Shulamith Firestone, radical feminist and author of Dialectic of Sex, died last week. And, it appears she died having lived her last years quite isolated and miserable.
The accounts of her death remind me of the latest film by Carol Morley, Dreams of A Life. More than a “true story,” Dreams… is a documentary about a British woman who, like Shulamith, was found dead in her flat. But not days or weeks after she died. This young woman was not discovered till THREE YEARS later.
Shulamith is part of a generation, which happens to be my parents’ generation, which is on its way out. My stepfather died eighteen months ago. My Dad goes to more funerals than weddings. I feel death hanging over me in a way I never did before.
And with the demise of this generation, comes the demise of its ideologies and politics. Shulamith joins a growing roster of ‘dead feminists’ that includes Marilyn French, Andrea Dworkin and Mary Daly.
These women were part of what we call “second wave” feminism, which was at its peak in the late sixties, early seventies. I have a very strong, VERY ambivalent relationship with second-wave feminism, because I was born into it. My mum did not go to yummy mummy cafes and pilates classes in her spare time when I was little, she went to Women’s Liberation conferences and “consciousness raising” groups. I am still recovering, literally, from childhood trauma that I can’t separate in my psyche from that period of feminist history. And when I was still a feminist I was often lonely and isolated, even when surrounded by my “sisters.” Shulamith’s life and death reminds me that feminism is not a “cure all” or a guarantee of being successfully integrated into a group who share an ideology. It isn’t a guarantee of anything at all.
I am not celebrating individual deaths. Unlike feminists such as Cath Elliott, who cheered when Sebastian Horsley, who she believed was a “misogynist” died, I feel sad when anyone shuffles off this mortal coil. At the risk of mixing my quotes up too much, do not ask for whom the bell tolls and all that.
But I am glad that second wave feminism is a dying creed. The “sisters” who in my view invented concepts such as “patriarchy” and “all men are rapists” and the idea that one solution to gender inequalities is eugenics, have a lot to answer for.
A couple of years ago I might have finished this piece on a positive note, saying that the new generation of “third wave” feminists are changing things, and making feminism into a more positive, more diverse, less man-hating movement. But as most readers will know, I won’t do that now.
Third wave feminism in some ways takes the basic, misandrous tenets of second wave feminism and turns them into “memes.” Any thought or philosophy is removed and all we are left with is a bunch of white women screaming “RAPE CULTURE!” and “STREET HARASSMENT!“ and “MISOGYNY!” Technologies producing social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr have meant political campaigns become very simplified and do not allow for intellectual debate. All you have to show your support is press the “Like” button. This “dumbing down” of feminism makes it particularly crude and lacking in rigour.
On some particularly dark days I even miss Andrea Dworkin!
However there are positive aspects to our contemporary world, in which radical feminism is seen by many as a joke. It does not have quite the power it did when I was a kid. But its younger, more manicured, less well-read sisters are dangerous. And I am stuck with them till I die.
6 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.
Near Earth Object:
Greg Canning:
Correctrix:
ErnestoGuevara:
I know what you mean, Elly. As hateful and deranged as the likes of Andrea Dworkin were, they at least exhibited something resembling intellectual rigor, something you could actually latch onto and argue with rather than today’s circle jerk misandrists who just sit around discussing their feelings and furiously agreeing with each other.
I’m reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies:
“Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”
(Bonus points for anyone who can name the character and movie.)
Movie: The Big Lebowski – Character: Walter – Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
Sorry. I cheated with web search. Do I get the bonus points anyhow?
Incidentally, that’s definitely a great point about current feminism. On the other hand, the stooges aren’t really supposed to understand anything about underlying purposes. Just follow the party line and you’ll get rich as well as “libertated.” Not really much different from any other dogmatic cult following.
Easy.
The Big Lebowski.
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lebowski
Damn!
You beat me to it, Arvy.
“You see what happens, Tiffany, when you fuck a stranger in the ass? Do you see what happens Tiffany, when you try to FUCK. A STRANGER. IN THE ASS!”
Genuine LOL!!!!
You want a toe? I can get you a toe…with nail polish.
I’m going to take a break from watching the second season of Wilfred tonight and watch The Big Lebowski for I don’t know the how many-th time.
I couldn’t agree more.
I’ve been engaged in ongoing international litigation for a long time and it’s actually much more work to refute illogical, subjective arguments with no rational or objective basis in reality than it is counter well-reasoned, logical arguments that have a factual basis, but just so happen to draw the wrong conclusions.
To make matters worse, in my particular case, responses to bull-shit are often required or the courts, forever biased in favor of their own citizens and women, may very well take the lack of response to mean implied consent and agreement with said bull-shit.
When feminists start building their arguments upon the unsupported foundations of patriarchy theory and rape culture they are trying to construct a rational premise based on a fairy tail (good luck with that.)
btw… the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!!
Great news! Once feminism has died, all that’s left to do is correct the harm they caused to create real, non-selective equality between men and women. Even when the enemy is gone, the mess is still left behind, so we’ve got to work together to clean it up.
The enemy is not gone. The “long march through the institutions” is now complete. The enemy is not really even “feminism,” but rather cultural marxism.
Without understanding cultural marxism’s strategy and goals, and knowing how to spot its language, image, propaganda, policies, protocols and agendas, the MRM is just chasing its tail.
Point of fact: Many MRAs, because they were raised under the control of cultural marxism, still use the marxist term “gender” when describing the two biological sexes, not even realizing that by using that fallacious terminology they are endorsing the misandric anti-fatherhood ideology (cultural marxism) that created and sold the phony “gender” theory to a increasingly dumbed down TV-dazed public.
Every time we use the term “gender” (apart from describing grammar) we are expressly giving ground to the cultural marxists (“feminists”) and allowing them to set the terms of the discussion.
I’m skeptical of the “cultural marxism” theory. Although the cultural marxists and the Frankfurt School were real enough, the notion that consciously or unconsciously an entire civilization has been subverted by this small group of thinkers with a propaganda campaign seems a stretch.
The fact is that if feminism did not speak to the aspirations of tens of millions of women 40, 50 years ago, and if tens of millions of men saw no justice in anything they asked for, none of it would have gone anywhere. The whole notion that this is a bunch of utterly alien ideas insidiously brainwashing an entire culture doesn’t work for me.
It appears to me that Occam’s Razor should apply: the simplest explanation is what tends to be most correct. 2nd wave feminism was a product of the deep unhappiness of a small subset of women, who voiced some righteous and some silly complaints, women by the tens of millions agreed with some of it and demanded changes and men, by and large, gave them what they asked for–since civilization is, in the end, often based around men, as a group, giving women as a group what they ask for (at least when they ask plainly and clearly).
