Feminism

The eventual outcome of feminism, part 1

Lecture No. 10

“The founders of a new colony, whatever Utopia of human virtue and happiness they might originally project, have invariably recognized it among their earliest practical necessities to allot a portion of the virgin soil as a cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison.” – Nathaniel Hawthorne

It seems sensible, at this stage, to pose the question: why is all this happening? The answer I can offer up, for the purpose of this lecture, is not historical but psychological: it offers explanation through reference to the mental state of feminism’s operators. There certainly are historical processes at work, explored elsewhere, but no social movement survives purely for the sake of its history. Nobody is born a feminist. There must be some stimulus, or stimuli, working to remodel formerly non-feminist women and men into activated feminists. But we cannot explain feminist conversion by the agitation of those already existing feminist activists. We can certainly believe that feminist activism plays a role in recruitment, but this is not adequate as an explanation. Why would an individual then commit to feminism,rather than any other particular social movement whose advocates engage in agitation for the purposes of ideological recruitment?

It must be that feminism offers such individuals something that other movements do not. I propose that, by opening up space for perfectly satisfying, collective man-hating, feminism offers a form of catharsis eagerly seized upon by those already predisposed to misandry. There are probably as many rationalizations for misandry as there are individual feminists – we would have to explore the intimate details of an individual feminist’s life, particularly her mental culture, to come to a conclusion about when and why she decided to blame an entire sex for each of her inconveniences. What is common to them all is hostility to masculinity, i.e. maleness. When the initial excitement brought about by mutual indulgence in sexual hate has died down, the lines of communication between feminists remain open. Feminism provides more than the opportunity for catharsis. The feminist soon realizes that she need not restrict herself to echo chambers, but might try her hand at real change. A thrill rushes through her at the thought of not just disparaging, but actually hurting men. Backed up by an extensively organized, generously funded and institutionally- connected movement – one that enjoys a rosy reputation as defender of that greatest virtue of our time, equality – she sets to work. Feminism is a misandrist’s dream.

Implicit in what I have written above is the corollary that feminismdoes not create misandry. Feminism promotes, endorses, reinforces, organizes and aggrandizes misandry, but it does not generate it outright. A woman who is not antipathetic towards men will not become so upon exposure to feminist thought. More likely, she will recoil at its odious philosophy. Feminism simply provides a space for women and men who were already misandrically-inclined to congregate and make plans.

The forerunner to feminism was traditional Gynocentrism, a self-sustaining social system which taught women that men should sacrifice on their behalf, and taught men that they were defective women. The female privilege inherent to this sexual ecology was undoubtedly accompanied and reinforced by animosity towards men – the ‘flawed’ sex – most particularly those men who did not conform to the Gynocentric role expected of them. Feminism departs from this model, not only in the sense that it provides organization for this misandry, but also in the instability of its operations. Feminism relentlessly demands greater male sacrifice for the benefit of women. This is a process to be intensified without an end point. Such a process lacks forward planning or any semblance of equilibrium. Ever greater constraints are placed on the very class of people whose labor and genius sustains the social order in which feminism can thrive. The parasite is killing its host, and will either be purged or die along with it. Feminism is simply not sustainable.

But it is not as though feminists think in these terms. Despite their forays into such recondite subjects as jurisprudence and post-modernism, feminist thought ultimately resolves to the validation of primal emotions. The central tenets of Western-style justice systems, evolving as they did under patriarchy, aspired to impartiality and objectivity in all proceedings. We speak of habeas corpus, the right to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, punishments which fit rather than exceed corresponding crimes, and so on. That these doctrines of civic freedom have lasted for so many centuries is testament to the integrity of the generations of men who inherited them. Feminists, in their efforts to replace these ‘outmoded, patriarchal’ institutions, do not engage in anything like the deep thought that begat their careful construction. Much less do they entertain the notion of impartiality. All feminist legal innovation – whether it is introducing the presumption of guilt (for men), advocating an inquisitorial rather than adversarial trial system (for men), or proposing that women should not be punished at all when they commit crimes – flows from the same source: the violent and vindictive emotions of individual feminist operators. Feminism is so dangerous because it exists to validate these emotions, and to assign them a permanent place in discussions over how society might be better organized.

