Archive for the ‘feminism’ Category
It’s unanimous! The votes are in. The winner of the Republican debate was Hillary and she wasn’t even on the stage.
As much as conservatives want to hear substantive issues debated, what many have forgotten is that this next presidential election is not going to be about the issues, with Hillary on the ballot the election is a referendum on feminism, plain and simple.
Women want to see a woman as president. They have for a long time and even more so women want to see as president the female victim of a philandering husband president. And who can blame them? It’s a double whammy.
To ignore that fact will certainly lead to failure for conservatives at the ballot box. To ignore the fact that people vote without emotion is political ignorance. This isn’t an election about issues anymore. With Hillary in the race this upcoming presidential election is about gender politics.
Even if the media are going to be petty to achieve ratings or pander to the female voter because women control eighty percent of the discretionary income in this country conservatives, men and women alike, must remain focused on the “real” issues.
Stay the course and don’t take the bait. Don’t take it!
Copyright © William Thien 2015
Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.
What Is It Going to Be, Equality or Diversity? You Can’t Have it Both Ways!
Posted on: April 29, 2015
In the past I wrote an essay, What Is It Going to Be, Equality or Diversity? You Can’t Have it Both Ways!
The terms equality and diversity indicate complete opposites of existence and are in my experience offensive tools rather than any measure of social equalization. “Equalization” is often not the ultimate goal.
To me what is crucial in the observation is that “equality” is frequently being used by one portion of society, women against men, one race against another, offensively rather than as a measure of equalization.
Equality and diversity are frequently terms used by larger social masses as a method of retribution rather than equalization. That is then just an en masse form of reverse discrimination. And as I’ve also written prior to this, reverse discrimination is just plain old discrimination. Simply because it is discrimination in the reverse doesn’t mean it is excusable. If we are all equal, if by laws we are now made to all be equal, then if you discriminate against me, that is not reverse discrimination, it is simply discrimination. Do you get it? I realize it is a difficult concept, even though it is so obviously simple.
I bring this up again because in reading the front page of the local newspaper today I noticed some picket signs in the large picture of the woman’s march in Washington D.C. protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration.
There were some very toothy slogans on those signs and clearly women in general haven’t risen above the circumstances. The women marching, not all women in this country of course, want to get down in the dirt it would appear.
So what does equality or diversity have to do with Trump’s inauguration? Once you are down there in the dirt, the rules change ladies. Didn’t you know that? You can’t chant nasty, barroom slogans and then expect to be treated like a lady. That’s just one incredibly “duh” moment I noticed in the pickets in the picture of the women marching.
The most significant realization I had, though, was in reading one picket that said “We are all Equal” and then seeing several protesters back in the crowd another picket that read, “Diversity is out Strength!”
Hold it. I’m confused. Are we diverse or are we all equal? We will use diversity in our defense when are accused of treating someone inequitably or will we seek equality when we feel we are being treated unequally? Ah yes, there is that massive distinction between the two terms used in such an a obvious yet subtle sense that it makes me wonder if those using them even know what they are saying.
This goes in particular to my statements in the past that feminism is a double standard forcing equality on the country but then limping off the stage when the going gets rough, taking the game into the dirt and then crying foul when getting dirt on your faces and ruffling your social frills.
Clearly what most of what the march was about was what one guy, now President of The United States, said to another in a situation of confidence that was betrayed.
You can’t hold a guy to the fire for that. And the language isn’t any different from what you can read in the picket signs of many of the women in the march protesting Trump’s inauguration.
If women really feel mistreated by such language, then women should stop using such language themselves, stop the baiting at work and in public, put an end to the false accusations, stop taking the game in the dirt and then crying foul when things get muddy.
Because if the campaign and the election are any indication of how things are going to get when things get down in the dirt for the next four years, there is a good chance that things are going to get muddy, too quite muddy indeed.
Copyright © William Thien 2015
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.
And don’t forget to buy my books. Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this! You can buy my books at Amazon.com.
I was around during the sixties and seventies when the great social rights movements in the country were aimed at instituting “equality.” It almost made sense. Everything was done to ensure equality and that movement carried on until recently.
Lately, everything has been about something else entirely. Realizing that the public doesn’t buy the “equality” argument anymore, that “equality” is frequently being used by one portion of society offensively against another rather than as a measure of equalization, and with the public finally concluding that nobody is really truly “equal,” they’ve changed their tune hoping to carry on with the so-called reforms.
Now, the catchall isn’t “equality” anymore, it is “diversity.” Instead of insuring equality, we are supposed to “Celebrate Diversity.”
Well, what is it? Is it “Equality” or is it “Diversity? Are we all the same or are we all different?