The flaw was not in (all) the complaints, the flaw was with the Patriarchy Theory that led to hatred for and destitution of tens of millions of men and boys. Now, men and women are beginning to speak up and say “this isn’t working, we need to change it.”
And we will. We did not get Gordon Smith sprung from jail and Tiffany Marie Smith arrested, or Mary Kellett facing possible disbarment, by “exposing cultural marxism.” We will not get millions of male victims of domestic and other violence recognized or shared parenting or male reproductive freedom by “exposing cultural marxism.” Nor will we end the presumption of guilt on men or the arrest, prosecution, and sentencing discount for women addressed that way.
We will change those things by exposing them for what they are, and speaking up loudly for reform. Through nonviolent action and political persuasion. It will take some time but hey, that’s how it’s supposed to work in a democratic republic.
“I’m skeptical of the “cultural marxism” theory. ”
I’m with you there Dean. This kind of reductionistic ideology helps absolutely nobody.
“And we will. We did not get Gordon Smith sprung from jail and Tiffany Marie Smith arrested, or Mary Kellett facing possible disbarment, by “exposing cultural marxism.”
Yes to that, and to the rest of what you wrote.
I agree with Dean on this, too. I find the concept of cultural Marxism very helpful, though, and for the same reasons to which Robert alludes. That understanding provides a quick and accurate interpretation of their lexicon.
Trying to fight a concept, though, is like trying to nail jello to a tree. In the end we are fighting ideologues and corrupt officials, and specific ones at that.
I think that’s a fair way of putting it. I hope no one thinks I’m disrespecting Robert, whose scholarship is invaluable.
“Trying to fight a concept, though, is like trying to nail jello to a tree.” Absolutely! That is why I do not try to be too philosophical in my writing. I want to fight people. Crooks. Thieves, Control-freaks. Sadists. I want them to get no funding, lose their power and maybe learn to mid their own business. We need the model for control to be understood, however. We fight the mafia, for example, by understanding how the mafia works. This was not so easy to do as long as the mafia paid off cops and politicians to claim the maria does not exist (JE Hoover, Gov Cuomo).
Well, it is an issue requiring more space than comments. The “long march through the institutions” is what I have dealt with in the academic world, meaning, the teachers and teachers. When I discuss this issue, what I have in mind is what I have observed actually happening and being executed by real people with enormous influence over education and the social sciences.
Since I am not a very theoretical kind of guy, I am always going to adjust my view based on getting more knowledge. I have no theory of cultural marxism, but I do have a whole lot of experience with cultural marxists, which would be most of the young tenured professors in the humanities I have known (and lived with) over the past 30 years.
Gramsci is a holy text among the academic elite. It is the blueprint. It is only a theory insomuch as it is a blueprint for actions. And those actions have been taken. I watched it happening. Very impressive and very successful. One might be surprised when one realizes where so many harmful ideas in common currency come from. Cultural marxism is everyday fare to the groups in education, much of psychology, all of feminism, I used to associate with so I am always surprised to see how its presence goes unidentified outside the elite “re-education” circles (which are widespread and quite large in relationship to their professional contexts).
Promoting political theories, any theories, to me is the real problem: because it discourages impressionable young people from developing complex thought and from physical labor and action that is the prerequisite of personal development that lead to independence.
“The nuclear family must be destroyed” is not merely a “feminist” statement. It is a purely cultural marxist statement, and the authoress of this is a professor of history specializing in the family at NYU. The quote is not a theoretical quote, it is a commitment to action. That action is to “destroy.”
“The nuclear family must be destroyed”.
Bingo!
But I would submit that there are as many underlying reasons for that as there are shades of ideological philosphy amongst the proponents. Where I run into problems is with any unitary “branding” of the latter. I find it difficult to accept that so-called “cultural marxists” have the right to an exclusive claim in that regard. But maybe I’m just quibbling over terminology and labelling.
My issue with the “destroy the nuclear family” business is that language is seductive. It has come to pass over the last generation or so that “nuclear family” means 1 man + 1 woman + their children, as a group arrayed against the world. Or that is the illusion most social conservatives seem to believe in, in my experience (and I know and respect a lot of them, don’t get me wrong).
The problem I have is that THIS view of the family is also an artificial construct that mostly came out of the Industrial Revolution and corporatist capitalism in many ways. The truth of the matter is that prior to the Industrial Revolution (and in places where said Revolution never even hit) that particular “nuclear family” was rare or nonexistent. EXTENDED families were the norm and still are in much of the world. Being in your 30s, married, and living under the same roof with your parents, your brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, and children was pretty normal… or if they weren’t all under the same roof, some collection of them would be and everybody else would be within shouting distance or at least a short walk.
Today we have a culture that also teaches that this is abnormal. That everyone, everyone, everyone should be self-sufficient and independent. Or if there’s a “family,” it is defined primarily as mom+dad+kids. Yet this is an incredibly stressful way to live and it, too, almost certainly drives many marriages apart; even if dad CAN keep down a full time job that fully provides and never gets hurt or sick or stressed out or laid off, just being that stay-at-home mom with 3-4 kids all by yourself and keeping house really is murderously difficult, or can be. I’m convinced many marriages break up for this reason alone: we expect this tiny “nuclear family” (mom+dad+X kids) to go it alone and be self-sufficient and ashamed if they aren’t. Whereas in reality most of human history, pre-civilizational AND in most civilizations, it wasn’t like that: your brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles and others were all around there to HELP YOU when the kids came along or times got tough, in a very real and direct way.
From that definition of “nuclear family,” I would agree we actually do have to address it as problematic because it’s a TOUGH way to live, and probably drives as many divorces as “hypergamy” or anything else: couples are driven apart because the drive to absolute self-sufficiency within the “nuclear family” is frequently totally unrealistic. It almost certainly contributes to drug and alcohol problems, domestic abuse, and other problems because the stresses are simply enormous and many human beings crack under it.
The “it takes a village” rhetoric makes some cringe but the truth of the matter is that realistically it’s usually been groups of people, i.e. extended families, clans, and tightly-knit groups raising children and making not just a home but a community work. The right-wing/Ayn Randian vision of the all-powerful individual taking on the whole world with the brute force of his own skill and grit and determination is as far from reality as Karl Marx’s visions.
This in some ways gives me hope; studies have shown that in divorce situations, shared parenting is psychologically much better for children absent a very strong reason not to do it. If this were increasingly seen as normal–and it should be–it would start to resemble something that looks a lot more like the extended families that humans appear to have been designed to live in in the first place.
It also points to the fact that we can use the “anti-nuclear family” people’s own arguments against them, because they’re right: the Ward&June Cleaver model was always a Hollywood illusion. So is the notion that the State can figure it all out for us. If extended families become normal via shared custody in divorce, it moves us back toward something that’s more like the way humans have always lived.
