To this day since its conception, there are many that would deny feminism is a hate movement. To an average twenty something guy, feminism is a group of women who did some good things for the female population but are annoying and complain about men too much. An average twenty something girl knows little about feminism and most of the time will say it is something good that got women the right to vote. Sometimes I find it amazing that even though feminism has existed for over half a century most of the general public know little to nothing about it. Normally when someone is opposed to a specific ideology or political group this situation would be exactly what they want. They would want the public to know as little about whatever it is they are against so that turning people away would be all too easy.
Don’t know too much about Obama? Good because you wouldn’t want to know him. He wasn’t even born in the United States.
You’ve barely heard of Arnold Schwarzenegger? That guy cheated on his wife and had a kid with another woman! That’s all you need to know. Don’t ever vote for him.
See how easy it is? Scandals and events are what stick in the minds of the people. So if someone knows little about something like Men’s Rights, well let’s just say people like Michael “put a warning label on every man’s penis” Kimmel will be presented as a supposed “expert” on the movement.
However with feminism the formula is yielding the opposite results. Most people don’t know anything about feminism. There are several laws and policies enacted because of feminism that people have to follow. There are several organizations and rallies that people attend that are connected to feminism. But these people don’t know that feminism is connected. When someone finally does hear anything directly about feminism the only thing they hear is “women are suffering, feminism will fix it”. That is the only time people hear feminism connected to a message, when that message is about helping women. Whenever the message is about why women are suffering we don’t hear feminism mentioned in those statements. When we hear “men did this…” the people who say it usually don’t say “I am a feminist and I believe all of you men are oppressing women”. At least I never heard it put that way back when I actually watched television. Sure the names of the organizations were put out but who really researches into the backers of organizations? Average men and women?
I don’t think so.
Normal people usually need a reason to go out of their way to do something time consuming like research. They need a cause. I guarantee that anyone who identifies as some “ism” or activist was pushed into that role through a series of events that gave them cause to do so. That is when the research began because something they cared about was at stake.
Men and women have been hearing about the supposed evils of men all of their lives, for countless centuries. Why should hearing about it now from some domestic violence organization, or rape awareness organization, or college course make any difference?
Does it upset men to hear that they are the primary cause for the suffering of women? Sure. But most guys just view that message as women bitching about nothing and go on with their lives. But there are some who call the propagators of this message out on their bigotry. It doesn’t really amount to anything though. What normal guy is really going to go up against an organization publicized for helping women who are victims of domestic violence?
This is how feminism hides.
There are many organizations out there dedicated to helping women, and women only, but they are not called feminist organizations. They hold several different names. If every average guy knew that each and every one of these organizations operated under the banner of feminism then they would have a target with which to focus their retaliation to the discriminatory messages these feminists put out.
But not enough people know and therefore the first thing that pops into someone’s mind when asked about feminism is “women getting the right to vote”. A sad fact of that matter is feminism didn’t even get women the right to vote but still this one thing is what solidifies the common perspective feminism holds in the minds of the people.
I have made the argument that a movement, even one born on the premise of justice, can still be a hate movement because of the actions of its members. I still stand by that argument and it is my main focal point when declaring feminism a hate movement against men. However, regardless of how many people I get this point across to, there are still those that hold out, believing that the movement can still be changed from within.
I write this now to put that belief to rest.
As with every movement there are certain values that make up its core. The beliefs those who created the movement hold and expect all who join to follow. Almost everyone I know within the MRM knows what the core beliefs of feminism are but this message is not for MRAs. This message is for the average, unaffiliated men and women who happen to read this article. This message is for the good, bad, moderate, radical, anti-this, and pro-that feminists who actually accept that there is misandry within their movement but refuse to believe that misandry is large enough to deserve resistance. Here are the core values of the feminist movement and the irrefutable proof that the hatred of men is not only exclusive to many of the members of the feminist movement but is indeed the very essence and foundation of the movement itself.
Patriarchy: Every MRA has heard this word and many MRAs interpret it differently. Not because they do not understand it, but because most feminists do not understand it and those that do routinely alter its meaning to suit their current argument or message of anti-male propaganda.
The actual definition of the word is this: A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
The feminist definition is this: A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
And this: Patriarchy is best defined as control by men.
And this: It is the idea that society should be mostly controlled by male figures.
It is quite easy to discern a sense of hatred and opposition from the definitions feminists give the word patriarchy. The devious women and men who propagate this filth use these twisted definitions to identify the aspects of society they wish changed. They deny their hatred and blame of men and claim that they only wish to “balance” the power in society. The less devious members of feminism are more honest with their insinuations and hatred. They simply say that the patriarchy is a group of men who sit in the shadows and are out to get them.
Eventually, those within the media who had a bone to pick with feminism, because it threatened the traditional white knight lifestyle they were used to, mostly republicans, used the blatantly obvious hatred laced through the definitions feminists put on patriarchy to slander the movement. So instead of twisting around the meaning of the word again feminists instead chose to just make up a new word.
Kyriarchy: a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza to describe interconnected, interacting, and multiplicative systems of domination and submission, within which a person oppressed in one context might be privileged in another It is an intersectional elaboration of the concept of patriarchy— it extends the analysis of oppression beyond traditional feminism to dynamics such as sexism, racism, economic injustice, and other forms of internalized and institutionalized oppression
See what Fiorenza did there? For a long while feminists who were called on their anti-male propaganda theory of patriarchy would shout “we aren’t blaming men! Patriarchy hurts men too!”
So now some feminists who really, really want to hide the fact that they blame men for you know, everything, use this new term, kyriarchy to say that yes men suffer discrimination too. They believe you now when you say that you got a raw deal in family court. Of course the reason that happened, according to feminists, is because of the sexist view men hold of women being default child raisers. Oh and feminists acknowledge the fact that men occupy over 90% of the most dangerous and fatal jobs on the planet. But that is only because of the system men and only men put in place that forces men into these roles. You see? Kyriarchy hurts men too.
Feminists leave out the part about how if men didn’t do these jobs no one else would.
The bottom line is that with the growing voices of men around the globe that are speaking out against male discrimination, feminists are rearranging their messages to lightly acknowledge the short comings of men. Why are they doing this? Because more and more average guys are beginning to look into feminism because of messages from MRAs and other anti-feminists and when these guys start looking into feminism, feminists don’t want things like their definitions for patriarchy on front page display. When reading the definition of kyriarchy one could imagine that feminists believe all people are discriminated against. Some do. But even those who do acknowledge that men are discriminated against, even oppressed, refuse to even consider that any man could ever be suffering more than women. That is the main core belief of feminism and the eternal feminist definition of patriarchy;
for every man that suffers, he is only suffering because of the system of patriarchy other men created and there is always a woman somewhere suffering more, because of a man.
That is man hatred, plain and simple.
Rape Culture: While patriarchy has many definitions to hide its meaning, this feminist theory has only one meaning;
a term used within women’s studies and feminism, describing a culture in which rape and other sexual violence (usually against women) are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.
