution that don't have the "u" in united states capitalized. You perhaps would call this an error... but it was deliberate.

Anonymous WinstonWebb May 08, 2012 12:25 PM  

Not Likely May 08, 2012 12:17 PM

Keep it up gentlemen. This is how you never win another election.


Hitler was elected by women.

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 12:28 PM  

I had a friend back in college who was like this, only he was a guy. He allowed his non-citizen wife to vote for him (in a state where people could vote using mail-in cards), and assumed she would make better choices than he would.

This makes me reconsider the notion that feminism is about women wanting to be more like men. Rather this seems more like feminism wanting men to be more like women. Remove their balls and what is remaining? This.

(I do realize that it is, in fact, both of these going on. I just can't figure out which is more sad. Both are utterly unnatural.)

Blogger Joshua_D May 08, 2012 12:40 PM  

Not Likely May 08, 2012 12:17 PM
Keep it up gentlemen. This is how you never win another election.


Bwaa haa haa! Seriously. Listen up feminazis, at the end of the day, you know deep down in the darkest places of your power hungry heart, that a much larger percentage of men have the constitution to pull the trigger.

Blogger Joshua_D May 08, 2012 12:42 PM  

Stingray May 08, 2012 12:28 PM
(I do realize that it is, in fact, both of these going on. I just can't figure out which is more sad. Both are utterly unnatural.)


That's like asking, "Which of these deadly cancers is more sad?"

Anonymous RC May 08, 2012 12:43 PM  

"So, whose the idiot who could not compare the two sites herself? I compared the two PDF files and they are both the same. One can read the book in it's entirety at either site." - Stingray

Did I state that the two links were different? No. Did I take credit for your find? Not at all. After reviewing I merely wanted a full pdf copy to download which I did not see at the original site, did the work to secure it, and provided it to the Ilk. And for that fine service I am labeled an "idiot."

What a bitchy response. Your husband needs to spank you.

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 12:44 PM  

Joshua_D,

Yep. Point taken.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 12:46 PM  

"What a bitchy response. Your husband needs to spank you."

Actually... She was spanking herself publicly. You misread the comment.

Very slowly... see if you can't pull your foot out of your mouth.

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 12:48 PM  

RC,

Relax and take a very deep breath. I was calling myself an idiot for not taking the time to look at the two PDF files myself instead of asking you to do the work for me. I think it's great that you found another source for the same information that is easier for everyone here.

As to my husband spanking me, that may not necessarily be punishment. ; )

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 12:48 PM  

That said... her husband probably does need to spank her... its good for them.

Anonymous Gen. Kong May 08, 2012 12:48 PM  

Salt: The backlash, when it comes in earnest (and it has begun), will be horrific from the liberal perspective when it gets rockin. Question is, will it be via Christian or Islamic values?

Liberals had better hope and pray for Christian, but since Christianity has largely been hollowed out and taken over by body-snatchers, I expect they'll be getting to taste the tender mercies of sharia. Pity, for it couldn't happen to nicer folks.

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 12:53 PM  

Stingray, not Nate: This makes me reconsider the notion that feminism is about women wanting to be more like men. Rather this seems more like feminism wanting men to be more like women. Remove their balls and what is remaining? This.

(I do realize that it is, in fact, both of these going on. I just can't figure out which is more sad. Both are utterly unnatural.)


It seems to be a combination of striving to adopt men's worst qualities while stripping men of their best qualities. Regarding the first point, a caller on the Dr. Laura show observed that, in the feminist quest for "equality," women only managed to adopt men's worst qualities while none of the best. The masculine attributes of reason, courage, justice*, loyalty, single-mindedness, self-sacrifice, etc., were of no interest. The thing is, if these women actually adopted all of men's qualities, men wouldn't find it that hard to be around them. Although it would render the label 'feminist' rather ironic.

As for my friends -- whom I love dearly in spite of their quirks -- the wife is perpetually unhappy with the husband. She has threatened to leave him and take their kids back to the home country on more than one occasion. I talked her out of it the last time, and recommended that she become more submissive to him. She was actually receptive to the idea. But since this was before I knew anything about Game, I didn't recognize the main problem, which is that the husband isn't a leader. Maybe I should buy Athol's book for him.

[* I'm referring to objective justice, not the selective justice of women that Nietzsche observed.]

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 12:53 PM  

"Liberals had better hope and pray for Christian, but since Christianity has largely been hollowed out and taken over by body-snatchers, I expect they'll be getting to taste the tender mercies of sharia"

I think there is a subtle change in attitude when it comes to race that is relevant to this prediction. Appeasement is falling out of favor little by little and being replaced by a a "bring it on" attitude. America will burn... and I believe there may be some freedom loving small government types left standing at the end to rebuild some of it.