If that makes any sense.
Heh. I think you’re going to have a bit of a labelling problem with that one, Robert. The notion that any form of marxism could possibily be accepted and exploited under “democratic capitalism”, let alone serve its interests, is a very tough sell.
I don’t understand about the democratic capitalism part. Perhaps my comments incorrectly assume a familiarity with the history of this movement. It is not a marginal influence. It is mainstream.
Buchanan has written well on Adorno’s hoaxing ideas which many or most “moderates” believe in even though they do not the origins.
My comments are not very original. They reflect what many, many ex-marxists write about what happened since the 60s. Unfortunately many of these writers are neo-cons (Horowitz), which I am not, and which keeps may readers from looking at their books.
Sorry, Robert. It was just a cavalier tongue-in-cheek remark, not really intended to be taken seriously. I really shouldn’t do that and I apologise. Perhaps my response above about “unitary branding” is a bit more to the point.
Reply to: “I find it difficult to accept that so-called “cultural marxists” have the right to an exclusive claim in that regard. But maybe I’m just quibbling over terminology and labelling.”
Not to worry. I’m merely trying to get people to learn about this stuff. I do not approach it as an “idea” so much as I approach it as a collection of people, well organized, who are intending lots of harm, who control much of the educational system (including the writing of official history) and who have already done much and are exceedingly proud of it.
Look into critiques by Buchanan, Grigg and others online and you will get the basics. We can afford to have disagreements over details in the MRM, but we cannot afford to be unfamiliar with the the most competent (dangerous) people we are fighting and their thoroughly laid-out blueprint.
All that rad-fem hub stuff is a combo of cultural marxism and old-fashioned progressive eugenics (another crucial subject to study (GREAT BOOK: “War Against the Weak,” tells the PROGRESSIVE, “scientific” American/British roots of Nazi mass murder).
” we cannot afford to be unfamiliar with the the most competent (dangerous) people we are fighting ”
100% agree. While the focus should unquestionably be on action rather than on ideologies per se, it would be a grave mistake to overlook the need for understanding the full scope of the terrorism and its systemic roots.
I don’t always object to the use of the term gender. It does have a place in the lexicon, in particular, when one wants to talk about both sex and sexuality/preference at the same time.
However, it is all too frequently used interchangeably with the word sex in ways that frequently make very little sense, and it’s a pet peeve of mine.
“I want to fight people. Crooks. Thieves, Control-freaks. Sadists. I want them to get no funding, lose their power and maybe learn to mid their own business. We need the model for control to be understood, however. We fight the mafia, for example, by understanding how the mafia works. ”
Right on the money sir! At the end of the day these are the people who cause the real damage. Disempowering them by exposing their machinations and getting rid of all sexist laws is the best way of ending this gender terrorism.
I’m afraid that’s nothing more than wishful thinking. You really think that 50 years of anti male, diseased vitriol is easy to cut out and destroy?
The rhetoric may have been worse in the 60s an 70s, but I’d rather be a married man with kids then rather than now.
The misandric laws are far worse now. Men have never had it worse in family law, education, workplace etc. If the laws that are in force today were even proposed then, they would have been laughed at.
2nd wave, 3rd wave, it’s all bullshit. The number only describes the stage they are at, in regards to establishing their anti male hell hole. The intent has always been the same, and remains so.
That’s what I was thinking, too. Individuals come and go, but these people have written their wretched beliefs into law.
But what’s leaving with those people was whatever intellectual mettle their movement had. The current feminist movement, such as it is, has none. It’s out of gas on almost any meaningful issue. Whatever ideological incoherence the 2nd wave leaders had, it’s nothing compared to the complete incoherence of today’s 3rd wavers. They have *no* response except to scream “lies all lies!” and call people names, and that I’m afraid only works for so long, especially when you’ve got enough people who recognize reality.
Time to get more people to recognize reality.
At risk of creating further dissent, I can’t say I agree that it’s worse now for men. It depends on when and where you look. There has in fact been some improvement in several areas. We fool ourselves and are tempted to despair if we do not see it.
For example, shared parenting is on the rise. And while in many states enforcement of parenting time for fathers is lax, in others it’s growing considerably more rigorous; I can tell you that where I live now, if an ex- tries to deny court-ordered parenting time she can and WILL be hauled up to a judge to explain herself. Here, if you get behind on child support, unlike some other states, they have reformed the law so that denying you access to your children in retaliation is not acceptable.
Here, judges have also gotten QUITE tired of bogus protection orders, and are quite a bit more reluctant to grant them, and even more reluctant to grant them ex-parte; what happened to Gordon Smith in Delaware probably would not happen here, or not quite so badly. (Other abuses are still possible here, it is no paradise, but it’s definitely an improvement on other states).
I have a friend who, in the ’80s, had full custody of his kids for three years because their mother abandoned the family to have an affair and left the kids behind… then came back and sued and won, basically just because she was the mother. Today, in my state, that almost certainly would not happen: the courts now lean on who has spent the most time as custodial parent. Which is still flawed, but the automatic presumption that “they belong with the mother” is gone.
Things stank for men in a lot of ways 50 years ago. They also stank for women in a lot of ways. Men changed because women asked them to. Now women are being asked to change. Some of them are. We’ve had two generations grow up since this massive social upheaval, and too many young men and women see the truth and are demanding change again.
We’ll get there. It will take time and effort, and we’ll have to put up with a lot of hatemongers and reactionaries, but we’ll get there.
Agree with you Dean that some things have improved for men, yet, many things have worsened for what I view as a ‘net negative’ for men. Men can take paternity leave from work for their newborns, but in divorces nowadays men get hammered on alimony & child support much worse than before IMO. In addition, as you may have read recently w/ Lt. Col. Joe Kirk USMC/USAF story, its quite ridiculous the things that are happening that common sense wouldn’t allow 50yrs ago. That specific case is just the tip of a massive iceberg of injustices and atrocities.
What really infuriates the 3rd wave feminists today is they want all the benefits of being an adult w/o having to act like an adult a.k.a. responsibility. How about shared custody of children, shared child support – each pays the other support while in the other’s care. Ouch.
Another example of absurdity is here in Socal. I dated a Filipino woman for awhile. She held a Master’s Degree and made $150,000/yr. However, since she was female, and a Filipina, she is considered a ‘dual victim’ of sorts and therefore, can receive up to $50,000 in gov’t grants (no need to pay them back) to start her own business if she so chooses.
Are there funds available for Filipino males? Hell no. Any funds out there for disenfranchised men? Of course not.
Agree.