The short version is this; our culture encourages men to rape women and ignores women who cry out for help.
Now if you’re an average guy or girl reading this right now you’re probably scratching your head wondering what the crazy conspiracy theorist is talking about. Well this is what feminists believe, all of them, the good ones, the bad ones, the moderate ones, and the radicals. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Click yourself on over to feministing or any other major “third wave” or “moderate” feminist website and type in rape culture. Better yet, type it into google and see what pops up. If you find one mention of this theory put out by feminists that differs from the definition I provided you can write this article off as misogynistic propaganda and never read anything from me again. Hell, don’t even click back over to this page and finish the article.
Oh so we’re back I see? Well then let me continue.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can understand that this is a belief that feminists hold and still not accept the fact that feminism is a hate movement against men. Consider the outrageous and ridiculous policies and practices that have been put in place because of feminist propaganda and advocacy based off of this theory.
Any man accused of rape by any woman, even a woman that is a known liar and convicted false accuser, will be arrested on sight regardless of any evidence suggesting said man’s guilt or innocence. A perfect example of this is the young men from Hofstra University who were literally hunted down and jailed because of words. A woman’s words. This woman’s name was not revealed while the young men were dragged through the media as rapists before a trial date could even be considered. Before any evidence was even collected they were already rapists according to the feminist influenced media. If the case had gone to trial this woman would have remained anonymous throughout and evidence such as her sexual history would not be allowed into the case. The feminist reasoning behind this farce of a policy is that “slut shaming” should not influence verdicts. However, if we think back to the infamous Kobe Bryant case, the evidence that proved the supposed victim had consensual sex on the same day, hours after her alleged rape was crucial in proving Kobe’s innocence. Feminists don’t want things like this, women being proven liars in court, to happen.
Feminists want you to believe that women who actually do lie about being raped only lie because of slut shaming. One feminist leader, Jessica, the hypocrite, Valenti wrote an entire book on why it’s a man’s fault that any woman would ever lie about rape.
Just think this over in your mind for a while. Not too long ago it was legal in our society to kill men who were only accused of rape. Today men are carted off to jail, sent to court, and convicted on testimony from alleged rape victims. How exactly can we possibly live in a culture that encourages rape when people are killed for merely being accused of the crime?
The truth is we do not live in a culture that encourages rape. We live in a culture that encourages the death of rapists, proven and unproven. However, feminists would like the public to believe that a rapist lurks around every corner and sadly that is the state we live in today. You will rarely find a woman walking anywhere alone. I myself have been asked by many of my female friends to walk them to their car after work. They tell me that “as a woman I feel it’s dangerous for me to be alone I might get raped”. Programs are springing up around the country in our schools where it is mandatory for men to attend. What is the focus of these programs you ask? Telling young men how they are all potential rapists and how they need to learn how to control the innate rapist within.
This is a culture in which rape is encouraged?
No. This is a culture where a group of ideologues can put out hateful messages, such as our society encouraging men to rape women, and no one bats an eye.
Rape culture is another made up feminist theory used to spread their hatred of men.
Male Privilege: a sociological term that refers quite generally to the special rights (perceived or actual) or status granted to men in a society, on the basis of their sex or gender, but usually denied to women and/or transsexuals.
Do I really have to shorten this one down for you to see how it equates to man hatred?
Men get special rights and privileges because we have penises and women do not because women are oppressed victims. Don’t think this is another core feminist belief? Well it is.
They made a fucking checklist on it.
They made several actually but I digress. Feminists believe that employers, only male employers, prefer men over women because…? They don’t really go into the why, besides saying male employers view all women as inferior to men. Of course they leave out the fact that a lot of female employers prefer hiring men but I digress again. If you’re a man and you get picked or considered for anything over a woman, even if you are better qualified, it is only because you have a penis.
Your work ethic?
That doesn’t matter.
Your commitment?
Details.
Your skills?
Fuck your skills.
By the way, the only time male privilege is the reason you are picked for a job or a raise is when you are up against a woman, which means male privilege in the work place only exists in office jobs. So all of you men who are toiling away in those coal mines, atop those oil rigs, on those fishing boats, and around those construction sites…you’re still privileged but you’re not being unfair to women in regards to your job. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
But for men of all shapes, colors, and sizes you are definitely being unfair to women by not being more likely to get sexually assaulted while walking home alone. Now that is a privilege you hold that just spits in the face of women everywhere. I mean you have to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of murder victims, mugging victims, and assault victims are male and then you can understand how you as a man are privileged because the criminal that attacks you wants to kill you instead of fuck you.
I elaborate on the male privilege bigotry feminists propagate in another article but for the purpose of outing this feminist belief as another aspect of their hatred for men I will point out a simple fact. Some privileges are given while others are earned. Some employers, male and female, prefer hiring men over women because men have been the workhorses of the human species since…the human fucking species. Men work more days and more hours than women because if they don’t they most likely won’t be having sex with any women. Men hold more seats in political office because more people, male and female, vote for men and because more men than women run for office.
Feminists twist the idea of male privilege. They want the public to believe that men are given underserved things because they are men. This is untrue and blatant man hatred.
Women on the other hand in regards to jobs are given privileges such as affirmative action. Let me expand a little on affirmative action. I hate affirmative action, gender and race based affirmative action, and this is coming from someone whose grandmother was denied the right to continue school past the third grade and forced to work in cotton fields. I know all about the reasoning behind affirmative action for blacks and in the past it was understandable. Blacks faced actual oppression in western societies.
But women?
Affirmative action for women is a true example of a privilege given and not earned because of feminist propagated lies like male privilege. The idea of getting the government to force someone to hire you sickens me. If I start a business it is my business and I run it the way I see fit. Feminism seeks to revoke the rights of others to appease the childish gripes that inferiority complex driven women have towards men and other women.
Too few women were able to qualify for physically demanding professions such as firefighters and police officers. So what did feminists do? They forced government agencies, created to train individuals to protect and save the lives of citizens, to lower their standards so women not as dedicated as those who actually could qualify for these positions were let in and with affirmative action, these agencies had quotas they had to fill or they would be sued and their physical performance tests shut down. That’s right, if they didn’t do everything they could to ensure that enough women were on their rosters the tests fire departments created to train individuals to save lives would be shut down. Any men who complained were branded sexists and their jobs were threatened. So basically, you and your family’s safety took a back seat to the fragile egos of women who were pissed off they couldn’t handle a job as easily as men could.