The success of feminism in this regard can be appreciated when we consider the popularity of collective guilt, anathema as it is to the principles of neutrality and impartiality underpinning our liberal justice systems. Collective guilt is an emotional discharge, a visible effect of concentrated class hatred. It is an attack on the verifiable truth of individual moral agency. Under a system of collective guilt, one’s actions have no bearing on one’s fate. Human beings are sent to the gallows for the circumstances of their birth. There is no purpose for trials, or any institution which exists to ascertain the facts of the case and to assign guilt. Guilt is already assigned; the facts are irrelevant. What follows collective guilt is collective punishment.

Feminists are not yet in a powerful enough position to deliver collective punishment to the entirety of the male sex. Instead, they cast as wide and as deep a net as possible, hoping to snag as many men and boys as they can. Wherever an individually identifiable man appears on their radar, he becomes the latest pariah, even if the accusations against him are weak and unfounded. This is irrelevant; all that matters is that he has been identified. Then, he becomes the target for unbridled angst, a public piñata, an effigy of all men, of maleness itself. He becomes the personification of the entire male sex, and the collective punishment that feminists yearn to deliver unto all men is inflicted onto him. Even after he is proven to be innocent of all accusations, the attacks intensify, as though the reluctance of the world to acknowledge his guilt is an even greater injury than the charges brought against him. In a short while, he will be forgotten, and a new whipping boy will be discovered. Until that time, feminists will try to outdo each other in editorials, speeches, and in the comment sections of newspapers and weblogs, calling for the most grotesque mutilations and acts of violence against him.

An impartial legal system, which treats human beings as individuals, is a barrier against collective punishment. To do away with it altogether would allow for the punishment of many more men, on the basis that they are men, which is why feminists have fought so relentlessly to overturn impartiality. Bit by bit, feminist agents within government, academia and the legal system have replaced individual moral agency and the rule of law with the micro-management of people. As the mantra goes, the personal is political – it is, increasingly, the business of the state. Even when not explicitly framed like this, the underlying principle of all feminist innovation is to bring the state to bear down, ever more closely, on our personal, everyday existences. If the personal really is the same thing as the political, then political correctness must bepersonal correctness – a perverse and pervasive system of control which scrutinizes an individual’s every move, in order to lock him into place. You must be personally correct, in terms of your beliefs, your desires, your pursuits, your tastes – right down to the jokes you are permitted to laugh at – according to their standards. Theybeing the self-declared ‘victims’ of society, who are nevertheless powerful enough to enjoy lunch with the President and set out the terms on which the government is to run your life.

The idea is not that men should overcome all the obstacles in their struggle to be politically/personally correct. After all, those who are demanding that men run this daily gauntlet are the very same people lining up to beat them with clubs as they try. The idea is that men should, so to speak, die trying. The intention is that men fail. For as long as average men manage to live peacefully, and even successfully, more and greater incursions into their personal space shall be required. It is at the point of failure – when men have failed to live up to the increasingly constrictive rules set out for them – that they can be punished. The ordeal gets tougher by the day and with each passing of new legislation.

At the extreme end of societal micro-management, we find states like North Korea, a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship which controls all forms of media, place severe restrictions upon speech, association, movement and access to information, and detains dissidents and their families in concentration camps where many die from starvation or medical experimentation. Western societies are separated from the continuum of despotism, on which we find North Korea, by a small number of fundamentals, some of which have already been referenced: respect for the autonomy of the individual, the presumption of innocence, the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, etc. These doctrines correspond precisely to those which feminism aims to tear down. The violent, vindictive emotions from which feminism springs are, by nature, irrational; there exists no internal, rational boundary, to suggest that enough is enough once a certain benchmark is reached. The furious impulses at the heart of feminism would not stop short of constructing a totalitarian regime which restricts men’s speech, their association and movement, and detains them in concentration and labor camps where they are subject to starvation and mutilation.

