A Canticle for Leibowitz

(2 Samuel 11:21) Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.

[quote=“Susanna, post:21, topic:44483”]
(2 Samuel 11:21) Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.
[/quote] okay Jack, devils advocate here maybe or just dumb maybe: why would anyone want to abolish gender? what’s in it for anyone? it seems like for “liberals,” it would actually be a loss because they would lose one of the supposed primary causes of inequality, and since liberalism exists to fight inequality, it actually has to keep inequality going to justify its existence. seems like the disappearance of gender would make the (surreptitious) preservation of inequality harder, not easier. ??

Oh, I think Liberals want to continue the ILLUSION of inequality…not ACTUAL inequality. For example, men and women are inherently different and “unequal.” In general, men are stronger, bigger and faster. There’s a REASON why there are both men’s and women’s events at the Olympics and the sexes in general don’t compete against one another in many organized, athletic event except Little League, before boys begin to outstrip girls athletically. Can you just imagine the effect on the human race if women suddenly became the “stronger, bigger and faster” sex?

[quote=“Pappadave, post:23, topic:44483”]
Oh, I think Liberals want to continue the ILLUSION of inequality…not ACTUAL inequality. For example, men and women are inherently different and “unequal.” In general, men are stronger, bigger and faster. There’s a REASON why there are both men’s and women’s events at the Olympics and the sexes in general don’t compete against one another in many organized, athletic event except Little League, before boys begin to outstrip girls athletically. Can you just imagine the effect on the human race if women suddenly became the “stronger, bigger and faster” sex?
[/quote] [MENTION=11981]Pappadave[/MENTION], usually I agree with you, but I would turn what you said above exactly on its head. I think liberals want to continue ACTUAL inequality, with the ILLUSION of equality serving the same function as the ever-receding mirage in the desert. yes, i guess you can call me cynical at least in this instance.

True, Patricia. I hadn’t thought it completely through to its logical conclusion. If they weren’t in favor of ACTUAL inequality, we’d be seeing lawsuits FORCING the NBA, NFL and MLB to hire “x” numbers of Hispanics, the handicapped, and women to play their games–and get a chance at those multi-million-dollar salaries.

[quote=“Pappadave, post:25, topic:44483”]
True, Patricia. I hadn’t thought it completely through to its logical conclusion. If they weren’t in favor of ACTUAL inequality, we’d be seeing lawsuits FORCING the NBA, NFL and MLB to hire “x” numbers of Hispanics, the handicapped, and women to play their games–and get a chance at those multi-million-dollar salaries.
[/quote] well, they probably know that just wouldn’t fly anyway… the audience would evaporate and so would huge sums of money. I was thinking more that the impossible goal of complete equality provides a permanently available rationale for government centralization… which, guess what, is a REALLY intractable form of inequality. Thus Orwell’s epitaph for Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the land of “equality is all,” the bureaucrat is king. and once he’s in, just try to get him out.

Well, if we legislate absolute equality, then the men would have to have half of the babies . . .

1 Like

Hi Patricia,

My phrase was “gender destruction” [not “abolish”] and I meant by “destruction” that
liberals characteristically want to destroy the gender principles laid down in Genesis by
God Himself, which principles were, not all that long ago, accepted by almost all of
Christendom [and most of secular America too (say) back in the 50’s … which isn’t
all that long ago, historically speaking.]

Such principles as:

• **“God made them male and female” **
[with all that implies, for example that’s the first argument one hears against homo
marriage … God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and my phrase
"gender destruction" was my way of saying that liberals characteristically want to
destroy this principle and all it’s logical and natural ramifications as the foundational
building block of a society and nation-state.

• "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you"
[liberals characteristically hate this one with a passion and desire to destroy it because
here the Sovereign God slaps 21st c. Feminism hard in the face … there is no statement
is the Bible more irritating to the majority of liberals than “he will rule over you.”