Inferiority complexes towards men are not the only things feminism seeks to appease, feminists have an extreme resentment towards women who do not agree with what feminists feel is objectification. Hooters is a good example. The people who created the Hooters restaurant chain created it with one thing in mind, using attractive women to pull in male customers. It worked. However, feminists feel that women who are perfectly content with wearing the revealing waitress uniforms are being objectified, whether the actual women wearing the outfits feel this way or not. These women are grown adults who know exactly what they are doing and a lot of them enjoy it. In general women like enticing men with their bodies, it is a part of their biology to do so and I’m not mad at them for it. But feminists, a lot of them severely lacking in the attraction department, wish to take away a woman’s choice to do this. This is kind of confusing to me seeing as how some of the most hideous looking feminists I have ever seen took it upon themselves to put on their best hooker uniforms and march down the streets shouting how evil men are. Feminists really can’t make up their minds about how they want to attack men. Are we bad because some of us would like you to keep your clothes on or are we bad because some of us would like you to take them off? Or is it you are just pissed because we only want attractive women to take their clothes off?
Feminists complain about women in restaurants wearing revealing clothing because these women are dressed this way for the sole purpose of giving men eye candy while they eat. However, when someone suggests that women should keep their clothes on for their own safety, feminists scream that women should be able to dress as slutty as they want. Feminists are only upset when men can see scantily clad women whenever they want and the control women can use over men with their bodies is nonexistent.
Wage gap: The wage gap doesn’t really have an official definition. It is another fabrication that feminists (yes I am talking to you, feminists who are reading this) use to vilify men. Equal pay for equal work is all we ever hear. But there is one thing concerning the wage gap that most don’t hear. Women are already given equal pay for equal work. Any middle class or lower class member of the work force already knows this. Unless you are a man working in one of those dangerous fields I listed above you more than likely have female coworkers and there is not a feminist alive who could prove you are being paid more than any of those female coworkers.
Because you aren’t.
But yet again we have to switch our focus from the average men and women of the populace and focus on the small percentage at the top. The people pulling down those six figure salaries. The CEOs of all-men-no-women incorporated. To understand the main focus feminism constitutes with its attack on men one cannot look at the bottom or the middle but at the top because that is where these entitlement complex driven (yes I am still talking to you, feminists who are reading this article) narcissists wish to sit and they do not want pesky things like initiative, innovation, hard work, or competence getting in the way.
Women work less days and hours than men; therefore, they are paid less. Men receive more raises and promotions than women because men ask for and aggressively pursue them instead of waiting for their superiors to realize that they deserve and should be given one. It’s all really simple to comprehend and feminists know this but they do not care. If companies do not put women in top positions they are put on blast through the media as sexist organizations with work environments that are hostile towards women. Think I’m going down the misogynistic conspiracy theory route again? Well just take a look at the plan the International Monetary Fund is implementing since the Strauss Kahn scandal in order to combat the feminist claims of their work environments being hostile towards women.
What did the nice lady in the video say? The company is working towards a goal (read: quota) to ensure that 50% of its managerial staff doesn’t have a penis?
Yes. Yes she did.
Is it all starting to sink in now? Maybe this little bit of information will help. The wage gap is true. There is definitely a gap between what men and women earn in the workplace. However, the lie that you hear associated with that truth comes from feminists. There is no systematic pay discrimination against women within the job market.
Toxic Masculinity: As if the name itself doesn’t just scream “I hate men”. To get a good dose of propaganda on this theory just head over to any establishment that houses an assortment of male feminists. Don’t get it twisted though, the bra burning women of the past, who claimed they didn’t need a man, were the ones who came up with this stuff but they realized that marching through the streets saying men are inherently evil wasn’t going to win them any popularity, or government funds. So they got some men to do it for them. The irony of that fact is heavier than the fucking planet.
That’s basically it. Men are inherently evil. Most feminists won’t use the word evil but that doesn’t matter. They claim that all men are potential rapists and abusers and that their masculinity is to blame. The solution? Get em’ while they’re young. Teach young boys that being masculine is wrong. Teach them that everything about them is wrong and everything about girls is pure and innocent. That way, the entire world will change into a peaceful utopia where men worship the true goddess of the universe, Oprah.
Anyway I tackle the absurdity of this feminist belief in another article so I won’t go too far into it. However, I will just say that basically, toxic masculinity is a false icon that feminists have created in order to take the actions and characteristics of male criminals and use them as a representation of all men. Masculinity is a word that represents good human characteristics that are observed generally within men. Feminists do not want anything good to be associated with men so they use the term toxic masculinity as a replacement for masculinity in order to vilify men and propagate that boys need to be “fixed” or risk being a rapist or abuser.
Gender Socialization: This is another core feminist belief I explore in another article. This one is tricky though because it actually exists. That’s right I said it. The feminists got one right. However, like with the wage gap they twisted it into a blame men fest and encouraged everyone to join in.
The simplest way to explain this theory is the G.I. Joe and Barbie analogy. Boys are given manly toys to play with and manly programs like the boy scouts to attend while girls are given the opposite. The things parents do to influence their children can attest for some of the things we view as masculine and feminine. Where feminists mess things up here is their claims that all things are viewed the way they are because of what we endure as children. Why do most men like to go outside and enjoy physical activities such as sports? Well according to feminists it’s because they were indoctrinated and forced to love these things when they were boys by their parents, the media, or both. I often wonder who was doing the indoctrinating before television and newspapers were invented? The parents? So every parent everywhere made sure that their sons liked blowing things up and their daughters liked putting flowers in their hair?
Now I’m not the smartest man in the world…(here’s an easy cheap shot for the Futrelles of the world) but considering what I see today, how the overwhelming majority of people who advance our societies with technology and construction are men and the overwhelming majority of people who defend our societies are men, everywhere, since the beginning of the human race…I’m going to go with common sense over indoctrination. It is a proven fact that whatever force created men, be it evolution, god, aliens, or whatever you want to believe, men were made physically superior to women. That word, superior, use it in any way when comparing men and women that doesn’t involve women coming out on top and you will get pummeled by feminist rhetoric. But anyway, seeing as how men evolved into physically superior beings men were able to do tasks that were physically demanding better than women. Tasks such as hunting, fighting, defending, protecting, and oh yes, building.
So you take an average B.C. civilization era guy with the knowledge and skills to build a home, hunt for food, and make weapons, what do you think he is going to do? Obviously he would realize these skills are essential for survival. So don’t you think he would teach his sons these skills as well? Maybe they would teach their sons? And since he figured it out on his own don’t you think that whether he taught these things or not his male offspring would eventually figure these things out? Consider also that this man is no misogynistic knuckle dragger as feminists make men of the past out to be. Consider this man has a few daughters who genuinely want to help. Sure he says and teaches them the same skills he taught his sons. Now this man watches his children who are now well into their teenage years. He sees how his sons have grown bigger, not just in height but in muscle mass as well. He sees how even though wild animals may scare the life out of them; they still enjoy hunting these beasts and bringing them down in order to feed their family. He notices how fast and efficient his sons’ muscles allow them to be when building fences and fixing village homes.
Then he looks at his daughters.
He notices how they are struggling with carrying things his sons could lift with one arm. He notices how they cringe, cry, and can’t keep up when out on hunts. He notices how they are slower, weaker, and miserable compared to his sons. So what does he do? Well without the invention of artificial testosterone and steroids to beef up his tiny vixens he does the only thing that seems sensible. He tells them they don’t have to do these things. He tells them that their brothers are better suited. Finally he tells himself that he will not teach any future daughters he might have how to do these tasks. Eventually, as his civilization grows it becomes commonplace that women do not aspire to the same tasks as men. Not because they cannot do it but simply because men are better at it and if families do not want to die from the wilds or an invading tribe then they better not put a 120 pound woman toe to toe with a 200 pound man with a very large stick in his hand.
I bet that little scenario of mine pissed off a lot of you feminist readers, even the ones who were warming up to what I was saying so far.
Good.
I like pissing off feminists. But just to be clear the scenario I described may not account for every man and woman everywhere. In fact I know it doesn’t. I’ve seen some pretty scrawny men and some pretty buff women, with no steroids involved. The point is the scenario I described was the norm. Not because of socialization but because of adaptation. Human beings adapt to their environments better than any other mammals on the planet. If we didn’t we’d be living on the planet of the apes right now. Not all women view the natural advantages men have over women as some attack on their humanity. But most feminist women do.
In this day and age technology has alleviated a lot of what in the past made the advantages men have over women celebrated by society. Now those advantages are attacked and any mention of them is called hate speech or misogyny. I say if women want to go out into the hot sun and prove they can build and move things better than men then by all means go for it. If women want to prove they can soldier better than men then once again, go ahead. I would love to see army divisions filled with women in combat MOS positions, now that I’m not in the army anymore and wouldn’t have to deal with the amplified life threatening danger that would bring. Feminists, no women in general fail to realize that being a soldier…no scratch that.
Women in general fail to realize that opposed to what is put on television in all of these female centered spy and cop dramas, being a warrior takes more, a lot more than knowing how to fire a gun properly. The physical and mental demands of being a combat MOS soldier are more intense than any other profession. Well they are when your society is at war with another society at least. I could tell some war stories that would make a woman wet herself, and not in the good way. Will I deny that there are women who experience combat? No. Will I claim that all women can’t handle combat? No. But when some feminist fucktard decides to sit down and say “fuck you US army” for whatever reason when it comes to combat positions while she is in her air conditioned room on her little laptop computer…well that just makes me want to reinstate the draft and put women on the front of the list. You don’t get to say “fuck you US army” unless you’ve fucking been in it, period. I fucking hate the army but you know what I earned the right to say fuck you to the army. That is one of the main things that pisses me off about the female half of feminism, you idiots sit back in your technology ridden houses and apartments, watch a fucking sliver of what people like me have gone through on television and then decide to call men in the military who do not think most women can handle combat, sexists.
FUCK YOU.
Put your ass in seventy pound gear, grab a 120mm H.E.A.T. round, carry that bitch through the fucking desert and load it up in a tank, while being shot at, then get blown up afterwards. THEN you can say fuck you US army. That is, if you haven’t paid a guy to knock you up in order to avoid deployment and then aborted your kid a few months later.
Ok I’m calm again.
So finally we come to the conclusion of why feminism is indeed a movement of hate against men not only because of the actions of feminists but because of the ideology of feminism itself. Equality is not the base ideology of feminism. The movement has two main definitions, two definitions that negate and cancel each other out. One cannot practice the avocation of equality for both genders and at the same time practice organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. It’s one or the other and feminism does neither. It does nothing for the rights of women because women have every right men do except for the right to be in a military combat MOS, which is something feminists rarely focus on. Feminism only practices organized activity on behalf of women’s interests, and that’s all, and in doing so they accuse men of being the sole barrier between women achieving those interests.
So there they are ladies, gentlemen, and feminists, the core beliefs of feminism. To anyone reading this that is not a feminist and doesn’t believe all feminists support a movement that vilifies men please ask them if they believe in any of the core beliefs of feminism. Just one belief will do. It can be your test, a handy guide when determining whether or not a feminist hates men.
However since I lean more on the humanist side than MRA side I will be fair to those feminists who truly don’t hate men. Because there are women out there, whose knowledge of feminism ends with the “we got women the vote” tagline that identify as feminists and do not believe they are supporting the vilification of men.
Do you feminists, who don’t hate men, believe in these core beliefs? If so then why? Do you have a separate definition for them than the ones I presented? If you do, are those separate definitions sponsored by the group of feminists you associate with? Or are they just your own reinterpretations? You don’t have to be honest with me just be honest with yourself. If you do uphold the core beliefs of feminism yet have a separate definitions that do not vilify men (how the hell you can come up with any is beyond me) then you should understand even though you call yourself a feminist, the minute you walk into a government funded feminist organization saying anything other than “men are the problem” you will be thrown out right along with the supposed misogynists that are against feminism.
Like Warren Farrell was.
Then you will be left wondering what to do. Well the way I see it is you will have three options.
Option A: Forget about honesty and integrity and just go with the flow. Shout out how bad men are and how we have ruined the lives of women with our patriarchal misogyny.
Option B: Turn a blind eye to the bigotry of your movement without denying, defending, or acknowledging it.
Option C: Take the feminism out of your mouth and speak for yourself, not your movement.
To all of you average guys and gals out there who don’t know too much about feminism, I’ve given you cause.
It’s time to start researching.
Tags: Feminism, Feminist lies, Feminists, Hate Movement, Ideologue Review, Jmnzz, Men's Issues, Men's Rights, Misandric Culture, Patriarchy, Rape Culture, Toxic Masculinity
11 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
FarmCat:
blueface:
Roderick1268:
db917:
What a great article. Feminism is a hierarchical movement that relies on coercive violence and oppression to achieve it’s goals. How other anarchists see it as anarchist is beyond me. Hell, I don’t even dig identity politics with my anarchy. It’s just easier to say I fight all bigoted behavior and to end the oppression of everyone.
*that should read that I work to end all oppression.
Well said.
Bit long but well worth the read. Great argument for the uninformed.
I doubt you’ll get a “feminist” response at AVfM.
They wander in from time to time, but when they figure out we can’t be controlled by shame, and are not impressed by misinformation, they go elsewhere.
Jmnzz fired so many cylinders that any feminists would be stunned even if they were offended. Like a deer in headlights.
“Like a deer in headlights.”
In which case I would speed up.
I hope this hits a reddit and digg it button from some hate-mongering feminist that steps upon it. It’ll get a good show for the internet to flame the shit out itself and be left with only the truth.
Bookmarked for use as standard issue response to ‘why do you hate feminism?’/NAFALT arguments. Excellent piece.
Happy to be of service man. Watching yours and Paul’s videos is what got me researching and encouraged me to help put out the message. There was one in particular from you that made it into my very first video.
“Fix it, or fuck off!”
Brilliant man.
Hey! That kind of thing makes my day. Thanks for that.
Have to agree. I watched that video more times than I can remember. It’s an MRM classic.
I did a ‘classic’? That’s fantastic!
Honestly tho, I really need to get a good webcam or something…
On another note: Does anyone know if this story is true? http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/kill-your-dogs-urges-germaine-greer-20110603-1fjgy.html
That would be right, the answer to the problem of her highly valued bluebells that are valued only because they look pretty….and are not an aware life form that feels fear, pain, etc…..is to kill off dogs..and restrict humans access to land where bluebells grow. Take away freedoms…….restrict…….make more laws……that’s all feminists do.
You think thats bad.. written by a stupid bitch… and so glad she no longers lives in my country…. but have a go at this article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002083/Germaine-Greer-claims-British-troops-turn-rapists.html
Germaine Greer was branded a disgrace yesterday after claiming British troops would rape women while at war.
The feminist outraged military leaders after she suggested highly-disciplined UK ground forces might commit acts of appalling sexual brutality if deployed to Libya.
And that is just the opening lines.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002083/Germaine-Greer-claims-British-troops-turn-rapists.html#ixzz1OxbDVl58
If this were a group of women into young boys she wouldn’t be complainant she’d be a participant. Of course Greer and her ilk call men like Roman Polanski “perverts” while overlooking their own behavior.
The only good thing about Germaine Greer is that she nevered reproduced.
If it’s a choice between Germaine Greer and dogs any society can do without Germaine Greer.
Excellent article.
Kyriarchy is a WOC (women of color) terms. The concept is similar to patriarchy in structure, only that it has more layers than just man and woman. Picture a pyramid structure with white men at the top followed by white women, then Hispanic, Asian etc, with black women at the bottom. So you are right that it’s really no different than patriarchy in the contexts of men’s rights.
Uh yeah, I think white women would be at the top of that particular pyramid.
Well, no, Snark, this is an imaginary “pyramid of oppression.”
The top level, therefore, is painted-in with the caricature of the historical oppressor, and that’s me, baby, the WASP male despot who owned the plantation and whipped the slaves when he wasn’t f**king their women.
The whole point of kyriarchy is to “bear witness to the oppression,” and to teach the children that “white men BADBADBAD, whites BAD, everyone has dumped historically on the Black man, and he has dumped historically on the Black Woman, and we deserve all the fruits of Society given us for free because our great-great-great-great grandparents were oppressed by Society and it just isn’t fair and …
In other words it is used to show that it’s all MY fault.
The top level, therefore, is painted-in with the caricature of the historical oppressor, and that’s me, baby, the WASP male despot who owned the plantation and whipped the slaves when he wasn’t f**king their women.
Now those were the days to be a white male.
Also: pyramids don’t work, honey …
That model makes sense from a class perspective, because there are far more people in the lower classes than the upper classes – this is necessarily the case in capitalist societies.
The numerical difference between men and women, by contrast, is negligible.
What you have is a square.
Although, putting actual (i.e. racial) minorities on the bottom, gives you an upside-down pyramid.
You have taken one model, which applies in one context (social class in capitalism) and have attempted to apply this in all contexts you deem ‘oppression’, like it’s a ‘one-size-fits-all’ … if anything, this closer analysis should prove to you that the world just does not work that way. Your pyramid model does not fit with what you term ‘kyriarchy’.
PS. The very term ‘minority’ should have given you a clue.
‘Scuse me, Snark, we aren’t talking sense here when we talk of the kyriarchy and the role-models of white-male oppression. (as it’s called).
It is indeed a “one size fits all” dysconcept, if I may invent a word.
Feminism is not about “how the world works.” It’s about “how the world SHOULD work if you male chauvinist pigs weren’t running it, and you should be SHAMED and BLAMED and HATED and REVILED and GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!! for running it your way.”
Just trying to show the girl the error of her ways.
Or at least, to show her up.
‘dysconcept’.
I like it.
4 down votes,it seems that they brought more feminists over but if all 4 feminists are here who’s at feministing?
A good read! Certainly comprehensive and interesting, with a pinch or two of humour for good measure. Well worth putting aside the time to read…
Most women believe feminism is merely about equal rights, but in fact, gender feminism is about enforced equality of outcome between the sexes. The gulf between those two goals cannot be greater.
To achieve equality of outcome (so that there is never in any distinction between men and women in behavior, treatment or outcome,) Feminists must dismantle what they call the “Patriarchy”
This entails:
* Getting rid of concept of Gender. Gender is a social construct, that is, its not based in biology. Gender (and even sex) is not something that is real or fixed
* Feminise men to remove “toxic masculinity.”
* Remove the notions of heterosexuality (including the patriarchal concepts of gay and lesbian) and replace with pan-sexuality and pan sexuals
* Refute hetro-normality and heterosexism
* Discourage marriage and monogamous relationships, as they are relics and tools of the patriarchy. Replace with Polyamory and communal living.
* Children are to be raised by a community instead of two biological parents
* Get rid of capitalism as its associated with the patriarchy and cannot foster equality of out come.
* Disband religions as they are patriarchal conspiracy designed to oppress women.
For a women to call herself a modern feminist or a supporter of feminism, she must support all of the above. Faced with the true nature of feminism, I wonder how many ordinary women would still call themselves feminists.
Correction. Feminism is about the equality of outcomes, where that outcome would be beneficial to women. For instance, having equal numbers of women working in mines, construction sites, the battle fields etc, is an equal outcome, but it is not a desirable one. Instead they focus on having any benefits that those men that do those things have, but not the negatives…..like having to do the work….or put up the conditions….the injuries…the death.
In many cases they don’t even support equal outcomes……but superior outcomes for women. Divorce, custody, alimony, etc. An equal outcome would be that half of divorces resulted in the man getting the kids and assets and them paying child support and alimony. That would be an equal outcome…but no feminist I’ve ever heard of would support that.
That means Feminism = Princess Pussy Pass
Well… some of what you mention is what some anarchists(barring “anarcho”-capitalists) want to do kinda sorta(it’s obviously muddied). It seems that you’re trying to conflate anarchism with feminism
“Discourage marriage and monogamous relationships, as they are relics and tools of the patriarchy. Replace with Polyamory and communal living.”
Yes and no. We oppose authoritarian interference with our lives, some of us are indeed polyamorous and pursue those types of relationships and others pursue monogamous relationships. All of us however, see anarchist society as communal.
“Children are to be raised by a community instead of two biological parents”
Yes. Anarchists see that the entire community has a responsibility with all of the children in the community. We support communal education arrangements. BUT, we also realize that the children’s parents have a bigger responsibility to them as well.
“Get rid of capitalism as its associated with the patriarchy and cannot foster equality of out come.”
Yes, but that’s because capitalism creates authoritarian hierarchy, which is not conducive towards universal human dignity, not because of “patriarchy.” (Also note that we all have different alternatives like mutualism, syndaclism, or communism[I'm essentailly an anarcho-communist], but we are all socialists)
“Disband religions as they are patriarchal conspiracy designed to oppress women.”
Anarchists are mixed on the topic of religion and spirituality, some see it as a form of oppression and others are religious themselves and are anarchists because of their beliefs. We all oppose organized religion and its ability to wreak authoritarian havoc in our lives but not personal faith.
Anything to do with sexuality or gender: We are critical of bigoted behavior and it’s potential to oppress others, and yes, that does include heterosexism, this does not mean we have a hard-on against straight people.
Fuck socialism. Women don’t even practice true socialism, though they gravitate more towards socialism;they practice Animal Farm socialism, or “some girls are prettier than others” socialism, as I see it.
If you wanna take from this motherfucker according to his ability, it’ll have to be over my dead body.
This is a fair criticism of state socialism. If we had an anarchist society, it would be a more communal set up, everyone would have their own responsibilities to the community… and I mean everyone in order to benefit from the system. The current system which is really a mix between capitalism and socialism is an unequal band-aid that doesn’t fix the real problems of capitalism. Proudhon, Bakunin, and even Marx all have very valid criticisms of capitalism.
I’m personally in favor of the abolition of markets, money, and private property(all of which have historically exploited people). I think of the maxim “to each according to their ability, and to each according to their need”
Dammit more of that was put in italics then I meant to put in italics.
“I’m personally in favor of the abolition of markets, money, and private property(all of which have historically exploited people). ”
I’m not. All those things, private property especially, protect more people than they harm.
Wiki:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs.”
Which means everyone works as hard as they can, and the young productive males, whose needs are judged to be quite minimal, lose the most. Those deemed ‘wards of the State’, the poor, etc, gain the most.
It’s one big disincentive wrapped up in a pretty bow and presented to women, in order for them to sell the concept to men. This mode was also employed by Hitler, by the way. The reason women were chosen, and ‘believe’, is because Marxism/Socialism closely mirrors their life experience (to that point anyway) in that someone else went out and worked, and she got what she needed without doing much in the way of paid employment.
Who WOULDN’T want the whole world to work like that?
This worldview is clearly dependent on dismissal of men as anything other than disposable beasts of burden. After all, they are producing most of what you’re consuming.
Marxism is inherently anti-male and oppressive to men. Obviously you’ve never considered the role the average male would have to assume for this pyramid scheme to work. Either that, or you REALLY hate men a lot.
Fuck that shit. I own my labor, my utility. Anyone that thinks I should have to produce more then I consume believes in slavery. I owe nobodies children anything except my own.
So what do you propose for someone like me then….that gives you the finger when you say I have to work and produce more so that others can be supplied from my labor……what do you do…..put me in chains. What do you do when I tell you that your kids are your responsibility and refuse to work to provide and support them…….put me in chains under a whip. You don’t believe in owning property…..so for instance……you believe if I build a house without your help…..you have just a much right to move in as I do. And what do you do if I don’t agree to that……get your commie mates to come around and kill me to take my house…..because that is what you would have to do.
People just wont get it through the fucking heads that if what you work for is just going to be taken off you, then people have no incentive to produce any more then what they barely need.
True both on a macro and micro scale, by the way…
Critisize socialism and capitalism and suggest communism as the solution…you’re smarter than that Lady Catherine, unless I’m mistaken.
If you’re against markets and money then consider this. In this utopian community……lets say I am a hunter. I bring in the dear, rabbit, beef etc. So I am able to do that…..proven by the fact t that I am doing it. Ok, you villagers want some beef…..and I say…..I want you to give me chicken and eggs for some of my beef. You say fuck you……I need the beef……so just give it to me……i say fuck you…..you don’t give me the chicken and the eggs and I don’t give you beef. You are either faced with stealing my beef….or going without. Either way….it results in my not bringing any more beef to your village….because you won’t give me what I want in return. Now…..when it comes to money……i can only physically carry so many chickens and eggs……so once by bags are fool…….I’m not going to be able to carry any more….so the amount of beef I bring to your village will be limited to how much chicken I can carry…..and eat. On the other hand…..you might give me some gold coins…..which I can later use to purchase more chicken and eggs……or any other commodity that someone else somewhere else has. Without these innovations…..market….and currency….I’m just going to hunt enough beef, dear and rabbits to meet my own needs…and fuck you all.
And we never progress beyond grass huts.
Do you miss the Soviet Union?
How do you abolish private property without the state (or some equivalent)?
I.e. abolishing something so fundamental, and which could arise again with such simplicity, would seem to require totalitarian authority.
Which might just be why it’s always turned out that way.
Exactly. If I clear some land, build my dwelling, and put in some veges and graze some sheep……thats my land…..I created what is on it. If people come and try and stake a claim on it……I’m gona kill them…..or they kill me….but lets face it….the ones that come are coming to take something they couldn’t or wont produce themselves……so after they kill me….they get the spoils…..but then have to go and find someone else to rob and kill. The only answer is if everyone has to either produce……or go without…….even if that means death for them…..tough.
Isn’t it against anarchist beliefs to organize? I can’t say “rules” that would violate anarchy.
Time for Anarchy Theory 101:
Yes, different factors coalesce to create different forms of oppression, be they social/cultural, legal, or financial, but that doesn’t put white heterosexual men on top by default. The biggest factors in oppression would be social class, others like sexism and racism *compound* on top of it and make it worse. And yes, “reverse” sexism and racism is just repackaging the same shit and attempting to make it seem beneficial.
Why does this sound like Feminist Theory 101? Because it is.
Yes, it is intersectionality.
Which in one way is nothing but common sense that practically nobody argues about.
But which in another way is about the creation of new victim identities.
The modus operandi that brought this about:
1) The Lie – That life for women was hell before feminism, creating an “oppressed” victim class, while purposefully devaluing the role of wife and mother.
2) Enmity/Amnity – Promote hate and distrust of men to motivate and unite women, while instilling guilt and self-doubt in men, creating political correctness and silencing debate.
3) Capture the Mass Media – Overwhelm opposing sources of influence and slowly indocrinate people by controlling the messaging, so that ONLY the feminist viewpoint could be heard.
4) Academic support – Capture our education system, especially “social sciences” to control the debate and create biased studies that lend support and credibility to feminist ideology.
And that’s how we ended up where we are.
Don’t forget the total revision of all textbooks, up to and including leaving out entire swaths of science, or history.
Feminists are just such a pack of retards and sometimes I can’t believe that we have gotten the situation we are in now.
I was arguing with one of these retards years ago, back when I still bothered to argue with them. She kept on refering to the historical oppression of women….by men…and all her arguments seemed to infer that “I” as a man, am responisble and owe something to women….”her”….because of that. This is a comonly held belief with feminists. She objected strongly to me pointing out all the usual…..that she owes men everything…..she lives in house built by us…..drives care invented and built by us….on roads built by us….all the mod cons and creature comforts…..invented….built…and maintained by men.
She pointed out that I did not build her house…..or invent the things she uses that enrich her life…..just because it was men doesn’t mean I can take credit for it. Can you see the retardedness of this. Her own belief system is that I can be responsible for what other men do…and have done…..just the bad stuff though…not the good stuff.
She also pointed out that I owe my existence to a women..my mother. That means I owe all women right? Hung on I said….you want to take credit for what other women have done….good things….and I owe you because my mother gave birth to me……but you owe me nothing while living a life of opulence taking advantage of all the things that men have done.
The conversation just went around and around. No matte what you say you just can not make them see that they are applying one rule for them…..one for men…..and both disadvantage men. If a man on the other side of the earth rapes a woman……I’m responsible because I have in comon with that man……a penis. But if a man saves a womans life…hers even……my in comon attribute….does not make me responsible for that. Truth is that even the guy that does the saving doesn’t get any credit.
Retarded
Your words echo mine Stu on this article I contributed to…
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/julian-assanges-political-honeytrap-and-ours/
Blaise, on March 2nd, 2011 at 8:17 am Said:
Well said Mr Baskerville
I, like many western men have noticed without any shadow of a doubt that we are being affected in a massive way by the feminist propaganda fuelled agenda. Here in the UK I notice every day how a good percentage of western women are basically walking hatred machines towards men and boys. And that’s all you can really call them anymore, because they are so brainwashed and eaten up with this false equality nonsense, that they are a shadow of what I understood women to be about. You hear expressions like ALPHA female now! What the…K
I know myself how I feel about this on a day to day basis, and believe me, I feel that if something doesn’t stop this media fuelled feminist ego trip, that eventually something will give. And I believe that it will give in a BIG way.
I’m sick and tired of hearing the same old attempt to brainwash us into believing how bad we are supposed to be. When these so called feminists of today are harping on about how hard done by they were in the past it beggars belief. I’m not responsible for what happened many years ago, yet I find myself bombarded on a daily basis because I’m a man, that I have something to answer for. What the…K
That’s what really gets my back up, and I’m sure a lot of others too. So let’s settle this once and for all and take it back to basics. Women and Feminists want this so called equality that they harp on about relentlessly don’t they? Well, let’s give them the ultimate equality, if that’s their desire.
Take them all to a bare field with a few trees etc and wait to see the reaction. I’m sure there will be many asking why they are there in the first place. Then simply say, this was how we started out many years ago, until men and boys alike built roads, towns, schools, etc…the list goes on with attributes that, as a male race, we have in shed loads. Take away all the luxuries that these toxic women bathe in by the bucket load toady, and let’s see how they get on shall we. All the foul mouthed feminist varieties that constantly tell us how useless we men are supposed to be…Help yourselves to an empty field, and then lets see how you get on.
“Help yourselves to an empty field, and then lets see how you get on.”
The only problem is that there are very few of these left. Men are a victim of our own success, we already filled them all with badass structures.
Hey Nergal
I can’t say I’m an expert regarding American soil, but I’ve seen plenty of recent footage and there seems plenty of green left, depending on where in your vast country you are. As for England, there’s still some good unused greenbelt to leave the feminists to work out how to survive without all that MEN have provided.
Yeah, there’s some. You have to be careful because where you’re at might be a protected wildlife habitat or whatever.
I bet there is good land in England, I thought about trying to have a go at establishing a farm on some of it,myself.I’ve seen footage of it on t.v. Compared to our rocky land, it would be a cakewalk, or in the worst case, very familiar at least.
Well said Keyster…Thanks for making it known to some who are obviously blind
Blaise
Thanks.
I think it’s important that we keep stepping back from the day to day minutia, like the OP does, and view things in the context of one who questions; not just for his sake, but for ours as well.
“If ya don’t know where ya came from, how can ya ever get to where yer goin’.”
In high tech marketing there was a theory called the “Mother Test”. In other words, if your mother couldn’t figure out how to use the product, it was too complicated and probably wouldn’t succeed.
Culling the “men’s movement” down to memorable sound bites and euphemisms is something we should always be persuing. Deep dark, meandering, extended bloviations don’t work on John Q Public.
I’m hearing ya…I know exactly what you are driving at. I had a good old rant the other day, and it was good to get it off my chest, but I agree about the memorable time served sound bites. Bullet points as such!
Feminism as a hate movement is apparent to me for one single reason.
In fifty years it has made no positive statement about masculinity, on any level. It fails the test of co-existence and evolution. As such it is not progressive on any level.
I see it as a value system that inhibits the development of women and the challenge they face to be who they claim to be. It’s belief structure provides dark social pathologies that isolate women when they cannot fulfill their claims. This is when it turns to blaming men rather than solicit male participation, support or assistance. Feminists have failed to recognize the resource that men represent. They do not solicit male help but demand it as a privilege.
It is a system of self pity and victimization that fails to self serve and demands the attention of men to act in favor and on behalf. It removes the self respect of a woman as an individual with the ability to navigate, negotiate and nurture an intimate relationship with a partner.
It’s destroyed the social and intimate contract with males. It does not collaborate it condemns by force of law. Women are just excuses for institutions, law enforcement and courts to further invade your life and tell you your not qualified to be in your own life. Feminism have turned women into the embodiment of original sin. If you are in the proximity of one YOU ARE GUILTY.
Excellent article by the way, good thought and execution. I was however unimpressed with the 14th comma perhaps it over emphasized the term average.
HAHAHAHA!!
“In fifty years it has made no positive statement about masculinity, on any level.”
It’s made plenty Keith, but ONLY when a woman is demonstrating some form of it! Women are either feminine or masculine as the mood or situation dictates. Men are neither, as dictated by popular culture, (although feminine men are preferred).
According to views on creation, everything has an opposite and this includes men and women who both have masculine and feminine qualities. The theory is both are needed, one ruling each side of the brain, so that one characteristic doesn’t become stronger than the other. For example, a man without any feminine characteristics would become cold, aggressive, and cruel. A woman without masculine qualities would become over emotional, spiteful, and devious. Using this as a basis for today’s militant feminists, one could say these women have either rejected or become deficient of some much needed masculine traits to restore balance.
According to the latest scientific research,men with high testosterone are open,friendly,and outgoing,whereas men with high estrogen are cold,aggressive,and cruel. Same goes for women.
Kinda blows your shit out of the water there.
“For example, a man without any feminine characteristics would become cold, aggressive, and cruel.”
I think around these parts we have learned to associate coldness, aggression and cruelty with women rather than men …
@Keith
“As such it is not progressive on any level.”
Sure it is. It’s progressive in the same way that cancer is.
>I myself have been asked by many of my female friends to walk them to their car after work. They tell me that “as a woman I feel it’s dangerous for me to be alone I might get raped”.
The state of our society in now, you shouldn’t even do this. She could claim you raped her and you’d be another innocent man up shit’s creek.
Excellent and very useful detailing of female supremacy, ‘feminism’.
An anecdote:
Some years ago, in America, a woman chatted me up at a bar and invited me to her apartment when she was under the influence. IN THE MIDDLE of intercourse, she shouted, “NO!” And as I was more sober than she was, as soon as she shouted “NO!”, DURING penetration, I immediately jumped off of her and put on my clothes.
Then she rolled around drunk for a few more hours that night, and when she vomited I brought a trash-bucket for her to vomit in. And as she was apparently not experienced in drinking nor in hangovers, I stayed by her side while she vomited several times, and gave her water and stroked her brow. Meanwhile she mumbled about how she would “jump your (my) bones” after she sobered up, and she thanked me for being “such a good guy.”
A few hours later, at around 6 AM, when she was unconscious, I phoned for a taxi and got the hell out of there. And in retrospect, now I thank God that she never knew my name, otherwise she probably would have accused me of “rape”.
I reiterate: AFTER consensual penetration, DURING consensual penetration, she (drunk) suddenly shouted “NO!” and when she did so, I immediately jumped off – as fast as lightning – and put my clothes back on. But I am 100 percent certain that I was in danger of being accused of “rape” that night.
I’ve only had two women say no to me in my life, and it wasn’t during sex either time.
I have had a couple women try to get me to fuck them when they were drunk,though. I’d never do it. Back then,I understood it was something about “honor” or something, people would accuse you of impropriety at the least.Looking back on it, that was one piece of conventional wisdom I was smart to follow.
Her hazy recollections beat your rock-solid testimony every time. In the courts, if she decides she feels like she was raped, before, during, or after sex,it’s rape and you’re going to jail. Hell, you don’t even have to have sex to be a rapist these days, the Amazing Atheist and Bernard Chapin did that video on that one bitch, and there’s a lot of women like her, and they all believe things like if the sun melts their ice cream,it’s rape.
Judging by what I can tell, here’s a lot of women in this country who desperately want to be raped. They must,if they’re coming up with ghost rape and rain rape and long line at the dmv rape.
there’s*
Sorry,this keyboard sucks. You basically have to pound the keys in with a hammer.
Jmnzz, truth from the heart, plus some ‘tell it like it is’ info, always comes across as a great read. Whether you intended to or not, you’ve put together an incredible introductory article into the feminist/men division.
Sort of off topic
This is the result of having people consuming more then they produce.
The current US national debt…..that is just the debt owed by the government is as of today: $14,353,185,149,737.78. That is well over 14 trillion dollare.
This works out to $46,190.84 for every man woman and child in the US.
A baby born in the US today is born with a $46,190.84 dollar debt.
The debt is growing by 3.95 billion per day. At the end of Obama’s first term……one third of all government revenue will be required just to meet the min payments on that debt…..without paying anything off the principal.
This debt, does not include private debt….mortgages……credit cards….personal loans…..unpaid rent and utility bills…..business debts……etc etc. It also doesn’t include a lot of government debt that is created and hidden from view via very creative accounting methods. It also does not include massive debts that are owed in imaginary assets that exist in cyberspace or on paper only, and are not with the paper they are printed on.
You can blame any number of zillions of reasons how, and why these debts exist…..but at the end of the day……there is only one reason……..people that consume more then they produce…..both individually……and as a community…….a country. It’s not possible to consume more then the world produces though……so every individual…….community……country……that consumes more then it produces……does so at someone elses expense………someone…..somewhere……is going without……working to produce what you consume…..and not being paid or receiving proper return on their investment in that which is consumed.
This is the result of letting people have…….according to their needs…….not according to what they produce.
Most American women/girls are bitches of the highest order. And they just love to be that way. And the parents seem to love it too! American culture is indeed astonishing and mind boggling!
@lead article:-
“Inferiority complexes towards men are not the only things feminism seeks to appease………..”
This is the greatest irony, the greatest absurdity, of feminism. When a culture is is openly and unselfconsciously patriarchal, women are not inferior to men.
In another debate I have suggested women must always be considered hierarchically below men – as decision makers, protectors, creators and builders. And leaving aside what the Western world is futilely attempting to delude itself into believing at present – that has always been so since the dawn of time and will continue to be the case until the moment of the last sunset. This era is just an ideological stage play – poorly rehearsed, badly acted, doomed.
But for anyone with reasonable intelligence and who has a rational outlook on life – hierarchical standing has got absolutely nothing to do with the worth of an individual as a human being – superiority.
It certainly shouldn’t have. Some idiots, perhaps many idiots, have undoubtedly failed to keep the ‘H’ and ‘S’ words in persepctive. Perhaps I have occasionally. perhaps we all have. There will indeed always have been just cause for a certain degree of raised female blood pressure every now and again relating to this issue. But in a manner that should have nothing to do with feminism.
An “inferiority complex” only comes into play when it is women themselves who become the idiots who decide to throw reality and perspective out of the window and attempt to feed the ‘H’ and ‘S’ words into the blender.
Herein lies the great paradox – the supreme irony. Women only become inferior to men in the back pocket of a cause that attempts to delude people into believing both genders are one and the same – to put it mildly (leaving aside the evil of misandry for the time being).
In short – you want women to be considered inferior to men. Become a feminist. This fanatical and dishonest cause is paving the way towards a future in which women might one day be openly and widely treated with wary, scornful contempt.
All because women got conned into developing an inferiority complex.
very well explained.
great article.
Brilliant treatise, Jared, highly valuable and necessary articulation of femaleism as hate, or at minimum sociopathological narcissism.
“Equality is not the base ideology of feminism. The movement has two main definitions, two definitions that negate and cancel each other out. One cannot practice the avocation of equality for both genders and at the same time practice organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. It’s one or the other and feminism does neither. It does nothing for the rights of women because women have every right men do except for the right to be in a military combat MOS, which is something feminists rarely focus on. Feminism only practices organized activity on behalf of women’s interests, and that’s all, and in doing so they accuse men of being the sole barrier between women achieving those interests.
Men are not the barrier and never were the barrier. The bitch’s precious ‘mother nature’ is and always has been the barrier to the female having everything, which is femaleism’s end goal. They blame men for mother nature’s short comings, while it’s men who gave them everything that he had to wrestle from that very mother nature. Such a pathetic, depraved creature is she, the femaleist.
Fucking fantastic read. Thanks.
It’s an irony snake giving birth to little slithering ironies…
The very “patriarchy” these femifucks wage their “war” (read: whining, screaming, and militantly begging) against is the the same group of evil men who GAVE these bitches everything they needed to start their movement…
It baffles me why so many cannot see through this utter fucking horseshit. Maybe it makes more sense if I word it differently:
[Feminists cried and whined to "the patriarchy" for funding to start and maintain the feminist movement, whose primary creed is to bring down "the patriarchy," which promptly pulled its finger from its anus and said, "Yes, Ma'am! Right away, Ma'am!" and gave them everything they wanted and... is still funding them today, right now...]
Nope. It still doesn’t…