Elisabeth Kay's Open Salon Blog

What a White Separatist World Would Look Like

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:09:38 -0400

I wonder how many of you are familiar with the website Stormfront. They call themselves a "White Nationalist" movement, which is another word for segregationalists, and believe the world would be better if everyone lived with their own "kind."

Their members are fond of saying things like "France for the French, Japan for the Japanese," and draw the logical (sic) conclusion of "The US for whites" from it. They advocate splitting the US into 3 parts, one for blacks, one for whites, and one for Native Americans, and everyone else can "go back where they came from."

The first gaping hole in their logic is that if France is for ethnically French people. then America is for ethnically American people. No, not the sons and daughters of immigrants with American citizenship, but Native American people. Also their "nationalist" philosophy doesn't hold water when you realize that the "white" part of America would allow white European immigration.

Secondly, as you might have noticed, there is no room for mixed-race people in this paradigm. Oh wait, but there is - they take the "one drop" rule even further by saying that mixed-race people would fall into the category of what they consider to be the 'inferior' race - a totally arbitrary hierarchy with whites at the top, and the bottom rung shared by blacks and Jews (who somehow manage to "rule the world" despite their status as the ultimate inferiors). In other words, a person with 1/16 black ancestry would fall into the black category, even if the rest of his heritage was white. I'm not sure how they'd classify a Iraqi-Puerto Rican mixed heritage person, since their hierarchy seems to be only composed of whites, blacks, Asians, and Jews, from what they talk about most.

Going back to their "French for the French" catch phrase, I can only logically assume that white non-French would be booted out as well. Algerians go back to Algeria, so Russians would have to go back to Russia too, right? And I assume they'd treat mixed-ethnic people the same way they treat mixed-race people (especially because in their minds, "Jew" and "Mexican" are races) and base it on GDP or standard of living or something. So if you're 31/32 German and 1/32 Croatian, sorry buddy, you better get out of Berlin.

White Separatists make no attempt to hide their rabid hatred of Jews, and under their "France for the French" policy, Palestine would be given to ethnic Palestinians. So where would the Jews go? Oh that's right, nowhere, this is their ideal world so all Jews would be dead.

The sheer lack of logic in White Nationalist views absolutely galls me, almost as much as the blatant racism does. By seeing the world in black and white, they ignore that many of them are of mixed-European heritage. I'd like to send a mixed Irish-English white nationalist back 400 years in time and have him explain to "his people" how it doesn't matter because they're both white. Maybe then he'd change his viewpoint on how "mixing races" is "tainting the genepool."

Palin: If Nothing Else, She's A Woman

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:09:51 -0400

First, I want to preface this by saying I'm not a Sarah Palin fan.

I liked her when she was first chosen to be John McCain's running mate, but every time I learn something new about her it's yet another example of political corruption, and I think her resignation mid-term was one of the most selfish and destructive acts in recent political history. I don't buy into all the hype about her being "incompetent" or "stupid" - I think she's a corrupt politician who has abused her power, and that's a far worse accusation than making fun of her Alaskan accent or mis-attributing Tina Fey quotes to her.

That being said, there are two things about former Governor Palin that I respect and adore: the fact that she is a woman who is against legal abortion on demand, and her feminine style. This blog entry will deal with the latter.

Sarah Palin's style is unapologetically feminine. She has long hair, a cheerful demeanor, and she wears skirts instead of pantsuits...and she was still chosen to run for the second-highest office in the US.

Contrast that to Hillary Clinton, the runner-up for the Democratic nomination:

Palin's tailored suit top shows off her figure, while Clinton's unbuttoned top and loose trousers hide hers under a shapeless form of androgyny. In fact, throughout her campaign it seemed like Clinton was wearing the same pantsuit with slight variations in cut and color.

It really shouldn't come as a surprise that Clinton acquired a reputation in the media for being a shrill harpy, or a battleaxe. Feminists like to say that it's because she was a woman trying to break into a male dominated field, but if that's the case why didn't Palin get the same reputation?

It is my personal opinion that men don't have a problem with successful women - they have a problem with masculine women. I don't understand why women feel the need to make themselves seem more masculine or androgynous to have a successful career. Women will never be as good as men are at being men...but we will always trump them when it comes to being women. I know it's not popular to say this, but there really are two genders, and no power suit in the world can make a short-haired, tough talking "career woman" more formidable than a woman who is proud to be a woman.

Sen. Clinton is a beautiful woman, as well as a competent one. Looking at these two photos, I wonder if the campaign might have gone differently if she had kept her hair long and presented herself as the first real woman candidate for the presidency, not just a watered-down man in brighter colors.

Originally published 25 July 2009 @ The Femmenist)

Feminist Separatists Don't Separate

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:09:32 -0400

I've come to the conclusion that so-called "feminist separatists" are cowards.

They like to complain about the patriarchy, and say how much better the world would be without men, but they have no intention of putting their money where their mouth is. They like the benefits of the patriarchy too much. So I challenge them.

I challenge you, feminist separatists, to separate.

To move out in the middle of the country (not this one, that White Patriarchal Males tamed for you...find a remote spot in Africa or Asia) and live the values you preach.

To craft your own tools (men invented saws and axes), chop down trees (men invented the lumber industry) and build your own house - without using construction techniques or architectural plans that men came up with.

To dig your own wells and latrines, rather than relying on indoor sewage systems created by men.

To grow and hunt your own food, devising a better method than the male-invented agricultural techniques and hunting tools.

To protect yourselves from wild animals, without knives, guns, or any other male-created weapon.

To successfully raise a next generation, without using either male sperm, or cloning techniques refined by male scientists.

I challenge you.

When you do this, when you stop using the male-invented internet on your male-invented computers to preach rather than practice, I will take you seriously.

Until then, you are nothing more than a punchline to a very sick joke.

(Originally published 03 August 2009 @ The Femmenist)

A (Padded) Room Of Our Own

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:09:45 -0400

I was talking to a friend of mine about the women at AROOO who I've been posting about, Miss Margaret Jamison and Miss E. Kitty Glendower. He made the comment that they "all probably look like Andrea Dworkin anyway." I went looking for pictures of Miss Dworkin to add to the articles I wrote, when I found something that made me stop in my tracks.

This is a picture of Andrea Dworkin. The pain in her eyes is evident. This is a woman who has been hurt, who has been hurt badly enough that she has started to hate the world. Yes, I do believe that all radical feminists look like Andrea Dworkin. At least in the eyes.

I'm reminded of the movie American History X. It's about two brothers whose father was killed by black men, and his death wounded them so deeply that they began to see all black men as the enemy. It's the only explanation I can think of to make radical feminist thought make even a semblance of sense. These women were hurt by a man, and they see all men as the enemy. Perhaps you think I'm exaggerating, that these women hate "patriarchy," not men. Rather than try to explain myself, I'll let their words speak for themselves. While you read, think of what kind of woman can think these things...what kind of person can be filled with such blind hatred that they wish to criminalize the male gender and even murder one half of the world's population to create their version of a safe utopia.

Radical Feminism, as described by radical feminists:

On Gendercide:

Male sex ought to be enough to render a particular fetus undesireable even when pregnancy itself is wanted. -May 13, 2009

I will rank the following three scenarios, options, if you will, in order of my preference:

1. Male infanticide.

2. Female infanticide.

3. Females continue living as males’ slaves.

I believe male infanticde (sic) to be the best of those three options. That is to say, I believe male infanticide to be a *better* option than the current circumstances. I think it’s better than what we’ve got. Note that I also feel that female infanticide is a better option than being born into patriarchy as it stands, as well. -May 17, 2009

On Rape, Consent, and All Sex Is Rape:

And when I say “rape,” of course, I mean to talk about all penile intercourse. [...] there is something wrong with this notion that a woman’s “consent” is what separates a rapist from a non-rapist. -May 4, 2009

In fact, I’ve almost detected an air of disappointment in the women who disagree with my stance that all men are rapists, as though I have somehow let down the team. -May 21, 2009

I cannot bother with discussing [...] how to get a man or how to keep a man...because...it is more than likely that he will rape and/or murder a woman so why want him? -April 29, 2009

You know, it’s strange to me that when I say that all heterosex is rape, women assume I’m talking about *women’s* desires. They think that what I’m saying is that no woman is capable of deciding she’d like to have sex with a man. This is a mistaken interpretation. What I am saying is, simply, that all men are rapists. Even if a woman wants it – and I’m sure plenty of women do – it doesn’t outweigh the fact that men would rape her anyway. The men are *rapists*. It’s what they do. “Wanting it” doesn’t change that, though I’m not denying that some women do in fact “want it.” -May 19, 2009

A dose of hypocrisy from Miss Glendower:

When the police show up, you know, the very profession that disproportionately have wife abusers in their ranks, they will do all they can to believe the woman is guilty of some wrongdoing. They will ask her accusatory questions. Their questions will insinuate that she provoked her abuser. -June 16, saying that police don't help domestic violence victims

vs.

When the sister told the group that she found her child alone and wanted to teach her brother a lesson, most everyone felt she was wrong and the brother was justified in hitting her. Only the police, the f****** police thought it was wrong for Joe to hit his sister. -April 14, two months earlier, saying the only ones to help a domestic violence victim were the police.

And A Stronger Dose by Miss Jamison:

So, while I will not excuse, justify, celebrate, or applaud getting married or mothering sons, I’m also not going to vilify women who are, for whatever reason, stuck doing exactly that. -April 20, saying she won't vilify women who get married

Upholding misogynist ideologies by calling women who’ve had heterosexual experiences in a world where heterosexual intercourse is demanded outright when it isn’t simply acquiesced to by default ‘contaminated’ and those who were never so bowled over ‘pure’. -May 28, criticizing those who call women contaminated for having heterosexual sex

vs.

A bunch of house slaves. Grateful, fawning, ass-kissing, dick-sucking house slaves. I might have compassion if not for the fact that they make it more difficult for women in worse circumstances, and women who see through all this bullshit, to free ourselves from this oppression. -July 6, vilifying married women using words far uglier than "contaminated."

On the "Separatism" they claim to want:

Separatists must come to see that male-loving women are our enemies.

The best separatists might be able to do is save ourselves. And I’m not even sure how it is we can do that.

What bothers me most about the necessity of separatist dependency upon non-separatists is the thought of little girls being raised in and by male-supremacist “family” units before they’re ever given a chance or a choice about freedom. Is separatism really to be denied until adulthood, except in those few cases in which a woman who has chosen separatism brings her daughters? How are we to get men’s women to agree that their daughters deserve the opportunity of separatism (Editor's note: I think mothers would take issue with the fact that you "feel that female infanticide is a better option than being born into patriarchy"), even if they do not want it for themselves? I think I need to understand better about what motivates women to actively work against other women who would rather opt out of the competition. Is it possible to trust these women to present separatism as a choice to their daughters, without derision or disdain or anger?-July 20, 2009

All I want to say to this, is...nobody is stopping them from leaving. From creating their own self-sufficient communes out in the middle of nowhere, where there won't be a man around to bother them for miles. And if I had a daughter, I would show her exactly what separatism meant. I would show her this post in my blog. I would let her know that feminist separatists would prefer that I had aborted her rather than raise her in a household where I was married to her father. And more importantly, I would try to protect her from experiencing the pain that would drive a woman to embrace blatant misandry. But there is no way I would indoctrinate my daughter with this feminist garbage, any more than I'd imagine these women would encourage their daughters to get married and love their sons as much as their daughters.

I once saw an episode of Law and Order (I believe) where it was discovered that a woman had killed her mother when she was a teenager. Her mother had adopted this woman's child (her own grandchild) and was raising him as her son. This grandmother would torture the boy, scrubbing his penis raw with a Brillo pad, while she told him that he was evil and dirty for being a boy, that his penis was wrong and would make him do bad things. Radical feminism is a hate-filled, destructive doctrine. If there were a doctrine that advocated killing all female fetuses, saying that women were criminal by nature, there would be a nationwide outrage. How is it that these women have managed to remain under the radar?

ETA: Apparently David Thompson just blogged about Miss Jamison - I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who wants to expose this nutjob for what she is. I wholeheartedly support free speech, but when the speaker is encouraging women to kill their sons (Jamison used the term 'infanticide' rather than 'feticide' or 'abortion') I think that a line needs to be drawn.

(Originally published 02 August 2009 @ The Femmenist)

Radical Feminism: You can't agree with a man. Ever.

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:09:17 -0400

Feminism. The new F-word.

So I kind of feel like I'm getting caught up in a blog-war here, but my post on the AROOO (anyone else think of rabid werewolves when they read that acronym?) site seems to have inspired them to write one about me. I say seems, because I can't be entirely sure it's directed toward me, but regardless, I relate to it, and I'm going to blog about it.

So long as men hold a position of dominance over women, having desires that coincide with theirs is simply complicity in male supremacy, not a female-derived interest that must be taken into account by radical feminists. I don’t care to re-frame this complicity as being a legitimately, or primarily, female compulsion. It would be nice if women who want to cooperate with men would simply say that, instead of masquerading their sheep-hood as independent thought.

First of all, I'm not masquerading anything as independent thought. I didn't invent the idea of marriage, and I'm sure if I was raised in a society without marriage I wouldn't support it. I just like it. I want it. It makes me happy, and sucks to you if you can't accept that. And secondly, yes I want to cooperate with men. I like men - they make up half the population, and I respect and adore them. I am not a lesbian - a world without men would make me very sad indeed.

Look at the antonyms for cooperate - conflict, rival, oppose, fight. I don't want to participate in a gender war. Every single one of us has a father and a mother...the world would quite literally be an empty place if it were only made up of females.

More importantly, I have a question for you. What do you want the world to be like? I've found that radical feminists are very good at opposing things, but when you ask them what they actually want, they give vague utopian generalities like "a world without rape." Well that's great, why not add in a world without theft or murder or name-calling?**

What do you really want? You're obviously against marriage (or as you call it, prostitution) and you consider transgendered people to be delusional so I'm guessing that's two things you'd ban right away. You consider all heterosexual experience to be on one end or another of the "rape spectrum" depending on if the woman is actually heterosexual, but you equate lesbians with spinsters, denying them their sexual agency, and say that anti-homosexual slurs are only used to insult men.

So what do you want? What is the ideal set of arrangements for you? And more importantly, are you afraid to actually make a stand FOR something because you know, deep down, that your vision of an ideal world isn't shared by most women?

**This is a joke, of course. I've never met anyone who participated in more name-calling than radical feminists, and I used to work with a neo-nazi. For real.

(Originally published 30 July 2009 @ The Femmenist )