WHAT RADICAL MAN HATING FEMINISTS WANT
by Alan Stang
February 21, 2008
In the last chapter of this series about the Womanoid Movement, we saw that in general it says the same thing as the Communist Manifesto. It wants chaos and Communism. But we need to nail that conclusion down, to make sure we are not just talking about something lifelong parasite and abuser of women Karl Marx said more than 150 years ago; we need to see what today’s womanoids believe. If they believe something different, it doesn’t matter what the lifelong parasite who impregnated the family maid said.
For instance, there is Simone de Beauvoir, the French woman whose husband was Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. His chef d’oeuvre was Being and Nothingness, which is all you really need to know about it because existentialists were “Gnostic atheists,” a phrase I am inventing here, so you don’t need to look it up. They weren’t absolutely certain they existed, and, sure enough, by now they have disappeared, which probably proves they didn’t.
In The Second Sex (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), Simone de Beauvoir wrote as follows: “A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised . . .” (p. 760) And that was what she wanted. We have already dispatched at length the preposterous notion that the sexes could be equal.
Simone de Beauvoir told Saturday Review this (June 14, 1974, p. 18): "No woman should be authorized to stay at home to 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."
Let that sink in, ladies. Simone de Beauvoir, whom today’s womanoids everywhere worship, says women should not be allowed to stay home. She says they should be driven out by force. They shouldn’t be allowed to choose, because, she knows, they would choose home. Freedom of choice is not an option.
She doesn’t believe in freedom because she is a Marxist. So we’re not talking about “liberating” women; we’re not talking about enlarging opportunities for women, about shattering the “glass ceiling.” We’re talking about the opposite, about Marx’s “community of women,” in which women would be community property, denied privacy and choice. If women are forced out of their homes, by the government – which alone could do so – that is what you would have.
Gloria Steinem, Editor of Ms. magazine, a prominent American womanoid, is the author of the dazzlingly clever remark, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Later, she got married, and the big surprise was – to a man. Gloria also said, “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole F*#@+*g patriarchy!” (Detroit Free Press, April 15, 1974) In 1977, in Houston, Gloria Steinem said, “For the sake of those who wish to live in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of legal marriage.” How do you reform something after you abolish it? Gloria did not explain.
Finally, Gloria Steinem said this: "When I was in college it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist. Nothing was more clear than if Joseph McCarthy was against Marxists then I should be a Marxist. . . ." (Susan Mitchell, Icons, Saints and Divas, Sydney, HarperCollins, 1997, p. 130), Later, Gloria joined the Democratic Socialists of America.
And did you know that Gloria has probably worked for CIA most of her life, a fact she has desperately tried to conceal – even threatening lawsuits – which gives her activities an even more sinister character. The conspiracy for world government – including traitors at the top like Jorge W. Boosh – has been using weapons like feminism to dismantle our civilization so it can be more easily merged, first with Mexico and Canada, then with the rest of the world. CIA recruited her in 1958.
For nine years, Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger was her paramour, and she dated Heinz Albrecht “Henry” Kissinger, a Soviet agent. Both these people may be bicycles (see above), but at least they are male bicycles. Apparently they had no problem with Gloria Steinem’s stated goal of total revolution that would turn our country upside down and neither did the top U.S. corporations that advertised in Ms. Did they advertise there because CIA told them to?
Certainly one of the best known womanoids was Betty Friedan. Betty was as Communist as you can get with or without a Party card. She spent a few weeks at the Highlander Folk School, a revolutionary facility frequented by Party dignitaries like Abner W. Berry of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.
"The most profound thing that happened to Betty at Smith was her radicalization. She became committed to Marxist philosophy . . . ." So says Judith Hennessee, her biographer, in Betty Friedan: Her Life (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1999, p. 26). She contributed to the Daily Worker, the official newspaper of the Communist Party. At Berkeley, Betty consorted with Communist Party members like physicist David Bohm. Indeed, one of her lovers was J. Robert Oppenheimer, a regular contributor to the Communist Party who belonged to many Red outfits.
For years, Betty Friedan was a staff reporter for UE News, published by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, a Communist union. In 1939, Stalin and Hitler became allies and many Party members quit in disgust. Not Betty. So Communist was she that she stayed with Stalin, Hitler’s ally. Need I add that the Prostitute National Press reported none of this? They presented her as a frustrated housewife suffering the feminine mystique, while she wrote her book in a mansion on the Hudson.
Remember, we have room to cite only a few examples. Here’s another. In the SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men), Valerie Solana writes, "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." You are probably chuckling that this woman is obviously insane, an aberration, institutionalized for her own protection.
So, let’s look at one of feminism’s leading theoreticians. That would be Catharine A. MacKinnon, professor of law. Let’s browse through her Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1989). On page 3, she quotes Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, who say, “Marxism and feminism are one and that one is Marxism.”
On page 63, Miss MacKinnon quotes someone named Nancy Hartsock: “I want to suggest that the women’s movement can provide the basis for building a new and authentic American socialism.” Here is an example of Miss MacKinnon’s thinking (p. 125): “. . . men say all women are whores . . . . Men see rape as intercourse . . . . Men say women desire to be degraded . . . .”
Do you know any men who say that all women are whores, that sexual intercourse is rape and that women want to be degraded? I don’t. I’m sure such nutbags exist, but that is not what our professor is saying. She is saying that this is what all men think. Of course, rap music says all these things. Have the womanoids complained?
Here comes my favorite. On page 127, Miss Mac says that 92.2% of women in the United States are “sexually assaulted or harassed in their lifetimes.” Needless to say, when I read this I was horrified. Such a percentage, more than nine out of ten, would mean in effect, that every woman in this country has been or will be sexually assaulted or harassed. I yelled for the Love Priestess to start packing, planning to move my women to someplace relatively safe, like Baghdad.
But just in case – just in case – I consulted the footnote on page 279. There, Miss Cathy explains, “This figure was calculated at my request by Diana E.H. Russell on the random-sample data base of 930 San Francisco households . . . .” Uh, oh! San Francisco! Indeed, Miss Mac says: “The figure includes all the forms of rape or other sexual abuse or harassment surveyed, noncontact as well as contact, from gang rape by strangers and marital rape to obscene phone calls, unwanted sexual advances on the street, unwelcome requests to pose for pornography, and subjection to peeping toms and sexual exhibitionists (flashers).”
So, according to our law professor (?) an obscene phone call, a request to pose for pornography and a flasher is the same thing as gang rape. Needless to say, I told the Love Priestess to stand down.
It gets worse. On page 138, Miss Catharine drops a bomb: “. . . Pornography permits men to have whatever they want sexually. It is their ‘truth about sex.’ . . . From the testimony of the pornography, what men want is: women bound, women battered, women tortured, women humiliated, women degraded and defiled, women killed. . . .”
You are probably thinking I have made this up. You have read it a few times, but it still says what you thought it does. By now you are probably wondering whether this woman is insane. Can she really believe that men want women tortured, even killed? Is she herself living in a Nazi porn movie? All I know is what it says here. Remember, she is allegedly a professor of law, so the ipso facto prima facie mirabile dictu presumption is that she knows what she is saying.
And she’s not finished. On page 140, she quotes someone named Andrea Dworkin, who says pornography “reveals that male pleasure is inextricably tied to victimizing, hurting, exploiting.” Indeed, says Catharine MacKinnon, “death is the ultimate sexual act.” Yes, that is what she says. Should I repeat it? “Death is the ultimate sexual act.” So this is clearly someone as crazy as Valerie Solana.
Andrea Dworkin herself spoke at M.I.T. on September 26, 1975. She said, “The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations – for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right – these institutions are real and they must be destroyed.” Quoted in Our Blood: Prophecies and Discourses on Sexual Politics, Chapter 9, “The Root Cause.” Dworkin was of course a militant dyke.
Then there is Mary Jo Bane, another Harvard professor. She was Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in HHS during the Clinton Administration. Could you believe there is such a thing? There is. So you should not be surprised that, according to Dr. Bane, “We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. . . . In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”
The amazing fact is that Dr. Bane apparently is not a dyke, but I don’t know whether she has children of her own. Raising children “communally” is a polite way of saying the government should raise them, and Hillaroid agrees (It Takes a Village). Isn’t that what the Communists and Nazis tried to do? Why should we think we could get a different result here? Isn’t two plus two four everywhere?
Along these lines, there is Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies (Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, New York, Basic Books, 1994), where we find the following characterization of modern feminism: “. . . Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go – even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.” (P. 116)
It is important to understand that the above remarks are not aberrations. They are not at all departures from the womanoid mainstream. On the contrary, they are typical of what today’s womanoids believe. We have been feasting at the womanoid breast, however sour the milk. What have we found?
The womanoid “movement” is profoundly insane. It is as alien to normal women as it is to normal men. It is conducted by crazy women who hate everyone, including themselves, crazy women who want to destroy our civilization and country completely and erect a totalitarian dictatorship on the wreckage.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
is why the conspiracy for world government (run by men) has been advancing
it. They need to destroy those things in order to submerge us, first
in a regional government including Canada and Mexico, then in a world
government. Right now, they are using the womanoids – and the sodomites
– for that purpose. What these crazy women don’t know is that, if
the conspirators win, they will put the womanoids in their place,
where they will reminisce about how good it is now.
© 2008 - Alan Stang - All Rights Reserved