Anonymous Philalethes May 08, 2012 1:09 PM  

Stingray:

There is a PDF link on the one I posted as well. Is that not the whole book?

I can't find a link to download the PDF entire on the first site. Where is it? It says the images are in "PDF format", but they must be read one at a time on screen. Which is unfortunate as it (they) is a better quality image than the easily downloadable 24-page PDF at the Harvard URL. I suppose one could download/save each of the 24 pages and them assemble them into a PDF, but that would be rather tedious.

Blogger SarahsDaughter May 08, 2012 1:11 PM  

Thank you Stingray for the link. I just finished reading it. I would love to live in a place where women like this surround me.

"Female suffrage will so effectually dethrone her that this glorious literature will only serve as a requiem to chant the brightness of the past. The new order of immorality-of Amazonian females-will blot from out the language the descriptive phrases of feminine loveliness once so enduring. Woman's changed, nomadic, commingled life, must lead to awful changes in words that indicate the witchery of the sex."

This woman sure knew how to deliver an eloquent tongue lashing. I love her!

Anonymous jwshell May 08, 2012 1:13 PM  

As to the passing of anti-liberty amendments and laws, both before and after the passage of women's suffrage, one cannot ignore the role played by the deterioration of Christianity in the States at that time. This deterioration mainly played out on two fronts. One was the move toward more subjective, emotionally based "worship," such as early Pentacostalism, and the other was the proliferation of liberal theology that discredited the historical accuracy of Scripture. In both these cases, you see situations in which the Biblical role of women was discredited or ignored, and, furthermore, you see a "Christianity" that not only did not continue to "leaven" society, but also actively contributed to the detrimental changes taking place.

Anonymous Curlytop May 08, 2012 1:17 PM  

Well, Stingray.. Nate makes the rules, he can always amend his prior declaration. ;-)

Personally I think you're on to something about "women wanting men to be more like women." Listen to the familiar whine: "Why can't you be more sensitive?"

Feminism is about castrating men, not making women more masculine-illustrated by Stickwick's observation:
"in the feminist quest for "equality," women only managed to adopt men's worst qualities while none of the best. The masculine attributes of reason, courage, justice*, loyalty, single-mindedness, self-sacrifice, etc., were of no interest."

At a young age, I noticed how the "movement" seemed to boil down to women saying, "If men can misbehave, then I can too!"

How unbelievably childish, which comically bolsters the belief men hold of viewing women as a child. Oh, sweet irony!

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 1:24 PM  

Philalethes,

At the top where it says "PDF format Click on image to get details." you can click the words "PDF format" and it will bring up a popup window where you can download half the book at a time. More than that, I cannot help you. I am nearly completely computer illiterate. If this is what you tried and it's not what you are looking for, then maybe one of the others can help you out. That is pushing my knowledge as it is. ; )

Anonymous Stingray May 08, 2012 1:45 PM  

Stickwick,

That book might do a whole lot of good. I have friends in a somewhat similar situation, though not quite to the point where she votes and he does not. She is head of the family and he desperately tries to please her. He is a genuine "nice guy" and he bends over backwards for her. The good thing is, she realizes a lot of what he does for her, but it is apparent that she (and he) are still not happy. They just can't figure out why. I have thought of giving the husband that book time and again, but I am not sure what he would do with it. I tend to think he would outright reject it. I have been torn about this for some time.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 1:46 PM  

The masculine attributes of reason, courage, justice*, loyalty, single-mindedness, self-sacrifice, etc., were of no interest.

Women do not hold these values?

How many men hold them?

Blogger Huggums May 08, 2012 1:47 PM  

I forgot the possibility that he might be Uncle Tom'd into submission. He is a publicly admitted conservative, so there's that.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 1:48 PM  

I tend to think he would outright reject it.

So let him. Let him decide.

Anonymous Philalethes May 08, 2012 1:52 PM  

Stingray,

Got it, thanks. I was seeing "PDF format Click on image to get details." as a single unit (rather than two separate commands), and had clicked only on the right side thereof, which showed just a detail of the image. I'd consider myself "computer literate" (having done computer support going on 20 years), but this had me stumped.

The combined download, being in greyscale, is some 15MB, while the other version, in simple black and white (and not in focus) is only 1.8MB. If I had time/energy, it could be recreated as a regular PDF/ebook, using period fonts, for easy dissemination and reading.