The anti-male hell-hole was fought by Hoeberth et al. We are now in a corporatist (fascist) hell hole that funding political correctness (cultural marxism) to rob everyone of property and freedom. Feminism is a tool to destabilize. That is why the big-money folks funded it. The middle class is destroyed when the family is destroyed. That is the plan of corporatism in the West. The me-me-me girls are merely crazy useful idiots who will end up serfs in the end along with the men they want to manipulate.
Things can get much, much, much worse. That is why I try to draw attention to my old pals, the PROFESSIONAL “agents of change” who work on their social engineering activities 24/7. And they get paid for it.
I honestly think one could successfully argue that what goes by the label of “Third Wave Feminism” is extremely similar to what, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, was called “The Badger Game.”
http://www.snakeoilgraphics.com/NightStick/post/The-Badger-Game.aspx
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Badger%20Game
You are a fount of useful information. “The Badger Game” is now a permanent part of my lexicon.
You have pleased me to no end. That is exactly what my intention was.
I’m not surprised that people like Ms. Firestone seem to have few if any friends. When I read blogs by a radical feminist or watch them on television they strike me as people lacking most kinds of human warmth. They often speak of caring about other people, even children, even a pet dog, as if it’s a sign of weakness imposed by the male authority. You can form a movement based upon a shared hatred (even of something that doesn’t exist, like the patriarchy) but that won’t form bonds between the movement’s members.
Yes. Utopians are cold-blooded and abstract. All hat and no cattle.
Utopianists with delusions of grandeur quite possibly killed more people in the 20th century than all the religious wars of the of the previous 19 centuries combined.
You bet. And the media and universities still promote the myth that there is this huge dumbed-down left-right ideological war going on, hiding the fact Hitler and Stalin were a-hole buddies until Hitler got too cocky. 7 million Christians murdered in the name of Atheist Utopianism erased from public consciousness by our “liberal” “progressive” programmers. Hiding the fact that Mussolini, the socialist, created his Italian version of socialism and merely branded it as “fascism.” Hiding the Trotskian roots of neo-con “world order” control-freakism.
I think you would like this book:
Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II
http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design-Jacket/dp/1591148383/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1
I checked it out from the local library. The author provides exhaustive support for his position. Whether or not one believes his premise, it still provides insights into that era.
I’m not doubting you, but there has been a LOT of religious wars and death in the last 19 centuries…
Could you elaborate?
Start with “The Black Book of Communism,” which goes into excruciating detail about the 60-100 million people killed intentionally by Communist regimes in concentration camps and forced labor camps and intentional starvation and genocide. That does not count war casualties.
Add in Hitler’s actions. Include the other instances of genocide in the 20th Century, such as the Turkish genocide of the Armenians or the Rwanda massacre or any number of others, they were almost all committed for ideological reasons not religious reasons.
Various religious organizations have committed various abuses, although the number killed by things like, say, the Spanish Inquisition, numbers in the thousands and probably did not go past 10,000. Things like the Crusades and whatnot, ditto, you’re talking about casualties in the tens of thousands in most cases. If you go back 2,000 years, it is estimated that the entire world population was only about 300 million, i.e. less than just live today in the United States. If nothing else, there just weren’t enough people living on the planet to sustain losses numbered in the hundreds of millions, which is what the 20th century gave us. It’s startling because if you live in a place like the United States, it isn’t obvious, but, the 20th Century, in addition to being a century of unparalleled human progress, was also the bloodiest and most horrific century in human history, at least in terms of scale.
But even above and beyond that, they seem like such cold people to me.
Yep. Intellectual I have known for the past 30 years are commonly cold. They often, whether “right,” “left,” or libertarian, are frequently using their projections of a “shoulda” world to rationalize their lack of compassion. It has taken me decades to have the courage to see these tendencies in myself and to strive to overcome them. Learning to love children was the thing that opened up my capacity for compassion. Social engineers want to use men as tools so they want to deny men the chance to open up and deepen in this way. That is why the social engineers are now promoting promiscuity as a “requirement” for all “normal” jellyfish conformists.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
So, you came here by accident, but you decided to stay and leave a disparaging comment. Thoughtful.
If that is the conclusion you came to by visiting this website, than you only gave it a cursory glance. A cursory glance that is both ignorant and wrong on many accounts.
Oh, and this website will be here whether you like it or not.
If you bother to do much reading you will discover that very few men here hate women. The women who are here regularly may also cause you to question this strange assumption.
Criticizing women is not hating women. Criticizing the system is not hating women. You complain about these men you have dated–does this mean you hate men? I do not think it does.
All that affirmative action and sex specific government welfare, and behold the quality of the product. Grief..
Englishwoman, go eat Harriet Harman, get a good taste of hatred.
So? What’s wrong with hating women anyhow? A lot of them seem to hate us and some take it to the point of physical violence, even genital mutilation. Now THAT is just about as hateful as anyone could get.
Oh, wait. I forgot. Men who hate women are “unmanly”, whereas women who hate men are just expressing “liberated” femininity.
“A couple of my worst blind dates were with men who, within half an hour, had launched into a diatribe about “the bitch who ruined my life,” It’s a killer.”
Victim blamer. Way to have empathy. You’re such a tender, nurturing bitch.
Men are abusive in relationships, so domestic abuse is a national crisis.
Females are abusive in relationships, so fuck the asshole men who complain about it, get over it. Females are your best chance for happiness, now kiss my ass so that I will not refer to you as ‘my worst blind date’. We all have bad stuff happen. It’s how you deal with it that matters.
Shucks, I guess domestic abuse isn’t a national emergency after all.
There is a minority of men who visit this site that hate women. Such is life, but we hope they get better, and we understand the emotions that result from bad experiences.
But if you read through enough here that you had to pick your jaw up, and concluded that “Voice for Men site seems full of men whose only connection is a hatred of women,” then you’re stupid. Not because you are a woman, but because you are stupid woman.
Stupid women do much better not to lecture men on life and living, or to tell them how to deal with life’s difficulties. When it comes to that, women like you ARE the difficulty.
Oh for flip sake.
There is a great big fat neon sign shaped as an arrow pointed right at your silhouette, and inside it are the words:
“Ignorance right here.”
It’s all there in your flatulent bilge – shaming, ‘I’m a victim”, rhetoric peddling, snark, mono directional thinking, no citation, dullard interpretation, narrow mindedness, confusion of cause and effect, extrapolation of personal history to paint the world, unattended reasoning, half baked conclusions, verbosity, arrogance, egocentricity of POV, ignorance, judgmental dialogue, know-it-all, mean mindedness, petulance, ‘wax on wax off’ bott-ism and holy the hell am I compared the fuck to you lot who all think the same.
