Various people have pointed out to me that I made a mistake in speaking about the White Flag rather than White Feather campaign. So sorry, I actually knew it was a feather. Senior moment!
Outstanding article, Bettina. The blatant cultural, moral and political hypocrisy of feminism laid bare for all to see. It's so hard to understand how feminism, in its current form, can be so widely embraced by such large swathes of the planet's women; women who are lovers, wives, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers of the gender they despise.
What ever happened to the intrinsic feminine traits of nurturing, love and care? Perhaps the feminine woman is the greatest myth of all.
If sending men to their deaths in the battles of war can't moot the deeply inculcated feminist resentment, disregard, and hatred towards men, nothing can.
While much weaponry today is 'push button' final victory in a hot war is through boots on the ground. The hard slog of infantry fighting. It is grueling, heartlessly cruel, live or die stuff. If you are an infantryman you want to know that if you are wounded, if half your face is blown away, if your legs are destroyed by a mine, grenade or blast of heavy machine gun fire, that some one, in their full kit will run to you, grab you, throw you onto their back, and carry you out of harms way at a fast trot to aid. I can't think of many women strong enough to do that.
Fantastic Bettina and spot on. There's so much I could say about this but one of the things that struck me some time ago, which you've touched on briefly, is the curious way the media categorises massacres. First of all you've got your familiar everyday regulation massacre which consists of simply rounding up all the men in the village and killing them . This type of massacre is generally not worth reporting. My guess is because it's just so commonplace. Those boys were routinely massacred in Nigeria and nobody got up in the UK Parliament and said a thing. All that changed when the victims were girls. Going up the scale is the familiar X number of people were killed including women and children. The fact that it included women and children lifted it up the scale of newsworthiness. Then you've got the familiar X number of people were killed the majority of which were women and children. The odd thing about this is the majority of people killed could also be men and children. For example, let's say 21 people were killed which consisted of 10 men, 4 women and 7 children. In this case the majority of people killed would be the women and children 4 + 7 = 11. But the majority of people killed would also be the men and children 10 + 7 = 17. Oddly enough it doesn't stop there, because you've then got the familiar X number of people killed including women, children and elderly men. In this case you only matter as a man if you pass an arbitrary age (i.e. you are no longer virile). A similar odd thing happens to the transition of boys who are categorised as children (i.e. de facto female) in massacres until they pass some arbitrary line somewhere in their teens to becoming not worth mentioning until they reach maturity. I'm convinced the Boko Haram action against the girls in Nigeria was provoked because their regulation atrocities against boys weren't getting enough publicity. Ironically, in my view, the way media cover massacres actually encourages atrocities against women and girls because the deranged people who carry out these atrocities know something about the current grotesquely anti-male Western culture.
This is all true but in reality men do not WANT our wives, gfs, sisters etc on the front line or at risk. However it would only be simple decency for society to nurture and encourage the men who will again risk their lives to save everyone. Maybe some men will say "hang it i cant get promoted if i am not a member of some small pressure group (or a woman), i will only be dumped on the scrap heap when my wife has no further use for me, why would i give my life to protect this lot"?
You are correct that mens live are worth less, in Queensland last night a man died after his ex partner entered his home and threw petrol on him and burnt him and also tried to kill his current girlfriend and the children in the home. This is a tragedy like the mother Hannah Clarke who died with her children the same way. The difference is there is no outrage for the man, no candlelight vigil by outraged women, all there is is silence.
This essay is brilliant, partly because it says plainly what should be--but seldom is--self-evident. That's how double standards work; the hypocritical illusion disappears with the application of careful observation and common sense. You've already mentioned the profound moral problem of placing more value on female lives than on male ones, so I'll add a few comments on some equally ignored considerations: (1) demographic ones; (2) practical ones; and (3) cultural ones.
The morally primitive idea that female lives are "worth" more than male lives (never mind egalitarian rhetoric to the contrary) could make demographic sense only in societies that practice polygyny, which means that men take many wives. After a war that kills most men, each male survivor can marry many women. And each wife bears as many children as possible to replenish the population. That's not the case in monogamous societies. After World War I, for instance, millions of Western women simply remained unmarried and childless.
After World War II and more recent wars, some women have remained unmarried but nonetheless had children (partly due to the celebration of and political power of single mothers). But that hasn't worked out very well, because millions of fatherless children have left us with monumental problems. Social scientists have documented these extensively. The fact is that children need both mothers and fathers (who are not interchangeable, because they have very different functions within the family).
