The previous entry It's Islam, Stupid! -- Redux got a couple of interesting comments. Let me summarize: Why do liberals, artists, atheists, homosexual activists, feminists favour Islam over a traditional Christian society? Isn't that illogical? No it isn't. That would only be the case if one would assume that they were, in fact, into freedom. But that is not the case. They are into control, and that's exactly why those people are usually not into just one "progressive", politically correct cause, but into all of them. A leftist will be as well feminist, into "equal rights" for homosexuals, vegetarian- or veganism, teetotalism (which, funny enough, doesn't extent to drugs), "animal rights", the cult of man-made climate change, the choice to murder your unborn child, agnosticism or atheism, "progressive" pedagogy and art, gun control, anti-racism and a rabid egalitarianism, and and and... In fact, it is all about control, bullying and might. They want to see the separation of powers, so fundamental for the rule of law, abolished. They are their own lawmakers, judges and law enforcers, political correctness is their constitution. They are abhorred at the thought that anybody anywhere on this earth might have fun. Wholesome fun, above all. They'd ban heterosexual sex, if they could. They want people sick of body and soul, helpless and frightened.
And that is exactly what Islam wants as well. They are mutually compatible, and each faction think they can control the other and we are supposed to lean back and wait who wins.
I'd like to add that the mutual hatred of Jews fits perfectly well into all this. For to the rebels in the West against God and the Ten Commandments, the godless cult of Islam must appear as the perfect ally.
Showing posts with label Endangered Species. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Endangered Species. Show all posts
August 06, 2010
June 19, 2010
What Men Perceive as "Romantic Evil"
I am retrieving this one-year-old entry from the blog bilges because of the re-started discussion in the comment section. In the context of this blog entry, I strongly recommend FPB's article on military style.
I happened to find the following by mere chance, while searching for some information on Piper Bill Millin and Lord Lovat at Flickr and it had me floored. I think it fits brilliantly the ongoing discussion about what makes men and women tick so differently.
Rundstedt
Rommel
Guderian
The discussion following the "La Style Anglais" picture at Flickr may serve as a key to such an (I think) obvious misconception:
Interestingly, the author of the "La Style Anglais" entry contradicts himself by quoting from Evelyn Waugh's "Men At Arms":
At my other blog there is an entry about Rex Whistler, another one of the Brit archetype, again one who carries that sexual ambiguity, and again one who was found irresistible by many women (and men), a feeling to which I can relate.
And of course, Lord Lovat, the man who triggered off this entry, makes an excellent romantic hero as well:
There is hardly anything more endearing about the male sex, and I am not cynical or jaundiced here, than the trait, which sees something romantic, even if it is romantic evil, in Guderian, or Rommel, or Rundstedt. The great tragedy is that their women are meanwhile eloping with Evelyn Waugh's Ritchie-Hook.
First published here on June 7th 2009 and cross-posted at The Evil Style Queen.
I happened to find the following by mere chance, while searching for some information on Piper Bill Millin and Lord Lovat at Flickr and it had me floored. I think it fits brilliantly the ongoing discussion about what makes men and women tick so differently.
Guderian? Rundstedt? And -- of all unlikely people -- ROMMEL as examples for "romantic evil"? For heaven's sake, Rommel looked exactly like what he was, the son of a small-town schoolteacher, Rundstedt looked exactly like what he was as well, namely the scion of a family of generations of dour Prussian career officers and Guderian, the only one of the three who shows a smidgeon of dash, looks basically too like what he was, namely the son of another Prussian officer, albeit from a lesser family. All three of them, whatever they may have in fact been, look like the archetype of sober, sexually continent men who go to bed early and take their holidays maybe not in Redcar, but in Warnemünde.La Style Anglais
Bad behaviour is more interesting, more downright entertaining, than goodness and rectitude. This is a great gift to the Devil of course, but there's no getting away from it. Who ever heard of a soap opera about sober, sexually continent people who go to bed early and take their holidays in Redcar?
I think this explains why the generals of the Wehrmacht High Command, with their whiff of arrogance, cruelty and romantic evil, have always received more attention than their equivalents on the "good" Allied side. For every biography or television documentary about Viscount Slim, or Alexander of Tunis, there must be a dozen about Guderian or Von Rundstedt and a hundred about Rommel. Yet there were some eccentric and flamboyant characters among the commanders of the wartime British Army...
Rundstedt
Rommel
GuderianThe discussion following the "La Style Anglais" picture at Flickr may serve as a key to such an (I think) obvious misconception:
Well, thats a DSO and bar, OBE, MC, 4 ww2 stars (one with a bar, maybe 8th army?), ww1 pair with an MiD, and probably the silver jubilee medal. Don't think there are too many out there with that combination. He looks like a poof but the medal bar proves he's solid English oak.Indeed, and that's what men find so hard to understand. I see neither arrogance, nor cruelty, let alone romantic evil, in the German archetypes, just austereness, sobriety and professionalism, and I'd like to know how other women react to the different archetypes. My money is on the Brits, and not on the Germans in their demonstratively sober uniforms, who shout "straight" in marked difference to the elegant, flamboyant, dashing, bordering on the sexually ambiguous, Brits, who show more than just a whiff of arrogance, as I understand it.
Alas, with the red hackle on his bonnet and the sword guard of his claymore poking out of the bottom right this 'solid english oak' is most likely a scotsman :) the red hackle is the regimental distinction of the Blackwatch regiment.
The soldier in question is a Commanding Officer from the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment). I believe he is Lt Col Critchley a very distinguished soldier and a gentleman. his son carried on the tradition of serving in the Regiment. Neither of which were in the least bit a poof nor English.
Why couldn't he have been a hero AND a poof?
Interestingly, the author of the "La Style Anglais" entry contradicts himself by quoting from Evelyn Waugh's "Men At Arms":
He was the great Halberdier enfant terrible of the First World War; the youngest company commander in the history of the Corps; the slowest to be promoted; often wounded, often decorated, recommended for the Victoria Cross, twice court martialled for disobedience to orders in the field, twice acquitted in recognition of the brilliant success of his independent actions; a legendary wielder of the entrenching tool; where lesser men collected helmets Ritchie-Hook once came back from a raid across no-man's-land with the dripping head of a German sentry in either hand.Frankly, that is not exactly a prime example of goodness and rectitude and a scenario in which the boringly sedate mugs of neither, Guderian, nor Rommel, nor Rundstedt seem quite to fit.
At my other blog there is an entry about Rex Whistler, another one of the Brit archetype, again one who carries that sexual ambiguity, and again one who was found irresistible by many women (and men), a feeling to which I can relate.
And of course, Lord Lovat, the man who triggered off this entry, makes an excellent romantic hero as well:
There is hardly anything more endearing about the male sex, and I am not cynical or jaundiced here, than the trait, which sees something romantic, even if it is romantic evil, in Guderian, or Rommel, or Rundstedt. The great tragedy is that their women are meanwhile eloping with Evelyn Waugh's Ritchie-Hook.
First published here on June 7th 2009 and cross-posted at The Evil Style Queen.
May 27, 2010
Men Who Deserve to Perish
The following was triggered off by a discussion about cinematography and the fact that more and more mainstream films that do not feature homosexuality AS SUCH, include "gay sex" scenes. I don't even own a TV set, hardly ever go to the cinema and buy a DVD only if it's become cheap enough, so I am usually years behind, but I have never found that a disadvantage. However, I find this instant of another offputting "in-our-face" strategy of the "gay" lobby still worth a comment. Homosexuals are a small minority (although they are working hard on changing that) yet the heterosexual majority is FORCED to acknowledge their sexuality, once it's featured in mainstream films. This is not new but still topical:
In this context it ought to be mentioned that in America a population-wide decline in men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years can be noted, that is not related to normal aging or to health or lifestyle factors known to influence testosterone levels. In plain English: They don't have an explanation for that phenomenon. This decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, such as decreases in sperm quality, increases in testicular cancer or cryptorchidism. The societal neutering of men has gone a long way already. No doubt, watching Daniel Craig in the buff will lower the average American male's testosterone level by another 10 percent.
Good luck to you, American men! No doubt, deriving pleasure from the fact that you are really, really good boys and in all thinkable situations impeccably politically correct will, one day soon, give you more pleasure than the act of procreation. You have gone a long way already towards the brave new world of an Andrea Dworkin, whose vision was that men are reduced to sperm banks on two legs, whose only useful occupation would be the occasional contribution to the gene pool. Men who are too scared to preserve their own sexuality deserve to perish.
Similar entries were posted at TMDSC and The Evil Style Queen.
DANIEL CRAIG is urging movie bosses to revolutionise the JAMES BOND franchise by including a gay scene involving the superspy in the follow-up to CASINO ROYALE. The heart-throb actor has also reportedly told studio chiefs he is prepared to film a full frontal nude scene to please both his male and female admirers. He says, "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it. "I mean, look at (British TV series) DOCTOR WHO - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye."So the perversion and corruption has already gone far enough for a (presumably) straight man to want to appeal to his female AND MALE "admirers" (in a sexual sense). Now come, all you straight people and tell me that the thought that a nude display of your body might "please admirers" of the same sex does NOT make you puke your guts out! The time that such a display of my own body might have done that is not all THAT long ago not to be sure that I, for one, WOULD have puked my guts out. As an aside: The fact alone, that a not ugly but otherwise insipid blonde weasel like Daniel Craig could acquire "heartthrob" status and be considred "rugged" speaks for itself. He is neither breathtakingly handsome like Roger Moore nor breathtakingly male like Sean Connery. And he has just an average physique as well, if that. How anybody who ever saw the pectorals and other assorted muscles of a Lloyd Bridges can find the remotest pleasure (whether aesthetically or sexually) in a nonentity like Daniel Craig is beyond me. Notabene that men in the past weren't afraid either to show that they had chest hair, different from the girlie- or neutered men of today.
In this context it ought to be mentioned that in America a population-wide decline in men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years can be noted, that is not related to normal aging or to health or lifestyle factors known to influence testosterone levels. In plain English: They don't have an explanation for that phenomenon. This decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, such as decreases in sperm quality, increases in testicular cancer or cryptorchidism. The societal neutering of men has gone a long way already. No doubt, watching Daniel Craig in the buff will lower the average American male's testosterone level by another 10 percent.
Good luck to you, American men! No doubt, deriving pleasure from the fact that you are really, really good boys and in all thinkable situations impeccably politically correct will, one day soon, give you more pleasure than the act of procreation. You have gone a long way already towards the brave new world of an Andrea Dworkin, whose vision was that men are reduced to sperm banks on two legs, whose only useful occupation would be the occasional contribution to the gene pool. Men who are too scared to preserve their own sexuality deserve to perish.
Similar entries were posted at TMDSC and The Evil Style Queen.
September 01, 2009
August 28, 2009
Duh! Or: Three Cheers to Stalinism
I came across the following while I was doing some modest research on the man-with-migration-background-on-German-female rape statistics. The figures concerning the rape of European women by Muslim immigrants, specifically in the Scandinavian countries, are, thanks to Fjordman, well known. However, figures about Germany are conspiciously missing. I have two explanations for that, which may both apply or be both wrong. The first one is that Muslim immigrant-on-indigene rapes are yet not as ubiquitous in Germany as they are in Scandinavia or the U.K., the other one is that Germany is not on the international map, as in so many other respects. However, searching (without result) for such figures, I came across a study by the Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit of the London Metropolitan University "Rape: Still a forgotten issue". As soon I see a feminist issue called "forgotten", all my inner alarm bells start ringing, and I was, not too amazingly, right. The Search for "Germany" led me to the following information dating back to 2001:
The interpretation is rather endearing:
At this point, a look at the methodology of the study may be in order:
What about this:
I took the figures from the Wikipedia entry about worldwide Islam. Notabene that they are from 2007, not 2001, and that they apply to the entire U.K. and not just to England and Wales. However, as this is a blog entry, not a post-doc project, they will have to do.
Can there be conclusions be drawn from this? Maybe. Here are mine in no particular order. It shows (and I am sure that further figures for different countries would substantiate that) 3% of Muslim population seems to be a critical limit. It shows further, that the Brits are unable to control their Muslim population and to keep track of their population generally. But most of all, it shows that a modicum of knowledge about the countries one attempts to "analyze" is indispensable.
Duh!
I cross-posted this with an anti-feminist angle at TMDSC.
| Country | Reported Rapes | Population in Mio |
| England/Wales | 9743 | 52 |
| Germany | 7891 | 82 |
| Greece | 170 | 10 |
| Sweden | 1752 | 9 |
If reporting were constant with respect to population, the Greek and Swedish figures should be relatively similar, but the country with a smaller population has a reporting rate ten times higher. Similarly, the German figure should be considerably higher than that for England and Wales, but is actually a fifth lower."Should"! You don't say!
At this point, a look at the methodology of the study may be in order:
The base data comprises short questionnaires sent to Justice Ministries in all European Union member states, aspirant states, Switzerland and Norway. Information was sought on:In other words, this was not a study about rape, but on the willingness of European authorities to comply with mindless, pseudo-academic, feminist projects. No attention was given to the perpetrators, and the authors of the study made no effort whatsoever to ask why some figures were not as they "should" have been.
• Numbers of rape cases reported, prosecuted and resulting in convictions in 1998-2001.
• For countries that failed to respond to the first survey, or provided incomplete data, an opportunity to provide the same information for 1977-1997.
• Any recent research containing either national prevalence data, including unreported rapes, or analysis of the attrition process.
• Details of any major reforms during the 1980s and 1990s with respect to: criminal law on rape; courtroom procedures; guidelines for prosecutors; guidelines for police investigations.
• National provision for forensic medical examinations.
Views were also sought about barriers to successfully prosecuting rape cases and whether rape was currently on the national political agenda. Ministries were, therefore, sent variations of the questionnaire depending on what data had, and had not, been provided previously.
Of 35 Justice Ministries, 21 returned questionnaires, some promptly, others only after multiple reminders by both the research team, and project partners in country. The non-cooperation of some states, and the absence of complete data from others, raises issues about the possibilities of tracking the most fundamental indicators of responses to violence against women, which has not only been recommended by the European Women’s Lobby (2001), but also been matters of policy development during the last four presidencies of the EU.
What about this:
| Country | Muslims | Percent |
| U.K. | 1,640,958-2,000,000 | 2.7-3.3 |
| Germany | 4,413,639 | 4.9 |
| Greece | 139,182 | 1.3 |
| Sweden | 270,933 | 3 |
Can there be conclusions be drawn from this? Maybe. Here are mine in no particular order. It shows (and I am sure that further figures for different countries would substantiate that) 3% of Muslim population seems to be a critical limit. It shows further, that the Brits are unable to control their Muslim population and to keep track of their population generally. But most of all, it shows that a modicum of knowledge about the countries one attempts to "analyze" is indispensable.
The number of reported rapes in Germany fell from 1984 to 1990, but increases from this year, although with year on year variation. This trend accelerates sharply with a 16 per cent increase between 1997 and 1998 although this decreases slightly in 1999 and 2000 before rising again in 2001. That said, however, the large increase one would expect following reunification, which almost doubled the population, is not evident in these figures.Yes girls! That is, because there were very few Muslims living in the former GDR and those who WERE, knew quite well that any antics about "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" wouldn't have taken them all that far in Stalinist Germany. Also, rape was rather frowned upon and there wasn't much room for multicultural empathy for the perpetrator within the great International Socialist brotherhood if it occured -- and that was a good thing.
Duh!
I cross-posted this with an anti-feminist angle at TMDSC.
July 31, 2009
July 27, 2009
June 08, 2009
When do we know something is wrong with a country?
When the Wikipedia-entry for "Officer's Commission" shows the commission ceremony of a woman, a woman who hasn't bothered to comb her hair.
Cross-posted at The Evil Style Queen.
Cross-posted at The Evil Style Queen.
June 06, 2009
Another Arm on the Octopus of Woman's Insanity
At The Evil Style Queen, commenter Carl makes an excellent point:
USS Pueblo was a Navy intelligence ship which was captured by North Korea in January 1968. For the next 11 months, Commander Bucher and his crew were held as POWs by the North Koreans, and were starved and tortured during their captivity. The treatment became even harsher when the North Koreans finally understood that crewmen were giving them "the finger" in staged propaganda photos, which they had explained as a "Hawaiian good luck sign". The men mocked their captors, too, by the wording of extorted confessions. As none of the North Koreans spoke English well enough to write such a confession himself, they were reduced to just verifying the meaning of the words, but failed to catch the puns and popular cultural hints: "We paean [pee on] the North Korean state. We paean their great leader Kim Il Sung". And: "We, as conscientious human beings who were cast upon the rocks and shoals of immorality by the tidal waves of Washington’s naughty policies know that neither the frequency nor the distances of these transgressions into the territorial waters of this sovereign peace-loving nation matter because penetration however slight is sufficient to complete the act," "Rocks and Shoals" being Navy jargon for the Uniform Code of Military Justice and "penetration however slight" the legal definition of rape.)
What conclusion can we draw from this? I have discussed earlier at this blog women who damage or even kill their own children to get attention:
Maybe the answer to the question why the same women who refuse to accept good, caring men, but rather choose to vilify and marginalize them, succumb so easily to evil and alien forces, is really, as Carl suggests, insanity.
I guess, should another USS Pueblo incident happen today, the brave men, once home again, would have to face a trial for mocking the great plight and heroic efforts of the feminist movement.
Do you think Stockholm Syndrome really exists as most people know it?The links Carl provided (see here and here) explain the "Hawaiian good luck sign" and reveal how MEN react under the pressure of kidnapping as shown by the crew members of USS Pueblo:
When the women of the Norrmalmstorg robbery behaved so insanely during and after the incident it was too big and too ridiculous an issue to just brush under the carpet. So someone had to come up with an explanation and it couldn't sound like some update of Victorian "hysteria" (i.e. merely point out that all sufferers were female!) or they would have been ignored.
But really, other than the time scale, how is it any different to women staying with abusive partners or even the slow surrender to the barbarians at the gates?
