The book Right-Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin takes a hard look at women and follows them to their logical conclusion, examining their purpose in life. This book is not for anyone tinged with romanticism, ideals, or principles. Across societies, civilizations, and tribes, women were always on the inside of the circle of trust while men took action over the forces of nature. Modern history attempts to rewrite it all with sophistry, symbolism, and distractions, but the truth is unavoidable and unforgiving.

It is man's responsibility, his choice of life to uphold humankind, but women? The writer argues they are replaceable. This is narrow minded and the truth is somewhere closer to the middle - It is respect for my family and their love and their correct child-rearing that I know of the gentile side of humankind. There is public power also known as the patriarchy, and there is private, or domestic power the matriarchy which the writer misses to understand.

I always thought is was common sense a man can aim one day pointing at her to say 'she is the mother of my children'. And if both approach with good faith I do not see an issue.

Frankly, the writer comes from a place of self hate and its fatalistic. Here are some quotes.

It is the fashion among men to despise the smallness of women's lives. The so-called bourgeois woman with her shallow vanity, for instance, is a joke to the brave intellectuals, truck drivers, and revolutionaries who have wider horizons on which to project and indulge deeper vanities that women dare not mock or into which women dare not aspire. The fishwife is a vicious caricature of the small-mindedness and maternal greed of the working-class wife who harasses her humble, hard-working, ever-patient husband with petty tirades of insult that no gentle rebuke can mellow. The lady, the aristocrat, is a polished empty shell, good only for spinning at because spit shows up on her clean exterior, which gives immediate gratification to the spitter, whatever his technique. The Jewish mother is a monster who wants to cut the phallus of her precious son into a million pieces and put it in the chicken soup. The black woman, also a caste traitor, is a grotesque matriarch whose sheer endurance disolutes men. The lesbian is half monster, half moron; having known man, she nags. She imagines herself Napoleon.

Form conquers chaos; form banishes confusion. Form gives ignorance a shape, makes it look like something instead of nothing. The Right offers women a concept of love based on order and stability with formal areas of mutual accountability. A woman is loved for fulfilling her female functions. Obedience is an expression of love, and so are sexual submission and childbearing. Immaturity, and the man is supposed to be responsible for the material and emotional well-being of the woman. And increasingly, to redeem the cruel inadequacies of mortal men, the Right offers women the love of Jesus: beautiful brother, tender lover, compassionate friend, perfect healer of sorrow and resentment. The one man to whom one can submit, absolutely, to be a woman, as it were, without being sexually violated or psychologically abused.

The creative mind is intelligence in action in the world.

The price for exercising creative intelligence for those born female is unspeakable suffering. All things on earth have their price, wrote Olive Schreiner, and for truth we pay the dearest. We barter it for love and sympathy. The road to honor is paved with thorns, but another path, the path of truth, at every step you set your foot down on your heart. Truth is the goal of creative intelligence, whatever its kind and path. Tangled with the world, it is the problem of truth. Moral intelligence is not the stuff of which cunts are made. Moralism is the effort to find some basis for self-respect, a pitiful gesture towards being human at which men laugh and for which women pity other women. The right of men to women's bodies for the purpose of intercourse remains the heart, soul, and bowels of male supremacy. This is true, whatever style of advocacy is used, Right or Left, to justify coital access.

He said that women needed the protection of men. He said that the clan had sent men to the convention to protect their womenfolk from the lesbians who would assault them. He said that it was necessary to protect women's rights and families because that was the key to the stability of the nation. He said that homosexuality was a Jewish sickness. He said that homosexuality was a lust that threatened to wipe out the family. He said that homosexual teachers should be found out and run out of town on a rail. They could all go to Jew New York.

Trying to keep out of my end of the conversation, I asked him why he was against homosexual teachers, especially if their homosexuality was private. He said that there was no such thing as private homosexuality, that if homosexuals were in schools, children would be corrupted and tainted and molested and taught to hate God and the family. Homosexuality will claim the woman and the children if they were exposed to it. Its presence at all, even hidden anywhere, could take people from family life and put them into sin. His description was almost voluptuous in that no one in his estimation would remain untouched.

Anti-Semitism, wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, does not fall within the category of ideas protected by the right of free opinion. Indeed, it is something quite other than an idea. It is, first of all, a passion, the great hatred that suffers history, pushing it forward to inevitable and repeated horror. Of all passions, not ideas—hatred of blacks, hatred of Jews, and long-standing, intense, blood-drenched nationalist hatreds—are forms of race hatred; hatred of woman and hatred of homosexuals are forms of sex hatred. Race hatred and sex hatred are the erotic obsessions of human history? Passions, not ideas. If the Jew did not exist, he wrote, the anti-Semite would invent him. The carrier of the passion needs the victim and so creates the victim. The victim is an occasion for indulging the passion. One passion touches another, overlays it, burrows into it, unfolds, is gratified onto it, the configuration of our past and emerges. In patriarchal history, one passion is necessarily fundamental and unchanging: the hatred of women.

If the dominant group insists that the racially despised male is a rapist, it means that the dominant male is, by contrast, tinged with homosexuality and that he is less manly. They will climb the masculinity ladder by killing or maiming those whom they see as racially inferior and sexually superior. The Nazis transparently craved masculinity. It was the Jew who had stolen it from them by stealing the woman they should have had. According to Hitler in Mein Kampf: "With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people."

The real question, of course, was not about the family as such, but about the pater familias—who is Daddy having sex with and why.

The book Right-Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin takes a hard look at women and follows them to their logical conclusion, examining their purpose in life. This book is not for anyone tinged with romanticism, ideals, or principles. Across societies, civilizations, and tribes, women were always on the inside of the circle of trust while men took action over the forces of nature. Modern history attempts to rewrite it all with sophistry, symbolism, and distractions, but the truth is unavoidable and unforgiving.

It is man's responsibility, his choice of life to uphold humankind, but women? The writer argues they are replaceable. This is narrow minded and the truth is somewhere closer to the middle - It is respect for my family and their love and their correct child-rearing that I know of the gentile side of humankind. There is public power also known as the patriarchy, and there is private, or domestic power the matriarchy which the writer misses to understand.

I always thought is was common sense a man can aim one day pointing at her to say 'she is the mother of my children'. And if both approach with good faith I do not see an issue.

Frankly, the writer comes from a place of self hate and its fatalistic. Here are some quotes.

It is the fashion among men to despise the smallness of women's lives. The so-called bourgeois woman with her shallow vanity, for instance, is a joke to the brave intellectuals, truck drivers, and revolutionaries who have wider horizons on which to project and indulge deeper vanities that women dare not mock or into which women dare not aspire. The fishwife is a vicious caricature of the small-mindedness and maternal greed of the working-class wife who harasses her humble, hard-working, ever-patient husband with petty tirades of insult that no gentle rebuke can mellow. The lady, the aristocrat, is a polished empty shell, good only for spinning at because spit shows up on her clean exterior, which gives immediate gratification to the spitter, whatever his technique. The Jewish mother is a monster who wants to cut the phallus of her precious son into a million pieces and put it in the chicken soup. The black woman, also a caste traitor, is a grotesque matriarch whose sheer endurance disolutes men. The lesbian is half monster, half moron; having known man, she nags. She imagines herself Napoleon.

Form conquers chaos; form banishes confusion. Form gives ignorance a shape, makes it look like something instead of nothing. The Right offers women a concept of love based on order and stability with formal areas of mutual accountability. A woman is loved for fulfilling her female functions. Obedience is an expression of love, and so are sexual submission and childbearing. Immaturity, and the man is supposed to be responsible for the material and emotional well-being of the woman. And increasingly, to redeem the cruel inadequacies of mortal men, the Right offers women the love of Jesus: beautiful brother, tender lover, compassionate friend, perfect healer of sorrow and resentment. The one man to whom one can submit, absolutely, to be a woman, as it were, without being sexually violated or psychologically abused.

The creative mind is intelligence in action in the world.

The price for exercising creative intelligence for those born female is unspeakable suffering. All things on earth have their price, wrote Olive Schreiner, and for truth we pay the dearest. We barter it for love and sympathy. The road to honor is paved with thorns, but another path, the path of truth, at every step you set your foot down on your heart. Truth is the goal of creative intelligence, whatever its kind and path. Tangled with the world, it is the problem of truth. Moral intelligence is not the stuff of which cunts are made. Moralism is the effort to find some basis for self-respect, a pitiful gesture towards being human at which men laugh and for which women pity other women. The right of men to women's bodies for the purpose of intercourse remains the heart, soul, and bowels of male supremacy. This is true, whatever style of advocacy is used, Right or Left, to justify coital access.

He said that women needed the protection of men. He said that the clan had sent men to the convention to protect their womenfolk from the lesbians who would assault them. He said that it was necessary to protect women's rights and families because that was the key to the stability of the nation. He said that homosexuality was a Jewish sickness. He said that homosexuality was a lust that threatened to wipe out the family. He said that homosexual teachers should be found out and run out of town on a rail. They could all go to Jew New York.

Trying to keep out of my end of the conversation, I asked him why he was against homosexual teachers, especially if their homosexuality was private. He said that there was no such thing as private homosexuality, that if homosexuals were in schools, children would be corrupted and tainted and molested and taught to hate God and the family. Homosexuality will claim the woman and the children if they were exposed to it. Its presence at all, even hidden anywhere, could take people from family life and put them into sin. His description was almost voluptuous in that no one in his estimation would remain untouched.

Anti-Semitism, wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, does not fall within the category of ideas protected by the right of free opinion. Indeed, it is something quite other than an idea. It is, first of all, a passion, the great hatred that suffers history, pushing it forward to inevitable and repeated horror. Of all passions, not ideas—hatred of blacks, hatred of Jews, and long-standing, intense, blood-drenched nationalist hatreds—are forms of race hatred; hatred of woman and hatred of homosexuals are forms of sex hatred. Race hatred and sex hatred are the erotic obsessions of human history? Passions, not ideas. If the Jew did not exist, he wrote, the anti-Semite would invent him. The carrier of the passion needs the victim and so creates the victim. The victim is an occasion for indulging the passion. One passion touches another, overlays it, burrows into it, unfolds, is gratified onto it, the configuration of our past and emerges. In patriarchal history, one passion is necessarily fundamental and unchanging: the hatred of women.

If the dominant group insists that the racially despised male is a rapist, it means that the dominant male is, by contrast, tinged with homosexuality and that he is less manly. They will climb the masculinity ladder by killing or maiming those whom they see as racially inferior and sexually superior. The Nazis transparently craved masculinity. It was the Jew who had stolen it from them by stealing the woman they should have had. According to Hitler in Mein Kampf: "With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people."

The real question, of course, was not about the family as such, but about the pater familias—who is Daddy having sex with and why.