Is feminism a hate movement?

To remove man-hating from feminism would be to extract the DNA nucleus from a living cell, the fuel rod from a reactor, the teeth from a rottweiler. I would assert that man-hating is feminism’s moral center of gravity, and that without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection toward males, feminism could not logically continue to exist—it would flounder without purpose, and disintegrate.

If you give the matter a little thought (and I have given it a LOT), you will see that no other theory so elegantly accounts for the observable facts of the case.

Let’s start with some basics. Would anybody dispute that feminism is a socio-political movement on behalf of women? Would anybody dispute that feminism proffers a particular analysis of man-woman relations? Would anybody dispute that feminist analysis holds women to be globally disadvantaged, by some objective and quantifiable standard of measurement, in comparison with men? Finally, would anybody dispute that feminist analysis concludes an element of male authorship in the comparative disadvantagement of women?

Yes, feminism is a women’s advocacy movement which identifies men as the wellspring of certain difficulties said to afflict women. This would both summarize and make reply to the verbose paragraph above.

And given that men are said to be the wellspring of women’s difficulties, are we to believe that no opinion about men as men ever infiltrates feminist thinking on any level? Does any self-admitted feminist, having once identified “men” as the source of women’s troubles, go serenely about her business harboring no strictly personal opinion about “men”? I’d call it a considerable stretch, to believe any such thing.

Admittedly, I fashion my argument upon probabilities. But they are compelling probabilities. I seriously doubt that any better can be offered.

I’ll have no truck with the “I blame patriarchy” cop-out. This is simply a way of postponing the issue by obfuscating it, since the phrase is so fuzzy it is useless for normal purposes – although useful indeed for underhanded purposes! But patriarchy is plainly understood as a uniquely male institution; men created it and men keep it rolling, or so the story goes. So it is mighty difficult to understand how a person could “blame” patriarchy without “blaming” men in the very same swoop.

Let us enquire further into probabilities. Feminism identifies “men” as the source of women’s difficulties. So ask yourself, what class of women might be drawn to such a social movement in disproportionate numbers? Would such a movement attract women who get along well with men and enjoy their company? All right, possibly a few. Just possibly. But would such women compose the bulk of the membership? Where do you suppose the probability lies in such a case? Would such a movement attract women who do not personally see “men” as a source of difficulty in their lives? Is this probable? Is this plausible? Is this credible? Does this FIT?

Hate is a very strong word, and it signifies a very strong thing. It is hard to imagine just how powerful hate can be. Do you think you can imagine it? Well, the chances are that you are nowhere near, and have no idea. It can get even worse, far worse, than you can imagine!

Yes, it is all on a spectrum. It is all on a continuum. “Hate” can be bad, and it can always get badder! Even to the point where the hater implodes into a black hole, and pops clean out of the moral universe, and sucks as much as possible along for the ride.

All right, maybe the word hate is not the wine for all occasions. I like the word disaffection. It is more inclusive than hate because it embraces all shades of disliking without privileging the extreme. Now, a social movement such as feminism needn’t hope to exclude the element of disaffection. I have explained the reason for this already, but now we must proceed to the next stage of examination.

If the disaffection spectrum begins with mild disenchantment and progresses by shades clear up to unmitigated loathing, and if feminism incorporates at least SOME of this spectrum, then we should pause to wonder exactly how much of the spectrum is thus incorporated, and precisely how far it reaches in the direction of uncompounded malevolence. How high on the hate scale does feminism’s emotional aura actually extend? Where does it stop?

Again, consider the likelihoods. If the feminist disaffection spectrum reached no higher than a mild and possibly sporadic disenchantment—an occasional mood, as it were—then feminism would very plainly lack the sustaining force to be a viable women’s advocacy movement. There is simply no way it could gather the necessary motivation and momentum. There would be neither snow for a snowball, nor any appreciable hill to roll it down for the accretion of mass and accumulation of velocity. In a word, feminism would be a non-starter.

A thing like feminism requires a mighty fund of passion both to launch itself and to keep itself running. Tepid feeling will not suffice—it needs to be robust and vehement, and it needs to gain validation through a political analysis that will both justify the original feeling, and contribute to the growth of that feeling by the use of a self-fulfilling feedback loop.

The world has always contained a certain number of people—sociopathic or what-have-you—who for various reasons don’t like the opposite sex. When a thing like feminism appears, proffering a political analysis of sexual relations casting men in the role of miscreants, it is easy to foretell the response man-hating women will make to this. Clearly there will be some exceptions, but I feel confident most such women will be on it like bees on a honeycomb, or flies upon feces if you will. There’s nothing quite like finding an analysis to uphold your attitude. And the documentary record indeed bears out that early second-wave feminists in the radical 1960s were a vehement, passionate lot. They were not wishy-washy. They were not tepid. They were not mildly disenchanted with men.

They were by no stretch of the imagination living on the low end of the disaffection spectrum. More significantly, they were not merely attracted to something which somebody else had created. No, they were present at the very inception; they themselves were the creators and early architects of the movement. Without them, or people like them, the “movement” would never have started moving in the first place!

Nor would the movement be moving still today, if people like them were not down in the engine room stoking the boiler, or up in the pilot house turning the wheel and watching the binnacle. They are the dynamo, and if we should replace them with a crew that was just a shade less disaffected, the new dynamo would be a shade less dynamic, as would the entire movement. It would be just a shade less inclined to bulldoze over obstacles, a shade more inclined to call it a day earlier in the day, and a shade more inclined to lower the bar of compromise overall.

Dial this down shade by shade and watch the movement grow more and more anemic. Eventually, “feminism” would be wavering in its convictions, sleeping late, and frittering away its dwindling energy on matters increasingly peripheral and unfocussed. In other words, feminism would become a non-entity and a non-movement.

