Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

41 Responses

  1. blondie
    blondie January 10, 2007 at 3:34 pm |

    You know you’re in for a real treat when the author of the article is a self-described opponent of the public school system.

  2. Artemis
    Artemis January 10, 2007 at 3:35 pm |

    In the past two weeks I have seen at least 5 different blogs with themes of neo-conservatism or christianity (or just plain conspiracy nuts) that tie feminism and sustainable development into some type of global conspiracy.The one I saw yesterday tied Wicca into the mix in order to make an argument about how feminists, environmentalists and pagans were joining together to try to take over the world. Sounds like a conspiracy against the anti-environmental christian men of the patriarchy to me.

    Did my invitation get lost in the mail? I have got to keep closer tabs

  3. Nick Kiddle
    Nick Kiddle January 10, 2007 at 3:37 pm |

    I’m laughing way too hard at Dictator Prawns with Little Red Book sauce. I would totally try that.

    I’d like to have a more intelligent response, but the drivel defeats me. Oh, except for this little gem:

    “I suggest that Westernized women are often miserable, overworked, and suffering due to separation from their children.”
    Whereas before feminism, they tended to be miserable, overworked and suffering due to having their children in their faces all the goddamn time giving them no rest. *ahem* I love it when people blame feminism for things it tries with patchy success to cure, don’t you?

  4. mythago
    mythago January 10, 2007 at 3:39 pm |

    And ask yourself how Nancy could possibly have left out ZOG.

    That would be the aforementioned bankers. Wink, wink.

    I don’t know why she is opposed to outsourcing traditional female functions. The illegal alien who I pay to menstruate for me is more than happy to get the money.

  5. ako
    ako January 10, 2007 at 3:44 pm |

    Note to people bothered by women with jobs not making babies;

    You do not have a right to be protected from people disagreeing with how you live. You do not have a right to be prevented from making bad decisions. You do not have a right to see that nobody else violates your idea of the best way to live.


    Okay, moving on. You still have the right make babies. You still have the right to ask your wife to make babies, and only marry someone who aspires to make babies. You have a right to be a housewife, provided you marry someone who’s willing to provide all the financial support. You have the right to NOT use birth control, and I will firmly defend that right. You have the right to not have an abortion. You have the right to not marry someone of your same gender.

    You do not have the right to have your decisions approved of by other people, be shielded from disagreement, or not have any examples around of people making other choices and being happy. You have the right to abuse the word “dialectic” but you do not have the right to do so without being laughed at. You actually do have the right to tell every feminist, lesbian, career women, birth control user, female politician, abortion provider, abortion reciever, unmarried non-virgin, woman seeking mental health care, man seeking mental health care, environmentalist, wearer of high heels, and woman who employs a housekeeper how they should live their lives. You don’t have the right to make them listen, take you seriously, or obey. And this doesn’t mean you’re oppressed, it just means you can’t oppress them.

    Hope that settles things.

  6. Nymphalidae
    Nymphalidae January 10, 2007 at 4:04 pm |

    Quick, somebody get this woman a tinfoil hat before the feminists start using their mind rays on her.

  7. Sniper
    Sniper January 10, 2007 at 4:24 pm |

    I had the Dictator Prawns with Little Red Book once. They were tough and chilly.

    So when is Nancy going to turn in her shoes and quit it with book learning and public speaking?

  8. jennie
    jennie January 10, 2007 at 4:31 pm |

    I want feminist mind-rays! I want to beam my feminist mind rays at our sales rep, my mother, my father, and our stupid Prime Minister!

    When do I earn my feminist mind-rays?

  9. jfpbookworm
    jfpbookworm January 10, 2007 at 4:44 pm |

    You know, for someone claims to be a “renowned writer for Constitutional governance,” she doesn’t really get the concept of rights as framed by the US Constitution and, indeed, many human-rights documents.

    I suspect that “Constitutional governance” is code for “governance as generally practiced at the time of the drafting of the Constitution” – and I suspect that’s itself a code for white supremacy.

  10. TallyCola
    TallyCola January 10, 2007 at 5:11 pm |

    I’m miserable because I’m separated from my children? How can I be separated from something that doesn’t exist, that I don’t want to exist, that I actively take every step to prevent the existence of? I would totally resent my children and make a terrible mother. I’d be far more miserable than I am now. Right now I’m miserable because I have to put up with so much misogynist bullshit everywhere I go, and feminism offers me at least a glimpse of a world without one.

  11. TallyCola
    TallyCola January 10, 2007 at 5:12 pm |

    Also, I would totally eat at a Cultural Revolution-themed restaurant. I’m macabre that way.