The only thing inspiring, or mildly memorable about your scratch here, is that I cannot help but wonder how all these failings can be compressed and packaged into just one (1) individual.
Right, now I am off for a wank in the local deli to remind myself of something different and better.
Brilliant.
Englishwoman – per Paul Elam’s earlier reply to you – yes there are occassional haters who come to this site.
Most of the non-custodial parent men here, though, have had their children taken away, alienated from them, abused, or worse. Many of the divorced men were unfairly treated by the courts with regards to finances, support, custody or visitation. I recommend you read the article on Lt. Col. Joe Kirk for a single sample of what we men put up with every day.
I would also recommend you read many of the articles that appear in popular women’s magazines like ‘Young Miss’ and the like, where men are literally portrayed as walking penises and nothing more. Probably due to a combination of both feministic ideology and the general dumbing down/decline of intelllectual and emotional intelligence, yet nonetheless very offensive and plain stupid.
It reminds me of the problem you have if a compass is somehow just a tiny bit off North. It might only be a degree out, but after travelling all day, you find yourself a thousand miles off course.
The innate, unshakeable belief at the core of feminism – that all women are victims, and all men are at fault (and how many, many times have we all heard this? “Yes, feminism recognises that patriarchy harms both men and women, while also knowing that men have more social, economic and financial power in society”), looks to most of the public, like a harmless common belief. It’s unquestioned, shared by pretty much everyone in the West, part of the water we drink, every TV programme, newspaper etc.
But it poisons relationships between men and women.
On a fundamental level, when a woman marries a man for instance, and realises within a few years that – to her shock and disgust – he’s actually just a fallible human being, with worries and fears and weaknesses as well as strengths and talents – if she’s swallowed the feminist line, then there’s only one explanation – he mustn’t be a man. She’ll proceed to treat him as such – not-human, not worthy of consideration. Her contempt will be unconscious AND deliberate…and boundless.
Encouraged by society to ‘put yourself first, darling’, ‘why? Because I’m worth it’, and a hundred other aphorisms, laws, expectations both de jure and de facto which emphasise that she’s special, she’s the victim, she’s disadvantaged, she’ll marshall all the resources available to destroy this incubus, who stole into her bed under the pretence of humanhood.
And the result? That comes down the line. An atomised society full of individuals at the mercy of government, capitalist excess, with little shelter from the storm. Trust eroded, common bonds disolved, familes disintegrated.
Feminists, second, third wave or whatever, have blinkers on. They’re obsessed with women. Absolutely obsessed. It’s a snake consuming its own tail, round and round goes the manufactured outrage about women – their needs, their needs, their needs.
Never once is there a thought for who meets these needs, never once a recognition that women exist not in a hierarchy, but a network – made up of boys, men, girls, the elderly – extending across all of society and that anything that doesn’t work for ALL will eventually fail to work for ANY.
Dworkin, Daly, Firestone – I don’t grieve for any of them.
They created a sollipsistic, selfish, self-obsessed creed that’s caused nothing but damage, and in the process helped create the current wave of narcissism across the developed world that rides over the bodies of its victims young and old.
Save your tears for the toddlers like Peter Connelly, beaten to death by their junkie mums and pimp boyfriends – while the father who could have protected him had been kicked out of the house – that’s the rough outcome of the world brought into being by those bitches.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/21/baby-p-father-court-statement
I agree completely. I have always contended that feminism would have gotten -zero- traction if tens of millions of women had not said “OK, that’s a rightful complaint, please change this.” What they failed to notice is that by and large males are accommodating creatures and despite some occasional obstinacy or grousing will generally do whatever women ask them to do.
In any case now the toothpaste’s out of the tube. We are not going back to the way things were 50 years ago. It won’t happen, and I’m not sure all that many people really want that–I think even the people who say they want that don’t really want that, they just don’t realize what they’re asking for. 50 years ago, life was no bowl of cherries for men OR women.
Well women asked men to change, and by and large they did. But when they asked men to share their perspective and feelings and experiences, they told men to sit down and shut the fuck up. Well men being fairly accomodating creatures (QED) they did–for a while. But at some point, it reaches a breaking point where too many men are getting hurt too much, and too many men and women are watching their sons, brothers, cousins, and male friends get the shaft.
Any movement for social justice faces scorn, ridicule, and opposition, including even violent opposition. It takes years of work to make change. So, OK. Let’s get cracking eh?
Great comment. Why is there no ‘like’ button?
See the little “+” an “-” under each comment. “+” means you agree, “-” means disagree.
oh yeah!
But on a serious note, on facebook the ‘like’ button does not have an alternative. It is not just ‘dumbing down’ it is removing the option for dissent.
Women are weak little damsels in distress who are hurt by everything and they need feminism to save them. 4th wave chivalry.
I believe many men and women feel a deep – if unverbalised – unease with feminism. The sense that something’s not quite right, that there’s an unidentified fallacy somewhere. However they’re unable to understand how a doctrine of error could take widespread hold of religion, government, academia etc.
They can see that women are, in many places and at many times, faced with difficult choices and disadvantages, usually due to the restraints of childcare or childbirth. They take this to validate the claims of feminism. Women are the permanent ‘other’, uniquely discriminated against, often complicit in their own subjugation.
Perhaps there’s something not quite right (as my Dad said to me once: “Perhaps women do have it tough…[sigh] I don’t know though, I can’t help but notice whose names are on that war memorial”) but if they are so wrong, how are they wrong? They’re so loud about it – it must be true.
The problem is, no it isn’t. I believe – and many will disagree – that if it’s not source of the ‘error’ then at least a massive boost to it occured on or around February 6th 1948, in Paris.
It was then that Simone de Beauvoir was putting the finishing touches to the draft of ‘The Second Sex’, possibly the most influential feminist work ever.
One ‘insight’ of de Beauvoir’s was that language dictated that ‘Man’ was the normal, ‘wo-man’ was the ‘other’, the adjunct.
Man was synonymous with mankind, the family of man, man contained both ‘man’ and ‘woman’. Woman only meant – well, woman. She went on to back this up with quotes from Aristotle and The Torah.
The problem is, it’s fucking nonsense.
Yes, our language has two labels: man and woman, and yes, ‘Man’ can also include women i.e. ‘mankind’.
But this doesn’t mean ‘woman’ is lesser.
Man/Woman is the same as Number/Prime. A prime number is still a number. It’s a sort of number with a special quality. It’s no better than other numbers, it’s no worse either. A prime is always a number, but not all numbers are primes. There’s no value judgement in it though. How do we know this? Because de Beauvoir used English/French/German – which all have gendered language. If she’d asked a linguist, she might have wondered how modern Persian gets along – it doesn’t use gender at all. Sort of knocks her argument into a cocked hat then doesn’t it?
Number, in a sense, is more “fundamental” than primeness, just because it is more general; but prime numbers are certainly no less numbers than any other numbers. Prime numbers are simply marked with a certain property that other numbers do not have. Calling prime numbers “prime” represents the traditional sense that the distinguishing property of prime numbers — that they cannot be evenly divided by any numbers besides one and themselves — is particularly striking and salient.
Feminists argue in effect that the feminine as the more “marked” gender is the less human gender. This is ridiculous, like arguing that prime numbers are less “numerical” than other numbers. It actually means that the gender system of English is just as amenable to a feminist interpretation that it reflects a primaeval matriarchy as it is to the interpretation of Old Testament patriarchy, with the feminine, like prime numbers, as the more significant and important, rather than the lesser, gender.
I swear to God – tearing apart feminist theory is like playing Fruit Ninja with an SA80.
Don’t get me started on Bell Hooks.
Brilliant analysis. I really wish you would publish both this comment and the prior one as articles.
I’ve also spent some time considering this, in particular, in the context of Spanish (also a romance language where all nouns have “gender.”)
On the whole I’m inclined to believe that grammars and language are very poor places to search for insights into the nature of relations between the sexes. I’ve spent some time searching for commentary on this topic from Chomsky but can’t recall finding much of interest at the moment (he shies away from answering questions related to feminism with the pretext that it’s a topic with which he is not naturally curious..)
Still I have played with the idea that the reverse is actually true. To build upon your analogy. All numbers are certainly numbers, but prime numbers are special numbers. A case can easily be made that special is better. Indeed I believe that a stronger case can be made that special things are superior to defaults.
The default may be male, but females are the special case deserving of special consideration.
It’s like the news casts that say “30 died today when a bomb exploded, included 3 women.”
Please publish an article!
Wow, dig your comments… loved the metaphor of a snake eating its own tail.
“Feminists, second, third wave or whatever, have blinkers on. They’re obsessed with women. Absolutely obsessed. It’s a snake consuming its own tail, round and round goes the manufactured outrage about women – their needs, their needs, their needs.”
Agreed, feminism = narcissism. Only a gender-narcissistic bias could think of universal gender equality by using the gender-specific ‘fem-” of feminism. Words like feminism are not merely defined by the attributes we ascribe to them…. words have thier own values apart from the speaker – thier own histories, vogues, genres, and genders. Feminism refers to the female gender. I rest my case.
Too true….Universal gender equality using Fem..inism to describe it’s ideology. Violence against Women Act (VAWA) comes to mind as well. A suppossedly now gender-neutral act retains its narcissistic name. The failed ratification of ERA was gender neutral as it should be but some enlightened Senator reintroduced the exact same Bill word for word but changed its name to WEA , Womens Equality Act. paving the way to prevent any Men from using it to protect themselves from discrimination possibly claiming the intent of the Bill is in the name.
If ERA comes up again, the name change to WEA better be vehemently opposed, to stop these narssicists from claiming another naming victory. I’m sure there are more examples I cannot think of right now
The sad part is, if the original ERA had been ratified, there would be an endless number of ways for men to sue to strike down an endless series of laws. VAWA itself could not have stood, just for example.
I have thought more than once that we should push for passage of the ERA. I somehow suspect that an awful lot of today’s feminists would strongly oppose it, or want it rewritten the way you suggest.
I too have always supported ERA. MRAs need ERA more than the fems do now. I beleive we should be pushing for at every opportunity. It would be interesting to see feminist hypocrits come out of the woodwork to try to prevent their very own baby from being ratified. It would really separate the wheat from the chaff, the true egalitarian feminists (which I dont mind) from the special privilege seeking feminists. I think the ERA is one area where egalitarian feminists and MRAs may agree. I for one would love to see ERA passed. It would end all the BS in legislation and would have women and men have equal responsiblities. ERA should be supported in my mind. Is there another chance for re-introduction of thsi Bill? With all the equality bickering going on how could it not pass.
Great comment Sasha, 1000 up votes if possible.
Just wanted to share my latest exchange with a feminist on Facebook.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XB0BY78Rsjw/UEY7OBiqygI/AAAAAAAAAMk/oYrb3P47Uto/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-09-04+at+10.25.38+AM.png
That’s the kind of thing women like to say, but I don’t think they know what “strong” means. Strong women (like my mom and my grandmother) don’t scare men. But many feminists think being a bitch on wheels equals being strong, and when they drive men away they think he’s afraid of their “strength”.
Strong women don’t scare men, bitches do, and only because they have the weight of law behind them.
But most of the so called strong women now days mistake being a bitch for being strong. They are just aggressive bitches hiding behind a woman’s skirt.
Exactly, 100% correct.
“REAL” strong women, we have them here on this site.
I’m in my thirties and I have yet to meet a woman who intimidated me even slightly.
Strong men scare strong men. Insecure women boast about scaring weak men.
Hi Elly,
I too am a daughter of a woman who had her consciousness raised in the 2nd wave. I guess I was lucky because although my Mum did the group thing, she kept her children separate from this – in part because her core value we should follow our own paths when it came to any belief system.
What did the 3rd Wave give my Mum? The impetus to go back to work and establish a very successful professional career when I was 8 years old. She didn’t lack courage, but like many women of her genaration, the script was to stay at home until the children were fully launched. I have followed her into the same professional field and she really was an innovator and leader in her own quiet way, I keep coming across people she influenced or ideas she started developing and am often amazed to think that my Mum was so well known and regarded.
She got slapped down by a representative of the third wave in her late 50s – although she was an experienced relationship counsellor, she was told that there was no place for her to recommence practice in the relationship services charity where she had practiced 6 years previously. She didn’t “fit” the profile of the organisation.
Many years later, after she was divorced from my father, she jokingly said she should apply again, because she qualified as “miserable, single and bitter” now. I told her that she was failing on 2 of 3 counts…but it was the first time I knew exactly what she had been told – that a married, contented and positive older woman was not qualified to be helping people with their relationships.
Mum is aware of my MRA self-identification. I do send her the odd link, not knowing if she will read them or not (your first article was amongst them). This is in direct contrast to my eldest sister who is still identifying on the third wave. Big sis and I are at logerheads over the definition of abuse in relationships, as I maintain my father is being abused in his current relationship (where he is only welcome as long as he has utility), whereas she says his “sins” (infidelity) have been so unforgivable that his partner does not have any responsibility to look after him as he ages. She has bought into the idea that Dad’s partner is the victim – but given this woman “got” Dad because of his unfaithfulness to Mum, there is a certain amount of natural justice to be considered here.
Mum is an exemplar of WGTOW at its best – she has had the most successful and happy 15 years since her divorce from our father. Again, I don’t think she lacked the courage to do this, but some of what she learned in the second wave I think helped her have the impetus to get going…but equally had there been an MRA and zeta femininity, I think she would have identified there…because first and foremost she is into social justice and equality for all, while recognising the different gifts our genes (including those that determine our gender) bring us.
I’m hoping to come to the London meet on the 17th as I have the week off. I hope you will be there too!
KiwiHelen Is there an MRA meet in London on the 17th?
My bad – I meant 13th (and it is London UK, to get rid of any doubts).
Private message me through my profile and I will send you details if you want.
hi
Thanks there’s a lot to think about there. I am sure my Mum and her friends (and some of her friends’ kids who are my peer group) would say they have got a lot from second wave feminism. But, for me, if that opportunity and confidence is at the expense of others – often men, and some might argue working class women, sex workers, etc, I don’t think it is worth it.
Try as I might, I see little difference between the second and third wave, except for the fact the third wave is better at lying to themselves and everyone else.
I would rather feminists stay alive long enough to see everything they have devoted themselves to over the past 4 decades, exposed & purged from society like a virus.
I want them to lose their jobs, have their reputations dragged through the mud & for them to see the same things happen to their other feminist friends & colleagues.
When feminists see the whole of society become aware of what a bunch of despickable, bigoted, evil scoundrels feminists really are & have apparently always been, then they have my permission to die, rot & be remembered in history in as flattering a light as the nazis.
Same thing goes for their not too distant cousins, the environmentalists.
Feminism is not dependent these Feminist figures being alive or not. Yes these Feminist leaders are getting old and dying out, but their ideologies have evolved from the low level social reform movement into government political office law maker movement over the course of 40 years. It is scarier now than it was back then. Feminism is far from dying.
Agree 100%.
Men are so well heeled they don’t even talk about it among themselves in private conversation. Fathers of daughters are particularily devout practitioners.
Men are literally so afraid, that if they even THINK an anti-feminist thought, women might read their minds. It’s that bad. It’s Oceania incarnate.
What do you mean Oceania incarnate?
Ocenia is the totalitarian dictatorship in Orwell’s ’1984′.
They’re no longer promoting feminism, they’re not militant, they’re barely hall monitors, they don’t have to be.
Feminism is entrenched in the collective conscience at this point. 95% of feminism revolves around abortion rights, they’re viewed as interchangeable efforts.
Feminism = Right to Abort
(and preferrably have the government pay for it)
This is the perception. They seek to exhalt woman above child, above reproduction of the species. Men are no longer even a consideration. We’ve been well trained to shut up or else. They’re holding their wombs ransom, if we don’t behave. The Golden Uterus reigns over society. Better play nice.
Feminism is AIR. If you’re against air, you must be against breathing. Today’s Feminist tests the air every so often to see if there are signs a flank is being assaulted. If something smells like it’s anti-feminist they’ll unleash their fury of rhetorical lies and accusations. Abortion is the front lines.
Without question the biggest threat felt by Feminist, Inc. is the social conservative/evangelical, comprised of both men and women. Their influence over politics/legislation keeps the sisters up at night. If women can’t legally abort their children, they’ll become mothers and thus unequal to men, otherwise known as burdened or “punished with a baby”. Maybe even dependent on a man, OMG!
MRA types are little gnats they swat around for fun. They’re niche skirmishes somewhere on the fringes of the hinterland. Doesn’t mean there can’t be a break through. Many wars start as skirmishes.
So you would disagree with Dalrock’s position that Christianity has become Feminist?
Yes, by popular definition the church is not Feminist. Feminism supports abortion first and foremost, Christianity does not.
What HAS happened is that Christianity has deviated from the Bible and adapted it’s marketing scheme to become more Matriarchal, or influenced by women.
(Big difference – - not just semantical either.)
Christianity has survived so long because it adapts to the times that it’s in. It’s important to remain popular might you become irrelevant and extinct. Religion is big money. It’s an industry.
So Feminism influenced Christianity to adapt to the cultural changes of “grrl power” and “independence chic” by deferring to women much like politicians have, but the chasm between true feminism and Christianity is abortion. It’s feminized, not feminist.
In the history of Christianity this has happened several times before. Feminist religious scholar Elaine Pagels would love to tell you more.
Making Feminism about abortion “first and foremost” is extremely reductive, and manages to ignore heaps of Feminist advocacy for female privilege, and against the rights of men.
Social conservatives such as Bill Bennett and Penny Nance of the Concerned Women for America have recently taken overtly anti-male positions heavily influenced by Feminism in recent editorials. Are we not to call them Feminists, just because they are pro-life?
“Feminism is entrenched in the collective conscience at this point. 95% of feminism revolves around abortion rights, they’re viewed as interchangeable efforts.”
Where on earth did you pull the 95% figure from? No need to answer. I don’t buy that for a second… they have a whole raft of concerns with abortion being just one of thousands of others equally or more important to them.
To put this in context the whole abortion issue is particularly relevant to Christian America, its a fight between Christians and non-Christians which latter the feminists represent admiranbly with their usual abortion stances.
In Australia abortion is never a hot topic in politics, doesnt even come up in elections because we are a largely non-Christian bunch. Always fascinates me how big this issue becomes at election time in the US.
Odds are pretty high that your abortion laws in Australia are more restrictive than in the US, believe it or not. Abortion hasn’t created a rift in American politics because of religion, although religion is an important component of our politics. A single controversial Supreme Court decision, 40 years ago, has made it a constant issue as the courts routinely strike down restrictions that are less restrictive than you find in countries like the UK, Canada, or Australia. By frustrating popular will so regularly, it sets up an ongoing antagonism over the issue; if the radical pro-lifers regularly had to put their radical positions on the ballot, they would lose, as the overwhelming majority of Americans support abortion being legal. But also the vast majority want restrictions on the procedure, restrictions at about the level you find in places like Canada or the UK, which would make the radical feminists unhappy.
One Supreme Court decision created this rift. Most religious Americans are more moderate than they’re given credit for. If it were part of the normal democratic process, it would have gone away as a major issue as both the radical pro-lifers and the radical pro-choicers would have had to deal with the fact that neither of them can have their way. So it goes.
Male birth control pill + sex education = fewer abortions.
Best analysis of the topic I’ve ever come across.
Abortion is a very unfortunate wedge issue played in American politics that prevents people from coming together to work on the issues where they have common ground (ie most other issues.)
I have generally maintained that there was little that could be done regarding abortion, one way or the other, because it is so polarizing but had failed to appreciate the role, and indeed, obstacle to consensus that Roe v. Wade and judicial activism played.
