Feminism is Incompatible with Nationalism

[Westminster]

Feminism is incompatible with Nationalism, because Nationalism is based on Patriotism and Patriotism is based on Patriarchy.

Patriotism = love of the father-land. Patriarchy = rule of the Patriarchs. Patriarch = father and ruler of the family, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Remember, if it is their land, then they should rule over it.

Patria = Father.

[ogenoct]

The words of the future are: Freedom - Equality - Sisterhood. As opposed to the patriarchal notion of brotherhood, sisterhood symbolizes the non-linear and anti-authoritarian nature of the coming society. Matriarchal and liberating, the coming society will have shed the shackles of the obsolete superman ideology.

[Kriger]

*********


http://greyfalcon.us/pictures/Motherussia.jpg

Mother Russia is calling you.....


*********

[Westminster]

The words of the future are: Freedom - Equality - Sisterhood. As opposed to the patriarchal notion of brotherhood, sisterhood symbolizes the non-linear and anti-authoritarian nature of the coming society. Matriarchal and liberating, the coming society will have shed the shackles of the obsolete superman ideology.

That sounds like the promise they've made, but I don't think it is the reality.

[ogenoct]

Mother Russia is calling you.....

I am already there.

[Kriger]

I am already there.

Heh heh. The way you travel around the globe, how am I to know that you are back in the Motherland at the present time?



As for a matriarchal society, I am not sure that it would be superior to a patriarchal one. There needs to be a balance, and favoring one gender over another for whatever reason only creates an imbalance.

What is your concept of women in society, Constantin. I don't recall ever having seen you express your views on this.

[Joe McCarthy]

I don't think feminism is necessarily incompatible with nationalism. Many liberal nationalist movements, such as the one in the French Revolution, 'liberated' women. I think feminism is incompatible with civilization.

[Starr]

As for a matriarchal society, I am not sure that it would be superior to a patriarchal one. There needs to be a balance, and favoring one gender over another for whatever reason only creates an imbalance.

.


It leads to a whole lot of hostility between males and females. Hostility that should not exist to any kind of great extent in a healthy society. That hostility may show itself in the home in smaller ways and also it may show itself in a larger way somewhere down the road. What do people assume widespread support for feminist ideas stemmed from in the first place? And what has now been the reaction from white men to those ideas and laws unjustly favoring women, put into action? This kind of back and forth tension and hostility between white males and females is also pretty incompatible with building any kind of movement where white males and white females see their interests, as a people, represented.

I support the kind of society where women would be encouraged, once again, towards a family life above all else. A society where she would not basically get the impression that being a wife and mother, solely, makes her less respectable. There would not really be much of a need, however, for this to then mean she would be barred or made to feel shame or any other such nonsense for having something outside the home. That is the impression I sometimes get from certain people as to what they would support. For one major thing this might not even be financially feasible for many families. I also support a society that would hand women nothing. They want something they have to earn it through merit, no special privileges to "close the gender gap" whatsoever. This would take care of the problem of unqualified women without putting into place ideas and laws that would result in discontent and anger among females. We would also see a lot less women in the professions that certain males think they do not belong in.

Voting is not something that should be stripped of females. Females have as much a stake in the society as males and, if society was more traditional once again, it would be the females who are mostly in charge of raising the next generation. They pay taxes. They have to live with the results of laws that are passed and those who are put into power. It is a strange concept to say they should have no say in these things and I do not care about the argument that "this is the way it used to be so this is the way it should be again." I would however support a requirement for voting that would at least involve the person showing they have some general knowledge about national and world affairs. To be blunt here I think this requirement would result in quite a bit more male voters than female voters.
Yes, I am fully aware of the argument that female voters can be dangerous because they tend to vote for liberals, but the reality is male voters tend to vote for Dick Cheney types. Probably good to have some kind of balance here.

I also do not have much of a problem with the idea that males, generally speaking should be looked at as final decision makers.(I say generally speaking since this will not work in all cases. There are women out there who are naturally dominant by nature.) I do have a problem with the idea that women's opinions should not even being taken into account. Another impression I get as to what certain people want to be the case.

[Kriger]

Your assessment is a sound and sensible one, Starr. A balanced objective that may be impossible to perfectly achieve due to the fact that we are imperfect humans living in an imperfect world. The latter should not over-shadow the former.

