Writing about Barack Obama’s willingness to send women into combat, I suggested he might be seen as an MRA by some because he embraces a form of absolute equality that is, if we are to be honest, very anti-feminist. I wasn’t being entirely serious; Obama doesn’t and will not identify as an MRA. However, what he is doing as President will do a better job wrecking Anglo feminism than anything any other American president I can think of has done.
Anglo feminism is probably the world’s most potent kind of all, and has been for centuries. Women are accorded more privilege and concessions in the Anglo world than anywhere else on earth, but it doesn’t look like that will last much longer.
I remember when Obama was talking about offering birth control to women, which he seemed to feel genuinely strongly about. He said women needed birth control to keep them productive and in the work force. Now, some feminists may say that that’s a potential perk of birth control, but the reason they want it has nothing to do with women’s productivity, but rather options. Endless options, that is: to work or not to work, to be mothers or not; to take the pill if they feel like it, or merely to let it sit in their bathroom cupboard. To get pregnant or not at will, and to have sex with the men they choose and babies with whom they choose.
There’s no higher purpose to Anglo feminism — it has nothing at all to do with a “different” or “better” society when it comes down to it. It’s all pure, distilled, unadulterated selfishness.
And here we have Obama telling women that they are now equal, that they will be ordered into combat, and that they will be given the pill so as to stay on the job and not get knocked up. If they want, they may have a child, like Julia, and the state will manage all aspects of that for them. But theirs is not to choose. They are going to do it the “Julia way.”
I know Obama’s order to send women into nuclear submarines has a lot of people wondering how on earth this will be feasible, given women’s yearly pregnancy rate while deployed (approaches 16% on surface ships). For undersea missions that require secrecy and many months under the ice, this will not do. But I bet Obama already has a solution: forced birth control. Soldiers are already required to take vaccines and undergo other procedures, so why not make the women submit to quarterly depo shots while deployed? It will not be publicized widely, and it will not be portrayed as forced birth control, but women will be given the kind of choice feminists never intended: take the shots or you will not be allowed on the ship.
There will be more and more of this kind of thing as we integrate women into the world of men. Women’s choices will slowly be whittled away, and soon they’ll find that they gave up a great deal of the freedom and privilege they had a mere decade or so before.
Barack Obama is not an Anglo feminist. He is an old-school socialist, which is not at all the same thing. Our Anglo feminists don’t understand that yet. They think socialism simply means “more options.” But it doesn’t, especially not in a country like the US. Socialism means limited choices not only for capitalists and men, but women, too. It also means that men will no longer have the same ability to provide for them they once did, so they will rely on a state that doesn’t think of them as a special snowflake, but rather just another number.
So although Barack Obama may not care about men’s rights in particular, he will do more to undermine Anglo feminism than any president who has come before him. His idea of “equality,” although strange and not necessarily realistic, will finally call the great feminist bluff, and then the privilege and pedestal that supported Anglo feminism for so long will topple, replaced only by an official “gender neutrality” that will highlight women’s weaknesses while removing all their strengths.
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
I sure hope you are right about the end of feminism; however I’m not holding my breath and will believe it when I see it.
That’s what i thought. Most feminists in the US seem to embrace socialism- as you said – because they equal socialism with more options ( only for women, naturally ).
If they would take a good look at former communist countries, then they would know what socialism really means.
Take Hungary for example, they do have no-fault divorces too, but they don’t have any form of spousal support. Child support is limited to 10% of the net-income, joint custody is the norm and enforced…
American feminists want equality only when it suits them and in their quest tend to confirm the stereotype of the dumb american female…
Back when I was in Army “Basic” there was a persistent rumor that they were putting “salt peter” in the food to keep us from buggering each other.
Hard to believe this essay by Christina Hoff Summers floated up to the generally feminist-oriented Google News link list :
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/the-boys-at-the-back
The comments are a laff riot.
When he pushes for women to be draft-eligible, then we can say he is for true equality.
Until then, he’s just a schmoozer riding the ship down to the bottom of the sea.
@ Uncle Elmer
I read that article, but unfortunately it probably will be forgotten amid an avalanche of feminist bullshit.
It seems you set off some MR-rAy-dar.
Remember we’re a rather prickly bunch that tends to take ourselves WAY too seriously.
Obama is purely a political opportunist as a means to an end; the Progressive agenda. Objective #1 is to gain back control of the House so he can enact all manner of economic and social justice programs within his last two years. It’s this legacy he fantasizes about leaving behind.
When it comes to “forced” anything regarding women’s reproductive rights neither party will touch this electric third rail. Recall what happened to this guy:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34483943/ns/us_news-military/
He was ordered by the Pentagon to “walk it back”, and issued a humble retraction a few days later. It almost ruined his career.
Just wait until Pay Check Fairness is written into law by executive decree (through the Labor Dept) and Title IX in STEM (through the Dept of Ed). The Manosphere will be on fire.
The 30,000 foot level concept is that pregnancy is the Great Unequalizer of women with men. Pregnancy and motherhood must be mitigated in order for women to “fairly” compete with men. Pregnancy through birth control and abortion rights, and motherhood through state run daycare; otherwise known as our education system.
Pregnancy and motherhood stops the female sex in it’s tracks from ascending in superiority and dominance. It’s the bain of modern feminism. Not being burdened with a uterus is what advantages the male sex to excel and achieve over the female. Government intervention is needed to engineer equality through legislation.
Women are accorded more privilege and concessions in the Anglo world than anywhere else on earth, but it doesn’t look like that will last much longer.
Only because the Anglo societies are where women have had the longest duration of voting rights. Combine that with remnants of Victorian-era ‘chivalry’, and that is the sordid cocktail.
I hope so, but see no evidence in traffic so far. Anyway, it’s about time someone defined “MRA” — I’m starting to see some strains of it (not a majority, thankfully) turn into little more than another leftist grievance ploy that ignores reality every bit as much as feminism.
BTW, the reason I’ve always avoided calling myself an MRA – and this an MRA site – (although it doesn’t seem everyone took me seriously) is to retain some degree of objectivity, independence and intellectual freedom. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I think that’s the purpose of the fourth estate.
I agree with keyster, when Obama says women are equal he doesn’t mean it, and everybody knows it. Obama would join the NRA before he’d encourage, let alone order, female soldiers to take birth control. Theoretically the groundwork for such an order by a female President could now exist, but she’d probably just focus on making the military environment hostile to males, assuming she doesn’t convert military installations into nursery schools.
Interesting, so is Mr Obama going to order a longer maternity leave like they have in socialist countries (in Nordic countries 6 months or so, in the USSR it was 115 days of paid leave and another optional year without getting fired) or is he just going to keep it at 3 weeks that women in the US have now?
“If they would take a good look at former communist countries, then they would know what socialism really means.”
The former communist countries in Eastern Europe are not at all socialist, they are in fact much less socialist than the Western European countries and America.
We social observers need to be so much more cynical and unforgiving in our evaluations of what is happening to us as well as in assessing what is happening around us. We cannot survive intact otherwise.
We must never ever see nor spread false reasons for optimism or hope, as that merely helps spread opiate-illusions that keep unsuspecting men as big, juicy, docile and calm targets.
A hostile, sharp, taciturn, disbelieving and unfriendly attitude is what has kept many a man before us and his sons/daughters relatively safe/intact. That is, even in the face of totalitarian exploitation, abuse, suffering, torture and death. This has meant behaving and thinking selfishly, abruptly, obstinately, belligerently, as cowardly, unmanly, and coldly and as calculatingly as necessary.
A lot of white men are simply unaccustomed and unprepared for the new kinds of low behaviors, thoughts and actions they will have to embrace, if they and their kids are to survive this deeply exploitative system. But whitey had better learn quickly, because this system permits men no chances at respect, status, honor nor dignity when all men, especially good-natured, hard working, decent and well-bred white ones, are placed highest up on the cannibals menu.
Please realize and accept in red-pill measure, that all men are now of the status of Jim-crow-negroes, for whom all good, benign, helpful and rational behaviors and thoughts are the more severely punished. and used.
Take nothing and no ones words nor actions at face value. If a man must, he should do personal research into how the lowest of the low castes survived Germany, Mongolia, South-Africa, Russia and even, 17th century America.
I only say these things out of pity, even empathy for the un-initiated and the ignorant. Forgive me.
It’s alternative insights and opinions like this, and the balls to state them clearly that make The Spearhead such a valuable resource. Liberal media can try and force feed us sanitized group-think all it wants. We have officially changed the channel.
The former communist countries in Eastern Europe are not at all socialist, they are in fact much less socialist than the Western European countries and America.
Funny you should mention that – because Socialism can only exist under a successful capitalist economy until it eats itself and devolves into a shell government and under-ground/black or gray market economy. IOW you need “the rich”, evil corporations and capital markets to support Socialism, for as long as the “re-distributed” money lasts.
I’m starting to see some strains of it (not a majority, thankfully) turn into little more than another leftist grievance ploy that ignores reality every bit as much as feminism.
Do you mean you never knew until just recently about “male disposability”? That’s right, for thousands of years men have been sacrificing themselves in wars and at work, while women sat home and did their nails. Men are actually the REAL victims of oppression. We need to enlighten society to this grievance. Then maybe true equality can finally exist.
That’s not my point, keyster. I’ve seen some transsexual denial of biological reality and the like, and that is not something I’m ever going to get on board with. The day the MRM becomes a “gender is a social construct” movement is the day I wash my hands of it.
@ WF Price — “And here we have Obama telling women that they are now equal, that they will be ordered into combat, and that they will be given the pill so as to stay on the job and not get knocked up.”
Welmer, I disagree. Obama is not going to “order” women to do anything–certainly not go into combat or take birth control. Oh no, things will stay just as they are currently, in which women are able to “opt out” anytime they want, from any situation that does not suit them at their whim. The women-in-combat thing will be voluntary for women, as will “women-on-submarines” or whatever. Don’t forget, nobody yet has argued that United States military readiness will somehow IMPROVE by adding women to infantry positions., because it obviously won’t. All the arguments being made are only that females can get promoted faster if they were able to hold a combat-coded AFSC or MOS. So like you said elsewhere in your article, this issue is really just giving yet more CHOICES for women.
If you want to talk about true equality, that would be when every 18-year old girl has to register for the draft like my own son had to do two weeks ago…
GS Jockey
No doubt Obama is a socialist/facist but until the State can maintain power by force it will need women’s votes. Therefore don’t expect men to be treated equally anytime soon. At least not until they go after everyone’s guns.
Don’t forget, nobody yet has argued that United States military readiness will somehow IMPROVE by adding women to infantry positions., because it obviously won’t.
Actually Leon Panetta clearly stated that with women now in combat positions the military would be stronger and better. Ostensibly because really strong and capable women who were denied combat roles, will now be given a chance to prove themselves. IOW there were all these super courageous GI Janes that are now allowed to fight, whereas before the military was weaker without them.
I know Obama’s order to send women into nuclear submarines has a lot of people wondering how on earth this will be feasible, given women’s yearly pregnancy rate while deployed (approaches 16% on surface ships). For undersea missions that require secrecy and many months under the ice, this will not do.
– Pregnancies, or the mad competitive desire among seamen to create pregnancies, wouldn’t be the only distraction to a ship or submarine. The very presense of one state sponsored ‘empowered ‘ grlll alone would cause enough havoc among disciplined order. Everyone trying to outdo each other’s new found liberalness with one lone grlll directing and orchestrating it all. Disaster.
Far be it for me to stand in the way of a feminist receiving their just rewards. They want exposure to deadly confrontations like da gize – give it to them.
This might seem a bit of a red-herring but I’m going to repeat it again, and again, anyway – send only the card-carrying members of the feminist union to the front lines. Them and only them. Let them put their bodies where their collective mouths are. And far away from the presence of any man or men. Don’t send the non-gender politicized woman into the fray.
Mike Rivero over at the whatreallyhappened webpage asked if women were being placed in direct combat due to a lack of able-bodied men. Maybe he has a point?
I volunteered for an all expense paid trip to Iraq back in 1991. I paid the price for my lack of vision of course, but even if I were not a disabled veteran, I would not volunteer for combat duty this time around.
Perhaps there are more men out there that are not blind to the truth. That, or all the cannon fodder that was available is in the same boat as me. Once bitten twice shy?
Too many men jump and clap hurrah! when they hear: “women as soldiers to be allowed into combat units”, “men as fathers to be considered for equal parenting on divorce”,”DNA testing to be mandated prior to child support adjudication” etc.
The devil is to be found in the detail of the practice-procedure and in the small print of the law. Procedure and laws which will allow so many exceptions, excuses, opt-ins and opt-outs for the women’s benefit and advantage only but not men, it would be better off ,if no such law ever came into existence in the first place.
Objective equality that no one really wants, not men nor women, will ever see the light of day. But subjective equalism that selectively sells all advantages, privilages and dignities to women only in return for burdens, obligations and responsibilities on men only, is what feminist charlatans and the managerial elite will perpetually double down on.
No man should be fooled by any of this political enigma-schaffen.
The day the MRM becomes a “gender is a social construct” movement is the day I wash my hands of it.
——————-
then you’d better stock up on dial
that looks to be the direction avfm is headed
http://theantifeminist.com/typhonblue-any-man-who-disagrees-with-feminist-abuse-definitions-must-have-been-abused-themselves-and-are-in-denial/
All the arguments being made are only that females can get promoted faster if they were able to hold a combat-coded AFSC or MOS.
—————
that’s probably what it’s all about then
token combat credentials to get positions they will never have to earn
so men can be ordered to die by a female who’s combat experience amounted to cowering in a bunker while men took bullets for her
who later emerged when the smoke cleared, placed foot on enemy dead and posed for time magazine’s special grrrl power issue
^^^ So it’s like lady’s nights? Get a few chicks to show up and it’ll lure the men in, for sure.
I’m in the camp that these will be faux combat positions. The finagle will be in the details. After implementation, the death ratio of combat troops will still be ten to one or more – thus proving what superior soldiers women make. You can’t make this sheet up, but they will.
Welmer, it’s not about putting women into infantry squads or mortar platoons. It’s about women officers being able to claim “combat command” on their resume, in order to make Colonel, Major and then General in the Army ( ditto for Marines, and equivalent for Navy / Air Force). It’s about the next generation of Hillary Clintons and Janet Nappies being able to move into command positions, ultimately to the Joint Chiefs.
It’s about another form of the feminist merit badge that enables select women to ticket-punch their way into positions of authority.
It means, 20 or so years from now, some “general” that looks like Hillary Clinton, will not just be in the chain of command over a small disaster like the Libyan one of last summer, but some much larger disaster – like, oh, command of the Army on the DMZ in Korea, or some other flashpoint. Remember April Glaspie? Imagine if she’d been in charge of some NATO divisions, rather than just a stupid State Department broad.
Follow the privilege, and you will see where the “women in combat” leads. And frankly, you’re all wet about Obama. He’s no more interested in any genuine equality between his daughters and young men of the same age, than in finding out what really happened to Trayvon. Obama may well be a former down-low playa, but he knows where his votes are.
Obama in part about creating new privileges for women, not any responsibilities.
“Now, some feminists may say that that’s a potential perk of birth control, but the reason they want it has nothing to do with women’s productivity, but rather options. Endless options, that is: to work or not to work, to be mothers or not; to take the pill if they feel like it, or merely to let it sit in their bathroom cupboard. To get pregnant or not at will, and to have sex with the men they choose and babies with whom they choose.”
@WFPrice
You missed the most important reason that women take birth control pills typically from 16-50, and it’s vital to understand it. It has nothing to do with getting pregnant.
Women take it to regulate their periods, and all of the psychological and physiological events that take place during that week every month. Essentially, they use birth control pills to become more like men, who essentially retain the same mental and emotional state from day to day, month to month, year to year.
“Socialism means limited choices not only for capitalists and men, but women, too. It also means that men will no longer have the same ability to provide for them they once did, so they will rely on a state that doesn’t think of them as a special snowflake, but rather just another number.”
@WFPrice
I think that being thought of as a “special snowflake” (nice one!) is one of the jobs that women give to orbiting beta males, and every woman has at least one. Women have voted with their feet on this one – women prefer getting benefits from the state to being married. Aren’t 50% of American children born out of wedlock? Once a girl presents herself as pregnant at a welfare office at 16, the checks come every month for the rest of her life. Match that, men!
This has made me totally rethink what women are doing when they agree to become wife #5 for a wealthy man, which has been the norm in many cultures throughout human history. It has nothing to do with being satisfied sexually as men think about it. What most women apparently want is the sperm sample, the child, and then life-long security. They don’t care where the money comes from, and they really don’t care whether there is a man living in the house as the father or not, in spite of research that shows that having a single mother raise a child is the worst possible way to do it (compared to father+mother, just father, 2 lesbians, 2 gay men).
I enjoy very much knowing that not every man in Amerikwa is drinking the Kool-Aid – judging from the valuable and thoughtful comments on this website.
HOWEVAH— that very Leninist question keeps nagging – “WHAT IS TO BE DONE?”.
“Welmer, it’s not about putting women into infantry squads or mortar platoons. It’s about women officers being able to claim “combat command” on their resume, in order to make Colonel, Major and then General in the Army.”
This guy nailed it.