Thanks again. And it's good to come across a woman (or two) who understands that having charge over creating and forming those who will vote is far more powerful than mere voting. And that is not something women have ever stopped doing, nor can they ever; only nowadays they're doing it unconsciously and irresponsibly, with predictably disastrous results.

Anonymous Idle Spectator May 08, 2012 2:00 PM  

Hear ye, hear ye.

VIBRANCY ALERT!!!

//rings bell

Anonymous DT May 08, 2012 2:09 PM  

I was just thinking this morning that humanity is in the mess that it is in because Adam failed the very first sh!t test. "Honey look! I ate from the forbidden tree and it tastes great! Try some for me pleeaaaasssseee!"

When will humanity learn that women have many amazing qualities and gifts from God, but leadership is not one of them. Women should not lead, nor participate in the selection of leaders.

Anonymous RINO May 08, 2012 2:10 PM  

But the Civil War happened before female suffrage, so it isn't all their fault.

Anonymous Matt Strictland May 08, 2012 2:12 PM  

Amusing video and one of those times Fox is on the ball.

Coming from a line of suffragettes and holding my ancestors in great esteem it was quite a shock to realize that maybe just maybe giving women the vote was a bad idea.

Now as to the amendments, income tax was put in by that traitorous statist ,internationalist warmonger Wilson to facilitate treason, a bigger state, internationalism and warmongering more or less. Its not a surprise that the first income tax was under Lincoln either, thats another we could have done without

As for the anon who suggested doing away with the 14th, well birthright citizenship could go but we need the part forcing states to abide by the Federal Constitution. This is meant to cap bad actions by them for example torturing confessions as routine policy, draconian laws forbidding people to leave so they can be milked, going house to house to search for contraband without warrants that kind of thing.

M<any states have theoretical Constitutional prohibitions on that sort of thing but with the fascist strain so entrenched we need additional layers of protection.

What that part of the 14th says is "If you are part of the Union you must be meet certain standards" I think this is a good thing myself.

On the other hand I'd be fine with a succession clause of some kind. Assuming that votes could be counted fairly and 75% of all persons (including incarcerated people) said yes, a State could leave.

As people say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and it would be better for States who no longer want to be here to be able to quit.

There are risks though and further discussion is too far off topic.

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 2:43 PM  

civilServant: Women do not hold these values? How many men hold them?

Your typical feminist certainly does not hold these values. Overall, women hold them to an observably lesser degree than men.

Anonymous DANIELIVS May 08, 2012 2:53 PM  

Let the Uncle Tom misogynist shaming begin.

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 2:58 PM  

Stingray: The good thing is, she realizes a lot of what he does for her, but it is apparent that she (and he) are still not happy. They just can't figure out why.

Same situation with my friends. She's Christian and open to the idea of traditional roles, and she realizes that he's a better option than the men in her home country. But they can't figure out what exactly the problem is. As you and I have discussed here before, the idea of submitting to a weak man is anathema. My advice only served to improve things temporarily, and they've gradually backslid. He's got to become the Captain before there can be any peace in that marriage.

I figure there's nothing to lose in giving either of these men the book. In a moment of desperation, they may actually read it. In fact, it ought to be required reading before any man gets married. My standard bridal shower gift has been a combo of The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands (basically Girl Game) + The Power of a Praying Wife. I just decided I'm gonna start adding Athol's book for the groom's gift.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 2:59 PM  

civilServant: Women do not hold these values? How many men hold them?

in general know there is a different value system that favors fairness, politeness, niceness, tranquility, and comfort.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner May 08, 2012 3:12 PM  

I don't think women should have the right to vote, and rightly, men either.

Voting is like stealthily stealing from your neighbor, to extract benefits.

I do on occaision vote, but like W.C. Fields said: "I never vote for , I always vote against."

Anonymous DanSomers May 08, 2012 3:18 PM  

Rev. Peterson is a very brave man...he also said blacks should have to work on plantations again because they've forgotten what it is to work...it is refreshing to hear a guy speak with no fear what is on his mind... I'll have to listen to his sermons

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 3:39 PM  

In mildly related news...

Black Women are fat because they are Sticking it to the man!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/why-black-women-are-fat.xml

Blogger Atlas May 08, 2012 3:51 PM  

I was laughing at that Hannity clip. The chick on there tried to hijack the show and really did a poor job of it. I will give Hannity some credit though, he let her hang herself on national TV.

I was also amused at how she kept telling Jesse that he was not answering her questions even though he was. She just wanted him to answer how SHE though he should. She did a great job at demonstrating the truth in his sermon about how women act (freak out, act nuts, etc.) when the going gets tough.

Anonymous Soonertroll May 08, 2012 3:54 PM  

To shoot a small hole in that theory, Woodrow Wilson was elected before universal suffrage.

Blogger Joshua_D May 08, 2012 4:02 PM  

Soonertroll May 08, 2012 3:54 PM
To shoot a small hole in that theory, Woodrow Wilson was elected before universal suffrage.


Complaining that there are idiotic men doesn't do anything to rebut the fact that we should not compound male idiocy by adding the idiotic female vote. Remember most people are idiots.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 5:07 PM  

"To shoot a small hole in that theory, Woodrow Wilson was elected before universal suffrage."

Feminism had enormous influence long before suffrage was adopted. This is self-evident.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 5:15 PM  

Reading Nate's recommended book of Proslavery one sees quoted mass-audience tracts that contain spelling and grammatical errors.

That's highly unlikely. Methinks what you're seeing as spelling and grammar errors are in fact not errors, but the accepted way things were done.


A quote from the book.

"... Boucher wrote that he had 'no disposition to question either it's [sic] lawfulness, nor it's [sic] humanity,'"

The "sic" is by the book's author. Though I must backtrack slightly on this example as it was written in private in 1767 or so but published "as-is" in 1792 or so.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 5:18 PM  

one cannot ignore the role played by the deterioration of Christianity in the States at that time.

Was there ever an age when Christianity was not deteriorating? One so frequently reads in old commentaries the assertion that "Our age is particularly fallen" or some such.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 5:29 PM  

Women do not hold these values? How many men hold them?

Your typical feminist certainly does not hold these values. Overall, women hold them to an observably lesser degree than men.


This seems a less-than-ringing endorsement. One may as easily say that bananas have a higher protein content than oranges.

So. One adopts a one-size-fits-all actionable judgement?

in general know there is a different value system that favors fairness, politeness, niceness, tranquility, and comfort.

An armed society is a polite society. So. Women favor being armed? Or armed men are feminized?

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2012 5:31 PM  

Politeness is more of a side effect than the desired end goal. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 5:32 PM  

civilServant: The "sic" is by the book's author. Though I must backtrack slightly on this example as it was written in private in 1767 or so but published "as-is" in 1792 or so.

Appending "sic" does not necessarily connote error, but indicates "thus it was written" by the original author. Pre-19th century, "it's" was commonly used for the possessive form of "it." Those were not errors; the author was just indicating that he had not made an error in transcribing the quote, since "it's" is no longer used that way.

Anonymous Kriston May 08, 2012 5:35 PM  

Matt Strictland May 08, 2012 2:12 PM

As for the anon who suggested doing away with the 14th, well birthright citizenship could go but we need the part forcing states to abide by the Federal Constitution. This is meant to cap bad actions by them for example torturing confessions as routine policy, draconian laws forbidding people to leave so they can be milked, going house to house to search for contraband without warrants that kind of thing.


The 14th does NOT give birthright citizenship. That is something that was "interpreted" by a judge fairly recently. He just decided to ignore the and subject to the jurisdiction thereof portion.

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 5:51 PM  

civilServant: This seems a less-than-ringing endorsement. One may as easily say that bananas have a higher protein content than oranges.

This is silly. I'm curious if you're a man or a woman, because you don't seem to understand how Woman World works at all. As a woman, I can assure you the differences are statistically significant, in spite of the fact that many men also lack some of the qualities I mentioned.

Reason: men are more likely to arrive at decisions through reason than by emotion.

Loyalty: women's loyalties are constantly shifting, as indicated by the relative rates at which women and men initiate divorce and the motivations for it.

Justice: women care more about "fairness" than rules.

Courage: men are far more willing than women to put themselves in harm's way to support their families, to protect people, and to stand up for principles.

Self-sacrifice: men are more likely to put in the hard hours and suffer physically and mentally for their jobs.

Single-mindedness: this is almost axiomatic; women complain all the time that men have one-track minds, while women can "multitask."

So. One adopts a one-size-fits-all actionable judgement?

Actionable? WTH?

Anonymous Azimus May 08, 2012 5:58 PM  

civilServant May 08, 2012 5:18 PM .

Was there ever an age when Christianity was not deteriorating? One so frequently reads in old commentaries the assertion that "Our age is particularly fallen" or some such.


Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Christianity is a personal faith. It's adherents readily acknowledge that they are unworthy of the affections of their Leader, and it's Scriptures claim that they A) should conform themselves to the behavior of their Perfect Leader and B) they cannot possibly be perfect. So even looking inwardly, Christians are constantly struggling (usually not winning) a battle for righteousness. Turning that lens outward, where men are more comfortable being critical, backsliding and rot are readily visible everywhere. So, yeah, I guess there's a pretty good formula for the perception of continual deterioration.

