Women in "the movement"

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Marulus

It does not, however, mean that those women who are interested in politics and could make a useful contribution to the efforts of some political group, should be barred from joining the group and playing a significant part therein, solely on account of being women.

Well they should be and as we're nationalistic and in defense of traditional values, it's a contradiction too. Women should play important role outside politics, as Susi said, which is take care for kids and other business at home. It's more useful contribution than playing with politics.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Leipreachán

She was the high bitch of Britain.

Totally agreed. Actually any mention of her throws me into an insatiable rage. ,-,

Originally Posted by M.R.

Well they should be and as we're nationalistic and in defense of traditional values, it's a contradiction too. Women should play important role outside politics, as Susi said, which is take care for kids and other business at home. It's more useful contribution than playing with politics.

Basically yes, but also academia It is possible with being a tenured professor to be at home enough to look after everything. Besides the fact that the man can also look after the children and tend to the home in his own way too (in fact I think it is necessary that both genders do this).

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Well they should be and as we're nationalistic and in defense of traditional values, it's a contradiction too. Women should play important role outside politics, as Susi said, which is take care for kids and other business at home. It's more useful contribution than playing with politics.

I was talking only of the small percentage of women who would join movements. Anyway I think it can be taken for granted that the great majority of women are not interested in politics, so they will steer clear from that.

And I certainly don't think that women should be in any way favoured, invited into movements, even if they are not likely to give any useful contribution, just on account of showing "tolerance and equality". That is what the modern feminism does with its quotes (outrage when less than this or that percentage of women is active in this or that human activity). God forbid that!

But, on the other hand, referring to your invoking "traditional values", even in traditional societies/communities you had some exceptional women who played important roles outside of home. But they were always small minority, their activity did not ruin traditional comunity in any way, most women stuck to home, which is a very important business.

You had many exceptional female figures in the European Middle Ages...

I don't see any point in claiming that all women, 100% of them, should be barred from any political activity.

Originally Posted by Susi

Basically yes, but also academia It is possible with being a tenured professor to be at home enough to look after everything. Besides the fact that the man can also look after the children and tend to the home in his own way too (in fact I think it is necessary that both genders do this).

There are different marital arrangements, division of labour etc. But it is sad that great many women, lured by the feminist propaganda, give up family and children for the sake of "career". Some of them later repent for their decision, become bitter enemies of feminism, but it is usualy too late.

[Gnist]

A woman can give nationalism a human face. That should tell you something about our time and what feminism means. But a feminist couldn't understand what I'm saying anyway.

[wilpuri]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

What movement? Do you mean nationalist internet forums?

The only real life female nationalist politician that I know of is the leader of Vlaams Belang. I recently read an interview with her. She seems to be intelligent.

Well I quite simply referred to the European nationalist current in general.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

A woman can give nationalism a human face. That should tell you something about our time and what feminism means. But a feminist couldn't understand what I'm saying anyway.

Feminists couldn't understand that because they simply reject even an assumption that there might be any differences between men and women. Theirs is in fact a hatred against femininity and a wish to "masculinize" women as much as possible.

When you listen to some of the feminists, you get the impression that they think of women as of "defect men" (which need to be perfected, ie. masculinized, as much as possible), an attitude that they ascribe to "male chauvinist pigs".

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Marulus

But, on the other hand, referring to your invoking "traditional values", even in traditional societies/communities you had some exceptional women who played important roles outside of home. But they were always small minority, their activity did not ruin traditional comunity in any way, most women stuck to home, which is a very important business.

Exceptions only make the rule. Don't know how I would put this in English correctly (it's a Slovenian saying "izjema potrjuje pravilo"), but you probably know what I'm talking about.

You had many exceptional female figures in the European Middle Ages...

I don't see any point in claiming that all women, 100% of them, should be barred from any political activity.

I didn't said 100%, however we should discourage this somehow. After all, it's the modern world, hence discouraging it would only mean we stick to our ideals. If they wanted to join anyway so desperatly, maybe exception can be made, maybe. But it's not to be taken as a rule.

There are different marital arrangements, division of labour etc. But it is sad that great many women, lured by the feminist propaganda, give up family and children for the sake of "career". Some of them later repent for their decision, become bitter enemies of feminism, but it is usualy too late.

You see, that's what I'm hoping to avoid. So basicaly by allowing them, even if they can contribute greatly to the movement, their family and children would suffer. No matter how much they can contribute to the movement, they still help better their nation by staying at home, that's why I'm discouraging it in such way. If they want to join despite this discouragment, that means they are really 100% focused on the ideology, in that case only I would make an exception, because obviously only with determination like that a woman can help her nation more in politics than by staying at home.

Originally Posted by Gnist

A woman can give nationalism a human face. That should tell you something about our time and what feminism means. But a feminist couldn't understand what I'm saying anyway.

Maybe we should also take some immigrants, to see we have even more human face compatible with modern world's liberal ideas? You see where I'm going?

[wilpuri]

Maybe we should also take some immigrants, to see we have even more human face compatible with modern world's liberal ideas? You see where I'm going?

Yeah, if you start treating women as your equals, you are going to have to accept mass-immigration as well.

About as water-tight as the liberalist argument that if you encourage patriotism, it will eventually lead to the gas-chambers.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Marulus

There are different marital arrangements, division of labour etc. But it is sad that great many women, lured by the feminist propaganda, give up family and children for the sake of "career". Some of them later repent for their decision, become bitter enemies of feminism, but it is usualy too late.

I know plenty of women in academia whose children and family are doing perfectly fine and they spend a lot of time with their families.

Originally Posted by M.R.

I didn't said 100%, however we should discourage this somehow. After all, it's the modern world, hence discouraging it would only mean we stick to our ideals. If they wanted to join anyway so desperatly, maybe exception can be made, maybe. But it's not to be taken as a rule.

We don't need your permission to join.

You see, that's what I'm hoping to avoid. So basicaly by allowing them, even if they can contribute greatly to the movement, their family and children would suffer.

A woman doing something for herself? GOD FORBID IT! Yes, family and children are important, but sometimes women need a break, and men are important in this relationship also. Therefore I don't think men should be allowed in such a movement because it is detrimental to their relationship with their family and children.

Right now I have no children nor do I really have a "home" in that sense. I have my relatives, sure... but I can't really realistically sit at "home" and do nothing. So I don't see why I should be denied the right to express my opinions on matters and contribute. That isn't asking to become like a man. That's asking to become like a human being.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by wilpuri

Yeah, if you start treating women as your equals, you are going to have to accept mass-immigration as well.

About as water-tight as the liberalist argument that if you encourage patriotism, it will eventually lead to the gas-chambers.

As for treating women as equals, ... Actually Marulus said it all in his post earlier, it's a feminist trend to try to "masculinize" women by encouraging them to do the same things as men, including politics. If this is "equality" than no thanks to this equality, I rather have more traditional values then.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Susi

I know plenty of women in academia whose children and family are doing perfectly fine and they spend a lot of time with their families.

I wasn't denying that. I wasn't saying that any job perfromed by a woman means giving up family. I was referring to cases, in which that happens. And there are such.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by M.R.

As for treating women as equals, ... Actually Marulus said it all in his post earlier, it's a feminist trend to try to "masculinize" women by encouraging them to do the same things as men, including politics. If this is "equality" than no thanks to this equality, I rather have more traditional values then.

The thing is that we are not living in a traditional society, but in its opposite. Women are totally empowered.

I'm all into the idea that women should be in the kitchen but, you know, how do we put that into practice?

It has been said in this thread that women are imitating men. I'm not really sure about that. In fact I think it is the opposite. Men are more and more female-ized.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Susi

A woman doing something for herself? GOD FORBID IT! Yes, family and children are important, but sometimes women need a break, and men are important in this relationship also. Therefore I don't think men should be allowed in such a movement because it is detrimental to their relationship with their family and children.

It's a different kind of relationship. Like it has always been, woman at home, man bringing food on the table. From the times before history was being recorded. Just because of some modern trends I'm not really ready to change my views, sorry. I'm old school, I don't buy into every modern nonsense.

Right now I have no children nor do I really have a "home" in that sense. I have my relatives, sure... but I can't really realistically sit at "home" and do nothing. So I don't see why I should be denied the right to express my opinions on matters and contribute. That isn't asking to become like a man. That's asking to become like a human being.

Going to school (academia) in your younger years or being part of political party or some serious political movement for the rest of your life... Quite different thing.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

It has been said in this thread that women are imitating men. I'm not really sure about that. In fact I think it is the opposite. Men are more and more female-ized.

Both of these two are happening.