  12. norbizness
    norbizness January 10, 2007 at 5:18 pm |

    Well, if the book business doesn’t pan out for her, and we’re all praying like hell that it won’t, there’s always the 1-2 am slot on Public Access television in Austin to fall back on.

  13. Pansy P
    Pansy P January 10, 2007 at 5:47 pm |

    And ask yourself how Nancy could possibly have left out ZOG.

    That would be the aforementioned bankers. Wink, wink.

    If I recall my brief internship at the ADL correctly, accusing the “industrial and banking powers” is, in fact, a time-honored, nudge-nudge, wink-wink shout out against the International Jewish Conspiracy. Accusations like Nancy’s rarely have anything to do with actual bankers and/or industrialists. Particularly since the people making the accusations tend to tend towards the capitalist end of the spectrum.

  14. Jill
    Jill January 10, 2007 at 6:01 pm | *

    I don’t get how this works. Nancy is a woman. Nancy says we should return to traditional gender roles. Traditional gender roles have women home making babies, not working — or going to school, or writing articles, or being “experts” on much of anything. Yet Nancy makes a career out of telling women to not have careers. Hmmm.

  15. Bethynyc
    Bethynyc January 10, 2007 at 6:03 pm |

    I don’t know why she is opposed to outsourcing traditional female functions. The illegal alien who I pay to menstruate for me is more than happy to get the money.

    *giggle* Thank you, mythago. This article was getting me all peeved and then you come up with this!

    Plus, if she is all about fulfilling traditional female functions, when does she have time to be a writer on Constitutional governance? Shouldn’t she be pregnant and cooking dinner for Her Man?

  16. Dr. Free-Ride
    Dr. Free-Ride January 10, 2007 at 6:18 pm |

    Maybe she sees scolding other women as a traditional female function?

  17. morfydd
    morfydd January 10, 2007 at 7:18 pm |

    I have noted that anyone who calls a woman a “female” (as a noun) will invariably then say something stupid about women.*

    More to the point, from her concern over recent “over-spending, over-decorating, obsessions with beauty, weight, social climbing” she’s never heard of, say, the court of the Sun King? Or Godey’s Ladies’ Book?

    *See also, “Democrat Party” as a useful signifier for eye-rolling commentary.

  18. Meri
    Meri January 10, 2007 at 7:23 pm |

    Since I’ve started reading feminist blogs in the past few months, I keep finding out about all sorts of new crazy people–like Nancy Levant. Sometimes I wish I could go back to the nice little bubble I was in before because, honestly, these people make my brain hurt trying to comprehend their views.

    I wasn’t aware that the increase of mental health awareness was a bad thing, and that anyone who claims to have a mental illness is just doing it because it’s teh sexay. I better tell the people in my family with bipolar disorder or depression to get off of their medications, since they don’t really need them, since I know everything that they did before being properly diagnosed and getting treatment was just an act.

    From the article – “Let us also wonder if the mass drugging of children – and new vaccines specifically targeted to pubescent female children – will not result in future “problems” with reproductive health.” Ah, yes, HPV is super happy fun that doesn’t cause any damage, at all, ever.

    “And to the world’s feminists – I say this: You are the dumbest women who have ever walked the face of the Earth.” Damn, I better forget about my physics degree then and find a man to have lots of babies with and submit to his every whim, because to do otherwise would be just plain dumb.

  19. Jasmine
    Jasmine January 10, 2007 at 8:22 pm |

    In today’s new world, women are also “checked” for mental health issues during and following pregnancy. In a nutshell of truth, women are profiled for the number of pregnancies, the health of pregnancies and babies, and genetically data based. This we are to call “liberation.”

    Um has this genius heard of Post-partum depression?

  20. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne January 10, 2007 at 8:32 pm |

    She exposes over-spending, over-decorating, obsessions with beauty, weight, social climbing, and the hiring out of traditional female functions.

    I love how things that women have been accused of since, oh, approximately the dawn of civilization are now the fault of feminism. I’d love to know where the ancient Babylonians or Egyptians laid the blame.

    Or has the word “wet nurse” never come to her attention?

  21. AC Serrano
    AC Serrano January 10, 2007 at 8:35 pm |

    Methinks one shouldn’t sprinkle one’s writing with the word “dialectically” when it is clear one has no idea what it means.

    Seriously, “dialectically predictable?” What is that even supposed to mean?

  22. ako
    ako January 10, 2007 at 8:50 pm |

    From the article – “Let us also wonder if the mass drugging of children – and new vaccines specifically targeted to pubescent female children – will not result in future “problems” with reproductive health.” Ah, yes, HPV is super happy fun that doesn’t cause any damage, at all, ever.