This is why I try very hard not to roll my eyes and groan when members of my family talk about how we're DEFINITELY living in the end times. No man knows the hour!

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 6:04 PM  

In terms of reason vs. emotion for men and women, women have a demonstrable tendency to vote for the best-looking and/or most-charming candidate, irrespective of his principles and stance on the issues. Which is why we get charming sociopath presidents, like JFK and Bill Clinton, who get carte blanche to do all the creepy things they want, but Reagan was in favor of welfare reform, so OMIGOD HE'S THE ANTICHRIST.

I've also heard that virtually no bald men have been elected president since women got the vote, but I've yet to verify that.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 6:39 PM  

"An armed society is a polite society. So. Women favor being armed? Or armed men are feminized?"

I've never seen so many logical fallacies in one statement. False dichotomy... question begging... it goes on and on and on.

Blogger Nick May 08, 2012 6:41 PM  

This is the most refreshing blog I've read all week.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 6:42 PM  

"... Boucher wrote that he had 'no disposition to question either it's [sic] lawfulness, nor it's [sic] humanity,'"

Thank you for proving my point. In the 1700s... an apostrophe was used on the word "it" to denote possessive tense. No doubt you were also mystified by words like "wot" and strange spellings for words such as colour and favour and honour.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 6:51 PM  

Reason: men are more likely to arrive at decisions through reason than by emotion.

Loyalty: women's loyalties are constantly shifting, as indicated by the relative rates at which women and men initiate divorce and the motivations for it.

Justice: women care more about "fairness" than rules.

Courage: men are far more willing than women to put themselves in harm's way to support their families, to protect people, and to stand up for principles.

Self-sacrifice: men are more likely to put in the hard hours and suffer physically and mentally for their jobs.

Single-mindedness: this is almost axiomatic; women complain all the time that men have one-track minds, while women can "multitask."


May I suggest that perhaps your location and/or circle of acquaintences influence the sample space upon which you base your view.

Certainly there are many emotional men - they tend to be unsuccessful and thus marginalized. Emotional women however are not marginalized and are thus more visible.

Divorce initialization as a metric for loyalty is faulty as it is men who get hammered by it and not women. Men have little legal incentive to initiate divorce while women are known to plan for it long-term. And must I remind you that throughout the ages in all cultures it is men who are known for disloyalty to wives?

Few male or female cares about fairness if the rules are in their favor. For most fairness only comes into play if the rules are not beneficial. "If the law is on your side hammer the law. If the facts are on your side hammer the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side hammer the table." Observe how feminists who write rules hammer the rules regardless of any notion of fairness. Men are identical in this regard.

Women do not lack courage. They lack the physicality that so often backs courage both physical and moral. Even then they may not care but step forward anyway. I have seen a sixty-year-old female teacher with a lead pipe in her hand confront a gang entering a grade school playground. A woman who works in my building is one of the most stand-up people I know.

As for self-sacrifice on the job men put up with job stress because unemployment is far more stressful than most jobs. Women have options unavailable to men. Many women put up with marriages and families that many men will walk away from for exactly the same reasons - women have no options in this regard whereas men can and will simply leave.

As for multi-tasking this seems to confer no disadvantage. Being able to multitask is a requirement for most managers everywhere.

This comparison seems to be a wash. If one disparages and disenfranchises all women as such because of their faults then one should be prepared to disparage and disenfranchise most men as well for exactly the same reasons. Which I believe is the entire purpose and point of this view.

Anonymous pdimov May 08, 2012 7:04 PM  

To shoot a small hole in that theory, Woodrow Wilson was elected before universal suffrage.

Women's suffrage itself was passed before women's suffrage. In fact, women themselves would have voted against it, were they given the chance to vote. It's in the book.

Anonymous civilServant May 08, 2012 7:10 PM  

In the 1700s... an apostrophe was used on the word "it" to denote possessive tense.

I must defer to your expertise solely on the basis of my own lack thereof. But here is a line from the Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And here is a line from the Constitution of the United States.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;

In addition the author of the book ProSlavery also thought it necessary to call attention to the fact that "it's" was in fact original to the document and not a typo or other error on his part.

Are you perhaps mistaken?

In any case my point about education then and now stands.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 7:20 PM  

No I am not mistaken.

"Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was used most commonly as the possessive of "it" -- just the opposite of the current "rule." The contraction of "it is" was usually "'tis," as often heard in Shakespeare's plays. Even after the use of "'tis" faded, "it's" was used for both the possessive and the contraction, and the reader would have to judge which was meant by the context in which it was used. The modern rule regarding "it's," it would seem, is a fairly arbitrary decree."

http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html

Blogger Nate May 08, 2012 7:25 PM  

So no... your point about education does not stand since you have produced nothing to back up your claim that mass marketed tracts varied in quality based on their intended audience.

People could either read and write very well... or they could not at all. there was no market of uneducated barely functional readers. Those folks got their news by word of mouth.

Anonymous Anonymous May 08, 2012 8:11 PM  

The deceased Senator Kennedy from Mass. was revered by liberal women. He somehow became a spokesman for women's rights.
Never mind that he didn't lift a finger to help the young girl who drowned. He knew exactly what to do to save his life-and his career. Didn't lift a finger to help the drowning young woman though.
This man somehow became "the darling" of women activitists! Unbelievable."He respects women", is what the radical women in my college shouted at me when I critized the "good" Senator in a classroom discussion.
He supported abortion and that's all that mattered to the leftist/liberal women. I'm not suprised he supported the killing of the young.He was partially responsible for the death of a young woman himself;How women came to the conclusion that "he respects women" is beyond me.
I'm glad I'm not a woman: I wouldn't want that kind of respect. Joe

Anonymous Stickwick May 08, 2012 8:18 PM  

civilServant: May I suggest that perhaps your location and/or circle of acquaintences [sic] influence the sample space upon which you base your view.

You may suggest it, but you'd be wrong.

This comparison seems to be a wash. If one disparages and disenfranchises all women as such because of their faults then one should be prepared to disparage and disenfranchise most men as well for exactly the same reasons. Which I believe is the entire purpose and point of this view.

It's not a wash. That you saw one little old lady count on at least some degree of civility from a group of thugs does not fly in the face of my contention that men put themselves at risk far more often than women, even when they know they will likely be hurt or killed. Women have historically been the more likely party to initiate divorce, even before Marriage 2.0 and its bigoted legal support system. Men don't have more affairs, women do, they're just better at lying about it; and since only 5% of men who have affairs will leave their wives for their mistresses, that shows men are committed to at least supporting their wives and keeping the family intact. Your nonsense about women staying in marriages, because they have fewer options, is in direct contradiction to the statistics, which say that women leave the marriage at a rate that is now twice that of men. Clearly, these women believe they have options. Lastly, multitasking may be great for some endeavors, but not for the ones in which men have historically excelled. For instance, in my profession (science), single-mindedness is one of the most important qualities for success.

Now, having said all that, who said women are to be faulted for not being exactly like men? Certainly not I. You are apparently taking my observations as a critique of women, when it's nothing more than observation. As Nate pointed out, men and women have different value systems that favor different things. I didn't say it was wrong that women don't favor the same things as men, only that: a) women have largely failed to adopt the good male qualities along with the bad; and b) the female value system, when given free political reign, is not conducive to a civilized rule-of-law system. It is, however, conducive to other beneficial things in society, as long as it is properly constrained by benevolent male leadership.

The only women I disparage are feminists and their willing dupes. As for disenfranchisement, what nonsense. Women in the West had a great deal of power long before they were ever granted the vote.

Anonymous progressive patriarch May 08, 2012 8:52 PM  

"Certainly there are many emotional men - they tend to be unsuccessful and thus marginalized. Emotional women however are not marginalized and are thus more visible."

So a group of men will weed out the emotional men, while a group of women won't. So...
(unless you believe that we live in a patriarchy which keeps emotional women in purview of society while removing emotional men so that questions about women's suffrage can be raised every now and then)

"Divorce initialization as a metric for loyalty is faulty as it is men who get hammered by it and not women."

And it came about how? The laws meandered about and by chance came to this side of the moon?

"And must I remind you that throughout the ages in all cultures it is men who are known for disloyalty to wives?"

Really?

"Few male or female cares about fairness if the rules are in their favor."

I am guessing you haven't witnessed the male self-flagellation for the past half cenutry? If they were half the sadists feminists make them out to be, they'd pissed on those good ladies to enjoy their enslavement of women.

"Men are identical in this regard."

They are not, but they need to be.

"Women do not lack courage. They lack the physicality that so often backs courage both physical and moral. "

I am not an elephant, but with a trunk and a few extra thousand pounds I can be! Ms. Fluke's courage certainly brought tears to my eyes.

"I have seen a sixty-year-old female teacher with a lead pipe in her hand confront a gang entering a grade school playground."

which would have beaten up a man of their own age but wouldn't lay a hand on a woman, much less an old granny?

"As for self-sacrifice on the job men put up with job stress because unemployment is far more stressful than most jobs. Women have options unavailable to men."

This sounds like 'women weren't allowed to go to war, poor women!'
It'd have been more fun to send out the wifey to work, unemployment stress be damned!

"women have no options in this regard whereas men can and will simply leave"

again, where have you been?

"This comparison seems to be a wash."

LOL

"If one disparages and disenfranchises all women as such because of their faults then one should be prepared to disparage and disenfranchise most men as well for exactly the same reasons. "

That's not a bad suggestion. The thing is that individual behaviors do get aligned more with the group behavior. An example will be the more masculine way of reasoning in older women writers like the anti-suffrage one linked above, compared to the recent slut girls generation or for that matter beta boys generation. Women raised by men vs today's single mother spawns.

As a progressive patriarch, I would deny women the vote because they are women. What they might or might not bring to the table is wholly immaterial, save for the sammiches.

Blogger SarahsDaughter May 08, 2012 9:16 PM  

Regarding the Reverend's truthful statement: “You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love.” I just had the unfortunate opportunity to witness a female Sergeant First Class, in uniform, at the Commissary, scream at and berate an employee. The quibble was about bagged items that had yet to be scanned(self check out). When the employee left to get a manager, the belligerent Soldier met my condemning eyes and screeched, "she's harassing me!" I replied, "you need to calm down." After she screamed at me a bit, I said, "I promise you, you don't need to behave this way with me." When the manager arrived, the Soldier insisted the employee apologize to her. I approached and interjected, "I think you are the one to do the apologizing. No one deserves to be treated like that, you are out of line, and unbecoming as well, especially in your uniform." I walked away as she continued her rant.




"And must I remind you that throughout the ages in all cultures it is men who are known for disloyalty to wives?" - civilServant

This is subjective to your definition of disloyal. You are probably referencing infidelity. I would assert that women, today, are far more disloyal. Beginning with the gossip that spews from their lips about their husbands, the condescension of their tone with their husbands, and the complete lack of respect given to their husbands.

Anonymous Anonymous May 08, 2012 9:50 PM  

The black aegis has never covered conservative blacks. He might as well be white in the liberals' eyes.

Anonymous Klaatu Fabrice Aquinas May 08, 2012 10:50 PM  

[As posted in the comments at Raw Story]

As I read through the majority of these comments, I simply see evidence of the aims of what is termed, "second-wave feminism" beginning in the early '60s. "First-wave feminism," so far as American history is concerned, goes back to Abigail Adams. Long before Susan B. Anthony. Movements and processes happen in tiers or phases, over decades, in order to be successful. The third wave (and final) is on the precipice in this present century. It will literally destroy western society as we currently know it.

How do we know this? Simple, the authors have told us so. Who are these -- authors? The same that are giving us massive bank bailouts, including foreign central banks. The same that have given us an illegal and unConstitional Federal Resereve Bank, and the IRS. The same that have given us perpetual global warfare since the Spanish-American War.

I don't wish to wax too poetic here. However dear ladies, you've been had. Without becoming theological, you've been had since the beginning of human (homo sapian) history. And, yes it all began with a certain female, and a relatively handsome Draco entity. One cannot evolve into perfection, when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics exists, and portends, that the former simply cannot and will not happen, sans a new -- creation.

Feminism, New World Order and Rockefeller's New War

Anonymous farfromcenter May 08, 2012 11:05 PM  

"I didn't recognize the main problem, which is that the husband isn't a leader. Maybe I should buy Athol's book for him."


yeah, it's difficult to give submission when a man refuses to receive it.

Anonymous Antipater of Tarsus May 08, 2012 11:17 PM  

No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18


Really?!? You don't say...


Why Feminism Is A Fraud…

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate May 08, 2012 11:29 PM  

The Feminist Movement was a CIA project of social programming The CIA and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funded Ms. Magazine and Gloria Steinem and elements of the feminist movement

Anonymous bob k. mando May 08, 2012 11:35 PM  

Stingray said:
I have thought of giving the husband that book time and again, but I am not sure what he would do with it. I tend to think he would outright reject it.


so what if he rejects it?

right now, he's ignorant. if he becomes informed AND STILL CHOOSES HIS CURRENT COURSE then he is a fool.

and one of the primary attributes of a mature, adult man is that he accept the consequences of his actions ...

Anonymous Anonymous May 09, 2012 12:05 AM  

@Sexual Chocolate
Thank you for the information. Yes,Steinem's father was CIA and so was she.
Excellent Post! Thank you. Joe

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 09, 2012 1:37 AM  

Feminists can go pound sand.