So, we have shown that feminism offers an ideological interpretation of female disadvantages in life. We have alluded to the feminist belief that female disadvantage originates from a male-driven power conspiracy, and asserted that such a belief is not feasible to uphold absent a pejorative evaluation of men both individually and as a group. From this we have concluded that some varying degree of personal disaffection toward men cannot be absent from the minds of most feminists, and therefore cannot be absent from the movement as a whole. Finally, we have made the case that feminism’s viability as an advocacy movement is directly indexed to the degree of disaffection toward men found among the movement’s membership, with greater viability correlated to greater disaffection.

Or as stated early in this article: man-hating is feminism’s moral center of gravity; without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection with males, feminism could not logically continue to exist.

Milder forms of feminism do indeed exist. And so do milder feminists. But they are not the vanguard. They are not the cutting edge. They are not the powerhouse. However, they work diligently to secure advantages for women like scavengers in the aftermath of the main assault, once the enemy has been routed. They are the petty clerks, the bureaucrats, the carpetbaggers, who move into the occupied territory and secure the administration of it. It is part of their job to seem unthreatening, which is easy when somebody else does the dirty work. Their distinguishing feature is that of taking for granted what has been ideologically instilled into the general culture, and taking their ease against the moral support cushion this affords them. Left entirely to themselves, they would have neither the ambition to initiate a political movement, nor the drive to keep it operating in a political capacity. Yet they have a moral investiture in feminism’s world-view, which proposes male guilt as an explanatory model, and by this investiture they plant themselves within feminism’s web of misandric operations.

It is easy to see that if man-hating disappeared from the world, feminism would neither serve any purpose nor have any means to continue operating. But feminism is still operating, and if you are male you are not amiss to suspect that feminism means to harm you. So under the circumstances, you don’t owe feminism any favors. Nor do you owe women any favors under the moral banner of feminism!

Yes, I call feminism a hate movement. Whosoever desires, may undertake to convince me that feminism is a love movement.

About Luigi Logan (aka Fidelbogen)

Fidelbogen is a writer, videographer and webmaster of The Counter Feminist. He is co-host of The Vanguard Report radio show. He is not a member of the men's rights movement, but he thinks that MRAs are the blood of god!

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Bombay

    “They are the petty clerks, the bureaucrats, the carpetbaggers, who move into the occupied territory and secure the administration of it. It is part of their job to seem unthreatening, which is easy when somebody else does the dirty work. ”

    A wonderful tie-in to the lives of most of the women in everyday life. A great article!

    • Tom M

      Whaaat? Women DO the dirty work too!
      For starters, MOST WOMEN are very capable MINERS…

  • Eagle has landed

    The “equality feminism” of 30 years ago targeted all men equally. Modern “Gender-feminism” targets hetero-males.
    This fact seems to elude many here, look at campuses across the country, and you will see that “New Gender-feminism” targets specifically hetero-men.

  • http://blackmenvent.com HARVEST

    excellent logical piece,
    yeah, it’s been a hate movement.

  • Keyster

    Propogating enmity towards your perceived oppressors is the first step to organizing any movement or campaign to shift power.

    “We’d be everything a man is, if only he’d stop preventing us from it. We’d hold political office, run corporations, invent and innovate on an equal scale to men.”

    “We were BORN equal and just as capable as men in everyway, but patriarchy clings to the very power that subverts us from realizing our potential to be like them. Otherwise, what other reason is there?”

    Well, there’s the relevance of motherhood to any woman’s life goals for one. It’s the most important thing a woman can do.

    “Ahh, but we mitigated that vis a vis men, by not only controlling conception but even if we DO conceive, we can legally choose to abort the child growing within. Now pregnancy is no longer a threat to us becoming more like men.”

    Forty years and three generations on and what have women proven to us? That regardless of “social enginneering” to make them more like men, they’re still not. And why is this? Well partiarchy of course! It still exists to undermine female achievement only now in very underground, covert ways.

    There’s no need to prove patriarchy still exists, because if they say so it does. That this is still the reasoning they fall back on for female shortcomings, is delusion defined. Perhaps because even though women aren’t or never were kept from personal achievement, feminists regularily are, because they have so little to contribute otherwise.

    • Nergal

      Well said. I’d sooner believe the moon landing was faked than I would believe Patriarchy Theory.

      We really need to make some posters of women in tinfoil hats to post at women’s centers on college campuses because that shit is loonier than David Icke’s reptilian satanist aliens.

    • Victor

      You’re not a woman so you can’t see it but you’re a part of it. You don’t know how much it benefits you. You can’t see all the priviledges that you have just because you were born as a man. You’re a part of the patriarchy and you don’t know how much you oppress us women. You don’t know how it is to walk through life as a womanblablablablablablablablablablablablablablamisogynyblablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablaPatriarchyblablablablablablablablablablablablacommercialsblablablablablablaobjectifyblablablablablablasexistblablablablablablablablabla

      Worst regards,


      • Victor

        I’ve no idea what happened to my message. Is it only on my screen that the letters have gone out over the edges?

        • Nergal

          Lol,no. I see it too.

        • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

          The reason it goes over the edge is because you have written a string of characters with NO SPACES.

          • Victor

            Oh, I see. I was joking around a bit. Feel free to delete my comment. It looks a bit silly.

          • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

            The characters going over the edge may have been unintentional, but feminism went over the edge long, long ago. So it’s actually quite symbolic.


          • Tom M

            No, I think its femaliens hacking our website and hacking our minds – quick break out the tinfoil hats! 😉


        • BeijaFlor

          Yeah, on my screen too, and it suits the message that way.

          Reminds me of a feminist speaker that came out to my school and went on a solid rant about how much women have suffered: “Women have suffered financially. They’ve suffered in the tough jobs of motherhood. They’ve suffered from abusive husbands, ingrate children, antagonistic bosses, male chauvinism in all its blatant lies and subtle ways, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah … blah blah blah … blah blah blah blah blah – Is there any way in which women HAVE NOT suffered?”

