Howdy, neighbor. Feminists are unhappy people who live by the adage “misery loves company”–i.e., make everyone miserable.
Why xanthippa’s, and not xanthippe’s, as it’s usually transliterated?
Xenthippe her Socrates bugged,
Her curses his tender ears mugged!
She was lousy in bed
And poured p–s on his head.
No wonder the poor guy died drugged!
It is ‘Xanthippa‘ rather than ‘Xanthippe‘ as z nod to my ethnic heritage.
You see, by birth, I am Czech. And, in Czech, the vast majority of female names end in ‘a’. As a matter of fact, the Czech version of ‘Xanthippe’ is ‘Xantypa’.
Since I have integrated rather successfully (in my never-humble-opinion) into Canadian culture, I only made a tiny little tweak to the tail end of the Anglicized form of the name to reflect the tiny bit of the Czech left in me!
Feminists are indeed unhappy. As I have argued elsewhere on this blog, feminism makes women incompatible with men and then feeds on the resulting disappointment and rage.
But there is much more to it than that. Feminism was expressly created by cultural Marxism to drive the thin edge of the wedge into the foundations of Western culture, with the intent of preparing the way for the “glorious revolution” that will usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat. A comment elaborating on that thought is here. A more detailed discussion of this point can be found here.
In a nutshell, the conceptual foundations of cultural Marxism combine Freud and Jung with Marx and Engels to spin a web in which penis envy is the motivation, the great mother archetype is the means, and marriage is the opportunity to transform the perennial cooperative-competitive relationship between the sexes into an all-out class war of total destruction in which women see themselves as the down-trodden proletariat and men are cast as the evil, privileged oppressors.
The purpose of instigating this war is not to do anything for women, but to undermine and destabilize the culture which stands in the way of the goals of the cultural Marxists’ masters, the globalist totalitarian plutocrats.
Here are some more links to our discussions of the subject:
Epic Feminist Fails of our time: a discussion of the distinction between the “unhappy people” who form the visible front of feminism, and the “men behind the curtain” who orchestrate it all.
Juggernaut: Thoughts on feminism: a discussion of feminism and its self-declared war on the so-called “white Christian hetero-patriarchy,” which evolved into a critique of the treatment of sexual polymorphism in law, particularly Canadian same-sex marriage law.
The ‘4th wave of feminism’ is the woman forced to wear a burqa: it illustrates that 3rd wave feminism’s goal is not to promote the equality of women, but to destroy our Western civilization….which will inevitably be replaced by militant and extremist Islam which is in the process of attempting to conquer us.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
May 26, 2015 at 07:27
Howdy, neighbor. Feminists are unhappy people who live by the adage “misery loves company”–i.e., make everyone miserable.
Why xanthippa’s, and not xanthippe’s, as it’s usually transliterated?
Xenthippe her Socrates bugged,
Her curses his tender ears mugged!
She was lousy in bed
And poured p–s on his head.
No wonder the poor guy died drugged!
May 27, 2015 at 21:28
Ah, neighbour, you caught that one!
It is ‘Xanthippa‘ rather than ‘Xanthippe‘ as z nod to my ethnic heritage.
You see, by birth, I am Czech. And, in Czech, the vast majority of female names end in ‘a’. As a matter of fact, the Czech version of ‘Xanthippe’ is ‘Xantypa’.
Since I have integrated rather successfully (in my never-humble-opinion) into Canadian culture, I only made a tiny little tweak to the tail end of the Anglicized form of the name to reflect the tiny bit of the Czech left in me!
May 28, 2015 at 15:56
cephash:
Feminists are indeed unhappy. As I have argued elsewhere on this blog, feminism makes women incompatible with men and then feeds on the resulting disappointment and rage.
But there is much more to it than that. Feminism was expressly created by cultural Marxism to drive the thin edge of the wedge into the foundations of Western culture, with the intent of preparing the way for the “glorious revolution” that will usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat. A comment elaborating on that thought is here. A more detailed discussion of this point can be found here.
In a nutshell, the conceptual foundations of cultural Marxism combine Freud and Jung with Marx and Engels to spin a web in which penis envy is the motivation, the great mother archetype is the means, and marriage is the opportunity to transform the perennial cooperative-competitive relationship between the sexes into an all-out class war of total destruction in which women see themselves as the down-trodden proletariat and men are cast as the evil, privileged oppressors.
The purpose of instigating this war is not to do anything for women, but to undermine and destabilize the culture which stands in the way of the goals of the cultural Marxists’ masters, the globalist totalitarian plutocrats.
Here are some more links to our discussions of the subject:
Epic Feminist Fails of our time: a discussion of the distinction between the “unhappy people” who form the visible front of feminism, and the “men behind the curtain” who orchestrate it all.
Juggernaut: Thoughts on feminism: a discussion of feminism and its self-declared war on the so-called “white Christian hetero-patriarchy,” which evolved into a critique of the treatment of sexual polymorphism in law, particularly Canadian same-sex marriage law.
Feel free to jump in!
January 7, 2016 at 04:19
You mention “4 waves of feminism,” but I see illustrations/descriptions of only 3.
January 7, 2016 at 08:54
The ‘4th wave of feminism’ is the woman forced to wear a burqa: it illustrates that 3rd wave feminism’s goal is not to promote the equality of women, but to destroy our Western civilization….which will inevitably be replaced by militant and extremist Islam which is in the process of attempting to conquer us.