For anyone aware of the rhetoric and the pursued policies of the politically powerful, central established flavor of feminism – it is overwhelmingly obvious that radical feminism is a doctrine of hatred and violence. This is the version of feminism established in university humanities departments. It’s proponents inform domestic policies and write white papers for the UN and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Radical feminism also informs the family courts, law enforcement, education, and employment law. The modern Western world runs on an unambiguously and increasingly feminist zeitgeist. That is to say the ideology driving public policy and opinion is a corrupt, violent, and hateful ideology.
This shouldn’t be news to anyone with a passing acquaintance of local and international news. What might not be understood is how completely devoid of a redeeming feature modern – mainstream radical feminist ideology is.
An evaluation of the doctrines and pursued policies of mainstream, big box feminism reveals a damning inventory.
Big, big, big lies. And lots of them.
The doctrine of “Patriarchy theory”, although not a scientific theory, states that society is organized to afford social, economic, and political power and privilege to men, at the expense of suppressed rights, and disenfranchisement of women. This doctrine is used to justify domestic policies and programs which elevate women’s powers and privileges, in an effort to redress the presumed patriarchal oppression. Oppression against women that is frequently mentioned, but never identified in any single specific detail.
Comparing the claim of patriarchal societal male advantage to mortality rates, workplace death rates, criminal sentencing outcomes, violent criminal victimization, sexually specific medical research funding, and a long list of other factors:
“In sentencing, [...] women receive better outcomes; consistent with women’s being treated paternalistically in court. Although some contend that the sentencing guidelines harm women, studies have usually concluded that females are sentenced more leniently than males.”
According to the US Department of Labor the sexual distribution of individuals killed on the job improved to the benefit of men in 2010. With an improvement of 1 percent, only 92% of those killed on the job in 2010 were men.
Men are also 94 to 97% of the homeless  in the United States, and 78.9% of suicides .
Men today die on average 6 years sooner than women . In 1920 the variance was one year. The death rates for prostate and breast cancer are similar, but because men die of other things more frequently-accidents, war, heart disease etc., there are fewer men left to die of prostate cancer.
Women also control over 65% of discretionary spending worldwide . In the top 20 markets, women control $10 trillion of $15.3 trillion in consumer discretionary spending. This is known to manufacturers, retailers and advertisers, and is used to drive the profit model in spite of the endlessly claimed “wage gap”. The wage gap lie starts from an element of truth. The life-time earnings of women are lower on average than the life-time earnings of men. That this translates to lower pay for the same work is where the spin-doctoring starts. Women, on average, work fewer hours over their lifetimes, and chose jobs affording flexibility, access to friends and family and with lower physical risk. That Bob and Betty work the same job with the same hours, training and seniority is one of feminism’s big lies, repeatedly debunked, but endlessly recycled. 
The Patriarchy is a myth, a lie, a farce, and so transparently false that repetition of it as a cultural root deserves open and instant contempt. Its purpose is to cultivate guilt, obeisance, and compliance from the demographic whose disposability is the basis for corporate profit and middle class safety.
Do I hear somebody claiming most the top politicians are male? Be quiet, idiot. The electorate putting those alpha male politicians into power is decidedly female . In 2004 in the United States,
44.9% of women and 38.8% of men 18-24 years old voted
55% of women and 48.8% of men 25-44 years old voted
68.3% of women and 65.9% of men 45-64 years old voted
69.4% of women and 72.5% of men 65-74 years old voted
Oh, most executives are male? Gee whiz, have you ever worked 15 years, 65 hours a week, for minimum wage to build a company from zero to profitability? No? Then be quiet again. The patriarchy, if it can be said to occupy reality in any sense at all, exists as a rhetorical device to compel silence.
Rape Culture, the invisible crime wave:
Human sexuality is evil!!! Maybe not, but certainly male sexuality is evil.
- “all men are rapists and that’s all they are” ~ Marilyn French
- “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” ~ Susan Griffin
- “When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” ~ Sheila Jeffrys
- “Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out” ~ Judith Levine
This  is an incomplete selection of published radical feminist thought (mainstream) on the issue of male sexuality. For the purpose of this discussion, no effort will be made to disabuse anyone of such ideas if they hold them. If that’s you, reader, I regard you as damaged beyond any possible salvage.
To everyone else – thank you for your attention.
Not only is the standard narrative false, that stated overtly or covertly, male sexuality is malicious, the idea is fundamentally hateful. It is a lie told in service of promoted hatred.
