Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK...and this has what to do with the post? I saw no attack on 'white women'--just a link about some women who are supportive of the White Supremacist movement.
What does this have to do with Trump? I didn't even see his name mentioned in the article.
Did you read the article? It is about the women who support White Supremacy..and the oddity of a person who would support an ideology that sees them as 'less'.
Was this concept a bit beyond you?
You opened it up to a broader response with the last two words in you OP. "Self-hating".
There is little more self-hating than the lib-tard who promotes disrespect for the country they live in while enjoying all the benefits afforded them by those who are brought home in a coffin draped in the flag.
In your link it begins in the first sentence with : “It was women that got Trump elected,”
The link goes on to tag these women as supporting white male supremacy. Hillary lost the white women's vote and is out on her book tour making the same basic claim. She was the lib-tard candidate suffering from the condition in my link and she has a large cult promoting the same idea.
They need treatment and it is available as outlined in my link. What better place than this thread to let people know there is help available for those suffering from Tard as defined in my post.
The idea that people didn't vote for Hillary therefore they are some combination of Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, Homophobic, and actually some sort of Hitler persona is presented by your link. It doesn't matter that is is presented from a different perspective. The message is the same.
You opened it up to a broader response with the last two words in you OP. "Self-hating".
There is little more self-hating than the lib-tard who promotes disrespect for the country they live in while enjoying all the benefits afforded them by those who are brought home in a coffin draped in the flag.
In your link it begins in the first sentence with : “It was women that got Trump elected,â€
The link goes on to tag these women as supporting white male supremacy. Hillary lost the white women's vote and is out on her book tour making the same basic claim. She was the lib-tard candidate suffering from the condition in my link and she has a large cult promoting the same idea.
They need treatment and it is available as outlined in my link. What better place than this thread to let people know there is help available for those suffering from Tard as defined in my post.
The idea that people didn't vote for Hillary therefore they are some combination of Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, Homophobic, and actually some sort of Hitler persona is presented by your link. It doesn't matter that is is presented from a different perspective. The message is the same.
Well..I didn't get that out of my reading of the article. Perspectives are different..and I don't paint with all that broad of a brush.
Article to me was all about some women..not all of them, and not all those who voted for Trump--who are buying into White Supremacist ideas...and the irony of those women buying into a philosophy that views them as lesser beings.
I just did not see all you saw. The article did not 'tag' women who voted for Trump as White Supremacists.
I simply do not think that this was an article about Hillary, the election or really, politics at all..except as a setting for the premise of the article--which is--why would anyone believe in a way of life that sees them as inferior. Thus, my self-hating remark.
I read the article. Quite the interesting contradictory wall of text.
This article lost all credibility when I got to this portion.
Quote:
Women who are eager to be race warriors are seen by the white men who dominate the alt-right as, at best, subordinate partners, and, at worst, as part of the problem — yet another threat to white male power.
Followed by this portion
Quote:
Klanswomen also called on the men of the Klan to enact violence on specific people; the Georgia Realm of the Klan, a men’s group, received upwards of 20 letters a week from women suggesting possible targets.
Subordinate partner? How is that? It's contradictory in saying subordinate when you claim women gave orders like mafia mob bosses on who to target...
Seems to me like women called the shots and men did the dirty work. He may wear the pants but she picks which ones, kind of deal...
Then again
Quote:
Her appearance matters, too. Men have power on the alt-right because male supremacy says they should, but women’s place has to be earned, not only through their work as race warriors but also through the way they reflect the movement’s ideal woman: white, attractive, feminine, anti-feminist.
The article is confusing. How is it there is a structure of power, where women are inferior subordinates, yet they held the power to call hits like mob bosses?
Quote:
That last piece — anti-feminism — is key. Lokteff might preach about the power of women, but she is scathing about feminism, which has “done a lot to destroy our society, to tear up the family unit,†she has said. Men and women, she argues, are essentially different — feminism undermines “our biological roles where we function the bestâ€â€” and while women can leverage their femininity to prosecute the coming race war, they can never truly be men’s equal.
And yet Lokteff is carving out a career as a prominent political activist and media mogul. As she speaks of women’s power, and seeks it, she also advocates, or at least admits, their subservience.
It’s a tension the women of the Klan could not resolve, and the women of the alt-right can’t, either. They may claim power, but they can never claim equality.
Uhh... it appears women held more power and authority than men according to your own words-author. How can you the author, say women of the Klan can claim power but not equality, and paint it in a negative light, when clearly women were superior by issuing hits like mob bosses?! Where is the article pointing out subservience? The one linked in only gives insight on this woman, well couples, beliefs...
Poorly written and executed. Much like the wall of text poster who makes an appearance publishing their manifesto.
Article and author fail.
Can't sit there and suggest women are subordinate when you back it up with women gave orders to men on whom to confront/attack... it contradicts itself. It suggests women held more influence and power over men. Isn't that what feminists preach? Having equal to or greater, power, income, rights, than men?
Furthermore what is a race warrior? When I hear the word warrior I'm picturing someone combative. What does a race warrior look like? What gear, skills, tactics, training, uniforms, armor, weaponry, do they posses?
I know social justice warriors typically look like outcasts and are combative over everything they deem oppressive and offensive. Antifa ilk.
BTW
With all of the threads in here pertaining to race, shouldn't there be a subforum for racially motivated threads? We do have politics, subforum of immigration, and subforum for elections. A subforum for racial issues would clear up the politics board.
Most White Supremacist groups believe in the subservience of women..so I wonder what drives them to be so self-hating?
I can tell you without even finishing the article.
They need someone to whom they can feel superior - everyone who is being treated badly seems to need that - and they don't dare to challenge their men. Easiest way in the world to stop feeling like a victim is to victimize someone else you think is even weaker than you. Ever notice how the biggest bullies on the playground are never the kids everyone actually LIKES?
Well..I didn't get that out of my reading of the article. Perspectives are different..and I don't paint with all that broad of a brush.
We will never know the different perspectives when they aren't allowed to be expressed or debated.
Quote:
Article to me was all about some women..not all of them, and not all those who voted for Trump--who are buying into White Supremacist ideas...and the irony of those women buying into a philosophy that views them as lesser beings.
Like I said before the first words of your link stated : “It was women that got Trump elected,â€
That is a broad statement that suggest the votes of men, Hispanics, blacks, and any other voters didn't count or weren't significant enough to decide the election.
Women are not all the same. Many are not feminist and don't see their roll as being lesser when they are not the dominate mate. A submissive female can and often is every bit the equal.
Quote:
I just did not see all you saw. The article did not 'tag' women who voted for Trump as White Supremacists.
It is not the author that determines how what is written is to be interpreted. It is the reader. Putting it in context of the current political climate was considered and appropriate. Sometimes what the author doesn't say when they have the attention of the reader is as important as what they do say.
Quote:
I simply do not think that this was an article about Hillary, the election or really, politics at all..except as a setting for the premise of the article--which is--why would anyone believe in a way of life that sees them as inferior. Thus, my self-hating remark.
If one was to ignore the accusations and commentary about race and white supremacy in politics today they could easily think it only a controversy. In light of all the threads dealing with those issues on this forum it invites doubt at the least.
A way of life doesn't look at a person . It has no consciousness to do that. A person looks at a way of life and makes their choice based on their own perspective. As I have already stated it may well not be seen as inferior.
BTW
With all of the threads in here pertaining to race, shouldn't there be a subforum for racially motivated threads? We do have politics, subforum of immigration, and subforum for elections. A subforum for racial issues would clear up the politics board.
I agree..it would sort out all the 'race warriors'..Lol.
I doubt that the mods will go for it though..as it might give the appearance of approval or condoning racial division.
Practically, I think it would turn into a 'Mini-Stormfront'.
I read the article. Quite the interesting contradictory wall of text.
This article lost all credibility when I got to this portion.
Followed by this portion
Subordinate partner? How is that? It's contradictory in saying subordinate when you claim women gave orders like mafia mob bosses on who to target...
Seems to me like women called the shots and men did the dirty work. He may wear the pants but she picks which ones, kind of deal...
Then again
The article is confusing. How is it there is a structure of power, where women are inferior subordinates, yet they held the power to call hits like mob bosses?
Uhh... it appears women held more power and authority than men according to your own words-author. How can you the author, say women of the Klan can claim power but not equality, and paint it in a negative light, when clearly women were superior by issuing hits like mob bosses?! Where is the article pointing out subservience? The one linked in only gives insight on this woman, well couples, beliefs...
Poorly written and executed. Much like the wall of text poster who makes an appearance publishing their manifesto.
Article and author fail.
Can't sit there and suggest women are subordinate when you back it up with women gave orders to men on whom to confront/attack... it contradicts itself. It suggests women held more influence and power over men. Isn't that what feminists preach? Having equal to or greater, power, income, rights, than men?
Furthermore what is a race warrior? When I hear the word warrior I'm picturing someone combative. What does a race warrior look like? What gear, skills, tactics, training, uniforms, armor, weaponry, do they posses?
I know social justice warriors typically look like outcasts and are combative over everything they deem oppressive and offensive. Antifa ilk.
BTW
With all of the threads in here pertaining to race, shouldn't there be a subforum for racially motivated threads? We do have politics, subforum of immigration, and subforum for elections. A subforum for racial issues would clear up the politics board.
There can be no separation of race and politics for the Left.
They'd sooner cut off a limb than have to argue a position without resorting identity politics.
It really is the only tool in their arsenal, as this thread and many like it that obsess over the practically non existent "white supremacist" issue display.
News flash for you Lefties:
The vast majority of those who consider themselves to be the "alt right" are not white supremacists.
The number of actual KKK members in the entire country is probably around 5000 people.....the population of one small town in New England......which makes them statistically insignificant.
Nazis.....believe it or not....aren't actually hiding around every corner.
This is a bitter pill for you to swallow I know.....but trust me, you'll feel better after you take it.
We will never know the different perspectives when they aren't allowed to be expressed or debated.
Like I said before the first words of your link stated : “It was women that got Trump elected,”
That is a broad statement that suggest the votes of men, Hispanics, blacks, and any other voters didn't count or weren't significant enough to decide the election.
Women are not all the same. Many are not feminist and don't see their roll as being lesser when they are not the dominate mate. A submissive female can and often is every bit the equal.
It is not the author that determines how what is written is to be interpreted. It is the reader. Putting it in context of the current political climate was considered and appropriate. Sometimes what the author doesn't say when they have the attention of the reader is as important as what they do say.
If one was to ignore the accusations and commentary about race and white supremacy in politics today they could easily think it only a controversy. In light of all the threads dealing with those issues on this forum it invites doubt at the least.
A way of life doesn't look at a person . It has no consciousness to do that. A person looks at a way of life and makes their choice based on their own perspective. As I have already stated it may well not be seen as inferior.
Would you consider a submissive male an equal too?
Put yourself in the role of being the submissive one and I doubt you will consider that position equal to dominance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