What’s it going to be? Because you can’t…
View original post 80 more words
In July of 2010 I added an essay to this site titled “Who is really behind The Sexual Revolution? What it is…” I conclude in the essay that the most recent and significant moment in the feminist drive for equality occurred as a result of a corporate desire to see the woman leave the house. Why? So American corporations could sell more products, gasoline, cars, auto insurance, to name a few of the more profitable products to be sold to women now going in to work instead of staying at home.
I will add that this argument is not designed nor has it ever been designed to center on which of the sexes is “better,” men or women, just to observe that men and women are different, which means logically that they are not equal. Books have been written on the matter with cute, pandering titles naming the different sexes after different planets and all sorts of animals have been assigned sexual characteristics, but nobody really has ever had the intestinal fortitude to approach the matter as is being done here in the present.
With that said, something occurred to me earlier today as well that you probably don’t hear much about and that is that the government has a serious desire as well to see women leave the house. The government has by design been instrumental in the redefinition/destruction of the American family. The government has done so for a reason, twice the income taxes. Now, the government can collect income taxes from two workers in every household instead of one. The feminist movement was bolstered during the sixties and seventies heavily by the government because the government was desirous of more income taxes.
Nothing wrong with women wanting to go to work, to get out of the house. In fact, from my perspective there are many benefits. But let’s not get confused about the true motivations of all of the other interested parties in seeing to the organized redefinition/destruction of the American family and the adherence to a falsehood almost to the point of brainwashing the American public about equality between the sexes.
Men and women are different. Different means different, different does not mean equal. Therefore men and women are not equal. Why is it so important to note that? I think the impression that society has of women has fallen dramatically since the feminist movement’s latest significant strides of the sixties and seventies. Crime against women is up, way up since the sixties and seventies at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. I hear people addressing women in all disrespectful manners publicly now in comparison to before. Birth defects are up, way up, also at great cost to the taxpayer (Something I hope to get a chance to comment on in a later essay). Mental defects among adolescents are up, way up. Childhood poverty is up. Childhood obesity is up. Clearly there are significantly negative and costly social aspects to the public equalization of the sexes as the feminists have cast off family bonds in a social, lock-stop, all included movement, granting and consequently surrendering to corporations and the government more control of the family.
I add that I am not responsible for any of this, thank goodness.
So, we know that it’s profitable for business and government to ensure the sexes are perceived as equal. As an aside, during the sixties it was believed, or suggested, that the feminist movement was the result of communist efforts. This in my opinion couldn’t be further from the truth as communists benefited very little from the feminist movement. No, it was profiteers and the government that profited the most from the feminist movement, outside of the realm of the feminists themselves.
Finally, I’m not trying to throw the timeline in reverse on the subject of sexual equality, I’m just examining the true motivations of interested parties other than the feminists themselves so we can get a bearing on what can be done to improve the negative social ramifications that have resulted from that part of the feminist movement that isn’t really “the feminist movement.”
To do that, we need to examine the feminist movement for what it really is.
The feminist movement is not just purely a sexual revolution in its entirety, it’s a business plan, too, and it’s a revenue device.
For your convenience here is a link to the first essay on the matter https://williamthien.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/who-is-really-behind-the-sexual-revolution-what-it-is/
Copyright © William Thien 2012
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never give your contact information to anyone.
William Thien 
Contemporary feminism is uncivilized
Posted by: William Thien on: August 30, 2019
I believe there is a valid form and history to the feminist movement but that there is a flaw in contemporary feminism. From my perspective and experiences, contemporary feminism is uncivilized.
Contemporary feminism is uncivilized because contemporary feminism does not police itself.
Today feminism is an uncontrolled form of media-incited mass hysteria.
Contemporary feminism is reactionary.
The objective of contemporary feminism is to lash out.
Almost all of my experiences lead me to conclude that there is a mantra in contemporary feminism. All that I see on display in the media, in news stories involving feminism of any extent is that there is indeed a mantra.
That mantra is: use what you got to get what you want. It is use what you got to get what you want followed by the common but perhaps silent affirmation, “You go girl!”
It does not matter whose life is destroyed. No man is safe from the hysteria. It is often unity for the sake of gain, not for the sake of what is right. False accusations are tools of advancement. Political parties parade contemporary feminists in front of the camera to get votes. The entire country must endure every trial and tribulation in the mass media of contemporary feminism. Mole hills are turned into mountains. Contemporary feminism is, get even with any man whether he is innocent or not.
It is vengeance unchecked. Contemporary feminism IS uncivilized.
Contemporary feminism is socially destructive.
Contemporary feminism is, all men are the same.
