Feminism is bolshevism: two examples

Here are two newspaper articles that express the naivety and immaturity of what is called « feminist » thinking, which is nothing else than disguised bolshevism. The 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day is coming next tuesday on March 8th. The precursor of the Day, the National Women’s Day, was organized by the Socialist Party of America in 1909. In 1911, the first International Women’s Day took place in Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany, at which occasion women took the opportunity to advocate for their rights. Starting in 1913, the Day was progressively transfered to March 8th. In 1917, the Day was held on the 23rd of February in Petrograd. A bread riot broke out led by women. They marched through the streets gathering men from the many factories. Up to 100,000 people occupied downtown districts for three or four days. Many people joined the protests, quite similar to what we are seeing now in the Middle East. More recently, to give a local example, in 2000, 50 feminist activists met at Philips Square in downtown Montreal on March 9th, the day after the Day. They proceeded to Mary Queen of the World catholic cathedral where, inside, they spray-painted slogans for abortion on the altar, sticked sanitary napkins on pictures and walls, spread condoms all over the place and committed various mayhems. You surely have your own examples in your area.

I propose to you two articles to feed your reflection on the links between feminism and bolshevism. First, a paper from Naomi Wolf, in which she tries to convince us that women played an important role in the uprisings in the Middle East. You see, we have to read reality as it is, not as we would like it to be. She idealizes these women from the street protests as if they were some kind of heroes, linking them implicitely to women in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, while they probably were only, like their male counterpart, useful fools participating in a much bigger game. We have to let go with this infantile and desastrous tendency to intellectualize and conceptualize things. Reality is what it is, not what we would like it to be. Women as much as men are the prey of powerful forces that couldn’t care less about women’s rights or rights of any sorts, unless they play along with the agenda of the oligarchies that rule the world.

article1925427

The second article is by Janet Bagnall from the Montreal Gazette. Incidently, she opens her article by mentioning the 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day. She tries to make the case of Norway as a model for equality. Again, we have the « privilege » to be gunned down with numbers relative to gender representation in certain jobs. She gives for example the statistics that only 3% of women are chief executives of the world’s biggest 500 companies, and that only 15% of parliamentary positions are held by women, as if it was only a question of mathematics. There are plenty of factors that explain why women are under-represented in certain jobs, the most important being biological and physiological differences that make a woman different from a man. That, the feminists can’t understand. They absolutely have to get their 50% quota of representation because if not, they won’t sleep at night. In all animal species, the female give birth and take care of the offsprings while the male chase and bring food. It has been like that for a long time with humans and it will remain exactly like that probably until the end of times, because humans don’t choose what they are. They manage with it and make the best out of it.

Bagnall brings the example of Norway as being almost the closest realization of feminist Paradise on earth. In 2006, the State introduced a law that requires at least a 40% representation of women in boards of publicly traded companies… But what if there are not enough qualified women to fill all these positions? Does that mean that they have to hire incompetent women to complete the quota? It looks that way. Skei Grande, leader of the Liberal Party in Norway, said to Bagnall that they don’t even think about gender representation anymore. It is 50%-50% and that’s it…

You know, I am a strong partisan of competence in workplaces and I don’t like these forced quotas that enterprises have to conform to. In the end, I can’t help but to see in this the footprint of bolshevism, which I call red fascism. Equality doesn’t mean egalitarianism. Women and men being equals doesn’t imply that they have to do exactly the same things and the same way. Our women in the western world have been corrupted by a totalitarian ideology, feminism, which is only a front for bolshevism. That is why they have been complaining for a century and are still continuing to do so. Bolshevism can’t make women happy and it will never be able to. Women have to look elsewhere, inside of them first, and second in the wisdom of the tradition. Man is not the enemy of woman, he is her partner.

story.html

3 réflexions sur « Feminism is bolshevism: two examples »

  1. Claude, normally, I like much of the stuff you post, but………..I have to say that this is quite faulty. I can understand that feminism has had it’s occasional failings, but true feminism has done more for women, AND men, too, than many other things out there.
    What many of it’s true opponents really want, is to go back to a world where women don’t have freedom, and BOTH genders have to comply with idiotic, shallow, and artificial stereotypes & roles{I’m sure you don’t want that, right?}.

    The truth is:
    Anti-feminism = masculinism. Masculinism = fascism.
    True feminism = equality{and not the Gloria Steinem brand of actual anti-male faux-feminism}.

    Perhaps you may not realize this, Claude, but you ARE a feminist, in a way, for believing in equality of the sexes, just as I do, simply for the fact that the original creators of the philosophy intended to bring around just that. Think about it. =)

  2. Women have an 11% smaller brain and are simply markedly less intelligent than the best males.

    The idea of women ‘having a right to’ 50% leadership positions is outrageous. It’s an attack on our society, forcing the best males to stand aside.

    Women simply don’t have either the ambition or the capacity to make the sacrifices necessary for real leadership, based on competence.

    In fact: women need male leadership to make sure their emotional nature does not mess up the demands of logic.

    Female leadership is a disaster for all men, women and children who suffer from it.

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.