Are we so far removed from savage regimes like North Korea that this is not a possibility? We should not allow ourselves to be misled by appeals that we live in a democracy, and that the leaders are ultimately accountable to the people. Our democracy is only ostensible, offering little real choice. The bipartisan consensus between leading parties ensures that the state continues to grow, and the feminist agenda is further promoted, whether the new government cloaks itself in red or blue. Facing no serious political opposition, the leaders do not have to bow to the people to secure their mandate. All public pandering is superficial, though highly effective, in the same way that all totalitarians have enjoyed the popularity of the masses. By definition, totalitarians must be populist: the support they must mobilize, in order to remain in power, cannot be that of an armed minority alone. In exchange for the sponsorship of the masses, totalitarians caress their egos, giving enthusiastic praise to them for their courage, declaring them the inspiration of all progress. At least, the greater part of them are praised. Groups which are not in favor are, in contrast, treated with contempt prior to their destruction. It is the majority which becomes tyrannous – as Alexis De Tocqueville warned – when the leaders isolate a particular segment of the population for blame and castigation. Enjoying their glorification on behalf of the leader, the chosen majority will side against the undesirables, and treat them with abominable malice. It is a story that has played out, over and over, throughout history – not least in the populist tyrannies of the twentieth century. Today, our leaders exalt the feminine and malign the masculine – a prejudice running so deep that it has become normalized, to the point where few consider it unusual for the President to bash men on Father’s Day.

Men – who are, indeed in the minority, making up 49% of the population – are suffering the early stages of the tyranny of the majority. Leaders of all parties pander, first and foremost, to the female majority, and particularly to the pressure groups set up (supposedly) in their interests. More pernicious than this is the entry of women into politics – not because of the fact that they are women, but because almost every female politician, whatever her party allegiance, makes women’s issues her priority. In contrast, male politicians swear their allegiance to the principles of their party and to the demands of their constituents, but not to men’s issues. There are no politicians who make men’s issues a priority, but plenty – male and female – who run on the cross-party, women’s issues platform. The world is not so simple that we can say men are over-represented because they are present in greater numbers. Although there is a greater number of men in politics, it is women who are over-represented, because more politicians represent them than they do men. The sex of the politician makes no difference to the legislation that he passes. In courting the female vote, and particularly in his efforts to please feminist groups (organized misandry), he will perpetuate and extend chivalry, he will publicly belittle his own sex, and he will pass ever more anti-male legislation, sanctioning the brutalization of ordinary men.

Systematic destruction follows systematic contempt. The eventual outcome of feminism is nothing less than a Holocaust, the almighty crescendo to mark the success of a century or more of sexual warfare and the demonization/degradation of the masculine. Those men, such as the male politician who has stoked the fires of gender tribalism to win votes and benefit his own career, will become the concentration camp facilitators and the enforcers of population reduction programs. They shall be the Uncle Toms, the Judenräte atop white horses, who will ultimately meet the same fate as the men they have helped exterminate. The anti-male, homicidal and genocidal violence in feminist rhetoric is well documented:

“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness … can be trained to do most things” – Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men)

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig” – Andrea Dworkin

“Kill your fathers” – Robin Morgan

“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex” – Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto

“It is no accident that in the ancient matriarchies men were castrated, sacrificially slaughtered, and excluded from public forms of power; nor is it an accident that some female supremacists now believe men to be a distinct and inferior species or race. Wherever power is accessible or bodily integrity honored on the basis of biological attribute, systematized cruelty permeates the society and murder and mutilation contaminate it. We will not be different” – Andrea Dworkin

“Why have any men at all? … The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race” – Sally Miller Gearhart

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth.  I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males” – Mary Daly

The stock feminist response is to point out that these quotes are from radical feminists, who have not been active for a long time, and do not represent mainstream feminism. While it is not exactly true that they do not represent mainstream feminism, we can find more recent examples of feminist attitudes:

“It is time that government had a strategy on changing men away from power and oppression as part of its strategy for women and gender justice … Changing future agendas for women involves changing men; changing men involves deconstructing men and reducing men’s power; and, in the longer term still, this may even involve the abolition of men” – EuroPRO-Fem, a European men’s pro-feminist network

The following is extracted from a recent discussion on a feminist weblog:

Allecto: I think there is a very simple solution to the ‘problem’ of the team sport of gang-raping that is so popular as a form of gay male bonding between football players. Mandatory castration of all men who play football and all men who watch football. This would be a quick and easy solution.

bonobobabe: I like your castration idea. I’d take a step further and castrate all male babies at birth.

Mary Sunshine: There is no remedy for this situation other than to halt the emergence of any more human males.

Two caveats must be advanced before we go any further. The first is not a compromise; it is not self-censorship or moderation. It is a statement of fact. The overwhelming majority of women do not, and would not, support the extermination of men. The question of whether all or most or only some feminists support the extermination of men is one that I shall address in a couple of weeks’ time. Clearly, there are feminists who do not openly support the extermination of men. Nevertheless, they have a role to play in the process, as do all misandrists. For the time being, it will suffice to say that all feminist self-reflection and self-criticism reaches the verdict that they are not being ‘feminist enough,’ i.e. it results in further radicalization. I quote from the back cover of Zillah Eisenstein’s The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism, a feminist text which arrives at this very conclusion:

Eisenstein shows that liberal feminism is ‘self-contradictory’ because it ‘accepts liberalism and at the same time rejects its patriarchal base.’ Yet in truth, feminism is ‘potentially subversive’, to both liberalism and the capitalist patriarchal state, and it must and can become radicalized as it pushes against the limitations of what can be accomplished within the context of the state … Eisenstein advances the view that liberal feminism contains within itself the seeds of radical change.

The significant point about the above quote is that Eisenstein, the feminist author, rejects the ‘patriarchal base’ of all liberal institutions; that is, she would happily do away with legal impartiality, equality before the law, presumptive innocence, and so on. Retaining these doctrines, which exist to protect innocent people, is not on the feminist agenda, and Eisenstein comes to the very same conclusion that I have presented in this lecture: that liberal feminism will become radical when it achieves all it can through the liberal state. The violent and vindictive emotions will not be satiated, ever. Once feminism has gone as far as it can go through the liberal state, ‘liberal feminists’ will turn against it and plot its overthrow.

The second caveat is that the physical destruction of men is not inevitable. It is the logical outcome of feminism, but our future is not set in stone. Given that feminists have explicitly called for forced male labor and the presumption of innocence to be removed when men are accused of rape, and that lawmakers are seriously floating the suggestion that those found guilty of sex offences should be physically castrated, we might conclude that we are already some way down the feminist road to hell. Feminism has no internal brakes; a victory does not temper the feminist’s violent emotions, but provides the momentum for her to push for greater results, in the knowledge that she can get away with hurting men. Any barrier to the progress of feminism will therefore have to come from outside feminism. It is up to external agents to build a brick wall in feminism’s path.

We are more than sixty years into an organic process that will leave humanity with an irrevocably changed society. The catalyst for the abolition of Gynocentrism is its own radical and unsustainable expression in feminism. Those same social and conceptual changes which made feminism possible prompt the question of why men should put up with any form of Gynocentrism. The critical mass of opposition to Gynocentrism, resulting in its overthrow, will be reached as soon as feminism is exposed to the world. What remains to be seen is whether feminism shall expose itself, or whether it will be exposed by counter-feminists. The former will occur if the movement becomes powerful enough to explicitly launch the physical destruction of men. My own view is that feminists will make this final roll of the dice, and that they will be ultimately unsuccessful, although many men will suffer tortuous deaths. The other possibility is that feminism is exposed in advance of this, preventing much of the violence, and allowing for the repeal of all Gynocentric rule with minimal bloodshed. Whatever the case – whether feminism exposes itself, or is exposed – it is done for. Cast in the disinfecting sunlight of the world’s gaze, held to account for its grievous transgressions, never again will feminism be tolerated.