• The Sovereign God created the male first and then later created the female who was
obviously not created separately, [she could easily have been created seperately if God
wanted to do it that way, but God did NOT want it done that way] and as the Bible says
"she was taken out of man." Gen. 2:23
This irritates the majority of liberals who do not like that order up there because it does
not harmonize with their views of Equality.

• God created the female as a “helper suitable for him” Gen.2:18
Liberals characteristically hate that idea.

  • the female was created as a “helper” [ a helper that will be “ruled over”] Gen.3:16

“He [God] brought her to the man” [and as a helper]
Note: Again, God could have reversed that and created the female first, then created the male and
then brought the male to the female to be her helper. But God did NOT do this, and the majority
of liberals do not like this, and would destroy this order of things if they could.

The liberals characteristically hate every thing I bolded up there because here God slaps
Feminism and Feminism’s definition of Equality in the face.


If liberals had been in charge of the creation, the majority of them would have created like this:

  • created the male and female at the exact same moment

  • the female would not have been taken out of the male

  • there would have been no “he shall rule over thee”

  • there would have been no “thy desire shall be for thy husband” instead liberals would have said, “your desire will be for each other”

  • there would have been no “bringing the female to the male” instead they’d have been introduced to each other

  • the female would not have been created as a “helper” for the male


Liberals characteristically do not like any of those ideas up there, and imo the majority of liberals HATE those ideas
and would destroy them all if they could, and I note that many liberal Feminists activists have been and still are,
since about 1960, doing all they can to destroy them here in America.

So that’s what I meant by my sentence where I referred to:
** “America’s Sexual Gender-Confusion and Gender-Destruction Revolution:
[aka America’s Sexual Revolution]” **

There are some other points to make on this question …

So more coming later … I will send this on for right now.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪


2 Likes

… continued from post 28 …

I see you put liberals up there in quotes, which is a good thing because, as we all know, liberalism is not a
monolithic block. It has many sub-tribes, and I will mention one of them in this post and another kind in a
post to follow.

(1) The Cold Unemotional Calculating Political Liberals.
These are some of Liberalism’s elites that have made it to the very top. These types care about raw political
power only and they want to use that political power to push forward Liberalism’s main philosophical political
principle which is a continually growing Big Government in the context of taking a **SOFT **approach to
most human-created problems and saying a decided YES to most human demands.
Abortion? Yes.
Porn? Yes.
Illegal immigration? Yes.
No Fault Divorce? Yes.
Legalized Prostitution? Yes
Strip joints? Yes.
Homo & hetro Sexual perversion? Yes.
Homo marriage? Yes.

These types are committed to this SOFT/YES principle in the context of an ever increasing Big Federal
Government with the power of taxation and the power to redistribute wealth. I believe these liberal
types are committed to the idea that in the long term America will run smoother if they run
the country on this principle I just described.

What does all that up there have to do with our issue? I’m making the point that these, The Cold
Unemotional Calculating Political Liberals, do not care one way or the other about their self-created
"victim groups" or about the so-called “disenfranchised” or about the so-called “downtrodden”, and
neither do they care about “women’s rights” or about “homo rights” or about the "gender issues"
or any other Feminists issues … all they care about is the votes of their base so they The
Cold Unemotional Calculating Political Liberals
can stay in political power. These are the kind
of liberals that tell racial jokes and homo jokes and women-jokes when they are alone with their
true inner-circle. These “Cold Ones” are NOT emotional ideologues, all they want is this:

(1) To stay in political power

(2) Money by the ton to keep them inside their gated communities

(3) Money by the ton to keep the masses pacified [so the lower economic classes will not pull a
"French Revolution" and attempt to burn down the cities

(4) Peace and quite all over America with Liberals running everything [because the absence of
peace is civil-disturbance-conflict which makes everything very messy]

These The Cold Unemotional Calculating Political Liberals don’t care if women serve on combat
submarines or not. They don’t care if 21st c. males have become the kind of “males” that are
proud to send their wives and the mothers of their children off into combat while they stay
home and “become Mommie” and raise the children … lol …

All The Cold Unemotional Calculating Political Liberals want is VOTES to do what I described up
there.

