Post: #1

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/g...index.html

The feminist patron saint Gloria Steinam stated on Real Time with Bill Maher that young women are backing Bernie Sanders to 'meet boys'.

She then went on to say that "young women will get more radical as they age, because women lose power as they get older."

It appears that the Clinton campaign has been concerned about the split among female voters; the younger women leaning towards Sanders and older women leaning towards Clinton.

Inadvertently, Steinem has confirmed a couple truths already known to students of female psychology:

1. Female SMV worth/power (and social power) is exclusively tied to fertility and beauty.

2. Once this power loss is internalized by post-wall females, they become more radicalized by agitatating for beta bux fulfillment of hypergamy vis a vis the state apparatus.

3. Women are herdlike and not these highly independent rational agents that they have been led to believe.

In just a few minutes she undermined decades of feminist theory and outed herself as a mere shill for the establishment.

Post: #2

She admitted that she was a CIA asset during the cold war who was used to ensure that traditional (male) labour unions in the US and Europe were kept away from the Soviet Union. Not only did the Soviet Union reject Trotsky and the anarchists (the prototypes of the post-1960s SJW victim movements), it also rejected Zionism.

In the above article, I think she is explaining the demise of the Boomer stranglehold on politics and culture. The boomer rump which is still quite powerful will be seen as the Leftbehinds.

It is nonsense to think that any group becomes more radical with age. Yesterday's revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives because they seek to preserve the privilege that the revolution brought them.

Post: #3

(02-08-2016 01:48 AM)N°6 Wrote:  She admitted that she was a CIA asset during the cold war who was used to ensure that traditional (male) labour unions in the US and Europe were kept away from the Soviet Union. Not only did the Soviet Union reject Trotsky and the anarchists (the prototypes of the post-1960s SJW victim movements), it also rejected Zionism.

In the above article, I think she is explaining the demise of the Boomer stranglehold on politics and culture. The boomer rump which is still quite powerful will be seen as the Leftbehinds.

It is nonsense to think that any group becomes more radical with age. Yesterday's revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives because they seek to preserve the privilege that the revolution brought them.

It is nonsense to think that any group becomes more radical with age. Yesterday's revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives because they seek to preserve the privilege that the revolution brought them.

Somewhat true. However, when it comes to female radicalization, I have seen that once women begin to lose direct power through their sexuality they will seek it through other indirect methods; usually through political agitation. This is what Steinem likely meant about women becoming more radicalized or 'politically active'.

I have witnessed this with female family members as well as women I have as friends on FB. For instance, as women age I notice more and more of the FB shares of the "beauty is on the inside" and the "stop judging women for their looks" canards. Even more recent are the belligerent "I don't give a fuck what you think of my looks" memes. The intention is the same, to create social memes and conventions in an attempt to "change culture" in order to effect hypergamy.

Post: #4

(02-08-2016 01:35 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  She then went on to say that "young women will get more radical as they age, because women lose power as they get older."

The only reason she said that was because that's how her life has gone. Like most narcissists, she identifies everything as being about herself. She got older as she got more radical, and lost power as she got older.

She identifies herself as a radical feminist. Her real influence in the feminist movement stopped circa. 1976 or so, when she hit her mid-forties and after she lost her first and only shot at public office. That's why you didn't see her commenting on US elections from roughly 1972 until she took the easy target of the Bush administration in 2004.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #5

^I translate this as opportunistic conservatism by women d'un âge certain.

Another example of this is from the women who entered the MSM newsrooms from the late 1960s. In the era of the revolutionary mini-skirt and hotpants, these attractive women began to replace the traditional male newscaster who looked more like a drab government civil servant or bureaucrat. These very same women are now conservatively trying to stop their own replacement as MSM talking heads by subsequent generations of attractive women who look good on TV.

Post: #6

Should it be a matron saint or a patron saint?

Post: #7

(02-08-2016 02:29 AM)N°6 Wrote:  Should it be a matron saint or a patron saint?

Yes. I forgot that word existed.

Post: #8

In all fairness, she is very manlike....

Post: #9

(02-08-2016 01:48 AM)N°6 Wrote:  Yesterday's revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives because they seek to preserve the privilege that the revolution brought them.

That's if the revolution succeeded, the original demand is met.
Many people grow more and more dissatisfied and embittered as they age, hence more and more radical.
Feminists won't be satisfied until a complete matriarchy is implemented.

Post: #10

Young women back Sanders to meet boys.

Then they listen for the Trump chants to meet men.

Post: #11

As you get older you realize that you can't really change
fundamental human nature...little girls will want to grow up
and get married, have kids etc...and want (good) men to
become fathers and husbands.

The radical, independent no strings attached lifestyle is a lonely life...

Post: #12

Bill Clinton accuses Sanders of sexism.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/bi...more-68471

Seems like Hillary managed to make him throw his legacy into the mud.

Post: #13

Something deep here, Steinem (age 81) and women that age really want to see a female president in their lifetime, they know deep down Clinton is corrupt as shit, but is the closest thing they have, they want a women from their generation to be president, that is why there is unconditional support from 65+ years old women for Clinton, this second wave do not want to die without seeing a woman president of USA, Clinton has always has been that women but any close thing from the Republican party will be attacked and demonized, this explain a lot feminists hate for Sarah Palin, imagine how they would have reacted if a pro-life, pro-gun, conservative woman become the first vice president in the USA.

The worst part for them is Hillary's emails scandal and connection run so deep in the democrat party she most likely will cause more potentials women in the party to be denied presidency.