About Adam Kostakis

Adam Kostakis is a member of the activated non-feminist sector. He is a mysterious Slavic revolutionary hailing from the dark hinterlands, currently residing in a dark, baronial castle atop the basalt cliffs overlooking the Yakima Valley in eastern Washington State.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • reasonable

    *scratch head*

    • Eff’d Off

      If this is war then what will become of it ?

      • Tom M

        This is a series – can’t expect the bloke to give away the final paragraph of the series just yet!

  • Tom M

    Great article!

    It gives the most full meaning to the newcomer, before they read a shocking list of feminist quotes, to understand, at very least, the following 3 simple truths:

    1- There has been no such thing as oppression of women in western nations. Oppression of women is a feminist gender studies myth bolstered by fake “historical notes” which many men/chivalrists parrot unwittingly (Search: youtube: the myth of women’s oppression).

    2- Therefore there is NO gender pendulum either. Female worship (chivalry) is an INSTITUTION, not a pendulum, as ageless as the IDOL WORSHIP which it is. Putting women on pedestals and putting women always first, sacrificing men and boys to feed itself. Female worship has always been an institution, an idolatry cult, which has prevented true equality FOR MEN. This institution must be torn down as surely as the IDOLITRY and HUMAN SACRIFICE it embodies.

    3- Abusive, manipulative, entitled, supremacist feminism falls flat the very second chivalry stops supporting it. Feminism isn’t even possible without female worship (chivalry) propping it up.

  • Tom M

    FEMINISM EXPOSES ITSELF!
    [img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_leiqpgMy441qewwwco1_500.jpg[/img]
    For better or for worse…

  • Oldsfield

    All of Kostikas’ lectures are great stuff. Can’t wait till he gets writing again.

  • Alphabeta Supe

    A beautifully synthesised tract. Prophetic, insightful, and devastating in its indictments. Kostakis thrusts a finely sculpted granite fist deep into the bloody opening of the Sacred Feminine, grabs her vital organs and pounds them to a pulp on the altar of reason. This lecture series sets a new standard for sophistication in men’s rights literature. Bravo!

  • Nergal

    Bravo. Not much I can add to this except well-fucking-done,sir.

    Feminism is to totalitarianism what sunshine and miracle grow are to plants.Reading this calls to mind a story I once read called Seven American Nights in which an Arab of the future visits a United States devastated by what one assumes was a nuclear holocaust, the Middle Easterners continued creeping along in their advancements until they became the #1 superpower in the world while those in the U.S. stayed at a level approximating the stone age’s level of technological advancement and mutated dog-like creatures fought for scraps in the streets.

    Except for the genetic mutations and nuclear holocaust, this may very well come to pass, thanks to innovation in only one area, sexist brutality against men and masculinity which grows ever more sophisticated by the day.

  • AntZ

    We only have to wait. Technology will soon set us free. When men no longer need women, the two genders can separate into different species that rarely if ever interact. Women can then continue their hate war in a harmless way, cursing and reviling as much as they wish, but no one will be hurt.

    Men and boys will form our own society, and indeed our own species. Presumably, women will do the same. In time, even the endless hatred of feminism will fade, and each new species will forget that the other ever existed.

    • Raven01

      If that were possible tehre would be war over resources. Not to mention even the staunchest feminist would be unwilling to give up the benefits provided by the labour and ingenuity of men.
      The western female culture of entitlement will rankle sorely when they see what men make for themselves and will seek to take it for themselves by any means.
      An interesting mental exercise but this future would never be allowed to happen.

      • Richard G.

        What do you mean that this future would never be allowed to happen? Why is that? Why is it impossible for men to make their own communities and tell women to fuck off? Who is Big Brother to tell us what to do, and who the hell are feminists to think that they have authority over us? I am tired of people saying that Big Brother or feminists will never allow this, that, and the third to happen. It just goes to show that men are not free and they still have to answer to a ruler.