Next post I will mention another kind of liberal, the zealous “true believer” … those that have adopted
Liberalism as their true religion and they DO care about more than just the votes … some of them
despise males and want to see them reduced down even further on the social scale of what is essential
and important in American life.

Eg. Males are no longer essential in American life in many very important areas, eg. two lesbians can buy
male sperm from a sperm bank and one or both of them can conceive several children and raise them to
adulthood and never have a single male even nearby. So males in America are no longer even needed
as fathers in the traditional sense of the word “father.”

ALL women in America can do that if they want to. Any woman in America that wants to become a mother,
knows that if she really wanted to, she can conceive a baby and never even get near a male. Even the poor
females can do that, if they run in economic difficulty, the Nanny State as their “Husband” is there waiting
with open arms and a big fat check month after month after month.
**Males have become something of a joke in
America, that’s why the Hollywood sit-coms
continually make fun of them, make them the
butt of jokes, and generally present them as
buffoons. But notice that Hollywood is careful
to not present women that way. **

Another example: The Nanny State has REPLACED the traditional male as HUSBAND and FATHER in ** millions **
of White, Black, and Hispanic households. There you have the female [Mother] and her “Husband” the
Federal Government aka the Nanny State.

:diamonds:

`

2 Likes

… continued from my posts 28 & 29 [I added some edit to my post 29]

  • Then there are the Liberal-Feminists who are the “true believers.” *

(These are some of the older ones down below, but their Tribe is large, strong, and healthy
in American colleges and universities today and they are growing and making converts to
their Liberal-Feminist religion as characterized in those quotes down there.]

These are the emotional ones, the hot heads, the activists, the ones whose religion is
Liberalism-Feminism and who are as emotional-fanatical as any West Virginia snake handler.

These radical Feminists publish statements like this:

  • “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of
    control over women. . . . We must work to destroy it. . . . The end of the institution or marriage
    is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage
    women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men. . . . All of history must be
    rewritten in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like
    witchcraft.” __ the feminists Nancy Lehmann & Helen Sullinger, in the Declaration Of Feminism.

  • “Marriage”, said the feminist Andrea Dworkin, “is an institution that developed from rape.”

Andrea Dworkin
:biggrin:

  • “The nuclear family must be destroyed.”__ the feminist Linda Gordon

  • Marriage is “a slavery like practice. We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women
    until we destroy marriage.” __ the feminist Robin Morgan ( Robin Morgan was, at one time,
    the top dog at Ms. magazine.)

  • Robin Morgan, in the same year, edited Sisterhood Is Powerful, which contained an
    article by Valerie Solanis, president of the Society For Cutting Up Men. Said Ms. Solanis,
    “It is now techinically possible to reproduce without the aid of males…and to produce only
    females…we must begin immediately to do so. The male is a biological accident…the male
    has made the world a sh!t pile.”__ Valerie Solanis

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession.”__Vivian Gornick (once a professor at Penn
State)

  • “Feminism stresses the indistingishability of prostitution, marriage and sexual harassment.
    ”__the feminist Catherine MacKinnon

  • “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must
    concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition
    of marriage.”__ Sheila Cronin


I think we can safely say that the above strain of liberalism-feminism has a strong desire to
bring about the destruction of the traditional male role in America, or as what I would call
it: "America’s Sexual Gender-Confusion and Gender-Destruction Revolution: (aka America’s
Sexual Revolution)

:diamonds:

  • … maybe this is the future of the “males” in Red America?
    … lol … I certainly hope so … *
    [that’s a cute little pinkie color, ain’t it? … lol …]

… lol … I see that in some Hollywood movies the Liberals-Feminists are writing scripts where the
woman comes over and takes the lead in the romantic pursuit of the male and she the female is
the one that takes the lead on the first kiss. The female decides when its time to attempt the first
kiss … lol … I mean its a total reversal of the traditional way it was in America up until just a few
short months ago, I mean with regard to what the punkie-ones are willing to show in American
movies.

… lol … Maybe it will not be to long in Red America when the woman will ask for the male’s hand in
marriage, yes its time for Red America to “get it” [as the Feminists love to say] and have the women
start proposing marriage to the males …

… and after the wedding maybe it will be the bride that picks up the groom and carries him across
the threshold … … lol… I hope and pray I live to see that, and all such as that, practiced widespread
in the Liberal segment of America aka as Red America … funny stuff to be sure.

:diamonds:

PS
Re females in the National Football League: Its just a matter of when, its not a matter of “if”,
and their motive is tokenism, that is:
The FemiNazi’s want to destroy or eliminate 100% of the All-Male-Bastions remaining in America.
They will succeed.
Why do I think that?
Because so far every single All-Male-Bastion
that the “males” in America have tried to keep
All-Male has fallen whipped to their knees
before the FemiNazis.

I listed them all here:
Post 9
http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f10/vince-lombardi-self-esteem-43815/#post646808

Posts 16, 34, , 41, 44, and 52 are related.


Remember: Females don’t have to actually play like the males play in the NFL.
All the Liberals-Feminist have to do is merely find one or two females that
can get on one of the NFL teams and suit up and make a play every now
and then. That is ENOUGH to destroy the National Football League as an
ALL MALE BASTION, and that is what the Liberals-Feminists want to do.

You’ll see them get it done in the next few years too.

Then one more ALL MALE BASTION will have fallen to the Liberals.

Next will be Major League Baseball and then the NBA.

Read the list over here:
http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f10/vince-lombardi-self-esteem-43815/#post646808
… if you doubt it.

:cool:

`

1 Like

Well HERE’S a pertinent question: Who, but an absolute psychopath would even CONSIDER “raping” Andrea Dworkin? Every man I ever knew would find it IMPOSSIBLE.

1 Like

Ms. Dworkin, who departed this world in 2005, was one of the more
relaxed feminists and was noted, in the most distinguished enlightened
circles, for her “laid back” style in clothing, and for her sophisticated
selections in women’s foot ware, see the pic below.

Also notable was Ms. Dworkin’s hair styling, which as you can see
was “really out of this world” as one Conservative worthy put it.

On the political scene you may be pleased to learn that Ms. Dworkin
was a strong opponent of President Bill Clinton during the
Lewinsky scandal.

Ms. Andrea Dworkin


http://cdn.chud.com/2/25/900x900px-LL-255bebf2_andrea-dworkin-feminist-s-007.jpeg

As Ms. Dworkin matured she because even more conscious of the importance
of maintaining a chic cosmopolitan appearance and of course the latest
European hair styles, [see above] and was reportedly over heard to say,
“Its very important to make a very good first impression with one’s appearance
when arguing against misogynists.”

:diamonds:

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:32, topic:44483”]
Ms. Dworkin, who departed this world in 2005, was one of the more
relaxed feminists and was noted, in the most distinguished enlightened
circles, for her “laid back” style in clothing, and for her sophisticated
selections in women’s foot ware, see the pic below.

Also notable was Ms. Dworkin’s hair styling, which as you can see
was “really out of this world” as one Conservative worthy put it.

On the political scene you may be pleased to learn that Ms. Dworkin
was a strong opponent of President Bill Clinton during the
Lewinsky scandal.

Ms. Andrea Dworkin


http://cdn.chud.com/2/25/900x900px-LL-255bebf2_andrea-dworkin-feminist-s-007.jpeg

As Ms. Dworkin matured she because even more conscious of the importance
of maintaining a chic cosmopolitan appearance and of course the latest
European hair styles, [see above] and was reportedly over heard to say,
“Its very important to make a very good first impression with one’s appearance
when arguing against misogynists.”

:diamonds:
[/quote] by gum, you’ve just made me into a dworkin fan, at least up to a point.

how many feminists sold their souls to Clinton because he was “right” on abortion? up to now, I thought the answer was “all of them.” but I was wrong! Andrea stood firm. For that, she deserves respect.

she may not have been a fashion plate, but she actually had some principles-- mostly misguided but apparently not all. RIP Andrea.

If by “misogynists” she meant anyone who’d rather slide down 100’ razor blade into a barrel of 100-proof Vodka than ask her out, include me!

[quote=“Pappadave, post:34, topic:44483”]
If by “misogynists” she meant anyone who’d rather slide down 100’ razor blade into a barrel of 100-proof Vodka than ask her out, include me!
[/quote] she’s gone, Pappa. you’re safe. geez, you guys…

Sorry, Patricia, but this woman was not only PHYSICALLY ugly…she was psychologically ugly as well–regardless of whether she opposed Bill Clinton, which was more than likely because she was simply a man-hating “witch,” rather than a “woman of principle.”

1 Like

[quote=“Pappadave, post:36, topic:44483”]
Sorry, Patricia, but this woman was not only PHYSICALLY ugly…she was psychologically ugly as well–regardless of whether she opposed Bill Clinton, which was more than likely because she was simply a man-hating “witch,” rather than a “woman of principle.”
[/quote] well, I know when I’ve lost a battle. (sweeping bow)

`

Ms. Andrea Dworkin is very hard to appreciate to any extent whatsoever
after one becomes acquainted with her whole message.

Here are some more quotes from one of Feminism’s gifts to America and to the
world:


"The common erotic project of destroying women makes it possible for men
to unite into a brotherhood;
this project is the only firm and trustworthy
groundwork for cooperation among males and all male bonding is based on it."
__Andrea Dworkin


“Men know everything - all of them - all the time - no matter how stupid or
inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are.”
__Andrea Dworkin


** [COLOR="#B22222"]“Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct
expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.” **
__Andrea Dworkin


Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however
radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit
in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name."
__Andrea Dworkin


** The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each
other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the
oppressor inconceivable. **__Andrea Dworkin
[Jack note: She means women are the slaves of men]


“Men who want to support women in our struggle for freedom and justice should understand
that it is not terrifically important to us that they learn to cry; it is important to us that they
stop the crimes of violence against us.”__Andrea Dworkin


** [SIZE=4]“Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity
no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.” **
__Andrea Dworkin


“Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.”
__Andrea Dworkin[/SIZE][/COLOR]


Read more at Andrea Dworkin Quotes - BrainyQuote

`

1 Like

…like I said. Dumb as a bag of peat moss and not nearly as attractive.

1 Like

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:38, topic:44483”]
`

Ms. Andrea Dworkin is very hard to appreciate to any extent whatsoever
after one becomes acquainted with her whole message.

Here are some more quotes from one of Feminism’s gifts to America and to the
world:


"The common erotic project of destroying women makes it possible for men
to unite into a brotherhood;
this project is the only firm and trustworthy
groundwork for cooperation among males and all male bonding is based on it."
__Andrea Dworkin


“Men know everything - all of them - all the time - no matter how stupid or
inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are.”
__Andrea Dworkin


** [COLOR="#B22222"]“Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct
expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.” **
__Andrea Dworkin


Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however
radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit
in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name."
__Andrea Dworkin


** The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each
other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the
oppressor inconceivable. **__Andrea Dworkin
[Jack note: She means women are the slaves of men]


“Men who want to support women in our struggle for freedom and justice should understand
that it is not terrifically important to us that they learn to cry; it is important to us that they
stop the crimes of violence against us.”__Andrea Dworkin


** [SIZE=4]“Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity
no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.” **
__Andrea Dworkin


“Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it.”
__Andrea Dworkin[/SIZE][/COLOR]


Read more at Andrea Dworkin Quotes - BrainyQuote

`
[/quote] good grief. I had forgotten how completely toxic feminism did get when it was at its “peak”. thanks for the reminder. and this woman was at one time a BIG CHEESE in the movement. :freaked:

Jack, you are so funny. When you start our your procession of devastating quotes with the polite phrase “Andrea becomes hard to appreciate…”… no one would know you are about to drop atomic bombs!!

1 Like