In short, no Western country is going to adopt polygyny. And no society at all is going to flourish if it trivializes fathers as luxuries at best (assistant mothers) or denounces them as liabilities at worst.
As for the ability of women to function effectively in modern warfare, it's true that most women are bigger and stronger than most men (although some women are bigger and stronger than some men). But not all soldiers carry bodies around, not even in combat. Most tasks can be done effectively by either men or women--especially as guerillas.
Maybe, as one commentator points out, feminism has not yet taken hold in Ukraine. But ideological hypocrisy in other countries is not the only problem. Something in Western culture has clearly changed a great deal since World War II.
Although many children were evacuated from London to the countryside (or overseas), most people--both men and women--remained in London and other cities throughout the war. Posters noted, accurately, that "London can take it." Edward R. Murrow interviewed Londoners during the blitz, and no one whined or complained or demanded pity in the midst of fiery ruins on a colossal scale. They got on with their work as well as they could (as did the women in many other countries, including Germany). Moreover, the tone of confidence and restraint was set for British women by the queen herself. No wonder that her daughter, now queen, has exemplified the value of duty ever since.
What else (aside from the rise of feminism) has changed since then? I suggest a resurgence of romanticism (the supremacy of feeling, not thinking, which fosters the journalistic reliance on gross sentimentality) and hedonism (pleasure, or at least freedom from pain or anxiety) as an end in itself) along with the notion of "safetyism" (being safe at all costs, protected from even "micro-aggressions," let alone bombs). In a word, self-indulgence.
The sight of teary-eyed young women fleeing en masse from Ukraine, abandoning their men to repel the invaders on their own, is neither edifying nor "natural." It does require an explanation. Thank you, Bettina, for reminding everyone of that.
All so true. 'Women and children' first still seems to be the motto. So obvious that everyone suffers, everyone bears the pain and loss, including men.
"hardly applies to all those forty-something single women past childbearing age that we watched scrambling to get on those crowded trains out of the county."
Reminds me of the time in Korea when things got heated between north and south and the US headquarters was suddenly swamped with emergency applications by women tobe transferred out WITH THEIR KIDS!.
Many didnt wait for their requests to be seen too they up and run blocking roads with their traffic heading south while troops were battling to get north.
This also meant that the jobs these fem warriors were doing were now empty. so comms were not operating and so forth.
All this came about because a dept called DAKOWITS which was formally a welfare and support unit for military familys had become a force which wanted women in all jobs in the front line. They were very outspoken and with the change in the age got their own way in Korea it proved to be damn near a disaster. If the north had realized that so many posts were abandoned there might have been a 3rd Korean war.
see "Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military x Brian Mitchell.
ISBN 97808962265555/089526559
I came across this book and when i went to get it out of the WA state library again I was told it didnt exist... funny that.
Thus you have and that other person proved what a roaring hypochrisy the radical feminists are.
Great swathes of dead men still can't prevent western women from crying victim throughout (countless) international women's day events. Their hatred and greed knows no bounds.
Most male soldiers would not want females beside them in the heat of a battle. Very few females would endure the atrocities of war. I know of men within the police service who when confronting a violent offender they would prefer a male as back up not a female. Let’s face it there are some jobs that female are not capable of doing and do not want to do.
The hypocrisy of the left wing toxic feminist movement is blatantly obvious in a women’s responsibilities versus men’s responsibilities during wartime.
I say let the single adult toxic feminists show us how “equal” the genders are and
stay there beside the men in the Ukraine with their guns and putting their female bodies - in the line of hostile enemy gun fire & explosives & death & Injury.
Let the single adult toxic feminists stay beside the fathers and single men and help them get the job of defending their country done -
while the feminist sympathising single men and fathers get onto the safety of buses and trains and run away from facing any physical danger… or doing the hard work of war.
In any situation under examination.
I Hypothetically swap what the male gender are Doing for what the female gender are doing -
one can then more clearly see feminist hypocrisy and toxic feminism’s double standards “clear as day”
Various people have pointed out to me that I made a mistake in speaking about the White Flag rather than White Feather campaign. So sorry, I actually knew it was a feather. Senior moment!
Outstanding article, Bettina. The blatant cultural, moral and political hypocrisy of feminism laid bare for all to see. It's so hard to understand how feminism, in its current form, can be so widely embraced by such large swathes of the planet's women; women who are lovers, wives, sisters, mothers, and grandmothers of the gender they despise.
What ever happened to the intrinsic feminine traits of nurturing, love and care? Perhaps the feminine woman is the greatest myth of all.
If sending men to their deaths in the battles of war can't moot the deeply inculcated feminist resentment, disregard, and hatred towards men, nothing can.
Wonderful article, thank you.
While much weaponry today is 'push button' final victory in a hot war is through boots on the ground. The hard slog of infantry fighting. It is grueling, heartlessly cruel, live or die stuff. If you are an infantryman you want to know that if you are wounded, if half your face is blown away, if your legs are destroyed by a mine, grenade or blast of heavy machine gun fire, that some one, in their full kit will run to you, grab you, throw you onto their back, and carry you out of harms way at a fast trot to aid. I can't think of many women strong enough to do that.
Fantastic Bettina and spot on. There's so much I could say about this but one of the things that struck me some time ago, which you've touched on briefly, is the curious way the media categorises massacres. First of all you've got your familiar everyday regulation massacre which consists of simply rounding up all the men in the village and killing them . This type of massacre is generally not worth reporting. My guess is because it's just so commonplace. Those boys were routinely massacred in Nigeria and nobody got up in the UK Parliament and said a thing. All that changed when the victims were girls. Going up the scale is the familiar X number of people were killed including women and children. The fact that it included women and children lifted it up the scale of newsworthiness. Then you've got the familiar X number of people were killed the majority of which were women and children. The odd thing about this is the majority of people killed could also be men and children. For example, let's say 21 people were killed which consisted of 10 men, 4 women and 7 children. In this case the majority of people killed would be the women and children 4 + 7 = 11. But the majority of people killed would also be the men and children 10 + 7 = 17. Oddly enough it doesn't stop there, because you've then got the familiar X number of people killed including women, children and elderly men. In this case you only matter as a man if you pass an arbitrary age (i.e. you are no longer virile). A similar odd thing happens to the transition of boys who are categorised as children (i.e. de facto female) in massacres until they pass some arbitrary line somewhere in their teens to becoming not worth mentioning until they reach maturity. I'm convinced the Boko Haram action against the girls in Nigeria was provoked because their regulation atrocities against boys weren't getting enough publicity. Ironically, in my view, the way media cover massacres actually encourages atrocities against women and girls because the deranged people who carry out these atrocities know something about the current grotesquely anti-male Western culture.
This is all true but in reality men do not WANT our wives, gfs, sisters etc on the front line or at risk. However it would only be simple decency for society to nurture and encourage the men who will again risk their lives to save everyone. Maybe some men will say "hang it i cant get promoted if i am not a member of some small pressure group (or a woman), i will only be dumped on the scrap heap when my wife has no further use for me, why would i give my life to protect this lot"?
Oh! Bettina, Few but you would step so bravely into the unknown, but seemingly hostile debate between the sexes.
You are correct that mens live are worth less, in Queensland last night a man died after his ex partner entered his home and threw petrol on him and burnt him and also tried to kill his current girlfriend and the children in the home. This is a tragedy like the mother Hannah Clarke who died with her children the same way. The difference is there is no outrage for the man, no candlelight vigil by outraged women, all there is is silence.
This essay is brilliant, partly because it says plainly what should be--but seldom is--self-evident. That's how double standards work; the hypocritical illusion disappears with the application of careful observation and common sense. You've already mentioned the profound moral problem of placing more value on female lives than on male ones, so I'll add a few comments on some equally ignored considerations: (1) demographic ones; (2) practical ones; and (3) cultural ones.
The morally primitive idea that female lives are "worth" more than male lives (never mind egalitarian rhetoric to the contrary) could make demographic sense only in societies that practice polygyny, which means that men take many wives. After a war that kills most men, each male survivor can marry many women. And each wife bears as many children as possible to replenish the population. That's not the case in monogamous societies. After World War I, for instance, millions of Western women simply remained unmarried and childless.
After World War II and more recent wars, some women have remained unmarried but nonetheless had children (partly due to the celebration of and political power of single mothers). But that hasn't worked out very well, because millions of fatherless children have left us with monumental problems. Social scientists have documented these extensively. The fact is that children need both mothers and fathers (who are not interchangeable, because they have very different functions within the family).
In short, no Western country is going to adopt polygyny. And no society at all is going to flourish if it trivializes fathers as luxuries at best (assistant mothers) or denounces them as liabilities at worst.
As for the ability of women to function effectively in modern warfare, it's true that most women are bigger and stronger than most men (although some women are bigger and stronger than some men). But not all soldiers carry bodies around, not even in combat. Most tasks can be done effectively by either men or women--especially as guerillas.
Maybe, as one commentator points out, feminism has not yet taken hold in Ukraine. But ideological hypocrisy in other countries is not the only problem. Something in Western culture has clearly changed a great deal since World War II.
Although many children were evacuated from London to the countryside (or overseas), most people--both men and women--remained in London and other cities throughout the war. Posters noted, accurately, that "London can take it." Edward R. Murrow interviewed Londoners during the blitz, and no one whined or complained or demanded pity in the midst of fiery ruins on a colossal scale. They got on with their work as well as they could (as did the women in many other countries, including Germany). Moreover, the tone of confidence and restraint was set for British women by the queen herself. No wonder that her daughter, now queen, has exemplified the value of duty ever since.
What else (aside from the rise of feminism) has changed since then? I suggest a resurgence of romanticism (the supremacy of feeling, not thinking, which fosters the journalistic reliance on gross sentimentality) and hedonism (pleasure, or at least freedom from pain or anxiety) as an end in itself) along with the notion of "safetyism" (being safe at all costs, protected from even "micro-aggressions," let alone bombs). In a word, self-indulgence.
The sight of teary-eyed young women fleeing en masse from Ukraine, abandoning their men to repel the invaders on their own, is neither edifying nor "natural." It does require an explanation. Thank you, Bettina, for reminding everyone of that.
All so true. 'Women and children' first still seems to be the motto. So obvious that everyone suffers, everyone bears the pain and loss, including men.
"hardly applies to all those forty-something single women past childbearing age that we watched scrambling to get on those crowded trains out of the county."
Reminds me of the time in Korea when things got heated between north and south and the US headquarters was suddenly swamped with emergency applications by women tobe transferred out WITH THEIR KIDS!.
Many didnt wait for their requests to be seen too they up and run blocking roads with their traffic heading south while troops were battling to get north.
This also meant that the jobs these fem warriors were doing were now empty. so comms were not operating and so forth.
All this came about because a dept called DAKOWITS which was formally a welfare and support unit for military familys had become a force which wanted women in all jobs in the front line. They were very outspoken and with the change in the age got their own way in Korea it proved to be damn near a disaster. If the north had realized that so many posts were abandoned there might have been a 3rd Korean war.
see "Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military x Brian Mitchell.
ISBN 97808962265555/089526559
I came across this book and when i went to get it out of the WA state library again I was told it didnt exist... funny that.
Thus you have and that other person proved what a roaring hypochrisy the radical feminists are.
Because today's media is incapable of "intelligent commentary," much less "intelligent reporting." Good points, btw.
Great swathes of dead men still can't prevent western women from crying victim throughout (countless) international women's day events. Their hatred and greed knows no bounds.
Ah Bettina, you're like Queensland. Beautiful one day, perfect the next (I'm from NSW)
Most male soldiers would not want females beside them in the heat of a battle. Very few females would endure the atrocities of war. I know of men within the police service who when confronting a violent offender they would prefer a male as back up not a female. Let’s face it there are some jobs that female are not capable of doing and do not want to do.
https://avoiceformen.com/featured/no-feminists-in-a-foxhole/
I wrote a short article echoing these sentiments for AVFM Bettina. Thanks for always telling the truth.
Exactly Bettina
You hit the nail on the head
The hypocrisy of the left wing toxic feminist movement is blatantly obvious in a women’s responsibilities versus men’s responsibilities during wartime.
I say let the single adult toxic feminists show us how “equal” the genders are and
stay there beside the men in the Ukraine with their guns and putting their female bodies - in the line of hostile enemy gun fire & explosives & death & Injury.
Let the single adult toxic feminists stay beside the fathers and single men and help them get the job of defending their country done -
while the feminist sympathising single men and fathers get onto the safety of buses and trains and run away from facing any physical danger… or doing the hard work of war.
In any situation under examination.
I Hypothetically swap what the male gender are Doing for what the female gender are doing -
one can then more clearly see feminist hypocrisy and toxic feminism’s double standards “clear as day”
Best regards,
Darren Bennetts
Tools@westnet.com.au
M: 0400102567