        • Raven01

          Quite simply because we are no where near eliminating the whiteknight problem.
          Even if a separate country we formed for men only with this as yet non-existant technology, how long exactly do you think it would take the screeching femi-harpies to stir up enough hatred and false reasons to send their manginas off to war?
          That scenario is a huge threat to feminists, if men leave them they won’t have time to watch Oprah and complain incessantly…. they’ll have to fix their own plumbing, cars, and so on.
          Their claims that, “women can do everything a man can and usually better” will be put to the test……. and women will revolt.
          Actually I can think of a trade…. usually dominated by men not because men are better at it, quite the opposite in fact. More women than men have the ability to be a proficient welder than men, yet few women want a dirty dangerous job with a very high cancers risk.
          It is just far more likely that those women that “get it” and speak out now will be elevated and the next generation if taught to think for themselves will see the difference between the lives of welfare-mom entitlement princesses and women that actually do for themselves and appreciate the men in their lives and, choose accordingly……… The real fight is going to be against early indoctrination if we want massive change.

  • Red0660

    Is it really true that the government has placed a bounty upon the heads of men by paying prosecutors through VAWA for every case they bring against men!?

    • Tom M

      YES!

    • Snark

      In the UK, where I’m from, it used to be that dentists got paid for every tooth they removed.

      When this stopped, and they just got paid for every patient they saw, regardless of if they needed fillings or not, suddenly a lot less teeth were being removed.

      Does this mean that the dentists aren’t doing a good job any more, and that they should be removing more teeth?

      No, dental hygiene is better now than it was then.

      And less people have fillings.

      It’s clear that when you incentivise a course of action, people are going to take it.

      The US government has incentivised prosecuting men.

      So obviously, those people who stand to gain from prosecuting men are going to do it.

      Whether those men did anything wrong or not is really beside the point. It’s no more important than if you need a filling or not when the government pays dentists for every tooth they take out.

  • Keyster

    Feminism has passed through the phase of firmly entrenching itself in the collective conscious. It’s pushed to the tipping point of alienating women from men, and now more men are starting to take notice and push back; some openly, most in a more passive-aggressive manner.

    This is not a good development, but was a predictible reaction. A girl can smack a boy around only so much before he finally snaps and hits back.

    The real question is:
    When will women decide to drop the empowerment chic pretext and misplaced resentment and start loving men again?

    As direct competitors in a tight job market, favored by employers (by government mandate) and endlessly whining about “equal pay”, women reveal themselves not as partners, but as enemies. The power of sexuality women wield over men has run it’s course. Now it’s about survival, every man for himself; Game, MGTOW, etc.

    And it won’t be men that call a truce…
    …not as long as feminists have a vested interest in continuing the war.

  • Richard G.

    The only way to defeat feminism is through complete secession from the State and learning to live for ourselves. I have come to learn that the biggest problems are brought about by answering to a supposed higher authority, usually government.

    We have been conditioned to believe that we need to be lead, and without somebody leading us, our nations would plunge into anarchy and chaos. That is the complete opposite. If enough men and even women come to realize that they are born free, without any restraints and are able to work to the best of their abilites, especially in a community without conforming to any ideology, then they will know absolute freedom.

    The only reason why feminist-minded women think that they have so much power and why men feel that they so powerless themselves, is because we operate under the assumption that is the way things are, and that there is no changing it, and we need to rely on the Constitution, and be lucky that some good ole’ politician out there will help us. Feminists are powerless without some institution and even chivalry to back them up.

    We have been conditioned to believe that we have to answer to a higher authority, and if enough men realize that they have nothing holding them back, and come to some mutual agreement that we have to abolish the State, and work together in doing it, then we will achieve absolute freedom.

    A government that is big enough to give you everything is strong enough to take everything away from you. Feminists are miniscule. They operate under the delusion that they are untouchable, but they are not.