          A deep masculine voice shouted from the back, “They have not suffered in SILENCE!!!”

          • Gendeau


            you just made my day


  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    Great thoughts! Certain truth to this. Now…I have asked myself, is the MRM susceptible to the same influences? Yes without a doubt it is. So what can protect the MRM from influence by a hate based power engine?

    Well at this point anyway we have something on our side and that is a moral grounds. The MRM is a RESPONSE to feminism. Does this mean that we will be able to defend ourselves from the same poison? Well in my opinion we can utilize whatever forces available to reach our goals as long as they are constructive and rightful.

    In the present time, the threat of a hate ideology serves nothing more than a threat to tarnish our message. It is only through actual action does any hate based motivation harm us. Words are actions we can help stamp out. At this point this is all we have to fear…words and the tarnishing of our message. The MRM is just now getting its teeth. At this point I am not very concerned about a radical fringe because we have little teeth yet to take a bite out of anything.


    We must remember the role male \ female biological imperatives play that impede the voice of men already and this is, virtually ANY criticism of women or feminism is see right away as a threat to women. ANY male demands, needs or criticism, (due to biological forces we contend with) is immediately reflected back as judgement upon the mere male who dared to open his mouth. He is seen as sexually inadequate or unworthy of women. His male use and external utility to the selective choice of the female is nullified. This is how powerful biology is.

    This is the threat from the female side of perception. She need only disagree. She is, in her gynocentric nature, predisposed to disagree with anything that may not serve her interests increasingly better no matter what the detriment to males is. Male harm or sacrifice is inconsequential. Though hypergamy she is designed to push the limits. To her, the selective value of males and male legitimacy is measured in this regard. It is literally measured by the male breaking point. She need only disagree with the terms the MRM is advocating for and these forces of motion come into play. This is where the second roadblock comes in…..men themselves and their response to this judgement by her.

    The second side is that males, as a class, are a class divided. Unlike females other males will capitalize upon the phenomena above. Where men draw the line with women and feminism other males will see their opportunity to swoop in to tow the feminist\female line. It is their opportunity to meet female selective variables demanded upon males. They may even be willing to die for this opportunity or at very least cut their own balls off and the balls of other men to get it.

    The sheer length to which I’ve seen manginas and white knights go has been astounding to me.

    This is why MRAs are so adamant about protecting ourselves from manginas and white knights. They are a real force driven by a very powerful biological imperative. This is why females were not allowed to vote. Female voting destroys the regulatory mechanism of her selective choice to eliminate betas. Desperation was cut off. Now, politicians can be as beta as they want, in terms of serving females they are betas. The crux of the matter, the paradox is that they become alpha by this. Female institutional power and political agency leads to a self compounding and self consuming model. The system actually consumes itself of its own means of male enfranchisement. It consumes itself of its own means of production. No civilization that I know of has ever survived female institutional power. Matriarchies have only managed to exist in small matrilinial \ communal social groups.

    As such, it is my belief that we may never be able to unite for our collective interests and indeed even the beneficial interests toward a common felicity with women because of this. Believe it or not, convincing women that male rights and enfranchisement are ends toward their better interests and common felicity with men is key. Will they be able to see it…we don’t know…we have not tried to a large degree.

    Remember, the MRM by default, at least initially, is up against A MAJOR FORCE and that is that we as mere males are doomed to serve females as a gender. If he is seen as and labeled unworthy then he must be resentful of this and thus hate women.

    Again, other males will capitalize on this. These are the forces of biology we are up against. Males will break ranks and play into this. Anyone who doesn’t is seen as unworthy. Her upward demands of hypergamy exacerbates this to ever increasing levels. Only when a majority of males draw the line can we make progress. Otherwise females are designed to capitalize on the breaking point threshold of how much males will serve their ends.

    The other option is to convince females we have passed the threshold toward the ends of meeting their own welfare and interests by the treatment of men and thus we can make progress even though white knights and manginas are willing to still lower the bar upon male treatment even further if it gets them female approval. However to the best of my knowledge they will not do this. It is not in there nature. Will the MRM be able to stop the self compounding, self consumptious paradoxical mechanisms that are in play here. To tell you the truth the odds are against us. There is no need to worry to much about a radical fringe other than to keep hate words out of the discussion.

    WHEN our goals are met is the time we should concern ourselves with overstepping. WHEN our goals are met I see the moral constitute of our base supporters going back to the pursuit of fruitful relationships and lives. At this point I see the core of the movement being taken over by radicals that will keep it going. However, we are a long way off from this. It is the least of our worries.

    We must remember we are not playing by the same rules and forces that females have with their movement. Hate and criticism of males actually serves to raise the bar on all of us. She utilized the same mechanisms to enact her will and she will use the same to stop us.

    As for now, for reasons of moral fortitude I believe much of our core base is in fact driven by a moral engine. It is when our goals are met and the constitute of our moral base falls away from the ranks that we could be left with a fire of radicalism. Again, we need not worry about this yet. However, IT IS OUR DUTY TO EXTINGUISH FIRES AS WE MOVE ALONG. ANTI-WOMAN HATRED CAN NOT BE TOLERATED.

    It will only excite the white knights and manginas and give them something to work with no matter how small or even non existent. David Futrelle of manboobz is a perfect example. He’s taking beta opportunity when and where he sees it. David is mearly the manifestation of the very real force we contend with on a structural scale. To be quite honest, ANYTHING the MRM says and does will be seen as radical and misogynist anyway. It is simply the biological battle we are up against i.e. female selective choice, hypergamy and white knight \ mangina supplicators and the political paradigm paradox of female political agency.

    • Gendeau

      “So what can protect the MRM from influence by a hate based power engine? ”

      I think that the shorter (lmao) version is that; MRAs aren’t fighting women, they are fighting injustice.

      I have no interest in dominating women, in fact (as an MGTOW) I don’t want that much from women; equality and civility will do me fine.

