“Back to the Basics of Life and Death”, a feminist statement full of misandry (hatred of men)

“Back to the Basics of Life and Death” caught my eye. This morning I did what I do every once in a while, I checked a few of the websites that link to Fathers for Life. There are too many of those links to mention them all or even to comment about those that I checked this morning, but I will mention two. One was a Dutch-language article at Wikipedia on the European Human Rights Court; in the section on Critiques of the Human Rights Court that article showed a link to http://fathersforlife.org/cps/Pelling_main.htm. Another web page with a link to Fathers for Life site was the one at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/17/122412/664 You can find the link there by searching for the following entry:

#aimee… (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
rawls, aimeeinkc

here’s an article about recent attempts to regulate or be anti- IVF….

if you look in archived stuff, you may be able to find LOTS of articles showing “pro-life” groups against IVF….I can’t really find anything at the moment, but there’s an article in one of the textbooks we use at school that talks about it.

and here’s some sick shit… if you are willing to click on it. I don’t even know if you should…ugh.

Read Feminisms Wednesdays and Take Action

by Elise on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 10:35:12 AM PST

[ Parent ]

I followed the recommendation in that comment, namely to “Read Feminism Wednesdays”, and found the following outpouring of anti-male hatred and female victimhood. “Boadicaea” provides opinionated falsehood after falsehood, but not one of them is corroborated with any evidence to prove her point, namely that women are an oppressed group of people.

I copied the text of “Boadicaea’s” article here and will insert a few facts or links to facts that debunk her ludicrous rhetoric. That is not so much to prove her wrong as it is to provide a counterpoint to the 163 commentaries that more or less agree with her or at best put up extremely weak counter arguments.

As long as we have people like “Boadicaea” around that are so full of misguided hatred, and as long as we have even more people that pay them attention and agree with them, we will not have equality for both sexes.

My comments are inserted in Italics and enclosed by brackets.

Feminisms: Back to the Basics of Life and Death

by Boadicaea

Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 05:25:25 PM PST

I’ll start by asking everyone to imagine that for millennia female babies have been born with a unique birthmark: a target. It appears in conjunction with female reproductive organs, female body configuration, and/or female identification of queer and transgender people. It appears regardless of race, ethnicity, geography, or century. The target mark has been accepted for thousands of years as feminine a characteristic as the ability to conceive and bear children. [It all depends how one looks at it. One can be grateful to be a woman, to be able to give life and to be blessed with love by one’s children, or one can rail against the curse of biological design and destiny and kill one’s children to boot.]

We have to imagine, because humankind would have died out long ago with this encouragement of those who consider women to be targets even without the permission of biology. There’s a point to this. Read on . . .

• Boadicaea’s diary :: ::

I’m not looking forward to tonight’s discussion of this diary. I didn’t want to write this particular diary; I dreaded writing this particular diary; I couldn’t not write this particular diary. My hope is that those who have not considered the life and death foundations of feminism will understand better where feminism comes from, even if feminism as a force that literally fights for women’s lives isn’t germane to their own.

Simply, I want everyone who isn’t a feminist–male or female–and everyone who IS, to think about where the need for women to stand up for themselves originates. It starts in the most primitive desire to live. History reeks of women’s slaughter; probably this isn’t a new idea. But think how many women have died, die, and will die for no other reason than THEY ARE WOMEN. Period. [Absolutely correct, except for one thing. All people must die, not necessarily on account of their sex but foremost because they are mortal, not immortal. However, when it comes to whether women or men are more likely to die an early death, just a little bit of checking would have shown “Boadicaea” that her proposition is ludicrous. The average life expectancy of all women in the world is five more years than that of men. The average life expectancy of women in the developed nations is from about six to 14 more years than that of men in the developed nations. Only someone completely deranged and misguided would claim that to be a manifestation of the oppression of women. — Life Expectancies of Men and Women Throughout the World]

Quickly, a rundown. Sporadic persecution of women blamed for adverse conditions–witches (Many were killed for supposedly inciting men to do the actual foul deeds, but because they were women a way was found to blame them and exterminate them. [Sorry “Boadicaea”, but you can’t have it both ways, have women who were the well-spring of life all along and have someone kill them off because they are women. Humanity would have perished a long time ago without women, with women that were killed in wholesale numbers. You are talking about isolated aberrations and commit the sin of presenting them as the norm.] New England witches were almost 100% female (one of my ancestors was sentenced to hang but her husband was well-connected and she was grudgingly allowed to live. Anne Hutchinson’s religious crime was finally “proved” because her uterus expelled what was called a “demon” and she was accused of having sexual intercourse with the devil. It was either a malformed uterus, or, probably, an unusual but not unknown even now formation of uterine warts. She was banned from her church for her religious views, but chose banishment over hanging for the evidence of her womb). [Aha, that is the point: “New England witches were “almost 100% female”, the point being that not all of them were female. In other times and places of witch hunts, half to the vast majority of the persecuted witches were men, but feminists never talk about that, right? Feminists are not about all of the truth and nothing but the truth. They lie and distort, either deliberately or out of ignorance. They repeat what they want us to believe often enough that in the end even the feminists believe that their propaganda is the truth. — See: The “evil” that men did; Pseudo-History About Witchcraft, and How many witches were really burned, and were all of them women?]

Infanticide of females over the centuries, most recently in China because male children are preferred by many who are limited to one child. [The price of tea in China has nothing to do with social conditions where “Boadicaea” lives, unless she is out to blame men in the West for Chinese moral and cultural standards.] Bride killings, usually carried out by in-laws (there is no counterpart of husband killings, no matter how unsatisfactory they may be). [“Boadicaea” again picks on cultural and moral aberrations in other countries in an attempt to garner sympathy and emotional support for her convictions. If only she would have put some numbers on how many brides have lately been killed where she lives. However, “Boadicaea” is dead wrong about there not being a counterpart for bride killings. For men there very realistically is such a counterpart, the simple fact that they are men. That is the sole reason for men’s average life expectancy being five or more years shorter than that of women. For instance, 19 out of every 20 fatal or serious job accidents involve men as victims.] An unfortunate tendency of many “civilizations” to choose punishment, often death, for only the female participant in adultery. [It is odd how the feminist mind works. Feminists, like other liberals, would like us to be more like animals and therefore urge us to forsake traditional moral standards. However, the survival instinct of animals provides them with a very strong urge to kill cuckoos. Is it not a logical human reaction that in many societies the one who brings a cuckoo into the nest is the one that is being punished for it? Nevertheless, all of that is hypothetical musing, as for 150 and more years women in the West have become increasingly rewarded for committing the crime of adultery. So what exactly is the nature of “Boadicaea’s” complaint? How can she logically complain that women are being punished for being adulterous when the truth is that the vast majority of adulterous women is being generously rewarded for their crimes of adultery? — The Fraud of Feminism (1913), and The Legal Subjection of Men (1908) Two essays by Belfort Bax (July 23, 1854 – November 26, 1926)] St. Paul’s warnings for men to “beware the widow” having been used to blame women for men’s transgressions (see “witches,” above). The instinctive avoidance of free choice after dark–women know that they can be chosen to be violated in many ways, and often killed, simply by choosing to be a woman alone in the dark. And relegation to living conditions that kill; women have historically ended up with hard, dangerous work for low pay if they could not depend upon a man for support of them and their children. Dangerous working conditions kill, and low pay leads to malnutrition, lack of medical care, below standard living conditions, death. [It seems we should not worry so much about what St. Paul said about women and men as we should worry about what people like “Boadicaea” are saying. At least St.Paul said much about love, while “Boadicaea” appears to have nothing but hatred for men.]

A good example of this is in a article I found on the Net about the Juarez killings of hundreds of young women. A reporter felt constrained to mention that four times as many men were killed on the border as women–men involved in drug trafficking. However, Diana Valdez has investigated the Juarez femicide for years and written a book about common knowlege on the border–that the women have been killed as the ending act of their use in parties as objects of “entertainment;” sexually used in many ways, including torture and murder. High level men of the Ciudad Juarez area are involved, and nobody is trying to bring them to justice. But a young woman on the street in Juarez, no matter why she is there, is looked upon as perhaps the next victim. Just because she is a woman–the ghouls and perverts who have used and killed probably 700 women in the last decade or two are only interested in using a female body. [I wonder what the real numbers are, but don’t look to “Boadicaea” for the answer. Statements such as “killed probably 700 women in the last decade or two” are neither precise nor confidence-inspiring.]

That is why five little girls in Pennsylvania died. A man wanted to molest little girls. He didn’t WANT to want to, but he wanted to. He let everyone else go; he was ready to molest. Before and after, he blamed the existence of little girls for his misery. They died because he had a problem, and because–NO OTHER REASON–they were little girls. To get rid of them was his reasoning; without little girls, he wouldn’t have his problem. [That sounds like a horrible crime. It is horrible because it is a rare aberration. It is more often the case that women kill children and kill them in vastly greater numbers than men do, not even counting abortions. However, no matter how often women do that and no matter in what numbers, the feminists will never tell us about that basic fact of life and death, but let me mention just two cases: 1.) The Butterbox Children, and 2.) The Bloody and Deadly Countess Elizabeth Bathory.]

Feminism today doesn’t deal with death on the surface very often in this country. It deals with the aftermath. How often do we think about how vulnerable we really are–because we are women, or even because we appear to be women. How often do men, even sympathetic, empathetic, and involved feminist men, think about the bottom line need for women to be considered equal and strong–to make it clear that the target should not be there. It starts with wanting to stay alive, with NEEDING to stay alive. [Right, feminism deals with the aftermath of death, not with its causes. That is why when women lose their husbands, the feminists don’t cry for the lives of the husbands lost but for the plight of the women who lost their providers and the comfort those providers now no longer can provide to their wives and families. That is why someone like Hillary Clinton can with impunity declare that women have always been the primary victims of war. That is even though bereaved women, especially in places like China, where according to “Boadicaea” there will soon be a great surplus of men, will have no problem to find replacements for what they have been bereaved of. Nevertheless, in the eyes of feminists like Hillary Clinton and “Boadicea” it is a far greater calamity for women to be spared from being killed in war than it is for men to have to sacrifice their lives and limbs in wars for home and country, moreover to have to suffer often for many years in POW camps before they are allowed to return home.]

There is so much more to say. I have literary criticisms, news from all over the world, and many more graceful and convincingly written analyses of this subject. I’ve purposely not read a recent column by Bob Herbert that looks to be covering the same subject matter, but wouldn’t you know I can’t find the link right now; I’ll get it for you.

And here are some more on the Juarez killings (“femicides” all, because the reason they were murdered was that they they were women).

www.truthout.org/issues_06/090606WA.shtml (that looks weird; you can Google “Texas Journalist Patrols Grisly Beat”)

www.cjr.org/issues/2004/burnett-mexico.asp?

www.npr.org/templates/story.php?storyId+1532607

Tags: femicide, domestic violence, rape, kidnapping, queer, New England witch trials, infanticide, Amish murders, bride killings, St. Paul, women’s rights, women’s safety, gender equality, women’s careers, validation, Feminisms (all tags)

Permalink | 163 comments

[“Boadicaea” stated above that she has “many more graceful and convincingly written analyses on this subject.” No doubt, analyses that are more graceful and convincingly written than her commentary is should not be hard to come by, but it would take some effort to find articles that are more filled with hatred and falsehoods than hers is.]