    I suppose it depends on what you consider a problem. If you consider the lack of one more way to frighten and threaten people out of sex, and the presumably inevitable promiscuity that will ensue * as a problem, then clearly the HPV vaccine causes major problems. It’s nearly as bad as birth control or that HIV vaccine they’re always trying to invent. And since death by cancer is slow and lingering, presumably the straying little slu-dears will have plenty of time to repent in the hospital.

    If, on the other hand, you consider adult women choosing to have sex outside of particular kinds of relationships is not such a big deal, and avoidable deaths of the slow, painful and premature kind are something you think should be prevented or reduced, then you might feel a bit differently about the whole thing. It might even make sense to put concern over possible side effect as second to a proven killer (at least until you’ve got some idea of what the risks actually are).

    *Because it is an absolute rule that while no woman likes, enjoys, or is happy having extra-marital sex, inadequate levels of horrible consequences will cause nearly any woman to go at it like a hyperactive bunny.

  23. kje
    kje January 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm |

    Before feminism there were no poor people, no widows and no women who had either the need or desire to do anything but sit around the house singing lulabys to their perfectly adjusted children. The girls always behaved and the boys, well, boys will be boys, little scamps. So entertaining. Then evil people, who we can’t identify because it’s a secret, managed to trick thousands — no millions — of women in the west to give up that bliss because women are stupid, so they should be in charge of raising the next generation. Did I get it?
    Sure, there are lots of women out there who would love to be full time mothers — there always have been. Over the course of human history, most women (and men, children over a certain age, and people who are really too sick to work…) have had to work at shitty jobs which they hate in order to survive. Its got nothing to do with feminism.

  24. Jodie
    Jodie January 10, 2007 at 10:59 pm |

    Someone needs to take away her quote key.

  25. Bertson
    Bertson January 10, 2007 at 11:09 pm |

    Idiot musings about the Marxist/Feminist OneWorldGovernment conspiracy always make me think of my favourite unhinged site on this,

    Personally, I want to know how I can be a part of this conspiracy to create a one-world government and take away everyone’s guns. Sounds like a good idea to me!

  26. Karen
    Karen January 10, 2007 at 11:13 pm |

    misguidance, dynastic families

    Ugh. Apparently the aliens removed the part of her brain that governs ordinary grammar when they put in those implants. These are just two, the article has too many dumb errors to cover in one comment.misguidance isn’t a word. Dynastic families is a nonsensical redundancy. Only families can be dynasties. Doesn’t she have a dictionary?

    drugs that will render women and children incapable of bearing children

    Um, maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t think we wanted children to have children. I thought the idea was to wait until one grew up before breeding. My feminist mind-ray receive must be on the fritz. My dad is in the Masonic lodge, too, so I’m supposed to have a really good Evil Empire connection. I’ll have to see about this.

  27. Em
    Em January 10, 2007 at 11:20 pm |

    If we’re all so dumb, why is she using big words like

    What was it again?

    My head hurts. Can’t she dumb it down for poor little me?

  28. Echidne of the snakes
    Echidne of the snakes January 10, 2007 at 11:54 pm |

    Sometimes an article is just nuts.

  29. anonycat
    anonycat January 11, 2007 at 12:25 am |

    the right to take drugs that will render women and children incapable of bearing children

    Apparently she uses a different definition of the word child than I do. Oh noes, think of the five-year-olds who can’t bear children because of Teh Evil Drugz! Wait….

    I won’t touch her views on anti-depressants, therapy, etc, because there is no way I could do so without ranting in an entirely uncivilized manner. I’ve tried several times to formulate my thoughts, but I keep sputtering at the gall of someone whose life has never been touched by severe depression passing judgment on those who have been struck with it.

  30. Rachel
    Rachel January 11, 2007 at 12:28 am |

    I have “trouble” reading an “article” that feels the need to “quote” every other “word”. I “usually” assume the “writer” doesn’t understand “basic grammar”. Therefore, is an “idiot”.

  31. ako
    ako January 11, 2007 at 12:33 am |

    The main impetus for the mental health “advocates” is to screen and profile America’s families to see if they are religious, procreating, and if they are mainstreaming into new government citizens. All children who fall short are then redirected to the mental health industries, which then feed the big pharma complex, which 1) drugs children, and 2) determines who will be “fit” to reproduce in the future

    So the government’s supposed to make sure we do practice religion, procreate, and become new government citizens? Or that we don’t do any of that? And are these nefarious mental health “advocates” trying to drug children into or out of religion and procreation? Personally, I’m for the whole “children not procreating” thing. I’m also intensely confused trying to decrypt that paragraph.

    I think I figured out the whole dialectic thing, though. Dialectic means Communist, and Communist means bad. So talking about the dialectic means that feminism is evil Communism.

    Do I win?

  32. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science January 11, 2007 at 9:04 am |

    I don’t actually see much point in talking about this woman’s politics, because she’s clearly a schizophrenic who refuses medication — the combination of wide-ranging conspiracy theories, over-complex vocabulary, and putting scare quotes around “mental health” looks fairly diagnostic to me. (disclaimer: I am not a medical doctor) I also think it likely that she was told not to get pregnant while on her meds. Her book comes from a vanity press, as well.

    This kind of thing is only interesting if the schizophrenic person picks up followers or supporters who do not have major chemical inbalances in their brains. Until that happens, I pity Levant more than anything else — schizophrenia is a real, serious illness, and I truly do not think she’s morally responsible for everything she’s saying.

  33. Doctor Science
    Doctor Science January 11, 2007 at 10:52 am |

    The question, then, is “who is *American Chronicle* and why are they publishing someone who is *literally* insane?” Do they not recognize medical insanity when they see it? Are they medically insane themselves? Have they grown so used to rhetorically flinging “crazy talk” about that when someone shows up who is seriously in need of medication they don’t recognize it?

  34. David
    David January 11, 2007 at 12:38 pm |

    No, you can’t diagnose schizophrenia from a single piece of writing – but certainly this article is one bit of evidence towards such a diagnosis. I had the unhappy experience a few years ago of watching a close friend descend into schizophrenia – and Levant’s ideation is too close for comfort.

  35. bmc90
    bmc90 January 11, 2007 at 12:39 pm |

    I know this is just a minor chunk in the entire pile of vomit, but I can’t stop laughing at the outsourcing female functions. I guess she took her own advice and never took a history class. Historians of the middle ages document wet nursing as a widespread profession used by all above the lowest classes, and even when my mom was growing up in the south, nursing your own children was considered low class. It was considered “white” and higher class to be so thin and delicate that one did not really have enough of her own milk. And I guess she’s never heard of a governess or nanny either (oh yeah – didn’t George Bush have one?) or the common practice of apprenticing out especially male children to learn a trade, which involved them leaving home at 12 or so (see the historians of the Middle Ages again). By all accounts, civilization in the south my mother was raised in should have come to a screeching halt because my grandmother outsourced childcare and housework by paying a black person a few dollars a week so she could go teach and support her kids as a widow, and so did all her friends who were not in such dire financial straights, because actually washing your own dishes was well, not white people’s work. Now I guess it’s not men’s work so we have to come up with a big raft of BS to support THAT point fo view. Lovely how easy it is to turn a blind eye to recent American history, and the history of the rest of Western Civilization.

  36. KH
    KH January 11, 2007 at 4:30 pm |

    OK, a disorientated, eldery remnant of the conspiracist fringe of the mid-century right. Her themes – fear of communism, internationalism, the UN, cosmopolitan elites, financial capital, Jews (not just a gratuitous slur: Google her & follow the links), public education, psychiatry, floridation, precious bodily fluids, etc. – seem as remote as the 14th century, even to contemporary rightists, but lost souls like her were the raw material from which a governing political movement was constructed. How we got from people like her to George W Bush is a big part of recent US political history. Her version of lunacy will die with her generation, but presumably she didn’t outsource her own reproduction. Q: How are her children’s politics continuous with hers, & how have they changed?

  37. kate
    kate January 11, 2007 at 10:45 pm |

    I would tend to agree with Doc Science and David on the possible mental health issues connection with this woman. I wonder if the manuscript came in a bunch of well-worn spiral bound notebooks with the writing varying from all caps about an eighth of an inch high to passages in cursive about two inches high, with many many exclamation points and ‘quote’ marks thrown in like pepper in biscuit gravy.

    Of the many pearls there to pick, I find this really evident that this woman truly has not only a weak grasp on reality, but knows absolutely nothing about that which she speaks:

    The mental health complex has now arrived in every American school, and they are now arriving in America’s daycare centers. The main impetus for the mental health “advocates” is to screen and profile America’s families to see if they are religious, procreating, and if they are mainstreaming into new government citizens.

    In the world I live in children suffer and often die of abuse and neglect because underfunded protective agencies haven’t the resources to do their job. In my world, sidewalk repair and sports arenas can easily trump funding for even basic community mental health outreach. Methinks Ms. Levant serves as proof of that.

  38. orange
    orange January 12, 2007 at 11:41 am |

    Ah, I sent her a thank-you note, letting her know that since she’s invented an anti-feminist theory so stupid it refutes itself; I’ll have that much more time to spend on my pro-choice activism.

    Tin. Foil. Hat.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.