      Feminists are SO much better at hate than men.

      We just like a quiet life most of the time. I am, and would continue to be, happy to treat women as equal, as long as they step up to the eqality line.

      Cut the pussy pass privileges and (hate based) afirmative action and I’m happy.

  • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz

    After years of researching feminist beliefs and all that garbage and speaking with several feminists I have no doubt in my mind that feminism is a hate movement.

    But personal experiences aside…

    I feel that the actions of those within a movement define that movement.


    Feminism will have no chance of hiding its hatred towards men once the general public begins to examine the movement.

    Mostly because they don’t even attempt to hide it.

    • Poester99

      Report her site to WordPress for hate speech.
      This woman in fact hates and supports hate of an identifiable sub group of the human race, rhetorically and likely in real life.

      Apparently she only “sometimes” hates the target group. Her writing indicates that she is full time BIGOT, as it is available on the internet 24/7.

      She is likely a real danger to any boys that she happens to come into contact with.

    • Poester99

      Thanks for pointing out a feminist “brown-shirt” page.
      Everybody needs to go over there, follow all the links to like minded bigots and educate themselves on the nature of hate in the 21st century.

      Feel free to make a nuisance of yourself as well if you have spare time. 8)

    • Poester99

      It’s actually making my physically ill that this woman has children and may have a male child.

      • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz

        It should make you ill.

        That hate mongering bitch believes that all men, ALL MEN are rapists and or rape supporters. Any male child she has will be in for a life of torment until he is finally able to leave.

        That is, if she doesn’t abort her children upon learning that they are male.

        The saddest fact of all isn’t the fact that there are feminists defending her views.


        The saddest fact is that there are MALE feminists defending those views.

        I’m not offended by comments to the point where I have to march down the street with a sign because someone makes a statement I disagree with (slutwalkers) but if someone tells me I am unintelligent solely because of the fact that I am black I won’t DEFEND that statement.

        This woman has told all men everywhere that they are rapists and rape supporters. So who are the ones who bow down and lick her feet groveling for her acceptance and apologizing because they were born with a penis? Male feminists.

        I’ve never used the term mangina before but those fucktards fit the description perfectly. They hate themselves because they are men and will do and say anything to appease the hatred of venomous feminist women who write and propagate shit like that.

        Another pathetic aspect of her following are the female feminists who obviously take offense to what she is saying about men but they will not challenge her views.


        Instead they twist and reword what the author has said to try and fit in their own less hateful (but still vehemently misandric) views in a pathetic attempt at defending the author and easing their own consciences.

        What is the author’s response to the rephrasing of her words? She says stop. Don’t try and change what I said in order to defend me. I meant what I said and what I said was “all men are rapists and that’s all they are”.

        Fucking feminists.

        The next time ANYONE says that feminism is not about hating men direct them to that bigot.

        Pointing out the obvious hatred on popular sites like feministing or jezebel isn’t enough for group thinking “third wavers” like those that inhabit that moron Futrelle’s site.

        So just point anyone who denies the bigotry of feminism right to that piece of trash on the internet I linked to earlier.

        • Tom M

          Yep, she even goes deeper than Dworkin in spelling out just how all men are rapists AND rape supporters…

        • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

          jmnzz: I like your spirit and your rhetorical style.

          You should take up blogging.

          • Poester99

            I agree, you should take up blogging *lol* 8)


          • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz


            Thank you. However, taking up blogging isn’t the problem. I need to get back to blogging.

          • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

            Yes…I too have that problem. (Getting back to blogging.)

      • Poester99

        I sent her a curve-ball comment and it looks like she can’t answer it, so it’s not going to make it through moderation.

        Ms. Eve just posted the following on her blog:

        And I don’t think you really want comments to come through without any moderation. If I did that, there would be well over a thousand comments, and most of them would be calls for me to be raped and/or killed.

        The sounds like utter BS. Demolishing of her arguments is likely the only type of “threat” she is experiencing.

        If her case that all men are rapists or rape supporters is true, then which of these (all bad) men (some with badges and guns) is she counting on to protect her?
        Wouldn’t they just be applauding?

        It’s unlikely that any “conscious man” and/or mangina S.O. she would be likely to have would be capable of any defensive violence.

        • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz
          • BeijaFlor

            Thanks, jmnzz – it looks as though I got in the first comment. Hope it’s not too over-the-top; I wouldn’t want to insult the delicate darlings, even if I do describe their future lives as “sitting in (their) Eleanor Rigby bed-sitters, petting their cats.”

    • Gru

      I reported the blog here:


      Maybe we can take her off the air!

      I stated the blog accuses everyman of being a rapist

  • Ray

    “Is feminism a hate movement?”


    • Gendeau

      Factually, I can’t fault you (you are clearly right) BUT

      have you got a future as a blogger?

      No…not so much…(lmao)

      (the same reason I don’t have a blog)

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    You know, we have intelligence on our side. Guys like Fidelbogen have an IQ somewhere in the 160+ range. Many MRAs I’ve read of seem to be highly intelligent and many within the range classified as “genius”. I venture to say that many if not most men I’ve seen in the MRM are of above average intelligence. It is what allows them to see the big picture of what we are talking about here.

    The PROBLEM however is that the MRM understanding of things will do no good if the ideas can not be propagated and explained. The message has to be packaged, concise, repeated and propagated to the masses. The feminists have been use CLASSIC propaganda techniques masterfully. The MRM must continue on the course of intellectual coalescence toward the ends of CONTEXT. I have noticed we are moving forward with contextual formation….THIS IS PROGRESS : )

    The anatomy of movements are all the same. It is imperative to study this anatomy and find why and how successful movements have worked. However, we must understand that we can not play by the feminist playbook in all realms….this is because there is biology involved here that will not be as fruitful for us if played wrong or in some instances played at all.

    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

      “The PROBLEM however is that the MRM understanding of things will do no good if the ideas can not be propagated and explained. The message has to be packaged, concise, repeated and propagated to the masses. . . . The MRM must continue on the course of intellectual coalescence toward the ends of CONTEXT. I have noticed we are moving forward with contextual formation….THIS IS PROGRESS : )”

      I too have been noticing that. In fact, it has been the center of my thinking from the very start, that intellectual coalescence is necessary — and, following that, a trickle-down effect to make the core ideas go viral among the masses.

      I also agree that we must be careful about playing by the feminist playbook. I believe that we must throw some of their tricks back at them, without mirroring their game at every point. We don’t want to be symmetrical with them; we want to break the act-react cycle in a way that will derail their narrative.

  • ProleScum

    Great article Fidelbogen.

  • Kevin New York

    Feminism is a love movement…..for fugly women who love to hate men.

    • Gendeau

      MRM is about…Feminism is a love movement…..for fugly women who love to hate men, who don’t effing care what women of any kind love (cats prolly)

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    You know, the more I think about it the more I realize that if our goals are achieved any radical fringe left over will quickly be extinguished by the same powerful forces that attempt to preclude us from advancement. This is another reason why I am not very concerned about a radical fringe. Any radical momentum will actually be extinguished by other males most of all. Again, it is the least of our worries.

    Our only real concern is what effect it has in the moment. I can tell you that unlike feminism a radical fringe in the MRM will have detrimental effects. We can not afford to be critical of females in the wrong way. Male needs and advocation of rights is already seen as critical. The message must form proper context and then be propagated.

    The good thing is that I believe the cream of our moral constitute will naturally rise to the top. This is in fact what forms the bulk of our ranks in numbers. So in this respect as well we need not worry about a radical fringe forming the engine of our movement as much as feminism should have through the forces inherent in female nature and that allowed to it not only by other females but males as well. Females were not subject to the same regulatory mechanisms both within their ranks and outside it from the opposition of males.

    • Nergal

      “Our only real concern is what effect it has in the moment. I can tell you that unlike feminism a radical fringe in the MRM will have detrimental effects. We can not afford to be critical of females in the wrong way. Male needs and advocation of rights is already seen as critical. The message must form proper context and then be propagated.”

      That won’t happen.

      Take me, for example. I’m often highly critical of women,I’ve even been quite dismissive of some of them,but I love interacting with a great many of them.

      Most of my criticism and dismissal stems from the fact that I’ve noticed that even the nicest of women fall into a “let’s get the man” mentality whenever there’s two or more of them in the same room.

      In other words, I’m disappointed by how quickly they fall into such a childish routine, and the pointlessness of it.

      I’m saddened by the futility of trying to explain how childish they are behaving because when you point it out, they just add it to the list of reasons why they should continue behaving childishly “man hurt my feelings by suggesting I reason rather than invent excuses to hate him,reason number 3,000,967,401 why I hate men”.

      I love women, I just wish most of them didn’t hate men.

      Like me, I’m sure most of the men in the MRM would prefer that we didn’t have to be doing this,yet we must, because a war has been declared on us. Now, we must fight this war, and we must win it.

      • Gendeau

        “I love women, I just wish most of them didn’t hate men.

        Like me, I’m sure most of the men in the MRM would prefer that we didn’t have to be doing this,yet we must, because a war has been declared on us. Now, we must fight this war, and we must win it.”

        THANKS so much, you clearly state where I am.

        I don’t hate women, I don’t want to be dominate them, but feminism is a hate movement that won’t stop until it is stopped.

        Equality of rights, equality of reponsibilty – please

  • Papa Zeus

    Indeed, feminism CAN NOT exist without hatred. But I would go so far as to say that they don’t just hate men, they hate Males. That is to say that they hate boys too when they exhibit male behavior.

    I remember a feminist third grade teacher that I had and how the boys always took excessive punishment in comparison to the girls for committing the same offences, such as talking without permission. I even remember her talking about the bull shit wage gap, and telling the girls in the class that they would have difficulty in finding good husbands from their generation of boys.

    Some feminists may occassionaly admit that they hate men, but none will admit that they hate males, because then their claim that they are only hating their “oppressors” is exposed as a lie as boys have no political power to speak of. They aren’t the freedom fighters that they portray themselves as; feminists are rotten, filthy, bigots that hate men and boys. They are a disgusting form of soical cancer that must be eradicated if men and women are to have any chance of finding any amount of happiness with one another again.

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    “how the boys always took excessive punishment in comparison to the girls for committing the same offences, such as talking without permission”

    This is normal, it is biology. Male are also given harsher jail sentences and “justice” is enacted upon them even through abdication of female fault, responsibility, accountability or liability.

    Female abusers of children also injure males more severely and more males infants and children are killed by female abusers than female infants and children. Men on a biological level are not seen as important as females. This is the case with female perception of males and male welfare in all realms and rights. I regret to say that men see and treat ourselves and other males this way. Give lopsided institutional agency to the critical nature enacted upon males to females and things get MUCH worse. This goes for simple enactments of hypergamy toward gynocentric interests as well. This is to say it is done without even the intention of harming males….it is simply the default sway.

    • Snark

      It’s not biology, it’s tradition.

    • Just a Nohbady

      It might be biology- the problem is that going wholly by biology, we become savages, little more than animals. For it is going counter to that to some extent, by way of the institutions of things like Marriage, that you end up with Civilizations.

      Quite frankly, I don’t think it a good thing to “turn back the clock” the way we seem to wish to do things these days.

      • Snark

        Who wants to turn back the clock?

        Not many here, friend.

        • Tom M

          I’ve seen and heard them…

  • Eagle has landed

    The last time women had “full lynching capacity” in the United States was when society was lynching the black man for false rape accusations. America could not fight this perversion off itself, and it was in fact “Russians who retained a lawyer”, During the infamous “Scottsborro boys case”, that was the turning point in Americas rape lynchings of the black man, at the request of women.
    The biggest obstacle to stopping the false rape epidemic now, is the “Perversion and manufactured statistics Alliance” between American law enforcement and gender feminism. This misinformation Alliance is not only a perversion…its un-constitutional.

  • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

    Is Feminism a Hate Movement? Does fire burn you when you get near it? You bet feminism is a well funded “Hate Movement.”

    Feminism was designed as a means for women to advance by stepping on everyone and everything in its path, with no concern about the destruction they leave in their wake. What not all women have come to grips with is how deeply they have been duped as they are now free to be enslaved and exploited.

  • Just a Nohbady

    In response to the topic’s question, I’ll offer another question: “Does a bear sh*t in the woods?”

    • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer


      Is a frogs ass watertight?

  • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

    Well, yes, many but not all factions of feminism are hate movements.

    Did feminism come into being because it was a reaction to the “male” construct of the “patriarchy”? No, it did not. Feminism is all about creating advantages for females, if necessary, by hating all men or only most men. It makes little difference how or why; the end justifies the means.

    The patriarchy was not a construct that men created all by themselves. It was society’s defence and safe-guard against unbridled, unrestrained feminism. The patriarchy could never have come into existence unless many or most women were actively involved in creating it. Women going it alone, by themselves, would have been suicidal for women and a detriment to any society with hopes for success.

    Once, after thousands of years, in the 1960s, hate-feminism had managed to convince a large number of women that the patriarchy oppressed women, the patriarchy simply died, and radical-feminism (a.k.a. Marxist or socialist-feminism) became the ruling faction of feminism that opened the door for other feminist factions who hated men, families and children or merely disdained them or used them for nothing other than as sources of income, power and status.

    Feminism has been around since humanity descended from the trees. Patriarchy is what tamed the savagery by regulating sexuality, creating the concept of the traditional nuclear family and thereby creating civilization. When hate-feminism became victorious in the 1960s, it began to remove the thin coating of civility from mankind by doing nothing other than to return the laws of the jungle to what once was a successful civilization with a long history of growing prosperity and escalating health for all.

    However, anyone who would have wanted to deliberately bring about the removal of mutual love and respect, the abolition of the family and the deconstruction of our society would have had to do it by means of inventing, designing, promoting and bringing to power nothing other than radical-feminism. That is what Marx and Engels set out to do, what Lenin, Stalin and Mao tse-tung constructed and what all promoters of radical feminism in the so-called “free” West religiously and fanatically followed.

    • Quartermain

      I do agree that feminism has been around for thousands of years. Where do you think the arch-type of the medusa, gorgon, and harpy come from?

  • Tom M

    Great comment overall.

    I like to compare defending the “good factions of feminists” with defending the “good factions of Nazism.” If they don’t like being lumped in, then a name change is in short order. But are there really true-equality feminists, even among those claiming it?

    FEMINISM is supremacist, and I no longer bother to stop or even pause to explain that “2.3%” of those calling themselves feminists ARE standing up for men’s equality equally, at least sometimes, when it’s convenient. Pausing to cover for “the good feminists” is BS, it is too much of a distraction from the hard cold reality that feminists as a group, by self-definition, are lying, self-centered, abusive, manipulative, supremacist parasites who are better than men who’ve “oppressed” them somehow.

    Many MRA’s have their works published on those “good feminist” websites, but they forget: For all the good those feminists seem to stand for, the fact that they are inferring that their standing up for women’s rights means that women have been oppressed, and women never have been, ought to say it all – BULL SHIT!

    • Tom M

      That was a reply to Walter (for some reason didn’t attach on to it)

  • Adi

    One of the big misunderstandings in gender politics is that any advocacy for just one gender is automatically an assault on the other. And any celebration or praise of one gender is automatically demeaning the other.

    That is the logical result of a species with two genders where a choice or change between them is not possible. Nobody can justify doing something positive for just one gender without resorting to negative generalizations about the other.

    This is why there should be no women’s advocacy (and therefore no feminism) but it also means there shouldn’t be any MRA for the same reason. One gender being severely disadvantaged, however, justifies advocating to rectify those imbalances. But if a gender has no systemic disadvantage (as with women) then an advocacy for that gender is truly nothing more than a hate movement.

    • Adi

      Having said that, I would be able to handle feminists a lot better if they’d at least call themselves a women’s advocacy group rather than pretend they’re for equality. Still despicable, but at least honest.

    • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

      Well if the female herd did not form the type of social groups women naturally form and then turn the business end of this agency toward politics then they never would have separated us as separate socio-political and socio-economic classes that are in competition with each other.

      Women played their card and the first volley has rained down upon us. Men actually flew a white flag from the beginning. We do this naturally with female demands if we can afford to appease them. The time for appeasement is not longer affordable and therefore men MUST FORM into a secular political class to combat it.

      As Fidelbogen mentioned in one of his vids. The very nature of politics is PARTISAN. Remember what women said AND NEVER FORGET IT. “The personal is political”. They meant what they said. Personal sovereignty in our relationships with women and in the family is OVER.

      • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

        Well, you know. . . I don’t like to frame this as a “man v. woman” scenario, even if it objectively IS that way.

        The thing is, FEMINISM is the culprit here. Feminism engineered all of this, and objectively set us up, in a situation we didn’t ask for.

        I prefer to frame the situation as feminism v. the rest of the world (non-feminism). I consider this an objectively truthful summary of the state of the world.

        However, at the same time, I realize that we can’t afford to overlook that men and women are, DE FACTO — whether we like it or not! — separate political “gangs”. That sucks, but it’s just the way things are.

        Also, I don’t like to make sweeping generalizations about the nature of women as a group. I am agnostic about such matters, and besides, it is impolitic rhetoric. And in politics, rhetoric counts for a LOT. Let’s face it!

        However, I believe it is safe to say (rhetorically or otherwise) that women are advantage maximizers. Aren’t we all? And when women understand that the present objective situation does not maximize their advantage, they will turn against feminism.

    • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

      Feminism cannot thrive without being subsidized. That is the reason why it works well on a small communal scale, and so does a tapeworm. However, a society whose individuals are infested by parasites and whose fundamental social units are thereby zapped of their strength and vitality will be weak and unable to compete with more vibrant societies whose individuals kept themselves free of disabling, parasitic infestations.

  • Anti Idiocy

    Christina Hoff Sommers is the only woman I’ve ever met who calls herself a feminist and isn’t completely full of shit.

    • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

      Well, I never met Christina Hoff Sommers, but I agree that she is not full of it. That may be caused by the fact that she is worried about the welfare of her two sons or simply because she is honest. However, I met a lot of other women who were just as practical and honest, some even without being public figures (one of them being my wife) who simply feel that to be feminists and to be fully equal with men would require of them to give up too many female privileges.

      My wife always says, for one thing, that if women were to be fully equal with men, they would not only have to work like men but die like men, much sooner.

      However, to get back to the topic of the discussion and the question of whether feminism is a hate movement, many women identified that without a doubt it is: Christina Hoff Sommers in “Who Stole Feminism?”; Erin Pizzey in many of her articles (e. g.: “How The Women’s Movement Taught Women to Hate Men” ( http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/how_women_were_taught_to_hate_men.htm )

  • Stu

    And Sommers is hated by feminists lol

    So, is feminism a hate movement. Answer=YES

    I suppose somebody might want me to explain. No need too. You see I you asked if the sky was blue……I would say……Answer=YES

    There is no need to explain. The truth is observable for all but the brain dead and blind. And you’ll never be able to prove it to either of those two groups of people

    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

      “And Sommers is hated by feminists lol”

      It is highly unfortunate that CHS chooses to stick the word-label “feminist” to herself. I really, really wish that she would reconsider. If she insists on embracing that term, then I cannot in good conscience place her in the “non-feminist” category.

      • Tom M

        CHS does imply/say that feminism WAS good (helped make women equal – BS!) but got high-jacked into the current anti-male supremacy hate-group. She only has half of it right, the present day situation. Her history is wrong, and that is dangerous because it shows that “men were evil” and could become that again. False!

        The problem is that feminism never was doing any good, except that it has always stirred up trouble and lies and has broken down families, always…

        To latch on to the theory that feminism used to be good because it made women equal (ended women’s oppression that never was) says it all – BOGUS! What feminism did do was act as a tool for Marxist totalitarianism, starting with their ever-present false allegations.

        There never was oppression of women and thus never was any gender-pendulum. Feminism and chivalry are a symbiotic, parasitic institution which must be toppled to stop tyranny from prevailing against the world as a whole.

        Sacks says the same (feminism has done a lot of good in the past), as do many other top MRA’s. Supporting that BS is as contradictory as feminism itself.

        • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

          That “The problem is that feminism never was doing any good, except that it has always stirred up trouble and lies and has broken down families, always…” is not entirely true. In fact, radical-feminism (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism), which became the ruling faction in the 1960s is the one that carries the blame for the planned destruction of the traditional nuclear family.

          In doing so, radical feminism deconstructed much of the pro-family progress that had been made by pro-family feminists during the 100 years or so prior to the 1960s. You better have a look at “Recovering the American Past with Brian D. Robertson,” by Frank Zepezauer

          “Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didn’t know about them myself and I’ve spent a lot of time studying women’s organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest women’s lobby in American history. Founded during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it had 190,000 members by 1920 and over one million by 1930. The National Organization for Women, even in its heyday, could never claim such numbers.

          I learned about the National Congress of Mothers in a short but highly informative book, There’s No Place Like Work by Brian C. Robertson. It has a provocative sub-title: How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents From Home. [1] The title pretty well tells you what the book is about, an account of how the workplace has replaced the home as the center of our lives….”

          More at http://fathersforlife.org/hist/all_the_past2.htm

      • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

        What then about Warren Farrell? He stated:

        “Soon I began distinguishing among the feminism I loved (what I now call empowerment feminism) and the two forms of feminism I feared (victim feminism and competitive feminism).
        Empowerment feminism empowers a woman by encouraging her to develop all of her potential without regard to gender. It is the feminism I shall always support.”

        — Warren Farrell, in “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say: Destroying Myths, Creating Love,” p. 2

        • Tom M

          Yes, that is where Farrell goes wrong. His and CHS’s “good” feminism still claims that men oppressed them and held them back. BS! Sure, Farrell, CHS and Sacks have a lot of good info, BUT their gender ass-kicking of males isn’t what men or women need, and esp not their children.

          • Tom M

            The “Kinder, Gentler Feminism” is still myth-based.

          • Tom M

            Shall we just call it “soft hate,” and it’s OK then?

            They don’t really mean it afterall…

  • universe

    Feminism allows an emotive outlet to a range of objective grievances from a flawed subjectively derived starting point – female only oppression. The starting point only considers female grievance while ignoring the experiences of men in similar circumstances.
    Feminsts claim to want complete equality of women to men but their actions are diametrically opposed. Their focus is exclusively female centric thus rendering them individually and collectively as hypocrites. The conditions that most men have lived through appear more than ever to be unknown to them yet studiously disregarded as inconsequential to the full human spectrum of experience. At failing to consider what most men have endured feminists remain low on the Maslovian theoretical hierarchy – in the infantile category where their self must have its exclusive needs met.

    There may be some glimmers of light in the feminist movement who adequately consider both sexes in the human experience but it appears that the majority of its followers are engaged in shallow adherence to feminism’s own stated precepts. And, yes, the results of such can definately be described as an expression of hatred.

    …There is simply no way it could gather the necessary motivation and momentum.

    – We know why the momentum continues. And these ideas are discussed here and other men’s blogs.
    Government funding which producing nothing more than the need for ever more government funding to prop its empty platitudes. The white-knightery that allows its continuation for vote buying, fear of females and other nefarious political ends. The self-loathing mangina element that uncritically supports its motivation.
    And, most of all, the early lack of informed debate. But that is changing fast. More men than ever are informing themselves and finally talking about it all like no other time. Actiion and change are only around the corner.

    • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

      About government funding, yes, that is the major reason why feminism became the driving political force, and without such funding feminism will wither on the vine.

      “A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

      — Milton and Rose Friedman
      in “Free to Choose: A Personal Statement”
      (Milton Friedman won the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economics)

      Many consider China to be a totalitarian regime. It most definitely was that under Mao Tse-tung. Under his rule, women were considered to be an untapped source of production (Mao had obviously studied Marx and Engels, the apostles of modern communism):

      “With the completion of agricultural cooperation, many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labour. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labour front…. China’s women are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build a great socialist country.”

      — Mao Tse-tung, Introductory note to Solving the Labour Shortage by Arousing the Women to Join in Production (1955), The Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, Chinese ed., Vol. II.
      (From The Little Red Book, Chapter 31, Women; http://art-bin.com/art/omao31.html )

      The interesting aspect of that is that the practice of getting women to hate men, so that women can enjoy the privilege of working and dying like men is not looked upon as totalitarian in the “free” West. India, where men have been re-assigned to being second-class citizens to a far greater extent than that has ever been done in the West, is most definitely not being seen as a totalitarian regime, yet an Indian man who took the complaint that Indian men are being systematically discriminated against to court was fined (the equivalent in purchasing power of $100,000) for vexatious litigation.

      The much more important issue is that China, a country that promoted women’s equality without putting men down is doing well, economically, while India, which is making women equal by demeaning and vilifying men and by actively discriminating against them is falling far behind in economic development if measured against China. Have a look at the comparison of the GDP trends for the two nations and when China began to pull ahead of India, thereby proving that discrimination against men in favour of women is not good for a nation’s economy: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=China+vs.+India%2C+GDP+per+capita (click on “linear scale” to the right of the graph to make the diverging trends more obvious in absolute terms)

  • Nancy

    Good article Fidelbogen. Feminism is indeed a hate movement and we need to keep bringing this up. The site linked below does a very good job of rationally laying out the elements involved in any hate movement and then showing how feminism fits within that schema. I haven’t heard from the site’s writer for years and don’t know where he is but the site is still there and I have used it numerous times in sending it to feminists and asking for a rebuttal and not one has ever even tried. Have a look:


    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

      Ah…David Byron’s website. I remember that one from years ago….

      • Nancy

        Remember Dvid? Were you at Shethinks?

        • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

          “Were you at Shethinks?”

          Um . . . I don’t think I was.

          • Nancy

            Yup. Them were the good ol days. lol Butterfly, David Byron and some great folks. The IWF eventually abandoned the board but for a while it was an interesting spot.

  • Zuberi

    Yes feminism is a hate movement. Some of the feminist pioneers were member of the Women’s Klu Klux Klan. Today feminism has attracted so many flies that even the teenage girls think it’s a damn joke. I believe Queen Victoria made loud and clear what feminism truly is!
    Queen Victoria, 1870: “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection.”

  • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

    Tom M, I believe, is the only one who mentioned that feminism is female supremacism. Tom I have just the sign for you. I don’t know who created it, but I think it looks rather nice and emphasizes Tom’s point:


    Feminism is female supremacism, because feminists want to make women more equal than others. Any attempt to do that is of course absurd. Still, feminists demand that in the name of equality women deserve the lion’s share of social equity. Such demands are clearly discriminatory against all who are not women — yes, they are discriminatory against children, too.

    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

      Walter, I cannot tell a lie. I, Fidelbogen, created that graphic waay back in 2006 or early 2007. And I posted it on my blog. I am glad to see it is getting around.


      I too have mentioned that feminism is female supremacism — many times, in fact, although not on this thread.

      • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

        Many thanks for that. You deserve the credit for it and shall have it, unless you don’t want it for some nefarious reason and wish to remain obscure. How do you want it done? Somehow a big “F” for Fidelbogen doesn’t seem right. Your wish is my command.

        By the way, if anyone wishes to print out the graphic, so as to paste it up somewhere, and if you have no wallpaper paste to do it with, raw egg yolk instead of wallpaper paste is a superior substitute and stands up very well against the weather and other things.

        • http://counterfem.blogspot.com fidelbogen

          Walter…if you want to ‘shop in a small ‘counterfem.blogspot.com’, somewhere along the lower margin, that’d be kinda cool.

          Pasting those things around is about what I had in mind…. although placing them loose-leaf style is also a possibility. (Maybe with the address of “voice for men” stamped on the back??)

  • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

    Tom M, I believe, is the only one who mentioned that feminism is female supremacism. Tom I have just the sign for you. I don’t know who created it, but I think it looks rather nice and emphasizes Tom’s point:


    Feminism is female supremacism, because feminists want to make women more equal than others. Any attempt to do that is of course absurd. Still, feminists demand that in the name of equality women deserve the lion’s share of social equity. Such demands are clearly discriminatory against all who are not women — yes, they are discriminatory against children, too.

    • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

      I just found out that I must not click on twice in a row — not even by accident. If there is a moderator, maybe he can be so good and delete the superfluous image file.

    • Nergal

      I believe we have Factory,a.k.a Dan, to thank for this image. I could be wrong,but I think it was him.

  • http:fathersforlife.org Walter

    “click on “Submit”,” that is, and never put any words between two chevrons.

  • Pingback: The beast within « A Voice for Men()

  • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

    I love Fidelbogen!

  • Bob Bygone

    Feminism is definitively a hate movement. Sure many men who abuse or rape women deserve to be hated and unfortunately “good” or decent men get lumped into this and are considered garbage. I never treated my ex wife badly but that doesn’t matter, men are still considered crap. I am now beginning to despise women because they have that I hate men attitude.