Contemporary feminism is, we can do anything men can do and do it better, until it comes time to dig ditches under the hot sun with a hand shovel and then contemporary feminism is a Cheshire grin slinking away and suggesting “My what big biceps you men have.”
Contemporary feminism is a shrieking, raging beast cloaked in mass victimization.
Contemporary feminism is provocative.
Contemporary feminism is explicit displays of femininity.
Contemporary feminism is the temptress who then claims to be the victim.
Contemporary feminism is a fashion statement.
Contemporary feminism is a shrewd corporate marketing campaign.
Contemporary feminism is good for ratings.
Contemporary feminism is a right of passage.
Contemporary feminism is, I’m daddy’s little girl, even though I’m 30 and I ought to know better.
Contemporary feminism is often a cleverly designed trap.
Contemporary feminism is a poisonous militancy.
Contemporary feminism is, shout all at once and let no man be heard above it and defend himself from the common rage of womanhood. And make sure there are cameras there.
Contemporary feminism is guilty until proven innocent.
Contemporary feminism is totalitarian.
Ultimately to me though the reason contemporary feminism is uncivilized is because contemporary feminism does not police itself. It refuses.
When I discuss why I think contemporary feminism is uncivilized with an avowed feminist, though of a different generation, she agrees with me. And she tells me her definitions of what a true feminist is. They are different than that of a contemporary feminist. I am made to know that.
But when I say I believe feminism is in danger of delegitimizing itself because feminism does not police itself, she raises her voice and her response is that it would be impossible!
The avowed feminist refuses, vehemently refuses to believe any attempt to police contemporary feminism by a feminist would work. She utterly refuses. This to me indicates I am correct in the matter. It is her resistance to even make any attempt to solve a problem to which she agrees exists that proves my point. I do not mean to indict her here, but there is a clear indication in her response of what I describe. It is impossible! for us to police ourselves. Impossible!
Contemporary feminism is out of control.
Contemporary feminism is a refusal of feminist leadership to control its ranks, to even make an attempt to control its ranks.
When I respond with “well what if there were a strong female in the national spotlight who recognized that the feminist movement of today was an irresponsible, anti-social and socially destructive movement and she became the standard bearer for contemporary feminism?” the avowed feminist tries to steer the conversation immediately away from the idea of such a potential feminist leader, as if such a solution would put an end to the slaughter wrought by contemporary feminism upon the national psyche, or such a woman does not and could not, must not ever exist, or were she to arrive in such a world she would immediately be exiled by contemporary feminists everywhere. Impossible! Impossible! No! The fear that such a female standard bearer of feminism could exist is evident in even the avowed feminist’s voice. Ah yes, there it is, a clearly evident and common thread in the feminism of then and contemporary feminism.
This revelation of the avowed feminist that such a solution to police contemporary feminism by feminists themselves would be “impossible!” of course would suggest to me that all feminism is illegitimate were I not to in fact believe that there is a certain legitimacy already in feminism given its historical context and objectives.
But we are talking here of “contemporary feminism,” something men are forbidden to even ruminate upon! It is forbidden! What I am doing here, it is not allowed. Even though it involves defining the behavior more often than not of men, only women can be involved in such a definition. Who dare allow men to get involved!? All the while there is an open season advertised daily in the mass media on masculinity.
So why then don’t contemporary feminists police themselves and their behavior? What is there to lose in the legitimacy of self-control?
When I say that men, though clearly not perfect (all feminists are by default perfect you are to know, by the way), men do a pretty good job of keeping themselves in check and their latitude for what once was considered masculine behavior is increasingly diminished by feminism, along with the support of a pandering mass media whose advertisers want the female’s discretionary income. Well, the feminist suggests, that is excusable.
Contemporary feminism is a plainly evident double standard.
Contemporary feminism IS indeed uncivilized. It is uncivilized because it refuses to police itself. Feminism is not a movement any longer, it is a psychological aberration en masse. It is a derivation of collectivism, sponsored by corporatism.
Contemporary feminism is a form of mass psychological transference.
Contemporary feminism is, if one woman has a feeling about something or someone, a man perhaps, all other women must share that identical feeling and all men are equally guilty by default.
Contemporary feminism is a forced thought process. It is an offshoot of socialism. It is a communist re-education camp run and populated by one sex.
Contemporary feminism is a bestial, stampeding herd.
It is unchecked sexism in the reverse, where when men often lock each other up for such anti-social transgressions, women reward themselves.
You go girl! Or you get even. It is your duty. Let no man be safe from contemporary feminism.
Contemporary feminism is uncivilized.
Copyright © William Thien 2019
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
Share this: