From the SpearheadFiles
November 4, 2009
Welcome to our Brave New World Order folks, because it’s certainly a very different world for everyone than it was just one generation ago. James Brown once soulfully wailed “This is a MAAAAN’S WORLD….but it wouldn’t be nuthin’ without a woman to care!”
My how the times have changed.
We now have Maria Shriver exultantly declaring “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”
Isn’t that special, dear.
The Center for American Progress (Put a CAP in the country, she’s done for!) just released The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.
Jack Donovan has already taken an in depth look at Oprah Winfrey’s epilogue to this piece of femi-nazi propaganda, I’m going to focus on the forward by John Podesta and the first Chapter by Maria Shriver.
Now, the first thing one must notice, is that the tone of this report is one for which many people have been trying to point out for years now – that this is in fact a nation that has certainly become a society that promotes Matriarchal values and denigrates Patriarchal ones.
That masculinity in men has been castigated and demonized for decades now, while masculinity in women has been relentlessly promoted and inculcated into the mainstream, cultural consciousness. And one of the memes that has been relentlessly promoted is this idea that women are oppressed, inequal and downtrodden, which is what necessitates all of the laws, tax-funded programs, divorce court industries and welfare programs…to “fix” all of the problems of a “Male” nation.
On the face of it, it sure seems like they’re declaring victory now, doesn’t it?
But of course not. This is in fact a literal cultural revolution, and this is merely a momentary pause for the social engineers to reflect on their past successes in overthrowing the old world order of Patriarchy, on their ever increasing march towards “equality.”
Let’s have a look at what this report is citing as turning points in their campaign to win this gender war…
First, from the Preface, mangina feminist lackey and former Clinton White House member, John Podesta, writes:
"Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress decided to closely examine the consequences of what we thought was a major tipping point in our nation’s social and economic history: the emergence of working women as primary breadwinners for millions of families at the same time that their presence on America’s payrolls grew to comprise fully half the nation’s workforce. In addition, we were watching the Great Recession amplify and accelerate these trends. We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of the way America works and lives."
Indeed, change is what this is all about. From a Patriarchal focused society in which men worked and women raised the next generation, we now live in a nation for which men and women work…and the afterschool program , the minimum wage day care worker, the retired grandparent, or as in many cases, the television and the computer are raising the next generation.
Is this really a change for the better?
"When we look back over the 20th century and try to understand what’s happened to workers and their families and the challenges they now face, the movement of women out of the home and into paid employment stands out as a unique and powerful transformation."
Unique? Hardly. Matriarchal cultures are as old as humanity itself. What we really seeing is a decline in civilization, since Patriarchal culture is what built civilization in the first place.
"Women becoming primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners changed everything. But, even though we were all witness to this phenomenon’s slow emergence over many years, these changes seem somehow to have snuck up on us. As a result, our policy landscape remains stuck in an idealized past, where the typical family was composed of a married-for-life couple with a full-time breadwinner and full-time homemaker who raised the children herself."
Well that seems to be certainly true. Even though this report celebrates women now comprising 50% of the workforce, 60% of college attendees, and a huge increase in the number of women now serving as the primary breadwinners of their family…divorce laws, child custody and alimony awards are still based on the assumptions that women are economically disadvantaged by their full time homemaker roles…even when they are not full time homemakers!
Of course, I hardly think Podesta is arguing for true “equality” when it comes to Family law…
No, what his argument consists of is to basically make a case for more Government programs to support the continued dismantling of Patriarchal family structures to promote the new ideal “Woman’s Nation:”
- Updating our basic labor standards to include family-friendly employee benefits
- Reforming our anti-discrimination laws so that employers cannot discriminate against or disproportionately exclude women when offering workplace benefits
- Updating our social insurance system to the reality of varied families and new family responsibilities, including the need for paid family leave and social security retirement benefits that take into account time spent out of the workforce caring for children and other relatives
- Increasing support to families for child care, early education, and elder care to help working parents cope with their dual responsibilities
- Updating these government policies so that they account for the reality of the overwhelming majority of today’s workers and families is the challenge we address in the pages that follow.
See, what women are really finding out is that entering the world of work did not make life better or easier. Instead, it gave them a whole new means of stress and responsibilities in their lives, so now we must use the government to ease the burdens of responsibilities that pursuing “empowerment” through careers has given them.
As one goes beyond Podesta’s preface and into the first chapter of the report, penned by Shriver herself, that it becomes glaringly obvious that while Shriver and many other women are celebrating the so-called advancement of women’s “equality,” they are also documenting the ways in which the new reality is negatively impacting both men and women.
Not once does she or any of the other progressives (who are really nothing more than cultural revolutionaries and social engineers) ever stop to consider that the problems they are highlighting are caused directly by the cultural expectations that gear women towards careers rather than homemaking?
No, we must implement MORE government programs to make it easier on women to “Have it all.” Here’s what Shriver writes:
"Together, the results of these efforts provide a fascinating window into the changing American landscape. What we heard loud and clear is that the Battle Between the Sexes is over. It was a draw. Now we’re engaged in Negotiation Between the Sexes."
It was a draw? But you’re declaring victory by calling it a “Woman’s Nation!” If it were a draw, wouldn’t it simply be “A Nation?”
Doesn’t sound like a draw to me. Oh, and what is this “negotiating between the sexes?” You mean where career mom tells her husband if he doesn’t toe the line, she’ll take him to divorce court, enslave him into peonage and take him away from his children? That kind of reality certainly doesn’t look like a “draw” to me.
"Virtually all married couples told the pollsters they’re negotiating the rules of their relationships, work, and family. An overwhelming majority of both men and women said they’re sitting down at their kitchen tables to coordinate their family’s schedules, duties, and responsibilities, including child care and elder care, at least two to three times a week. Men said it was more like every day!"
"Indeed, during my conversation with powerful businesswomen on the West Coast, one told me she and her husband “are constantly renegotiating our agreement about what gets done, who does it—or do we hire somebody as opposed to doing it ourselves.” And a man in Seattle told me he and his wife have to work out “who’s gonna take care of the light bill? Who’s gonna pay for the mortgage? It doesn’t matter who’s bringing the money in. The money is coming in, but decisions have to be made about how the money is going out.”
Isn’t wonderful to see all of this “PROGRESS?” See how a “Woman’s Nation” promotes marital harmony? What a wonderful, Brave New World!
"In the Rockefeller/Time poll, more than three-quarters of both men and women agreed that the increased participation of women in the workforce is a positive change for society."
Pay attention folks! The very foundation that is the largest funder of Women’s studies programs and population control policies, the very foundation that is the primary mover in socially engineering this “woman’s nation” has conducted a poll that supports their goals? You don’t say?
"Both sexes also agreed that men are becoming more financially dependent on women. And both women and men said they’re still adjusting their lives, their expectations, and their assumptions to the change."
"The findings matched what I heard in the street. Everywhere I went, people talked to me about how overstressed and in crisis they feel, especially when it comes to financial security. Women said that never before has so much been asked of them, and never have they delivered so much. Divorced mothers talked to me about trying to make do without child support. One single mother who had just lost her job told me she was utterly dependent on her family and friends just to stay afloat."
This folks is what this report refers to as PROGRESS…but it’s not done yet, we need more of it! Now, note that one of the themes Shriver and the author’s of this report repeatedly make is the need for the Government to ensure that women get “equal pay for equal work.” Yet the entire premise of that argument rests on the unfounded assumption that the reason for unequal pay is based on “inequality.”
Yet…Shriver reports the following:
"And women often define that power differently from men. One woman who had made it to CEO chose to give up the corner office and downgrade to a lower-rung position. She told me, “I will admit, it was fun, it was power, and I was dealing with a bunch of top dogs. But now I get to hang out with my kids when they come home from school. For me the definition of success is not being a CEO and not being the biggest dog and frankly not making the most money. It’s living a balanced life.”
This is the very reason WHY we have the so-called “gender wage gap.” But this is not acknowledged at all. In fact, while the authors of the report are calling for “equal pay for equal work” what they are actually arguing for is MORE pay for women for doing LESS work!
"One female corporate executive told me, “Women don’t need equal pay. They actually need to be paid more, because the fact of the matter is that we typically are responsible for more within our families, and we have to pay to outsource more. Most of the men I have competed with for positions have had a stay-home wife at some point and many have had a wife throughout their entire marriage.”
Here we have a female corporate executive, whining about having to compete with a man who has a stay-at-home wife, making it unfair for her to compete with him for positions? Sorry lady, nothing is stopping you from finding a kitchen bitch husband who would give you the same advantages a full time man has with a stay at home wife!
Nothing that is, except for your own hypergamous instincts which cause you to shudder with revulsion at the thought of being married to a househusband who you’d have to support financially!
Yes Maria…all that you and the elite activists and social engineers that have promoted this cultural revolution, you can see all of the changes that have wrought havoc and confusion amongst so many people…yet you think that all that is being done is a good thing? That we need more of the same?
This report is full of inconsistencies. Women are now more equal than ever…but so much more work needs to be done…sexism is still rampant… but women have succeeded and we are a Women’s Nation now…the cognitive dissonance is readily apparent to the objective reader that understands the full ramifications of the cultural and social upheaval we have all experienced in transforming our society into a “Woman’s Nation.”
Just look at Shriver’s conclusion:
"As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table—at the head of the table."Wait…in the name of “equality,” women now have a seat at the head of the table? This is a case in point for what Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm: “Some animals are more equal than other animals.” Look at the logical inconsistency of this argument! This is proof positive that the idea of “equality” is nothing but a lie! In the name of pursuing “equality” a Woman’s Nation is about woman becoming MORE EQUAL than men.
"Back in 1960, President Kennedy talked about the torch being passed to “a new generation.” Well, five decades later, the torch is being passed . . . to a new gender. There’s no doubt in my mind that we women will lift that torch. We will carry it. And we will light a new way forward."
A NEW Gender?
President Kennedy talked about the torch passed to a new generation…a term which includes both men and women. But now, Shriver and the elite social engineers that have created this “woman’s nation” have disenfranchised men and they call it progress!
Note the celebrations that women now comprise almost 50% of the breadwinner role…through Men losing their jobs in record numbers thanks to the current recession!
This is progress?
Translation: Woman are “advancing” because men are suffering! It is indeed a Woman’s Nation…and we are worse off for it – both women, men and especially children.
Notable Commentary from the Original Post
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 14:58:
Women earn 75% of what men earn, for generating 70% of the productivity that men generate. Feminists like to leave off the second half of the sentence, and parrot only the first half.
Of course, this makes women’s jobs more vulnerable to outsourcing, given the higher costs per unit of productivity.
All this does is decrease the competitiveness of the US economy, which leads to men Expating, women’s jobs being outsourced, and a shrinking of the tax base that women depend on.
No ‘woman’s nation’ will be economically competitive in a globalized economy. Hence, it is sort of self-correcting, except for the strife in between.
Keoni Galt November 4, 2009 at 15:06:
Note how Shriver is declaring this “it’s a Woman’s Nation” in triumph…yet the substance of her content reflects nothing but conflict, struggle and turmoil in everyone’s lives as a result of the push to turn this into their vision of utopia.
Furthermore, it’s all well and good for Shriver to talk about her mother as a serious role model…and about her own success as a career woman and as a mother. Yet the average mother has nowhere near the struggles or problems associated with a career mom, as she’s married to the Governator, one of the wealthiest actors of our generation, and comes from a family of immense wealth and political connections.
Her and her mother get the best of these social changes they are celebrating, with none of the struggle, conflict or turmoil all of the masses are experiencing.
Limousine liberalism at it’s finest.
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 15:19:
A niece of a President and two Senators, who marries Arnold Schwarznegger, has just about the easiest life around. Cushy gigs like her anchor position did not arrive her way due to merit. And I dare say she is the one preventing her husband from making the tough reforms needed to save a state that contains what was once the most dynamic private sector in the world.
Kirt33 November 4, 2009 at 16:22:
"Her and her mother get the best of these social changes they are celebrating, with none of the struggle, conflict or turmoil all of the masses are experiencing.
Limousine liberalism at it’s finest."
Exactly right, HL. To paraphrase a comment I saw on another blog: ‘working women’ is often touted as meaning more women in medicine, law, high-powered careers, etc. In reality, it usually means middle- and working-class moms have to take crappy jobs at Wal-Mart instead of staying home with their kids. Only a relatively few women benefit; most get screwed.
Zeta November 4, 2009 at 17:03:
The government is just a wealth transfer mechanism from men to women. And yet losers like Shriver want us to believe all these women, with their preferential treatment in education, grants, employment, marriage, custody, divorce, alimony, child support… female sentencing discount, on and on – all of this was inconsequential and they got their on their own because they’re “strong”, independent women. Sorry. It’s to the point where the only people I know have earned their way are the straight white guys. They don’t have any allies or discrimination in their favor; in fact, it’s exactly the logic of these systems favoring women that make the (evil) straight white guy the sucker in this picture.
If more females had a brain they might realize the implications of all this preferential treatment; the few women who actually do achieve on their own will be lumped in with the rest who, actively or passively, accept the female-first benefits in this “Woman’s Nation”.
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 18:55:
Western Feminism has done more to boost the economies of India and China than anything those countries’ own governments have done.
Welmer November 4, 2009 at 19:02:
"Western Feminism has done more to boost the economies of India and China than anything those countries’ own governments have done."-TFH, I know exactly what you mean, but a lot of people won’t interpret that statement correctly. Elaboration would be helpful for the confused masses.
Expatriate November 4, 2009 at 19:16:
The problem is not so much women or feminists but we men ourselves. Basically a vast majority of western men are brainwashed chivalrous idiots sweating blood to support the parasitical states that in turn take a crap on us daily. Look at all those men who went to Iraq to fight some phony “war on terror” in the process killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s while getting killed themselves to enrich the people who run the fembot state known as the US. That right there is a shining example of the idiocy of a good number of western men, how many of the US casualties in Iraq were women (1%?), compare that to the fact that they makeup over half of the US population, what it basically means is that US men serve as cannon fodder for US women & their gov’t.
As long as men don’t get out of the Victorian worship of women & chivalrous garbage we will always be slaves to western women & their governments. I feel no obligation to defend this so called “civilization” when it tells me everyday that as a man I am worthless & asks me to bow down to worship the vagina.
Those men who are smart will leave a sinking ship like the West & move to countries less hostile to men, most of Latin America is still not overrun with fembots, same with eastern countries like India, Philippines, Thailand etc. Costa Rica has a Libertarian Party which has been gaining influence & got 10% of the vote last elections, a libertarian state is a mans best friend which is why the fembots will always try to oppose it.
I am considering expatriating there so that I can contribute in building a free society (real freedom not just phony “free” like the US) by supporting the Libertarian Party & educating the men there about the dangers of feminism. Many men who are aware of the situation still want kids & a wife (MGTOW not withstanding) but not with western women, for those guys its best to expatriate to peaceful places like Costa Rica where the chances of you building a family life are much better while supporting Libertarians there who want to get the gov’t out of the peoples lives.
I have no intention of spending much longer in this matriarchal hellhole called the West & plan to put my skills to better use in a place where men are not crapped on daily. In fact everytime you pay taxes you are giving your money to western governments so that they can spread the filth of feminism to the rest of the world (like Iraq under the guise of “democracy”) & destroy any society that does not put women on a pedestal, i have no intention of contributing my money to such disgusting schemes & hence my expatriation soon enough.
Western women can defend themselves & their “womens nations”, I want no part of it.
The Fifth Horseman November 4, 2009 at 19:39:
"Elaboration would be helpful for the confused masses."Step by step :
1) Women, due to their litigious nature, earn more per unit of productivity than men, contrary to the lies that they tell themselves.
2) Feminists also lobby to get taxpayer money (mostly paid by men) to create more public-sector jobs of no economic value, to maintain women.
3) No-fault alimony and child support=alimony=slavery have confined 10-20% of the male workforce to a situation where they have no incentive to strive for wealth, since 70% of it would be taken away from them. Thus, they have no reason to invent new technologies or start new enterprises. To have 10-20% of men disincentivized this way, cannot be good for the economy.
4) More females voting, and brainwashed by feminists, leads to more taxes and an anti-business climate.
5) All the above 4 points combined lead to the US economy becoming less competitive in an era where capital and labor are mobile.
6) Hence, countries that have done nothing other than be less accomodating to feminism, receive a windfall of wealth that is fleeing the US.
7) Hence, the US tax base shrinks, and jobs that overpay women relative to their output get outsourced. Feminists try to sue, which only hastens this process.
8) Feminism implodes upon itself, leaving many women poor, unsafe, and with no prospects for marriage either. As soon as 2020.
This is Horseman #3, of the Four.
Reinholt November 4, 2009 at 21:31:
Paradoxically, this situation also makes it harder for women to get married. Why?
Men in the situation I find myself in (educated, wealthy, and with at least some game) are hip deep in women; they are all competing to “date up”, and when, through success, there is less “up”, I essentially have my pick of most people, don’t put up with shit, and have no reason to commit to someone long-term. Why put my assets at risk, give someone else control over my life, and lock myself in with a depreciating asset when I can always trade in for a new one instead?
In the end, this will turn out badly for everyone, but I intend to be long gone from the U.S. by then.
piercedhead November 4, 2009 at 23:38:
So much of what modern women are doing reminds me of how modern Zimbabwe was brought to its knees.
Only 30 years ago, it was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, and its prosperity was a direct consequence of its strong and well managed agricultural sector – unfortunately though, it was white farmers at the helm, and compared to the black population, they were very much a minority. Over its more than a century of European immigration, white settlers developed a complete lack of confidence in Africans being able to govern themselves, and no matter how much wealth they brought, no matter how much better life in Rhodesia may have been for the average African compared to life in, say, Zaire or the Central African Republic, the superior attitude of the whites was their undoing – and the locals didn’t give a damn what it cost them to be rid of them.
For those amongst us who haven’t noticed, Western women have developed a hatred of men that runs every bit as deep as the hatred black Zimbabweans developed for white farmers. As soon as they get a strong sense of their complete dominance over men politically, they will probably do exactly what Zimbabweans did: they will quite happily see the law of the land suspended for the hated group. They will cheer on any politician who promises them the proceeds of confiscation of their assets. They will make emigration possible only if they leave with nothing more than the clothes they are wearing. They will be deaf to any argument that the economy will suffer and that they will end up starving – it will be something too abstract and too far off to counter the more immediate pleasure of seeing the enemy take a beating.
And then one day they will realize they live in a police state presided over by a dictator, their currency will be worthless, nearly everyone will be living in abject poverty, and public health pandemics will be routine. Everyone will have long forgotten their hatred, and will privately wish for the old days back again, but no-one dare say it. Instead, they will try to re-create it by quietly leaving and going to another country where the wealth and comfort can be found, and they won’t care who rules, or be too concerned that they will be accepted only into the lowest social caste. They will be that grateful simply to be fed.
Western men are in a similar position as the white farmers of Zimbabwe in the late 70s. Although still politically in charge, and still influential in the country’s economy, the end of that power is very near. As soon as it is lost, their wealth will be stripped from them, special laws will be enacted specifically aimed at restricting them, and the power that replaces them will have a popular mandate to do whatever it pleases to them.
The only two major differences are that we are not the same significant minority as the white farmers were, and we are not as disconnected in terms of family relationships. Whether that’s enough to avoid the same fate remains to be seen.
Gunslingergregi November 5, 2009 at 04:11:
Laws pervade and intrude upon every area of life in us. From spanking your kids to every facet of how to raise them to how you treat each other in home to where you can smoke to when you can drink to what you can do. What drugs you can take and who you can fuck. Cradle to grave already. You think its not already carried away? You think it won’t get worse?
Then they intentionally bring in people to take jobs from people who where born and educated in the us for same job. Then you have an ad for intel with a picture of their employees and it is completely diverse along with pictures of workers from every other company except whites still make up 70 percent of population but only represent 20 to 33 percent or 0 in what is supposed to be the picture perfect hiring practices of major corporations.
I mean shit they tell you how much money you can give away. How in the fuck can people seriously call that a free country in any way shape or form?
Expatriate November 5, 2009 at 05:33:
Gunslingerregi is right, the whole notion of being “free” in the US is just a facade, it may have been true 150 years ago & even then only for certain groups of the population, its definitely not true today. The US gov’t regulates almost every aspect of your life from the size of your toilet bowl to your marriage arrangement. Jefferson already foresaw the future of US when he said that the nature of government is to grow.
HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO November 5, 2009 at 23:16:
I wonder what the history books 100 years from now will look like when documenting this “advancement” of women in American society.
Renee November 6, 2009 at 22:00:
"That masculinity in men has been castigated and demonized for decades now, while masculinity in women has been relentlessly promoted and inculcated into the mainstream, cultural consciousness."
“Masculinity in women”? What do you mean exactly? I ask this because for a while I’ve been thinking that some traits that were considered traditionally “masculine” weren’t really “masculine” at all but could be found in both sexes.
"It was a draw? But you’re declaring victory by calling it a “Woman’s Nation!” If it were a draw, wouldn’t it simply be 'A Nation?'"
That’s true. Ideally, or at least to me, this wouldn’t be a “Man’s World or Nation” (however you want to call it) or a “Woman’s Nation”. Just “the Nation or “the World”. My question is, do you want it to be like that or do you want it to go back to being a “Man’s World/Nation”? I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re ultimately saying overall. I have an idea, I just want to be sure.
Keoni Galt November 9, 2009 at 13:42:
“Masculinity in women”? What do you mean exactly? I ask this because for a while I’ve been thinking that some traits that were considered traditionally “masculine” weren’t really “masculine” at all but could be found in both sexes.”
The promotion of masculinity for women has been an ongoing, gradual process that has been pushed on a wide variety of fronts. From gender neutral clothing, to the portrayal of masculine behavior by celebrity women in the mainstream media…behavior for which no “LADY” in the past when social shaming was the norm, would never engage in cursing, spitting, and openly and proudly sexually aggressive.
“My question is, do you want it to be like that or do you want it to go back to being a “Man’s World/Nation”? I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re ultimately saying overall.”
One of the things I believe is that “A Man’s World” of the past was really no such thing. The idea that in the past all of society was structured to benefit men and that women where oppressed and downtrodden and treated as second-class citizens is nothing more than a big lie fostered by the cultural marxist/social engineers to foment the gender war and promote feminism.
When it was a “man’s world” it was really a well ordered world of social expectations and behavorial mores that most people were raised to ascribe to. The feminist movement made it’s gains in shifting the culture by pushing propaganda that focused on all of the benefits men attained in fulfilling there gender role expectations, and ignoring all of the responsibilities…and conversely focusing on the responsibilities and negative aspects of the female gender role and ignoring the benefits accorded women in their expected gender roles. It was never a “man’s world.”
It was simply a world with clearly defined gender roles that were encouraged and enforced by social pressure and a culture that had a clear moral grounding. It was just as much a woman’s world back then as it was man’s. Whereas now, “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”
miles November 10, 2009 at 01:12:
HL, you are right about the Rockefeller Foundation. That group is both funding population-control advocacy groups and feminism. It becomes obvious the latter was cultivated as a arm of the former when seen in this light. Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.
Would it have not been more logical to just -ask- people to limit themselves to two children per family on the basis of reason rather than to underwrite a ideology (feminism) that has caused so much unhappiness and unmet expectation instead? I think it would have been. Funny how its only working in the West, and not where population control was truly out-of-hand anyway. The best-laid plans of mice and men, etc.
Kamal S. November 17, 2009 at 15:37:
“Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.”
Does this actually shock anyone?
Do serious research in the SOCIAL history of Progressivism, the Liberal Left, Fabian Socialist, Eugenics, and Social Biology.
A good bit of research into the history of the Rockefeller Funds and Foundation is also relevant..
All too often we inherit ideas without an inquiry into their historical development and origins.
Fascinating indeed, is the history of ideas.