How many adult men have suffered from Stockholm syndrome vs adult women. On the other side how many captive women have pulled off an "Hawaiian good luck sign"?
I think that eventually Stockholm syndrome will be viewed as just another arm on the octopus of woman's insanity.
In other words, "Stockholm syndrome" isn't an excuse for women like this but just the politically correct way of saying everything you did about her. A way to state the truth without admitting the truth.
USS Pueblo was a Navy intelligence ship which was captured by North Korea in January 1968. For the next 11 months, Commander Bucher and his crew were held as POWs by the North Koreans, and were starved and tortured during their captivity. The treatment became even harsher when the North Koreans finally understood that crewmen were giving them "the finger" in staged propaganda photos, which they had explained as a "Hawaiian good luck sign". The men mocked their captors, too, by the wording of extorted confessions. As none of the North Koreans spoke English well enough to write such a confession himself, they were reduced to just verifying the meaning of the words, but failed to catch the puns and popular cultural hints: "We paean [pee on] the North Korean state. We paean their great leader Kim Il Sung". And: "We, as conscientious human beings who were cast upon the rocks and shoals of immorality by the tidal waves of Washington’s naughty policies know that neither the frequency nor the distances of these transgressions into the territorial waters of this sovereign peace-loving nation matter because penetration however slight is sufficient to complete the act," "Rocks and Shoals" being Navy jargon for the Uniform Code of Military Justice and "penetration however slight" the legal definition of rape.)
What conclusion can we draw from this? I have discussed earlier at this blog women who damage or even kill their own children to get attention:
If those perpetrators hadn't been female they would have been labelled simply evil. As they are, there is a long name now for it: Münchhausen by proxy syndrome.And the Stockholm syndrome sufferers, we can safely assume, hysterical.
Maybe the answer to the question why the same women who refuse to accept good, caring men, but rather choose to vilify and marginalize them, succumb so easily to evil and alien forces, is really, as Carl suggests, insanity.
I guess, should another USS Pueblo incident happen today, the brave men, once home again, would have to face a trial for mocking the great plight and heroic efforts of the feminist movement.
June 05, 2009
What Causes Women To Do The Things They Do
Terry Morris of Webster's kicked off yet another interesting discussion:
Attn.: EditrixI will add further comments, should there be any. Thank you, Terry, for this!Our female German correspondent, The Editrix, has some intriguing insights about the female sex, and what causes women (as women) to do some of the things they do.
At VFR is posted an article concerning the actions of a Dutch female reporter putting herself in harm's way. Read the article -- titled: Wilders tells the Dutch elite what they are -- to understand what exactly I'm talking about.
Now, I'm not trying to make any sweeping generalizations, truly, but I've witnessed this kind of thing before in certain women who are (relatively) close to me. They engage themselves in certain self-flagellating, ceremonious, ritualistic behaviors, and in their particular cases I've generally identified it as a self-centered grasp for the sympathy due to victims as well as the applause and adulation due to someone so obviously self-less, warm, loving, non-judgmental, and so forth and so on. In other words, my sense in this particular case is that this woman seeks self-promotion and self-gratification, and she was willing to put everything (including her life) at risk to get it. What I find so irritating sometimes, is that people go along with it, legitimizing this kind of behavior, thus effectively creating a monster, er, a whole host of 'em.
But I want to hear (or read) Nora's point of view, as well as any other woman's perspective who would like to add her own thoughts or insights.
Goodness, Terry! That must have been telepathy. I just read the entry at VFR, went to the BJ, was so angry that I left a VERY rude comment there and then thought I might have a look at Webster's for some sanity. I am suffering once more from acute blog frustration syndrome (you wouldn't BELIEVE what is currently going on here), but I am angry enough now to give it a break. I'll provide the link as soon as I've finished the entry. Thanks for encouraging me.
Terry, I did it! It's very rude and full of expletives, quite unlike my usual oeuvre, but heartfelt nevertheless.
- chiu_chunling said...
In what possible sense was this woman raped? I mean...I'm reasonably sure that sexual intercourse did occur, but her face doesn't show the medical evidence that she said "no" to the Taliban.
I very sure that the Taliban comforted themselves about their being seduced by this woman by pretending that she was somehow "captured" and thus technically a legitimate object of rapine rather than a Western harlot who set out to create this entire situation, but is there any basis for this delusion?
Wilders is wrong on this one. This woman didn't emotionally surrender to her 'captors' as a way of denying her fear and helplessness (though that problem does afflict a good part of Dutch society). The real point of the story isn't whether her 'captors' respected her, but that she had boundless contempt for them.
"The noble savage even “invited her to a threesome,” i.e. to have sex with him and one of his three wives. “Ghazi was a very religious man. It is all so hypocritical. He was a complete fool,” she writes." He actually thought we had something, it was sooo amusing to toy with him like that. As if I would really give his benighted wives any pointers on how a real woman does these things. Teehee!Yes, I think Wilders overestimates the motives of a woman like that. Her dhimmitude is only a symptom for a larger problem. Women like that are suffering from the attention whore syndrome, which makes them going for a life and for experiences totally opposed to those of a woman in a traditional society. Something like that MAY end in dhimmitude (and it very often does), but, as the example of Oriana Fallaci, Patron Saint of the more hyperventilating faction of Islam-critique, shows, it does not necessarily end in dhimmitude. Basically, Wilders takes that woman too seriously or better: he takes her seriously where he shouldn't. Of course women like that are dangerous, but not so much because they tend to be dhimmis, but because they are undermining like no other group, the basis of our culture, the family.
Another aspect I'd like to discuss is what makes people compare women like Joanie de Rijke to Joan of Arc. I find it deeply shocking, but I have no answer to it.
A commenter at VFR said: "I assume this photo of her was taken before her exotic escapades. She may have a different deportment these days." Judging from the picture I put up at my above linked blog entry, she looks, if anything, more radiant, smug and, perversely, "happy".
I realize it is a nasty thing to say about a woman who has been, after all, raped, but maybe the experience to succumb to a man, even under unfortunate circumstances, was a new and, ultimately, positive one.
Feminism has given rape such an ambiguous meaning. If a woman regrets that she'd had sex with that guy the morning after she can go and get him for "date rape". So what do we expect will come out of that.Ooops... I overlooked that: "The real point of the story isn't whether her 'captors' respected her, but that she had boundless contempt for them."
Yes indeed!
Isn't that my "condescension" theory in a nutshell? The one for which you, Terry, if I remember correctly, got so little positive attention at BE?The answer to your question, Nora, is yes. I read the Joan of Arc comparison at VFR and almost fell over backwards in my chair. Seems like a dhimmi of a different kind.
My apologies to y'all. Our internet has been down since sometime yesterday. I'll have to get back to this later.- chiu_chunling said...
But this woman didn't even regret having been "raped", she's positively proud of it. And I have absolutely no reason to believe that she didn't plan on having that happen. At the very least it was a carefully considered (and prepared) contingency. She had the guy asking her to give his wife pointers in the bedroom, for #@(*'s sake!
LITERALLY!!!
MY HEAD A 'SPLODE
The comparison to Joan of Arc is relatively easy to understand, by comparison. Joan of Arc was a young virgin. Pretty much everything else about her fades to insignificance in the eyes of the kind of people disposed to view her as a kind of historical sex object. Thus these people are just making what they think is a tasteful allusion to the 'liberating' influence of these self-promoting whores by the comparison.
It's horribly insulting, of course, but the insult is just built into the way they view the world. It isn't something that simply defies all possible explanation, like the claim that this woman was somehow 'raped' under any possible construction of the term.
I am filled with the urge to shout obscenities at the entire world, just thinking about this. It isn't good for my personal well-being. There isn't a pit in hell deep enough...there just isn't. You'd think that God, with a little of His infinite power, could have made the pits of hell a bit deeper.
Oh, yes, infinite wisdom too. I get the point. My bad, deeper pits not the answer, yeah, yeah...sure, whatever. I do get it...sometimes. I don't necessarily comprehend any of it, but infinity is like that.CC, you said:
"But this woman didn't even regret having been "raped", she's positively proud of it. And I have absolutely no reason to believe that she didn't plan on having that happen. At the very least it was a carefully considered (and prepared) contingency. She had the guy asking her to give his wife pointers in the bedroom, for #@(*'s sake!
LITERALLY!!!
MY HEAD A 'SPLODE"
And:
"The comparison to Joan of Arc is relatively easy to understand, by comparison. Joan of Arc was a young virgin. Pretty much everything else about her fades to insignificance in the eyes of the kind of people disposed to view her as a kind of historical sex object. Thus these people are just making what they think is a tasteful allusion to the 'liberating' influence of these self-promoting whores by the comparison."
I agree on both accounts. Very astute observations!I agree too, Nora. Well said, Chiu.
Maybe this makes an interesting addition.
- chiu_chunling said...
"If those perpetrators hadn't been female they would have been labelled simply evil."
I think that quote really gets at the core of the matter. It isn't that there aren't courageous, sane, good women, it's that there is a cultural bias against admitting that women can be evil. This creates a demand for lengthy explications of the non-evilness of every woman involved in some outrageously heinous activity. Thus you have a media firestorm of apology for every wicked witch of the west, much of which goes so far as to set her up as a heroine, while the genuine heroism (usually of the quiet variety but not always) gets almost no coverage because it doesn't take any special 'insight' to see that these women are good. Besides which, it's rather an embarrassment to the apologist for evil to set it side by side with good.
That is, of course, the 'innocent' explanation, which assumes no extraordinary wrongdoing on the part of the apologists. It covers much historical apology for evil women and most of the acceptance of such apologies, but most modern apologists for evil are not so innocent.
The truth is that many 'immoral' women are really the victims of evil men, but not all are. Probably not even most. And even the real victims are not thereby heroines."It isn't that there aren't courageous, sane, good women, it's that there is a cultural bias against admitting that women can be evil."
Of course there are. I think (I may be wrong, though) that Marianism has lumbered our culture with an unintended and unexpected burden. While Islam states that all women are temptresses and evil, our Christian culture presumes the opposite. That functioned as long as women were willing to perform their duties in a traditional society, i.e. as long as they were busy and satisfied with their role as wives and mothers and supervised and reined-in by society. In our permissive age, women's natural proneness for the shallow and footle coupled with an intense desire for attention wreaks havoc on society, the more as the latter won't understand what is happening. It can't be the saintly women's, images of the Madonna all of them, fault or can it?
And I seriously believe that men are more often than not the victims of women and not vice versa. If you look at a broken down marriage where the husband has really behaved like the proverbial swine, you'll in all probability find a woman behind the scenes.
February 18, 2009
Mother-woman gives up whatever ghost of a unique talent she may have had
Or: Riding the Old Nag of Science to Death -- Backwards and Again
In the latest edition of Middle East Forum Phyllis Chesler is, so it seems, quite out of character carrying a torch for the Western male.
Differing Characteristics of Honor Killings and Domestic Violence
Is she? (Colouring added by me.)
In 2003 I wrote about Chesler's, then new, book "The New Anti-Semitism":
What is the truth about domestic violence?
In post-Renaissance Europe, society ostracized and humiliated hen-pecked husbands. In France, for example, a "battered" husband was forced to trot around town riding a donkey backwards. It is safe to assume that enough men are, despite the worst efforts of a feminist society, still carrying some faint remnants of the patriarchal ethos telling him that a husband is expected to protect his wife and family instead of being beaten by her. Thus, a battered husband may be just -- dare I say it -- ashamed to admit that he has been the victim of female violence, which makes one wonder about the number of unreported cases.
But, thanks to the Cheslers of this world, as we children of the post-feminist age know, men do not suffer from subtle feelings like shame, victimization or humiliation. Only women do that.
I wish that hysteric woman would just shut up or at least stop abusing her academic position to deal with her personal problems. As a saviour of Western civilization she is simply miscast.
We have dicussed "honour killings" and the matter of "honour" in Muslim societies generally (for example) here, here, here, here or here. Many continuative links provided.
In the latest edition of Middle East Forum Phyllis Chesler is, so it seems, quite out of character carrying a torch for the Western male.
Differing Characteristics of Honor Killings and Domestic Violence
| Honor Killings | Domestic Violence |
| Committed mainly by Muslims against Muslim girls/young adult women. | Committed by men of all faiths usually against adult women. |
| Committed mainly by fathers against their teenage daughters and daughters in their early twenties. Wives and older-age daughters may also be victims, but to a lesser extent. | Committed by an adult male spouse against an adult female spouse or intimate partner. |
| Carefully planned. Death threats are often used as a means of control. | The murder is often unplanned and spontaneous. |
| The planning and execution involve multiple family members and can include mothers, sisters, brothers, male cousins, uncles, grandfathers, etc. If the girl escapes, the extended family will continue to search for her to kill her. | The murder is carried out by one man with no family complicity. |
| The reason given for the honor killing is that the girl or young woman has "dishonored" the family. | The batterer-murderer does not claim any family concept of "honor." The reasons may range from a poorly cooked meal to suspected infidelity to the woman's trying to protect the children from his abuse or turning to the authorities for help. |
| At least half the time, the killings are carried out with barbaric ferocity. The female victim is often raped, burned alive, stoned or beaten to death, cut at the throat, decapitated, stabbed numerous times, suffocated slowly, etc. | While some men do beat a spouse to death, they often simply shoot or stab them. |
| The extended family and community valorize the honor killing. They do not condemn the perpetrators in the name of Islam. Mainly, honor killings are seen as normative. | The batterer-murderer is seen as a criminal; no one defends him as a hero. Such men are often viewed as sociopaths, mentally ill, or evil. |
| The murderer(s) do not show remorse. Instead, they experience themselves as "victims," defending themselves from the girl's actions and trying to restore their lost family honor. | Sometimes, remorse or regret is exhibited. |
Is she? (Colouring added by me.)
In 2003 I wrote about Chesler's, then new, book "The New Anti-Semitism":
I read the book and I was disappointed. Chesler is an annoying woman, and that in more than one respect. A founding mother of second-wave feminism, she is not just a man-hater and sloppy researcher if it suits her agenda (in her 1986 book Mothers on Trial she stated that 70 percent of mothers in custody battles lost, which was based on an extremely non-random sample of 60 women, but frequently used as a feminist mantra) and, even worse, one of those irritating women who send their dignity, education and brain flying when they marry a Western-educated Muslim, followed him to his native country, find it -- surprise, surprise -- less than accomodating there and are then jumping on the victim-bandwagon.And to answer my own question: no she isn't. This man-hating ogre (or is it ogress?) who has presumably destroyed as many families as the average post-WWII armed conflict, is -- again -- up to her old tricks and, under the disguise of informing about the difference of "normal" domestic violence and Muslim "honour killings", fudging in her anti-social feminist drivel.
[...]
Not to speak of Chesler's basic credibility problem. An "academic" who writes, as Chesler does in "Women and Madness", that "mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children" (inverted commas by the author!) has lost any right to have her say on any conservative cause. Correction: On ANYthing.
What is the truth about domestic violence?
Despite the criticisms leveled at Steinmetz and her concept of the battered husband, violence directed at husbands has been reported by others. For instance, Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz (1980) estimated that about one in eight men in the United States acted violently during marital conflict. However, they estimated a similar number of women also acted violently during marital conflict. They also noted that in a majority of these cases, violence was a mutual or bilateral activity, with only 27% of cases finding that husbands were the sole perpetrators of violence and 24% of cases finding only wives acting violently. With respect to serious violence, as judged by the Conflict Tactics Scales (Note 2), these authors stated that the rate for men beaten by their wives was 4.6%; a figure that indicated "over 2 million very violent wives." While 47% of those husbands who beat their wives did so severely three or more times a year, 53% of women who beat their husbands severely did so three or more times a year.Can we really believe that the scientific findings from decades ago have not yet arrived at Professor Chesler's desk?
In a later article, Straus and Gelles (1986) reviewed both their own and other studies in the United States and reported somewhat equivalent assault rates for both male-to-female and female-to-male. In their 1975 survey, Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) estimated that approximately 38 out of every 1000 families experience severe husband-to-wife violence, while 46 out of every l000 families experience severe wife-to-husband violence. Ten years later, Straus & Gelles (1986) reported that the rates have dropped from 38 to 30 and 46 and 44 per 1000 couples, respectively. In overall acts of violence, as defined by the Conflict Tactics Scales, husband-to-wife rates of violence were 121 and 113 and wife-to-husband rates of violence were 116 and 121 per 1000 couples for the two study years (i.e., 1975 and 1985).
Although Straus and Gelles (1986) did not dwell on these comparisons, they did make a statement that seems to run counter to the prevailing academic and public perception of the time, namely, that "an important and distressing finding about violence in American families is that, in marked contrast to the behavior of women outside the family, women are about as violent within the family as men" (p. 470). The small change in the wife-to-husband rate of violence, as opposed to some change in the husband-to-wife violence, was suggested to result from a lack of attention or concern to male victimization. The case for giving due regard to domestic women-on-men assaults and an acceptance of this higher level of victimization was backed by reference to other studies finding similar levels of male victimization (Brutz & Ingoldsby, 1984; Gelles, 1974; Giles-Sims, 1983; Jourilles & O'Leary, 1985; Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; ; Laner & Thompson, 1982; Makepeace, 1983; Sack, Keller, & Howard, 1982; Saunders, 1986; Scanzoni, 1978; Steinmetz, 1977, 1977-78; Szinovacz, 1983).
In conclusion, summarized such data as Straus and Gelles (1986) indicating that women engage in minor assaults against their male partners at a slightly higher rate than for the same attacks upon women by men. In situations in which both partners use violence, men and women were also almost equally responsible for the first blow, but in only one quarter of these relationships was the man the sole victim. At more potentially injurious levels of assault, men were considered to exceed women in their aggressive behavior and it was suggested that a relative rate in the order of 6 or 7 to 1 (male versus female) was evident for the perpetration of injurious assaults.
In post-Renaissance Europe, society ostracized and humiliated hen-pecked husbands. In France, for example, a "battered" husband was forced to trot around town riding a donkey backwards. It is safe to assume that enough men are, despite the worst efforts of a feminist society, still carrying some faint remnants of the patriarchal ethos telling him that a husband is expected to protect his wife and family instead of being beaten by her. Thus, a battered husband may be just -- dare I say it -- ashamed to admit that he has been the victim of female violence, which makes one wonder about the number of unreported cases.
But, thanks to the Cheslers of this world, as we children of the post-feminist age know, men do not suffer from subtle feelings like shame, victimization or humiliation. Only women do that.
I wish that hysteric woman would just shut up or at least stop abusing her academic position to deal with her personal problems. As a saviour of Western civilization she is simply miscast.
We have dicussed "honour killings" and the matter of "honour" in Muslim societies generally (for example) here, here, here, here or here. Many continuative links provided.
January 31, 2009
The Corporate State - Blessing or Curse?
At her highly intriguing blog A Letter To The Times, Cassandra Goldman published yesterday the thought-provoking entry Aristocracy fosters high achievement. Bringing back the monarchy seems indeed too weird a concept to merit serious contemplation. But is it really?
The funny thing about my own upbringing is that my father was a Socialist. That, together with the fact that we had a live-in maid (or, as it is put oh-so-coyly today,"help in the house") and a chauffeur who worked in my father’s business as a driver when he wasn’t needed, made me aware at an early age of the absurdity of this outlook. I owe that woman the happy part of my childhood, being lumbered with a mother wo was both, clinging and remote.
In a social climate of jealousy so typical for Germany, we, my mother more than I, were made aware all the time that we were expected to apologize for such a non-politically correct member of the household. I guess it is owing to aristocracy still in situ (socially, even if not politically) that such things are accepted with more grace in England.
But back to the core topic: I couldn’t agree more. I have no children, but what you describe is exactly the reason for the wreckage of lifes I am forced to watch everywhere around me. Beautiful, intelligent children of my friends, now in their twenties, who are wasting their lifes and their precious inheritance, not in a material, but in a spiritual sense, because the parents were unable to convey the values of their class, wrecked families because the live-in-servants were not kept in their places, marrying the wrong partner in the first place and being excrutiantingly unhappy once the honeymoon is over, on a less tragic but still absurd note: women from the oldest of families who are cleaning after their char because they don’t "dare" to tell her to do her job properly. The list is endless.
It is difficult, mind you, to keep up upper-class customs if one is living in a very middle class environment. A friend of mine who was taught (as it is the custom in oldfashioned aristocratic German families) to kiss an old lady’s hand, kissed the hand of the … postwoman as well. I don’t think it is all that easy to teach children social differences if one’s ordinary rented flat in an ordinary block of flats has only one entrance and not a second one for servants, the more as the postwoman may well be living close by and in a bigger one. A corporate society lives from symbols and keeping up the lifestyle of a manor is impossible in a rented urban flat.
However, assuming it would be possible, bringing back the old order would be like trying to put spilled toothpaste back into the tube. If one sees how once respectable (well, as respectable as glossy magazines go) society mags are celebrating scum like the Beckhams, or some scummy pop stars whose names I can’t remember, together with the Royal Family, if one sees (and this is even worse) how easily and gladly the English upper classes are mingling with just that unspeakable scum (Princess Diana and Elton John is only one noticeable example), one looses the faith that “bringing back titled aristocracy” would lead to anything positive, however alluring the thought may be. People degrade so quickly without proper guiding and, worse, irretrievably, and the upper classes are no exception.
That lead me to additional thoughts and maybe I am falling in the same old equality-trap here, but here it goes: I somehow don't believe that the upper classes are full of people magically blessed by nature with better insight and manners and the working classes equally magically endowed with social contentment and lack of jealousy, but that the strict rules of a corporate state forces the people to bring out their best abilities. Moreover, it encouraged the will to get on and maybe to reach a more elevated position, a position that was not just defined by the money one earned (or rather: that comes flowing in) but requires a more intact personality. The haute volée we are currently watching is the antithesis of such a concept, as are the hoi polloi. The corporate state required, too, responsibility from its higher echelons towards society and one's inheritance. To put something back into society as well as into one's own estate was an, albeit unwritten, law. As such, it couldn't be possibly any further away from most American ideals of freedom and liberty. It is as remarkable as interesting, though, that I seem to discover an increasing number of reflections on monarchy by Americans.
Cross-posted at The Evil Style Queen.
The sacred cow, or perhaps I should say golden calf, of “equality” is wreaking immeasurable damage on our society. It started with a principle that at least sounds good, that of “equality before the law”. Of course, equality before the law precludes any sort of nobility or aristocracy, and now we are feeling the lack of those.A fascinating topic indeed, to which I, a European who was socialized in Germany as well as in England, would very much like to add some points. But before I come to comment on the gist of Cassandra's post, with which I basically agree, I’d first like to nitpick about a certain detail: "Reflect for a moment on whether you wish your laws to be made by people who were taught about the world by servants…". I think most people who grew up in a household that included servants (to which I happen to belong) will disagree with such a summary statement, and specifically the generation of the English aristocracy who were still brought up by nannies. I think it is the easy mutual understanding and acceptance of SOCIAL inequality, an understanding that goes together with a mutual respect as humans, which breeds the positive social climate Cassandra understandably wants to bring back. Case in point: English aristocrats of the old school tend to be uncomfortable around members of the middle classes, but comfortable with the working classes and vice versa. As long as such a "social contract" existed, by the time the parents took over (schools, more likely), the children were very much aware about the world.
The principle of equality before the law had its first major exploitation when feminists demanded that women be treated precisely the same as men by the law. The problem here is that women are not the same as men. Women have different capabilities and needs. Women require more protection from roving criminals; men are more apt to be able to defend themselves... Naturally, the attempt to force the law to treat men and women equally has backfired in a thousand ways, and by now, of course, the legal inequality has simply been adjusted...
The mania for “equality” has created in most people a pathological intolerance for being shut out of anything. It has also led to an excessive emphasis on age, as children or adolescents are among the few people who can still be justifiably discriminated against. In the introduction to a recent edition of one of E. Nesbit’s novels, a modern woman told us everything that was wrong with these nonetheless charming novels. (I don’t have a sarcasm font, but let me assure you that the sarcasm is very much there.) She attacked a scene in which a man took one of the boys aside for a man-to-man talk about how he shouldn’t be mean to his sisters because girls and boys are different, and have to be to do the grownup work of women and men. She was furious at how “patronizing” this was; personally, I wish that the boys I was forced to associate with as a child had patronized me that way. She was also outraged that these upper-class children gave orders to the family’s adult servants, and demonstrated better judgment than they did. She did not explain how she thought the children and servants ought to have related to each other, but I hazard a guess that she thought that these children, who would grow up to have a measure of power and influence in their society, ought to have been deferring to, taking orders from, and perhaps even learning from their servants. Reflect for a moment on whether you wish your laws to be made by people who were taught about the world by servants, or whether you wish your retirement fund to be invested in the stock of a company run by such men, and you will see how absurd the notion is.
[...]
... We are now even seeing various proposals to prevent people from leaving their own property to their own children, because God forbid that those children should have any “unearned” privilege. That parents work for the express purpose of creating a legacy which can be passed down to their descendants, a legacy of property or beliefs or codes of behavior or skills, seems to elude these egalitarians. Deprive people of the right to bequeath a legacy to their own children - which is precisely what schools do when they teach children values different from those of their parents - and soon there will be no more reason for achievement of any sort. We have to endure a bit of “inequality” in order to enjoy the benefits of civilization.
[...]
I submit that people had a healthier attitude towards inequality when it was institutionalized - that is, when we had an aristocracy. A thousand social customs and laws reminded people from day to day of the very real differences in rank and station. This constant reinforcement of inequality of rank no doubt aided people in accepting differences in ability, made it easier for them to accept that some people were better at things than they were. They were used to being unequal; encountering a different sort of inequality was just a fact of life.
In addition, the modern attacks on ability were unknown, because ability was one of the few ways in which those born to a low station could hope to rise. Nowadays we punish people for superior ability. Bright children are expected to wait for their duller agemates to catch up, because what is important is that everyone go through precisely the same indoctrination routine, not that they be taught anything. Capable men see the jobs they have spent years working towards being given to less qualified women who then demand the right to be paid the same amount for part-time work. Such madness was unknown a mere century ago.
Bring back titled aristocracy and we will become a meritocracy again in no time.
The funny thing about my own upbringing is that my father was a Socialist. That, together with the fact that we had a live-in maid (or, as it is put oh-so-coyly today,"help in the house") and a chauffeur who worked in my father’s business as a driver when he wasn’t needed, made me aware at an early age of the absurdity of this outlook. I owe that woman the happy part of my childhood, being lumbered with a mother wo was both, clinging and remote.
In a social climate of jealousy so typical for Germany, we, my mother more than I, were made aware all the time that we were expected to apologize for such a non-politically correct member of the household. I guess it is owing to aristocracy still in situ (socially, even if not politically) that such things are accepted with more grace in England.
But back to the core topic: I couldn’t agree more. I have no children, but what you describe is exactly the reason for the wreckage of lifes I am forced to watch everywhere around me. Beautiful, intelligent children of my friends, now in their twenties, who are wasting their lifes and their precious inheritance, not in a material, but in a spiritual sense, because the parents were unable to convey the values of their class, wrecked families because the live-in-servants were not kept in their places, marrying the wrong partner in the first place and being excrutiantingly unhappy once the honeymoon is over, on a less tragic but still absurd note: women from the oldest of families who are cleaning after their char because they don’t "dare" to tell her to do her job properly. The list is endless.
It is difficult, mind you, to keep up upper-class customs if one is living in a very middle class environment. A friend of mine who was taught (as it is the custom in oldfashioned aristocratic German families) to kiss an old lady’s hand, kissed the hand of the … postwoman as well. I don’t think it is all that easy to teach children social differences if one’s ordinary rented flat in an ordinary block of flats has only one entrance and not a second one for servants, the more as the postwoman may well be living close by and in a bigger one. A corporate society lives from symbols and keeping up the lifestyle of a manor is impossible in a rented urban flat.
However, assuming it would be possible, bringing back the old order would be like trying to put spilled toothpaste back into the tube. If one sees how once respectable (well, as respectable as glossy magazines go) society mags are celebrating scum like the Beckhams, or some scummy pop stars whose names I can’t remember, together with the Royal Family, if one sees (and this is even worse) how easily and gladly the English upper classes are mingling with just that unspeakable scum (Princess Diana and Elton John is only one noticeable example), one looses the faith that “bringing back titled aristocracy” would lead to anything positive, however alluring the thought may be. People degrade so quickly without proper guiding and, worse, irretrievably, and the upper classes are no exception.
That lead me to additional thoughts and maybe I am falling in the same old equality-trap here, but here it goes: I somehow don't believe that the upper classes are full of people magically blessed by nature with better insight and manners and the working classes equally magically endowed with social contentment and lack of jealousy, but that the strict rules of a corporate state forces the people to bring out their best abilities. Moreover, it encouraged the will to get on and maybe to reach a more elevated position, a position that was not just defined by the money one earned (or rather: that comes flowing in) but requires a more intact personality. The haute volée we are currently watching is the antithesis of such a concept, as are the hoi polloi. The corporate state required, too, responsibility from its higher echelons towards society and one's inheritance. To put something back into society as well as into one's own estate was an, albeit unwritten, law. As such, it couldn't be possibly any further away from most American ideals of freedom and liberty. It is as remarkable as interesting, though, that I seem to discover an increasing number of reflections on monarchy by Americans.
Cross-posted at The Evil Style Queen.
January 25, 2009
What makes a gentleman?
...asks The Evil Style Queen only to reply:
Edited to add:
Interesting discussion there!
To summarize, a "good" family" and education helps, as does dress-sense, a tall and slim physique and - even more - a clean-cut face and apparent intelligence. There are, however, clowns from old and "good" families, intelligent, good-looking men who do not, or not quite, make it, as there are well-dressed yobs. At the end of the day, I don't have an answer to my own question.Here.
Edited to add:
Interesting discussion there!
January 21, 2009
What Makes a Hero? -- Redux
I crossposted "What makes a Hero" at IBA and I find the following comment too interesting to be missed here:
Food for thought!
- Just Cause said...
I don't agree that one should be excluded from being a hero if the task undertaken was part of one's job.
The emergency service personnel on 9/11 who lost their lives are regarded as heroes but they were just doing their job also.
I'll admit having too many heroes would result in diluting the status however that doesn't mean we should be overly harsh in denying hero status where an extraordinary feat has occured during the line of duty.
As a trainee pilot I recognise how many factors were involved in bringing down a heavy, speeding chunk of metal safely to rest in water and they are immense. The amount of energy involved boggles the mind and even the slightest of errors could be catastrophic. Maintaing the right angle of attack with no engines thus little or no hydraulic power, maintaining composure knowing that one mistake and lots of people including yourself are going to die horrendously, thinking about your wife and kids getting the news of your death, seeing the water approaching rapidly knowing you only have one shot, is more than just skill - that's a gift!
People should recognise that not every pilot could have achieved what Sullenberger achieved and that there is a large percentage of pilots out there that don't practise hand flying but instead leave the computer to do it all and only do what they need to pass the 6 monthly check rides. The outcome with one of these pilots in charge would have been very, very different.
With this in mind, is Sullenberger a hero? I think the passengers will agree that he is.
January 20, 2009
What Makes a Hero?
An interesting point was made at VFR. Lawrence Auster asked:
I do not think that one should strip the immediate understanding of the situation in a shock situation and the following lightning quick decisionmaking from the event. It was as important as the landing itself which was, indeed, "only" what can be expected from a fully trained pilot of that calibre. Still, Sullenberger was not a hero. Heroism needs, so I think, some ethical component which is lacking here. But then, to go back and search the sinking aircraft again and again to make sure that nobody was left behind has an element of heroism. John Maynard, and those for whom that fictitious character stands, are heroes. The British fighter pilot who crash landed his jet in an open field when he could have saved himself by the ejection seat at the peril of having the abandoned jet crashing into a village was a hero. That happened about 40 years ago in Eastern Westphalia and I have never forgotten it, although there was only a minor notice in our regional newspaper.
To me this is another instance of the somewhat natural reaction to a feminized world of mediocrity, self-centeredness, bitching and complaining, where a difficult job superbly performed must appear as heroism. What a "pilotesse" suffering from PMS or post-menopausal complaints would have done in Sullenberger's place I hate to think. We are so starved of heroes that any politically correct, widely accepted instance remotely touching heroism will trigger off a deluge of admiration.
An interesting bit of insight into the mind of one from that remarkable class of men gives the interviewwith Jürgen Vietor, the first officer of the legendary flight LH 181. In 1977, during the "German Autumn", after the cold-blooded murder of his captain by Arab terrorists at Aden, Yemen, the young first officer (like Sullenberger a former military pilot) had to fly the 737, which had just undergone a gruelling emergency landing, solo to land safely at Mogadishu, Somalia, an airport, that had before, literally and metaphorically, not been on his, a Boeing 737 pilot's, map. Vietor is adamant that he is no hero. Maybe not, but anyway, I strongly oppose his definition of what makes a hero. HERE is the interview.
Was Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III's safe landing of US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson River an exceptional accomplishment, even a miracle, as many believe, or, as a correspondent has put it, the outcome that would be expected of a typical, experienced airline pilot? To answer the question, we need to strip the situation down to its essentials, leaving only the water landing itself. That is, we need to eliminate the initial shock experienced by the flight crew when the flock of Canadian geese collided with the plane and destroyed the engines; eliminate the uncertainty about whether to turn back to La Guardia; eliminate the pilot's sighting of Teterboro airport in New Jersey and the discussion about whether to try to land there; eliminate the plane's curve from a northern to an eastern to a southerly course to head down the Hudson; and eliminate the challenge of keeping the engineless plane aloft long enough to maneuver it over the Hudson.Auster regards
Once we've gotten rid of all those factors, we're left with this "pure" scenario: An airliner has just taken off and climbed to 3,000 feet and both its engines go out. It has several miles of a mile-wide, relatively calm river in front of it. Under those circumstances, what kind of landing would be expected? Would the smooth landing that Capt. Sullenberger achieved, with the plane left floating intact on the water, be the expected norm, or would it be very unusual?
...the talk about "heroism" in this and so many other cases as the hysteria of the dopey and lazy press.Although there is a lot of merit in this opinion, I think it is just one angle from which one can see the remarkable event on the Hudson.
I do not think that one should strip the immediate understanding of the situation in a shock situation and the following lightning quick decisionmaking from the event. It was as important as the landing itself which was, indeed, "only" what can be expected from a fully trained pilot of that calibre. Still, Sullenberger was not a hero. Heroism needs, so I think, some ethical component which is lacking here. But then, to go back and search the sinking aircraft again and again to make sure that nobody was left behind has an element of heroism. John Maynard, and those for whom that fictitious character stands, are heroes. The British fighter pilot who crash landed his jet in an open field when he could have saved himself by the ejection seat at the peril of having the abandoned jet crashing into a village was a hero. That happened about 40 years ago in Eastern Westphalia and I have never forgotten it, although there was only a minor notice in our regional newspaper.
To me this is another instance of the somewhat natural reaction to a feminized world of mediocrity, self-centeredness, bitching and complaining, where a difficult job superbly performed must appear as heroism. What a "pilotesse" suffering from PMS or post-menopausal complaints would have done in Sullenberger's place I hate to think. We are so starved of heroes that any politically correct, widely accepted instance remotely touching heroism will trigger off a deluge of admiration.
An interesting bit of insight into the mind of one from that remarkable class of men gives the interviewwith Jürgen Vietor, the first officer of the legendary flight LH 181. In 1977, during the "German Autumn", after the cold-blooded murder of his captain by Arab terrorists at Aden, Yemen, the young first officer (like Sullenberger a former military pilot) had to fly the 737, which had just undergone a gruelling emergency landing, solo to land safely at Mogadishu, Somalia, an airport, that had before, literally and metaphorically, not been on his, a Boeing 737 pilot's, map. Vietor is adamant that he is no hero. Maybe not, but anyway, I strongly oppose his definition of what makes a hero. HERE is the interview.
November 28, 2008
How I Finally Came to Find Feminists Foul
This little piece is from my website (as opposed to my blogs). I feel a bit bad because I am not updating it anymore, but the blog format with its integrated web-interface is so much less cumbersome than a website format and I am catching myself exporting edited versions of more and more entries to Roncesvalles or The Evil Style Queen.
So here we have another one, which, by the way, fits into the framework of both blogs, topicwise. To be honest, the "finally" I added to the headline for alliteration's sake. I found feminists always foul.
When I first arrived at American message boards, Yahoo's, to be precise, in 1997, it was to improve my, a technical translator's, colloquial language and debating skills. My very first encounter happened on a board discussing the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and I was stunned how a lousy wife, bad mother and counterproductive job-filler could become a role-model for 95% of the contemporary female Western population, how a traitor to her own class, a cunning and malicious schemer who had done immeasurable damage to the family that made her, could manage to pose as a "victim", how a jet-setter with a money-spending habit of obscene proportions could have not just gotten away with it but become an icon and ray of hope for the underprivileged of this world. That was how it all started.
I was revolted by the general lack of intelligence and common sense and even more of the vulgarity, smugness, viciousness and misandrist views of her female supporters, so the leap from "Di" to the femboards was only a short one. Surely the feminist view wouldn't support anything like that?
To cut it short: I was appalled.
I had no strong anti-feminist views then. As a woman who reached adulthood in the Seventies, I never (and I MEAN never!) had to face "gender discrimination" in Germany. If anything, I had been treated just a little bit better because of my "gender". Feminism, to me, was Alice Schwarzer, a crone remnant from the Sixties who finally, for want of a cause and because of a strong liking of the limelight, turned free rider of the patriarchal establishment, and whom hardly anybody of any importance and nobody of any weight takes seriously in Germany.
I had never met a "women's studies" student, I didn't even KNOW then that there WAS an "academic" environment where anything like "women studies" (but no "men studies") existed, where women were given preferential admission status because of their "gender" (even though it made up for the majority of graduating students), where they after graduation headed to a job they got through "affirmative action" and where they STILL WHINE AND WHINE BECAUSE THEY FEEL UNDERPRIVILEGED AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST and I had never heard of the anti-male hatred and hostility discharged by Dworkin, McKinnon and other violent bigots.
Being all too readily brainwashed by a bunch of vicious delinquents was one thing, I felt. So was feeling underprivileged while being cushioned by a network of affirmative action and other props. What REALLY irritated me were those Bliss Ninnies at the femboards whose condescending conflict resolution counselor attitude and the fact that they are unable to post yet the simplest of messages without being self-congratulatory even made a saint -- and I am no saint -- scream abuse at them.
Here are a few random examples for your edification and entertainment, I marked my added comments in gray:
As some distressed male called it: The "American golden pussy notion".
Being aware of that phenomenon for quite a while now, I find that a similar attitude is creeping in at my end as well. I notice ever-growing misandrist overtones everywhere, be it an idiotic book about the upbringing of boys with a first chapter that is solely about being apologetic that the book was written in the first place and another one being headed (no kidding!) "Boys are not inferior, just different" (Who would have thought so!) or the fact that it has become acceptable -- "normal" -- for every dumb bitch to slag off or dress down her male counterpart in public, not to mention all the serious legal consequences for men as fathers including abuse allegations that have been turned into arbitrary weapons for women, the shamefully apologetic approach to the role of the women during the Nazi aera as victims and victims only, the appalling misandrist jokes that are circulating, the women who bully their men into role-reversal and then lose whatever little respect for him they had to begin with.
It's all about CHOICE isn't it? They can still choose what they want to be - damsel in distress or empowered performer and most of them them want and get both and use whatever suits their current agenda best, whining or bullying.
I'm asking myself what made a group of coddled, advantaged, white middle-class folks think they are underprivileged? Some time in one of those countries where REAL inequalities prevail would do them a world of good, India, for example, where female foetuses are selectively aborted and sick little girls are left to die, or African countries where genital mutilation is practiced, or Islamist countries, where an accusation of adultery is enough to be stoned to death if one is female, where young girls are arbitrarily murdered, mutilated or raped (or all of it) for real or imagined wrongdoings by the members of their own family.
But they don't go there. They don't because it's much nicer to stay here and dream of themselves looking like Pricess Diana in dungarees, tracking landmines.
And like so often, it's not so much what the perpetrators do, but how the world is reacting to them. Why don't men just put their feet down and, if necessary, beat some sense into those nagging nuisances? But then, they were brought up by women, after all. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world", as the feminists are fond of saying. And it's all true. Men don't become mass muderers because of their deadbeat Dads, but more likely because Mum bathed them until they were well halfway through adolescence or forced them to wear their older sister's clothes.
Men can't win.
Just one more remark! Of course I know that men are shallow, unprincipled, testosterone-driven, spineless jerks. I'm not naïve. I'm not trashing men because that would be like shooting sitting ducks. It's boring, dull, redundant and -- worse -- it's a mainstream-approved endeavor. I loath receiving acclaim from the wrong people.
So here we have another one, which, by the way, fits into the framework of both blogs, topicwise. To be honest, the "finally" I added to the headline for alliteration's sake. I found feminists always foul.
When I first arrived at American message boards, Yahoo's, to be precise, in 1997, it was to improve my, a technical translator's, colloquial language and debating skills. My very first encounter happened on a board discussing the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and I was stunned how a lousy wife, bad mother and counterproductive job-filler could become a role-model for 95% of the contemporary female Western population, how a traitor to her own class, a cunning and malicious schemer who had done immeasurable damage to the family that made her, could manage to pose as a "victim", how a jet-setter with a money-spending habit of obscene proportions could have not just gotten away with it but become an icon and ray of hope for the underprivileged of this world. That was how it all started.
I was revolted by the general lack of intelligence and common sense and even more of the vulgarity, smugness, viciousness and misandrist views of her female supporters, so the leap from "Di" to the femboards was only a short one. Surely the feminist view wouldn't support anything like that?
To cut it short: I was appalled.
I had no strong anti-feminist views then. As a woman who reached adulthood in the Seventies, I never (and I MEAN never!) had to face "gender discrimination" in Germany. If anything, I had been treated just a little bit better because of my "gender". Feminism, to me, was Alice Schwarzer, a crone remnant from the Sixties who finally, for want of a cause and because of a strong liking of the limelight, turned free rider of the patriarchal establishment, and whom hardly anybody of any importance and nobody of any weight takes seriously in Germany.
I had never met a "women's studies" student, I didn't even KNOW then that there WAS an "academic" environment where anything like "women studies" (but no "men studies") existed, where women were given preferential admission status because of their "gender" (even though it made up for the majority of graduating students), where they after graduation headed to a job they got through "affirmative action" and where they STILL WHINE AND WHINE BECAUSE THEY FEEL UNDERPRIVILEGED AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST and I had never heard of the anti-male hatred and hostility discharged by Dworkin, McKinnon and other violent bigots.
Being all too readily brainwashed by a bunch of vicious delinquents was one thing, I felt. So was feeling underprivileged while being cushioned by a network of affirmative action and other props. What REALLY irritated me were those Bliss Ninnies at the femboards whose condescending conflict resolution counselor attitude and the fact that they are unable to post yet the simplest of messages without being self-congratulatory even made a saint -- and I am no saint -- scream abuse at them.
Here are a few random examples for your edification and entertainment, I marked my added comments in gray:
sweetjek (45/F/somewhere over the rainbo)What I found almost as annoying was that they didn't seem to be able to make a point without quoting a personal experience and the fact that they were obviously unaware of the fact that their sickeningly blinkered Jolly-Hockeysticks-Sauberwoman attitude, peppered with some "New Age" drivel, has no relevance whatsoever for anything.
11/28/00 06:10 pm EST Msg: 1265 of 2515
and you know what, raul? I agree that there are differences...and I'm glad they are there. Would you accept the difference if it were presented as "males are not equal to women..." [blah, blah, blah] I don't want to be a cop or a marine...I teach inner-city kids and I'm very good at this TOUGH job...but not because I'm a woman. I love being a woman, and a nice mixture of feminism and strength... [blah blah yabber yabber...] sort of a yin/yang sort of thing. The man in my life [so now we know there is one] would not be attracted to me if I were too "helpless!"
Jaazzmyn (F/Southwest USA)
01/29/01 04:51 pm EST Msg: 1524 of 1524
Ahh Creepy, I am flattered that you keep tossing out Jazz bits to lure me into the conversation. Did ya miss me?? For the record, no matter what you choose to believe about a seventeen year old male that does a stint as cheerleader [i.e. the old prat's son], one thing he definitely is NOT, and that is a mama's boy. He is one of the most independent, stubborn, individualist I have ever known. Always thought he was born with an old soul….when he was just a toddler he so resented following orders from me, that I wondered if he had been MY parent in another life. We are talking about a young man who has been supporting himself since high school, and living on his own for most of his adult years…including moving (alone) cross country for almost half of that time. This kid would never be confused with one who is trying to crawl back into mama…..he is a kid who roared out full steam, ready for life and damn anyone who gets in his way. [Yep, another special male in HER HER HER life AND SHE SHE SHE even MADE him!].
sweetjek (45/F/somewhere over the rainbo)
12/10/00 05:20 pm EST Msg: 1621 of 2515
roadwarrior says:...the "cheering" and willingness to immediately resort to violence against men and have femicunts like you"cheer" is not going to be tolerated any longer.<<< … If you are so damn unhappy being a male, by all means, do something about it. I am happy being a woman, and the man in my life is very happy that I am too [in case we have forgotten there is one]. Other than the few guys on these boards who feel that they are being wronged, most men don't seem to have a problem with any of this...what's WRONG with you??? Also, why does a fictional commercial cause you such anger?? Yikes!
Jaazzmyn
12/23/00 12:03 pm Msg: 29 of 35
And one more thing….I think women can tell when another woman is ..ummmm…..willing. When my father was alive, the women regulars (many of them married) were all over him. He had plenty of opportunities. It wasn't because of his money - he wasn't rich, just a hard working guy. Today at our restaurant, I see the same thing with my husband [Yeah, ANY man in HER HER HER life just HAS to be special]. If he wanted to take home a different women every night, he could. But, he is holding out for that really rich sugar mommy. :- ) [Isn't she precious?]
As some distressed male called it: The "American golden pussy notion".
Being aware of that phenomenon for quite a while now, I find that a similar attitude is creeping in at my end as well. I notice ever-growing misandrist overtones everywhere, be it an idiotic book about the upbringing of boys with a first chapter that is solely about being apologetic that the book was written in the first place and another one being headed (no kidding!) "Boys are not inferior, just different" (Who would have thought so!) or the fact that it has become acceptable -- "normal" -- for every dumb bitch to slag off or dress down her male counterpart in public, not to mention all the serious legal consequences for men as fathers including abuse allegations that have been turned into arbitrary weapons for women, the shamefully apologetic approach to the role of the women during the Nazi aera as victims and victims only, the appalling misandrist jokes that are circulating, the women who bully their men into role-reversal and then lose whatever little respect for him they had to begin with.
It's all about CHOICE isn't it? They can still choose what they want to be - damsel in distress or empowered performer and most of them them want and get both and use whatever suits their current agenda best, whining or bullying.
I'm asking myself what made a group of coddled, advantaged, white middle-class folks think they are underprivileged? Some time in one of those countries where REAL inequalities prevail would do them a world of good, India, for example, where female foetuses are selectively aborted and sick little girls are left to die, or African countries where genital mutilation is practiced, or Islamist countries, where an accusation of adultery is enough to be stoned to death if one is female, where young girls are arbitrarily murdered, mutilated or raped (or all of it) for real or imagined wrongdoings by the members of their own family.
But they don't go there. They don't because it's much nicer to stay here and dream of themselves looking like Pricess Diana in dungarees, tracking landmines.
And like so often, it's not so much what the perpetrators do, but how the world is reacting to them. Why don't men just put their feet down and, if necessary, beat some sense into those nagging nuisances? But then, they were brought up by women, after all. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world", as the feminists are fond of saying. And it's all true. Men don't become mass muderers because of their deadbeat Dads, but more likely because Mum bathed them until they were well halfway through adolescence or forced them to wear their older sister's clothes.
Men can't win.
Just one more remark! Of course I know that men are shallow, unprincipled, testosterone-driven, spineless jerks. I'm not naïve. I'm not trashing men because that would be like shooting sitting ducks. It's boring, dull, redundant and -- worse -- it's a mainstream-approved endeavor. I loath receiving acclaim from the wrong people.
November 21, 2008
The Banalization and Infantilization of Women Redux
... or once a troglodytesse lactation consultant, always a troglodytesse lactation consultant
I hate to say "I told you so" more than once in a month, but didn't I tell you just nine days ago that Sarah Palin was bound to flop because women are jealous of her? I did? Fine!
Now I came across a website (cum blog) of the "questions have been raised", "claims have been made" and "rumors ran rampant" sort where the attempt is made to "prove" that not Sarah, but her daughter Bristol Palin gave birth to Trig, the youngest Palin offspring. No link from me. Please google for "palin deception". There we have one (are we amazed?) woman who has bothered to register a domain to then lumber it with endless proof of how clever she is.
And no, this is not just one woman who has too much empty hours to fill, this is a big matter. Just go and google for "palin deception" or "palin lies". What a pity Google Trends does not deliver the sex of an online searcher together with his location and language. As it is, my theory of women as "the silly sex" sadly remains a theory, albeit a pretty credible one.
Ilana Mercer elaborates in an article with that title plus a question mark about women's cultural and scientifical achievements or the lack thereof:
The old troglodytesse is still alive and kicking, and most in those who consider themselves most refined.
Women DO.
"Sarah Palin's Lies" found at Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.
I hate to say "I told you so" more than once in a month, but didn't I tell you just nine days ago that Sarah Palin was bound to flop because women are jealous of her? I did? Fine!
Now I came across a website (cum blog) of the "questions have been raised", "claims have been made" and "rumors ran rampant" sort where the attempt is made to "prove" that not Sarah, but her daughter Bristol Palin gave birth to Trig, the youngest Palin offspring. No link from me. Please google for "palin deception". There we have one (are we amazed?) woman who has bothered to register a domain to then lumber it with endless proof of how clever she is.
My husband and I are not "left wing bloggers," "conspiracy theorists," or otherwise fruitcakes. I am a childbirth labor coach, a published author in the childbirth field, and a lactation consultant; my husband is a physician who has, until this election, always voted Republican. So we're hardly coming from left field.People hate to be found out about what makes them tick. Any catty old Ms. Stiletto Heel is adamant that she is not just a vile lump of jealousy, but really "cares" about some higher cause and every antisemite has "Jewish friends". What would YOU call a woman ("I am a lactation consultant...") who browses through virtual piles and piles of photos to gawp at another woman's breasts? A woman whom she doesn't know and will never meet? So Palin's doctor refused to make a statement? I realize that things are handled differently in America, but in Germany she'd be stripped off her licence as quickly as she could say "Sarah Palin" should she dare making a "statement". Maybe, just maybe, there are doctors in America as well who adhere to a minumum code of professional ethics? And there are no birth pictures? "OB floors routinely keep disposable cameras for families that might come in unexpectedly and not have one." Maybe the Palin family isn't into that sort of cute-ism? Maybe it took them some time to cope with the reality of a handicapped child?
No one is expecting to see explicit videos [Really not?], but just ONE spontaneous "family" photo of the Governor, looking a bit less perky than normal [That's the heart of the matter, isn't it?], in a hospital bed holding her new baby, surrounded by her family would have shut this entire thing down instantly.Why the Palin family should want to refute such a preposterous claim, a claim not logically impossible but so improbable by any standard of common sense that it makes the mind boggle, is beyond me.
And no, this is not just one woman who has too much empty hours to fill, this is a big matter. Just go and google for "palin deception" or "palin lies". What a pity Google Trends does not deliver the sex of an online searcher together with his location and language. As it is, my theory of women as "the silly sex" sadly remains a theory, albeit a pretty credible one.
Ilana Mercer elaborates in an article with that title plus a question mark about women's cultural and scientifical achievements or the lack thereof:
In fairness, the legal emancipation of women only began in earnest in the 19th century—a situation that parallels the predicament of the Jews.My following observations, if accurate, may simply be a matter of lesser intelligence, but I think there is more to it. As much as by a lower IQ or an "equal but different" (which has a painfully politically correct whining to it) status, women are, I think, held back by their inability to see things detached from their own point of view. If THEY haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist. If THEY have suffered it, it's the issue mankind has to tackle first and foremost. Their judgement is driven by personal likes and dislikes and they tend to be deeply jealous of other women. Of women who are, like Palin, goodlooking, healthy, happy and successful and they spend a lot of time, energy and intelligence -- time, energy and intelligence that could be used for more productive causes -- to change that. To the women not as lucky, they "relate". The Internet is full of it and the epithets "drama queen" and "attention whore" do not carry for nothing a female connotation. All this may be rooted in some primeval self-preservation instinct, but ... so?
[...]
But where have women been since 1950? Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world's population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. In literature, women have claimed only 8 percent. No woman has won a Nobel in economics.
During that period Jews, who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world's population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.
One possible explanation for this discrepancy: the alleged greater variability in men’s intelligence. The “Bell Curve” of their IQ distribution seems to be less bunched around the median IQ than that of women...
[...]
However, Professor Richard Lynn, co-author of IQ And The Wealth Of Nations, argues that men enjoy an advantage in average IQ—their median may be as much as five points above that of women...
The other popular but less credible explanation involves the equal-but-different approach to aptitude. Men are better at math, spatial and mechanical reasoning; women at verbal skills. Women’s mathematical reasoning might not be as good as men’s on average but women, according to this theory, make up for it with superior verbal fluency and artistic flair.
The old troglodytesse is still alive and kicking, and most in those who consider themselves most refined.
Women DO.
"Sarah Palin's Lies" found at Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)