    Starving the system, not paying taxes which is legal theft, because you don’t owe shit to the government and that is your money that YOU work for, and adopting a survivalist mentality are the very things that we need to learn how to embrace.

    Feminists have power because we give them power, because we allow government to run our lives, therefore we become slaves and the enemy simultaneously. We feel that we need to “obey the law” and answer to our rulers in the form of government, even if we despise them.

    I don’t care if anybody thinks that I am fucking crazy, and I know that I am getting off-topic, but begging for a ruler via voting process, and relying on some 200-year old scroll, i.e. the Constitution, or whatever legal document that other nations abide by isn’t going to give us our freedom and security, and I feel that we are able to overcome feminism.

  • Eagle has landed

    The most effective “Empowerment” tool to date, that neo gender-feminism has employed is the perversion of American law enforcement.
    “Gender-feminists” have pushed American law enforcement to engage in “protocol perversions” and “semantics games” that are not only a perversion, but are un-constitutional.
    These protocol perversions and semantics games are the backbone of what can be called the “misinformation Alliance” between “New Gender-feminists” and American law enforcement.
    The faulty and inflammatory “manufactured statistics” that this “perverted Alliance” manufacture, are then funneled to “Gender-Raunch Empowerment” professors in universities around the country for them to use as agitation propaganda against those nasty hetero’s.

    • Tom M

      That’s why it gets called feminazism.

  • Eagle has landed

    This misinformation and manufactured statistics Alliance is not only a perversion, it is un-constitutional.

  • Stu

    This article pretty much states that the end goal of feminism is the total enslavement of men, and wiping out all men that are not needed for that purpose. And that is what I have believed feminism is about for years. You only have to look at the history of appeasment to feminism to see that. They are angrier and more hateful now that they have all this political power, legal power, favourable treatment in every way……and it won’t end…ever….or at least not because the feminists decide enough is enough anyway. It’s never enough for them…..and it never will be.

    I’ll say it straight out load and clear……I hate feminists. Any women, or man that supports that movement nowdays, I regard as either a total moron……or a complete liar, hate monger, and worthless miserable excuse for a human being. I regard them as morally apprehensibe as Nazis…..and us men are the Jews…..and they are building hatred against us…..and increasing legal sanction against us….in the same way that Nazis did against Jews. I literally could give a rat’s arse if a feminist….of either sex….get hits by a bus…..and why should I. They are building up hatred agains me, my son, and every man on this earth……and it is violent…..by proxy mostly…but violent all the same.

    Some pathetic mangina’s have tried to say that I have likened myself to Nazis with my attitude towards feminists. Every day there is feminists out there, planning to increase the hatred and legal sanctions against men…..for nothing else except for being men…..they hate us….it is a hate movement…….and I hate them back…..that is justified….or do you think that Jews living in Nazi Germany should love Nazis.

    Check this out……in his usual twisting and taking out of context style of lying.

    http://manboobz.com/2011/02/24/godwins-law-upside-down-and-backwards/

    I haven’t likened myself to Hitler David. I’ve likened myself to the people that fought him, and I’ve likened you to the Jews that helped run the gas ovens.

    • Tom M

      Did that ditsy David guy post and get removed, again… Some “MRA’s” just don’t get it, how they contradict themselves as much as feminazis do, often by randomly parroting feminazi BS and not having a clue of that.

  • Keyster

    “…the end goal of feminism is the total enslavement of men.”

    It’s the disenfranchisement of men that don’t agree with feminism, until they’re extinct and feminism can never be questioned. If you’re a compliant male feminist that supports and defers to everything modern liberal women believe in, you’ll be spared. Feminist rely on such men to exist. Without men in power, feminism would crumble before our eyes.

    “Game over” for men is when women come into power. Problem they’re running into is that they’re so few viable candidates…, so manginas like Obama, Biden, Reid, etc. will have to suffice for now. Feminists need the legislation and politicians need the female vote.