Keyster – don’t agree with the feminism-abortion only parallel. Its far more insidious, chronic, and overt than primarily abortion.
DO agree with you about many feminists only needing to be hall monitors. I languish on this…and I am afraid to speak up many times, b/c of the verbal tongue lashing I’ll get from not only women but also men (aka manginas). I can’t speak up at work about inequalities and injustices b/c it rocks the boat and puts you on management’s radar (I work in sales for an insurance company, and although the dept is primarily male, the handful of females force us to be ‘gentleman’). It sucks big time and wish I was a braver soul, but I’ve been pummeled so many times before for speaking up.
Thanks all for the comments I am reading them now!
Elly
You are a disgrace to the Goddess madam! You have obviously fallen sway to the absurd twisting that phallocentric logic and empiricism have created, an oppressive hellhole for womyn everywhere! Nothing today is better, if anything it’s worse I say! Womyn are more oppressed today than ever, are you just too blind to see it??!?
Andrea Dworkin was one of the great intellectual lights of the 20th century. Even the great Ashley Montagu was not as great a thinker (which, he being testosterone impaired, she would naturally eclipse him, but he was almost as good)!
What has happened to you? Did they use drugs on you? Sex? Is Paul Elam blackmailing you to write these wicked lies?! Is he having you make him sandwiches too?
Goddess save us, I would accuse you of being a traitor to your vagina but I wonder if you actually have one. I think perhaps you are a man in disguise! Yes, that’d explain this all better!
Oh Bret, you really do need to get out more – didn’t you know we are all Paul Elam’s harem of willing sandwich makers?
Vaginas have nothing to do with sandwiches…trust me I own a sandwich.
That’s sammichs. Learn to spell woman.
The English speaking world is divided by a common language
Afraid to say if I tried to say “samiches” like either Paul or JtO with my accent, ya all would need subtitles!
There is a nice tasty BLT made with proper bacon waiting for you Stu
Bret,
Mate you got a skull nut loose or something ?
Now let me just do one of them analysis thingies on your post here like those doctor’s do with dead bodies to work out stuff. An auto-topsy
Bret Vanders being a knob:
“Womyn are more oppressed today than ever, are you just too blind to see it??!?”
Andy Vanders’s auto-topsy:
Nah mate, that’s bloody off wicket by tonnes. Womyn (Yeah mate that’s a spelling mistake so you get a ‘sick’ message for that right away) are hooting it up in the courts by being the boss now, they get money from the state for making films about lezzos and shit, and for making up business ideas and scholasticalist grants for this and that. Mate it never ends there, and what about how they get let off for clocking blokes on the head with frying pans and clubs and other mean junk. That’s just wrong mate.
Bret Vanders being a knob:
“Andrea Dworkin was one of the great intellectual lights of the 20th century.”
Andy Vanders’s auto-topsy:
I went on that net shit thingy and check out what this Dorkin woman said aye:
” Men have defined the parameters of every subject.”
She was saying blokes say they know everything but how they don’t really. Now Bret you’re a bloke, and that means you’re now in one of them paradoxicalations. You know, like that 22 – Catch book. I got you mate. Right there just with that one.
She also said this mate:
” I never met a man who wasn’t stupider than me. ”
Now I dunno exactly what she means, but I reckon it sounds geneticalist against blokes. Just like that Hitler bastard in that war when he was promoting the geneticalistic nature of the Airy-ians.
Bret Vanders being a knob:
“Is Paul Elam blackmailing you to write these wicked lies?! Is he having you make him sandwiches too?”
Andy Vanders’s auto-topsy:
Mate that’s no bloody good that. You don’t even know Paul. He wouldn’t blackmail a sheila or a bloke ever aye. Also, he knows that she can make her own sandwiches anyway. It’s easy making them. Everyone knows how to make them, and that just shows how like a knob you are by even thinking he might be thinking she doesn’t know how. In fact, that’s a joke how you don’t know that he knows she knows how to mate. A joke.
Bret Vanders being a knob:
“I would accuse you of being a traitor to your vagina but I wonder if you actually have one. I think perhaps you are a man in disguise!”
Andy Vanders’s auto-topsy:
How can anyone be a traitor to a body part? See. Now that’s just bloody weird and shit, so I am dismissalating that right away aye. Furthermore, that last bit is also weird and shit because it says plainly on the bottom of the article her autograph that says a sheilas name. ‘Elly’ Tams mate. No bloke, not even a poofter would call themself that girl name aye !
Stop buffing your wee-wee hat in sheep bums mate and I’ll learn you more in the future about real stuff mate. C’mon!
P.S.
‘Ashley Montagu’. I dunno anything about French Castles mate and that’s irrelevant anyway. You’re just trying to focus on other shit to make me stumble on my auto-topsy debate at you.
Dear Andy, my recently enlightened friend.
Please wack that cousin of yours over the head with something heavy, next time you see him.
He clearly has a bad connection that needs fixing.
It says here, a sharp blow on the head is a sure cure for amnesia, and who knows, It might work with whatever ails him.
May Shulamith Firestone have a second life, and resurrect as a man in her Utopia, in the wonderful misandric world she contributed to raise….
That’s the closest to a curse I have ever seen, without actually cursing her.
Kudos.
I am not celebrating individual deaths.
Don’t worry I will celebrate for you.
“Second-wave feminism is dying (slowly)”
Well, let’s pull the plug on life support and hurry it along.
Calling them waves may be more accurate than I thought since each wave erodes men’s rights.
Mr. Price with the comment:
I have to disagree with the assessment that the second wave is dying off or has grown less dangerous.
I think Agent Orange showed that the second wave just get better at hiding in the shadows while operating freely to implement laws.
Just look at the Australian “The Plan”, and a judge who manages to order a man to dig up the graves of his parents on his ancestral home while handing it over to his ex.
They’ve gotten far more dangerous; while everyone things the crazies are no more, in real life, they’re stronger than ever and dictating policies.
The U.S. is a saturated market for feminism and its femi-nazi trogdolytes. Austrailia, Great Britain…and coming soon to a theatre near you: Latin America. Yes the great invasion is infiltrating our Latin friends to the south. Vaya con Dios
We will all miss the obvious human warmth that radiates from her happy eyes.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/aisha-mirza/uk-feminists-fighting-for-rights-not-privilege
a feminist flipside from UK feminists
“On some particularly dark days I even miss Andrea Dworkin!”
I’ve actually found myself thinking about that too.
They followed a line of thought that could be interesting in an artistic fiction sense. Like you could check out the stuff on ‘shrooms and get a mindfuck.
Feminists today stand for shit, shit, and more shit. Today, they are roughly the equivalent of a parasite gnawing away on lemming’s stomach in mid-air.