The female vote has hurt liberty, freedom and prosperity. Lee is correct, end of story.

Anonymous Chopdog May 09, 2012 2:50 AM  

Seriously, why does everything have to be part of a CIA plot to some people? I mean, Steinem as CIA operative??? Come on. MPAI, it's not difficult to get folks to climb on the suffragette caboose. Come to think of it, it's also not hard to get certain folks to climb aboard the 'everthings a false flag operation' wagon. Perhaps the rev Peterson is ff-ing in order to reinvigorate the waning feminist movement and discredit Hannity and Foxnews.

Anonymous FrankNorman May 09, 2012 5:58 AM  

RC May 08, 2012 11:18 AM

"This comment has been removed by a blog administrator" - E. Perline

Come now blog overlords. I found the mammalian female brain comment priceless.


I'm guessing that Spacebunny didn't. :-D
But then, I never saw the post before it got removed. Perline's contributions have never been censored here before, have they?

Anonymous Sam Scott May 09, 2012 6:05 AM  

Vox, I fully support the right of women to vote for this reason:

The purpose of voting is not to ensure that X is the outcome of voting. The purpose is to give all adult citizens a stake and decision in the government and its policies.

If not-X is the outcome of a vote, the solution is not to take away the right to vote from the supporters of not-X -- it is to convince them that X is better.

Anonymous p-dawg May 09, 2012 7:01 AM  

@Sam Scott: If you really believe that all adult citizens have a stake in the government and its policies, you need to find a simpler blog to read. Additionally, you are advocating the use of reason to persuade the emotional - that is, itself, irrational.

Anonymous FrankNorman May 09, 2012 7:05 AM  

The purpose of voting is not to ensure that X is the outcome of voting. The purpose is to give all adult citizens a stake and decision in the government and its policies.

That is why they originally only let property-owners vote. Only the people who actually had some of their own wealth invested in the game - and not the people who would simply vote themselves a share of other people's money.

Think about it... hasn't modern politics devolved into a system of income redistributon? A chaos of special-interest groups all shouting "More for ME!"

Giving everyone a share in the decision is not a good thing, if a large proportion of them are going to behave like irresponsible children.

Anonymous Sam Scott May 09, 2012 7:20 AM  

@FrankNorman

Only the people who actually had some of their own wealth invested in the game

There many forms of wealth today besides property. I don't own any property, but I have a pension fund, and the (Israeli) government takes a chunk out of my paycheck. So, I have "wealth invested in the game," and I want a say in it.


Giving everyone a share in the decision is not a good thing, if a large proportion of them are going to behave like irresponsible children.

Well, here's the real question: What is the ultimate goal of voting? It is to create a society like X -- or is the freedom of granting everyone a say the liberty-based end in itself, regardless of what society it would create? If the goal is to create a society like X, there are better ways to do that than through democracy (or having a republic).

Anonymous FrankNorman May 09, 2012 8:05 AM  

There many forms of wealth today besides property. I don't own any property, but I have a pension fund, and the (Israeli) government takes a chunk out of my paycheck. So, I have "wealth invested in the game," and I want a say in it.

What use is that, if a ton of people who pay no tax also "have a say", and can out-vote you? And vote that your money be spent for them.

That just becomes another form of taxation without representation.

Blogger Nate May 09, 2012 8:37 AM  

"The purpose of voting is not to ensure that X is the outcome of voting. The purpose is to give all adult citizens a stake and decision in the government and its policies."

A stake? What are you blathering about. Everyone clearly has a stake already. The debate is about who should have a say in the decision making. Women already had a stake in game since Men were able to pass laws that they must bow to, and create the society in which they live.

But by forcing suffrage on women... you destroy everything they already had. You force mere equality on them when what they had was privilege. You force them to fight for there rights at a ballot box, when they already had access to all of those rights and much more. Feminism cost women dearly. Forcing suffrage on them, was among the most cruel large scale things the government of the united states has done.

Blogger Joshua_D May 09, 2012 8:50 AM  

Ah, I see civilServant got you all engaged. Don't feed the questions. They never stop.

Anonymous SouthTX May 09, 2012 9:12 AM  

My Wife who is on the right end of the bell curve of Wisdom has told me Women shouldn't vote. I contend if you don't pay income tax to support the system, you shouldn't be able to.

Anonymous SouthTX May 09, 2012 9:28 AM  

I like Reverend Jesse Lee, from what I have read of his opinions.

Anonymous duckman May 09, 2012 3:31 PM  

"objectively racist" - Lenin's one contribution to humanity

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts