Sexism Australian Style

One woman's perspective on the behaviour of the senator and his media friends

DhNopdWUEAAhf6e.jpg

In the words of the song writer - "When will they ever learn?".
When will they ever grow up is more to the point.
 

The reason why I bought up the Bolsheviks' cultural marxist social revolution is to compare how similar their
ideas of "women's liberation" is to what has been and still is promoted in the West.
Click to expand...

Ok - so I don't get this one but am willing to listen the floor is yours KingsX - please elucidate I am fascinatingly curious ! [ and serious]
 

The reason why I bought up the Bolsheviks' cultural marxist social revolution is to compare how similar their
ideas of "women's liberation" is to what has been and still is promoted in the West.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the ideas of Attila the Hun? The Spanish Inquisition? Or the wonderful, enlightened ideas of Tsarist Russia?

Not trying to defend the Bolsheviks in any way, just wondering why you single them out as the ultimate evil of mankind. What they replaced was at least as bad, probably worse. Why this veneration of the
"old order," when most people, and in particular most women, had no rights at all?

And as Gumbud so eloquently pointed out, there is no logic in finding something you do not like in modern life and then singling out one country (or one political system) of the past as having caused it to happen.

Example: So the Russia legalized abortion in the past, and many years later, the U.S. and Ireland legalized abortion. Therefore, the legalization of abortion (a bad thing in your mind, not in mine) was caused by the
Bolsheviks? Puhleeze, you can't be serious!

:rofl1:
 
KingsX said:
"role model" ??

Bolshevik cultural marxists were destroyers of Russia. A century later, Russians still haven't recovered and
may never recover.

Bolsheviks in Russia were not the only cultural marxists in the world. There were plenty in the post-WW1 West.
There were plenty of cultural marxists in the degenerate Weimar Republic. But Russia was the first nation the
cultural marxists [ie, Bolsheviks] came to power and were able to implement their cultural revolution. Their
social revolution did not elevate women, it destroyed women and destroyed the family which was their goal.

The reason why I bought up the Bolsheviks' cultural marxist social revolution is to compare how similar their
ideas of "women's liberation" is to what has been and still is promoted in the West.
Click to expand...

KingsX, I am not a scholar with respect to Russian history. However, I am somewhat familiar with the state of English-speaking and European countries before a hundred years ago. New Zealand, for instance, granted women the right to vote in 1893. English women started the suffragette movement in the late 1800s and were well organized by 1910. American and Canadian women had a similar timeline. The world as a whole was shifting.

It's unclear exactly what period of time you are referring to in your earlier post on this thread:
KingsX said:
"The irony is... in the Christian West, ladies were treated with respect before the "women's liberation" movement.
Today it is no longer the "Christian" West and women no longer look or act like ladies."
Click to expand...

When was there a "Christian West?" I'm not disputing that it existed, I'm just wondering when it occurred.
 
Sunny said:
Not trying to defend the Bolsheviks in any way, just wondering why you single them out as the ultimate evil of mankind. What they replaced was at least as bad, probably worse. Why this veneration of the "old order," when most people, and in particular most women, had no rights at all?
Click to expand...


My previous posts here should speak for themselves... as do yours.

The "old" order was Christian, moral and family-oriented. The "new" cultural marxist Bolshevik order is atheist, perverted and anti-family.

Does this sound familiar to anyone who reads this ??

At least the Russians fought a four year civil war to try to stop the Bolsheviks from destroying them.

Btw... this July 16/17 is the 100th anniversary of the horrific Bolshevik murder of Russia's Tsar and royal family. But maybe you think that was an event to be celebrated.

.
 
KingsX said:
My previous posts here should speak for themselves... as does yours.

At least the Russians fought a four year civil war to try to stop the Bolsheviks from destroying them.

Btw... this July 16/17 is the 100th anniversary of the horrific Bolshevik murder of Russia's Tsar and royal family. But maybe you think that was an event to be celebrated.
Click to expand...

Saying that whatever happened in Russia a hundred years ago is not directly (or even indirectly) responsible for a women's movement in the US that predated the Russian Revolution, is hardly a suggestion that any of us is celebrating murders.

It seems as if you are conflating these pieces of history in hopes of drawing a cause and effect relationship.
 
StarSong said:
When was there a "Christian West?" I'm not disputing that it existed, I'm just wondering when it occurred.
Click to expand...


Since you are not disputing a "Christian West" existed... the question is when did it end [and it has ended.]
But there is not a specific date to answer either question because it began gradually and died gradually...
and the timing was different in different countries. From my perspective, the beginning of the end of the
Christian West was the 18th/19th centuries... WW1 and associated revolutions were the death throes...
and WW2 was the death knell.

.
 
I don't think it was an event to be celebrated. No matter how one looks at it, it was terrible.

I read it took quite some time to actually kill all the girls due to precious gems being sewn into their corsets which at first, deflected some bullets. Gives an idea of their parents foolish greed. Or maybe not....we'll never know.

Czar Nicholas was clueless. The people suffered so greatly and there was so much he could have done for them, but he didn't. The peasants starved.

What I found strange, was Nicky's own cousin, King George V, denied him asylum before his arrest. I never really understood that.

tsar.jpg
 
KingsX said:
Since you are not disputing a "Christian West" existed... the question is when did it end [and it has ended.]
But there is not a specific date to answer either question because it began gradually and died gradually...
and the timing was different in different countries. From my perspective, the beginning of the end of the
Christian West was the 18th/19th centuries... WW1 and associated revolutions were the death throes...
and WW2 was the death knell.
Click to expand...

I'm also not arguing that a Christian West did exist. I don't have a strong opinion that it did or didn't. During the time frame that you stated tens of thousands of Mexicans and Native Americans were murdered or ousted from their stolen homelands in the American West. Hardly Christlike behavior.

During the 1700s & 1800s (18th & 19th centuries respectively) women were essentially powerless chattel who belonged to their husbands and fathers. I notice from your posts that you raised a child as a single mother (maybe divorced, maybe never married, either being a possibility afforded modern women). You are financially self-sufficient, own property, presumably had a job other than a maid or bordello worker, speak freely and to the point of contradicting men on this forum, and have had some level of formal education. All of those possibilities came about as a result of the women's movement.

Christianity and full equality for women not mutually exclusive belief systems.
 
RadishRose said:
What I found strange, was Nicky's own cousin, King George V, denied him asylum before his arrest. I never really understood that.


View attachment 53695
Click to expand...




King George V of Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia were all cousins
who used to wear each other's military uniforms. Before she married Tsar Nicholas II, Alexandra
[Queen Victoria's granddaughter] was a German princess.

As a result of WW1 and related revolutions, Kaiser Wilhelm II was dethroned and Tsar Nicholas II was
dethroned and murdered [along with Alexandra and their children.] King George V was wary of a similar
revolution happening in England. He even changed his German family name to Windsor. Giving asylum
to his cousin Tsar Nicholas and family might have been the kiss of death. But in the end, the British
monarchy's continued appeasement of enemy revolutionaries became the death knell of Britain.

Btw... Alexandra's sister, Elizabeth, also married into Russian royalty and was also murdered by Bolsheviks.
Elizabeth's remains are interred at the Russian Orthodox church on the Mt of Olives in Jerusalem. She and
her sister Alexandra, Tsar Nicholas and family are now saints in the Russian Orthodox Church.
 
StarSong said:
When did Britain die?
Click to expand...


Go back to my post about the gradual decline and death of the Christian West.

Revolution is quick but unstable because the hearts, minds, religion, traditions and mores of the majority haven't had time to change.
The Bolshevik answer to that problem was to murder millions upon millions of people who refused to comply with the revolution.

But cultural marxists in the West used a different tactic... gradualism... the popular analogy of that is called, "boiling the frog."
 
Could someone please tell me what in tarnation a "Christian West" is supposed to mean? I've been around a long time, and have done a lot of reading, and have never encountered that term until now!

Was the U.S. supposed to be a Christian country at one time, despite all the words of our Founding Fathers to the contrary? And then it stopped being Christian due to the Russian Revolution? Or does this term only
refer to western Europe? But then, Russia is not usually referred to as a western country at all. So what is this supposed to mean?

My head is spinning.
 
I've just stumbled across this thread.

Getting back to the original post, this creep Leyonhjelm has taken it a step or two further. When he was criticised by the Prime Minister for his comments he called him a couple of choice names too. One was a slang germ for female *******ia and the other was a slang term for male *******ia, more or less deficient male *******ia if you get my drift. His obvious inference was that the Prime Minister was weak.

He's a real charmer this one. And talking about respect - he has none, not for anyone, male or female, or so it would appear. His use of crude language is bad enough, but he seems to not understand that what he said to Sarah Hanson Young is more than just bad language. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in court if she does take it further.

Unfortunately people like him have always been around, but it feels as though they are now more inclined to say these things where once their language might have been a little more circumspect. In fairness I have to say that there are also a few women politicians in this country whose language is pretty colourful too, or so I have heard.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top