A strong patriarchal society as has been for the last 6,000 years or so is just as unbalanced as the matriarchal society that preceded it. There is a balance that has yet to be found, and I am not speaking of a static balance, but rather a give and take flow that harmonizes with the very real joys and sadnesses of real life. The good times are meant to be enjoyed. The bad times are meant to be endured. The bad times should never be allowed to overshadow the good times.

[Joe McCarthy]

From Starr:

"Voting is not something that should be stripped of females. Females have as much a stake in the society as males and, if society was more traditional once again, it would be the females who are mostly in charge of raising the next generation. They pay taxes. They have to live with the results of laws that are passed and those who are put into power."

As Rosenberg said, women should be stripped of the vote, but so should men. I'll note though that white women are clearly more prone to leftism than men, and it is due to their greater sense of compassion, which is a good trait in most everything but politics.

This is noteworthy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Women.27s_suffrage_and_government_growth

Lott claims that cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940 shows a strong relationship between voting rights for women and increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more attention to social issues at the federal level, thus increasing the size of government.

I'm disappointed in you for using the no taxation without representation argument. We all know what Pandora's box that opened....

[Westminster]

I don't think feminism is necessarily incompatible with nationalism. Many liberal nationalist movements, such as the one in the French Revolution, 'liberated' women. I think feminism is incompatible with civilization.

I think The French Revolution subverted bona fide Nationalism. However, I'm not surprised that our mainstream media would assert, The French Revolution "invented" Nationalism. (Our Schools really suck; they don't teach; they indoctrinate)

I think Nationalism = Independence and Unity. Under Monarchy, relatively homogeneous groups of people were unified and independent. So, I think Nationalism, existed long before The French Revolution or the so called, Modern Nation State. Remember, Nation = a family of men, descended from a common ancestor. There desire for unity and independence = nationalism.

[Westminster]

I do not care about the argument that "this is the way it used to be so this is the way it should be again."

The argument you don't care about is based on the premise, if it worked in the past, it should work in the future. Given that men and women today are, fundamentally, no different than their ancestors, the premise seems valid and your position seems incompetent.

[Joe McCarthy]

I think The French Revolution subverted bona fide Nationalism. However, I'm not surprised that our mainstream media would assert, The French Revolution "invented" Nationalism. (Our Schools really suck; they don't teach; they indoctrinate)

I think Nationalism = Independence and Unity. Under Monarchy, relatively homogeneous groups of people were unified and independent. So, I think Nationalism, existed long before The French Revolution or the so called, Modern Nation State. Remember, Nation = a family of men, descended from a common ancestor. There desire for unity and independence = nationalism.


The French revolution was definitely nationalistic, even if I dislike it.

[Westminster]

The French revolution was definitely nationalistic, even if I dislike it.

I don't think it is all or nothing. Ultimately, you start preaching equality, then I think you undermine Nationalism. It's just common sense.

[Dagoth Ur]

Shouldn't this depend on the traditional gender roles of the society in question? For example, women had very important functions in Indo-European tribes and there were laws that applied to men which women were regarded as being above. With this in mind the typically Western phenomenon of women's movements can be seen as a natural development that has been taken to illogical extremes.

[Maponus]

The British Fascists started off attacking Feminism, but then stopped because women who had been politicised by the Suffragettes and wartime women organisations were joining the BUF in waves. In many ways they were better recruits than the traditional English male right-wing crypto-Fascist, who just sat around publishing obscure newspapers and waited for some Messianic coup leader to abolish democracy and send everyone out of the cities back to the rural paradise of Tudor England. That, along with the fact the suffragettes were pro-war, pro-empire, anti-labour and operated like a mini-totalitarian state built around Pankhurst's leadership.

[Dagoth Ur]

That, along with the fact the suffragettes were pro-war, pro-empire, anti-labour and operated like a mini-totalitarian state built around Pankhurst's leadership.
Anti-labour? As in, what, the party?

[Maponus]

Anti-labour? As in, what, the party?

The Party mostly, but also against what it respected, the views of working class men, who were attacked more frequently by pro-suffrage cartoons than middle or upper class men. It was mainly the disinterest of Labour MPs in securing votes for women of property which started it, as well as Pankhurst's "Unionist" (Tory) views.

[Felix the Cat]

http://greyfalcon.us/pictures/Motherussia.jpg

Mother Russia is calling you..... That's an interesting one. I remember seeing somewhere an argument that read great significance, from a national-character point of view, in whether a nation saw its homeland as masculine or feminine.