This same fundamentally hateful lie is reflected in anti-porn, anti-prostitution evangelism. The crusade against porn – a genre of commercial entertainment – ignores the peer reviewed research, in preference to an empirically false dogma that this produced entertainment is harmful and toxic. The common claim is that porn oppresses women. In reality, because porn’s audience is mostly male, the real reason for its opposition is the persistent lie that male sexuality is evil.
A few points of data:
- Female porn actors make approximately six times more money than male porn actors .
- For women, porn is a relatively high paying job requiring no skill or education.
- A direct correlation between porn’s availability and reduced social pathology in society has been repeatedly established in peer reviewed literature on the topic .
- Piling on top of the myth of this entertainment as a tool of men’s oppression of women, much of the porn industry in the Western world is run by women .
In spite of this, Porn Harms and other crusading organizations continue to promote the idiotic idea of porn as a cultural toxin, based on the false idea of its oppression of women. Anti-porn crusaders like Gail Dines, in spite of her apparent unfamiliarity with reality are taken seriously by the conservative right as well as mainstream feminists. On consideration, it may be that rather than taking her seriously, they find political utility in her irrational zeal for controlling the behavior of adult men and women. The politically established radical feminists and social conservatives also don’t care about reality outside of their respective ideologies.
The abstract of the 2009 study titled: “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review”  published by the university of Hawaii read:
It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. It is further been found that sexual erotica has not only wide spread personal acceptance and use but general tolerance for its availability to adults. This attitude is seen by both men and women and not only in urban communities but also in reputed conservative ones as well. Further this finding holds nationally in the United States and in widely different countries around the world. Indeed, no country where this matter has been scientifically studied has yet been found to think pornography ought be restricted from adults.
The political support from different ideological camps which should logically oppose one another indicates two facts. That political expediency trumps ethics for supporting political organizations, and that facts do not matter, as reported in the legitimate research on porn’s effects. To those opposing porn, what matters is doctrine, not reality. Porn caters to male sexuality – and therefore, it is evil.
Despite the evidence, anti-porn crusaders continue to bang their drum on the totally unsupportable claim that this entertainment genre is innately harmful to women. All credible research on the matter indicates the opposite. This begs the question of motive. While some in this camp are genuinely stupid and ignorant, the anti-porn segment of radical feminism cannot be written off or dismissed on that basis. This leaves several explanatory hypotheses.
The hypothesis that actors in the feminist camp exploit the existence of a narrative of women’s rights as a cover for personal indulgence in malicious harm to an acceptable enemy has, I believe significant weight. However, while this is a credible motivator for individuals, this fails as an understanding of the larger context of institutional feminism.
The continued story of women’s eternal victimhood is a vehicle for funding for organizations with a purported mandate of harm reduction. Women’s crisis centers, domestic violence organizations, and other groups have a demonstrated history of selling a fraudulent narrative in pursuit of government and private donation. If you’re in the business of opposing or ameliorating a certain type of crime, such as partner violence, the catch-22 comes when success in that pursuit runs your organization out of business. The grievance industry knows this all too well, as does anybody paying attention. This is what prompted a fellow at the American Enterprise Instrument Christina Hoff Sommers in 2011, speaking to a live audience said on the topic of domestic violence:
“We’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses; we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule.”
This widespread fraud is not limited to grievance advocacy organizations. Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States published a letter on the DOJ website  in October of 2009 stating that:
“Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45.” One paragraph later, Holder says “These numbers are shocking and unacceptable”.
What he doesn’t say is that they are also a lie? They stats claimed on the DOJ website, in the letter from the Attorney General of the United States are fraud.
The actual leading causes of death for African-American women between the ages 15–45 are cancer, heart disease, unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and HIV disease. Homicide comes in fifth and includes murders by strangers .
How can this be possible, still on the DOJ website 3 years later, this same fraudulent statistic?
But it gets better. In November 2011, the Centers for Disease Control threw statistical rigor and intellectual honesty out the window with their report:
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report 
According to this survey, in the United States in 2010, approximately 1.3 million women were raped and an additional 12.6 million women and men were victims of sexual violence.
To put this into context, in 2010, the population of the US was 308 million , roughly 158,620,000 of whom were female.
If 1.3 million of them were raped in 2010 – that is 1 out of 122 women in the US, raped per year.
According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics  – in 2009 the rate of rape was 125,910 rapes and sexual assaults in a population of 158,105,000 women. This works out to 1 out of 1256 women in the US, raped per year. For readers unaware of rigor in statistical analysis and its importance, the BJS enjoys an established reputation as the gold standard as a reliable source. The CDCs report claims a jump in victimization rates of more than an order of magnitude.
If we are to believe the CDC’s survey, then the rate of rape occurring in the United States is comparable to Rwanda or the Congo during each respective nation’s recent civil wars. This is an absurd claim, and the CDC’s study represents the zenith of corrupt, ideologically driven advocacy research.
For years, opponents of big feminism have been citing peer reviewed research and statistics in opposition of the ideologically driven domestic policies of a feminist-controlled society. Human rights organizations have pushed for a rational approach to policy based on legitimate data and research. In answer, the established proponents of big box feminism now act to corrupt and pervert the bodies and organizations collecting and analyzing generated statistics.
A rational approach to domestic policy is rendered impossible by the co-opting of the organs of justice, data collection and public research.
After a multi-year campaign of lobbying and activism by the feminist driven Women’s Law Centre, the FBI also expanded the scope of the definition of rape to include consensual sex which occurs while a woman is under influence of alcohol or drugs.
Ideologically driven policy, based in unsupportable assumptions is rendered “valid” by the perversion of these previously reliable institutions like the BJS and the CDC.
In the emerging marriage between the various arms of national government and ideological radical feminism, we’re witnessing the collapse of the concept of human rights being a foundation of law in the West. This has been painfully evident as the Bush administration and following Bush, the Obama administration, have discarded, dismantled, and ignored almost every one of the ten amendments which constitute the American Bill of Rights.
The move towards a totalitarian state is unmistakable and not a matter of debate without a willful denial of observable reality. However, correlation between this observed phenomenon and the social and political primacy of radical feminism remains an area of deep public denial, due in part to the highly successful promotion by feminists of their agenda as if it is humanist or egalitarian.
“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”
This puerile nugget of unsavory and false martyrdom has the explicit purpose of pretending women are now, or have been regarded as if they were owned possessions, inanimate objects devoid of humanity. This is a falsehood of surprising depth and utility, as it implies a moral justification for the most overt bigotry and censure of anyone outside the approved victim demographic. This claimed victimhood, demanding of special consideration is the misdirecting cloak of the tyrant.
For individuals concerned about the rapid erosion of human rights in the US and elsewhere, the elephant in the room is the undeniable connection between economic, industrial, and political elites and the ideological actors of feminism, who by placement in academia and the non-profit public sector are themselves social elites. The public mythology promoted by feminism’s adherents holds this movement to be a grass-roots social movement driven by public conscience. This story, still accepted by most people, is the polar opposite of the truth. Feminism is a constructed social movement, conceived and sold to the public by society’s economic and political elites, through a fabricated narrative, flattering and exploiting women and men ready to set reason aside for social approval.
Prior to his death, documentary film producer Aaron Russo disclosed the content of a conversation with his friend Nicolas Rockefeller of the Rockefeller family. What follows is a transcription of an interview shown in full in Russo’s documentary “America, Freedom to Fascism”.
“We were at the house one night, and we were talking and he [Nicolas Rockefeller] started laughing.
Aaron, what do you think women’s liberation was all about? And, I said, I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point, and I said I think it’s about women having the right to work – get equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.
You know, and he started to laugh, and he said you’re an idiot, and I said why am I an idiot? He said let me tell you what that was about. We the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded women’s lib. You know, and we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television, the Rockefeller Foundation. He says…you wanna know why? There were two primary reasons. And they were one reason was: we couldn’t tax half the population before women’s lib. And the second reason was: now we get the kids in school at an early age, we can indoctrinate the kids how to think.
This way it breaks up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family. At the school, at the officials, as their family. Not at their parents teaching them. And so, those are the two primary reasons for women’s lib, which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. You know, when I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from and they created it and the thought of it, I saw, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture.”
Taken alone, this revelation from Russo might be dismissed, and indeed, although its veracity has never been seriously challenged, it is ignored by the entirety of mainstream media.
It is not a coincidence that organized feminism has persistently attacked the family and the institution of marriage for the fast five decades.
- “The nuclear family must be destroyed…Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”
- “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
- “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” ~Sheila Cronin
In addition, much of second wave feminist literature specifically opposed marriage:
- Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (1969)
- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (1970)
- Marilyn French, The Women’s Room (1977)
- Jessie Bernard, The Future of Marriage (1972)
- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)
This opposition has significantly abated in the current narrative of Big Feminism, due to two factors. Through changes to family law and the widespread advent of no fault divorce, marriage provides men with a number of major disincentives and onerous obligations without compensatory benefits. Also, because of decades of affirmative action in education, women are rapidly overtaking men in lifetime earnings expectations, de-motivating females from partnering with men of lesser earning power than themselves. Female hypergamy, the evolutionarily driven tendency to always cultivate financial and social relationships with higher position men combines with the changed economic landscape to create, for women, a perception of no suitable male partners.
This becomes comical when social conservative women’s organizations publicly campaign; exhorting men to step up, earn and provide, even as men are economically sidelined by decades of feminist affirmative action in higher education.
There is a glaringly obvious divergence between the public claims of organized feminism, that social or legal equality is any feminist actor’s goal, and the observable outcomes – the legal marginalization of men and an increasingly defunct social contract between men and women.
This is the contract in which men and women not only have understandable social roles, but also complement and cooperate with each other to mutual benefit. By more than a half century of continuous attack on men by a fully feminized culture, social cohesion and mutuality of respect, affection and cooperation are irreparably damaged.
Women are told and trained through all channels of mainstream media that they’re victims of an all encompassing system keeping them down, raping them, making them victims. The goal of this narrative is to cultivate anger, resentment, and justify ongoing removal of human rights from the “guilty” half of the human race.
The factual falsehood of this narrative does not matter, and no recitation of collected statistics or peer reviewed studies can trump the emotional appeal of the unimpeachable power of victimhood. In addition, as the disenfranchisement of men and boys becomes more pronounced, rather than women taking notice or acting out of ethical concern to correct this, another rationalization is manifested.
For women in a highly feminized society – one which suspends accountability and affords privilege, correction of such a system would require surrender of privilege and embrace of accountability. In a consumer culture driven by corporations and relying on women – who control more than 65% of discretionary spending, no pressure exists to do anything except continue telling women they are entitled, victims, and superior humans. This manifests as a cheerful willingness to manipulate and exploit men, as well as an absence of empathy toward men and a disregard for male targeting violence.
As this social system continues eroding men’s human rights while escalating pressure to perform, provide, and die for the benefit of women and elites, an increasing disaffection is building.
In addition to overt hostility and derision aimed at men in mainstream media, men are becoming increasingly aware of a number of metrics of social inequity. Some of these are mentioned, with cited sources in the first few paragraphs of this article.
The persistent denial of these facts, and the continued insistence of feminism’s proponents of false claims of oppression of women illustrate that feminism constitutes a belief system as rigid in its denial of reality as the most radical religious denials of demonstrable fact.
The Earth, for example – is not the center of the solar system. Galileo was summoned to Rome to stand trial for his reputed support of Copernicus’ heliocentric model in 1616, and was sentenced to permanent house arrest. A decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were “false” and “altogether contrary to Holy Scripture”, and suspending Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. 
Currently, some American Christian sects pursue a campaign to deny the scientific theory at the heart of modern biology. Interestingly, this reactionary denial of modern science is only 50 years old, and not shared by most European Christians, or by the Vatican.
However, the denial by feminists of the increasing dominance by feminism of Western culture and the commensurate social, legal and economic disenfranchisement of men has every character of intractable religious faith.
The real and ongoing damage done by occupation of the public zeitgeist by a doctrine ignoring the carnage of 90% of suicides being male, or 93% of workplace deaths being male, and pretending that further removal of male human rights will correct a nonexistent “patriarchy” indicates the need to identify this ideology as the vile, hateful, and anti-human cult it really is.
This ideology is a tool, created and funded by elites, and used to divide people against each other, to destroy the integrity of human bonds of love and family. The destruction done to families, both as a unit in society and as the stable foundation of every person, means individuals are greatly weakened and isolated from one another. This has the effect of making society weaker and more pliable to top-down control by increasingly far reaching government, and allowing elites in control of central banks a far more overt grip on public policy for their own benefit at the expense of loss of individual human rights.
Feminism cannot be afforded the continued illusion of legitimacy as a humanist movement. Its produced damage and human suffering is so overt that under whatever banner its collected ideologies operate, it must be rejected and denied in the same way racism or racial supremacism has been in the past.
The alternative is an increasingly totalitarian world, an ever diminishing standard of human rights, and the acceptance of continuously escalated human damage for the benefit and power of elites.
“Reasonable, that is human [individuals], will always be capable of compromise, but those who have dehumanized themselves by becoming blind worshippers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions make them the enemies of life”. ~Alan Watts