[Maponus]

That's an interesting one. I remember seeing somewhere an argument that read great significance, from a national-character point of view, in whether a nation saw its homeland as masculine or feminine.

To bring up the Suffragettes again, they justified war on Germany because France was feminine, and Germany Masculine.

[Westminster]

Shouldn't this depend on the traditional gender roles of the society in question? For example, women had very important functions in Indo-European tribes and there were laws that applied to men which women were regarded as being above. With this in mind the typically Western phenomenon of women's movements can be seen as a natural development that has been taken to illogical extremes.

It really isn't a question of what some random tribe or political group did here or there. Nationalism isn't that complex. It is about Independence of a people. In order for those people to succeed, they must have Unity. First, what can possibly be more divisive, than mixing people from all over The World!? Well, a liberated women can marry whoever she wants. Pre-Women's Liberation, marriages were arranged by their Fathers. Those Fathers had a personal interest in maintaining their own "race." Remember, race = common ancestry. Don't forget, commonness is a matter of degrees.

Second, unity requires sameness. We must identify with each other, to be unified. In order for this to occur, we must be surrounded by people like ourselves. In order for that to occur, daughters must have lots of babies, with husbands who are like their Fathers. Naturally, Fathers must have sons, in order to continue their "house." Of course, that is fundamental to Racial Nationalism; Your Racial House, is The House of Your Fathers.

Naturally, this is not ALL that is required for Nationalism. However, it does appear to be fundamental and hence, ultimately, irreplaceable. Thus, a Nation that turns away from it, should show signs of National Disintegration.

Nations appear to be based on Common Ancestry and gods. Our God was The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit; Jehovah. We now are taught to accept all other gods as "Equal." We accept all races, genders and gods as "Equal." Those three prongs are like a pitchfork, being driven into our National Chest.

Feminism is about Equality. If all Genders are Equal, then why not all races? If all races, then why not all gods? Of course, what about men? Are all men really equal? Of course not! Our own Constitution seems subversive. Not surprisingly, it was drafted in the same Age as The French Revolution; steeped in the rebellion against Monarchy and ultimately, Class.

Are all classes of men equal? Should a gardener or his son be = to a doctor or his son = to a mayor = to a governor = to a President or a King? Of course not! Isn't that what public schools, national healthcare, public transportation, The Fed and FHA are really about? Aren't those programs aimed at leveling everyone? Sure they are! It is called, "Socialism." After all, you can't have "equal opportunity," without "equal access." Hence, those stupid side walk cut outs and talking crosswalks you pay taxes for! Fundamentally, Feminism supports all of that, even if some feminized teeny bopper doesn't :rofl:

[Westminster]

http://www.teardropcreations.com/flashgallery/Kaos/Kaos%20Set1%204of5.JPG

http://www.teardropcreations.com/

[Westminster]

http://www.anchorflagandflagpole.com/images/ChristianFlag.jpg

www.anchorflagandflagpole.com

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/themes/npi/img/family.jpg

[Dynamic]

Feminism is incompatible with Nationalism, because Nationalism is based on Patriotism and Patriotism is based on Patriarchy.

Patriotism = love of the father-land. Patriarchy = rule of the Patriarchs. Patriarch = father and ruler of the family, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Remember, if it is their land, then they should rule over it.

Patria = Father.

I disagree. You can be a matriarch, woman, warrior woman, mother and patriot as well. Think of you sisters and mothers and daughters.

Patriot isn't confined to men. Patriot isn't patriarch = Patria = Pasta = Pastor = Papa = Pate= Peter = Paddington Bear. This is how Christian Identity think - they play with words and letters like a baby's letter cubes to make significant anagrams. Then they use this as "proof".

[Westminster]

I disagree. You can be a matriarch, woman, warrior woman, mother and patriot as well. Think of you sisters and mothers and daughters.

Patriot isn't confined to men. Patriot isn't patriarch = Patria = Pasta = Pastor = Papa = Pate= Peter = Paddington Bear. This is how Christian Identity think - they play with words and letters like a baby's letter cubes to make significant anagrams. Then they use this as "proof".

I think you put this, "argument," better than anyone has before! :rofl:

http://supercoolschool.typepad.com/blog/images/believe_2.jpg