    The place to really watch is the Supreme Court. A presidents appointments are for life. That’s a long time. Women will ALWAYS favor women at the expense of men. Especially New York liberal elite jurists.

    • Tom M

      chivalrists likewise always favor women – double the amount to worry about

  • cyber saint

    Feminists are not yet in a powerful enough position to deliver collective punishment to the entirety of the male sex. So true!!
    [img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/to transfer.jpg[/img]

  • Eagle has landed

    The most immediate goal of new “American gender-feminism” is to purge hetero-males from universities and professional life in the US.
    Hetero-males are ok, as long as they are psychologically castrated, un-educated, and relegated to hetero-child rearing, and laborious jobs that gender-feminists don’t want.

    • BeijaFlor

      Maybe not child rearing – or if so, not in a way that males could get any credit for being able to rear a child. Diaper-changing only, I suspect.

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

    “Women will ALWAYS favor women at the expense of men. Especially New York liberal elite jurists.”

    Wow, I never thought about this…I bet you are right!

    “Those who abuse boys are much less likely to be put in prison than those who abuse girls.”

    “When mothers hit their sons, they are more than twice as likely to cause injury as when they hit their daughters.”

    Lawrence A. Greenfield, Child Victimizers: Violent Offenders and Their Victims, NCJ-153238, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1996, p. 1.

    Suzanne K. Steinmetz, The Cycle of Family Violence: Assertive, Aggressive, and Abusive Family Interaction. New York City: Praeger, 1977.

    http://tc.ncfm.org/some-say-its-a-mans-world-how-good-do-men-have-it/#f07

    • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Red0660

      Most child murders are committed by women but there is something within women and I venture to say ourselves that values males less. Indeed, we are treated as less than women and girls in all realms especially since females have gained and used political and institutional agency to install structured chivalry.

      It was one thing when men directed how we mere males served women but it is A WHOLE NOTHER BALL GAME when women are directing the show of how they are served. I am pretty sure there is not end to it. I think women will demand more and more. It is their nature. I think they will consume the system of its own means of production. They already are. I don’t think it will stop.

      If the above studies are any indicator, what will happen to males next will be increasingly brutal. They see this as our place.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    I love Kostakis. This is the kind of material that redbots will be tagging with a tl;dr, (That’s redditese for tenuous literacy; didn’t read.

    It even tends to draw a little less traffic here, where people actually think. It is a lot to wade through, but after doing so you will come out clean and with the realization that you will get a much better understanding of feminism from reading Adam than from 10,000 sound bites geared for the blue pill masses.

    Damn good work.

  • Anonymous

    OT
    There is a market for ‘conscious men.’

    http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/roo/2393937891.html

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      barf

    • Jimmy

      “I just finished my MFA and am interested in radical theory, performance, collectivity, spirituality/yoga, hip hop, feminism, chocolate, biking, trees, oceans, aromatherapy, dirty south, consciousness raising, crystals and Atlantis.”

      …wow, that’s a lot of bullshit in one sentence.

      • Snark

        lol @ trees, oceans and crystals

        lol @ all of it, but those especially

        • Anonymous

          I am out here trying to find an apartment. Roughly 1/3-2/5 of the shares I click on state a discriminatory preference (women only) and some are even women & gay men only. Maybe article worthy.

        • Nergal

          I hate New Agers worse than most people do.

          Marilyn Manson is probably the worst guy to take a cue from,but in his biography,he has a checklist to tell if someone’s gay and one of the things on the list is if you have ever owned a crystal,especially crystal meth, you are gay.

          I still laugh about that every time I see one of these New Agers talking about their crystals.

    • BeijaFlor

      Tried to read http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/roo/2393937891.html -

      “This posting has been deleted by its author. (The title on the listings page will be removed in just a few minutes.)”

      Awww. Did those mean old MRAs hit you with your dolly? Poor thing.

      (chuckle, guffaw, snort, chortle)

  • Morrisfactor

    Profound. Frightening.

  • universe

    “All feminist legal innovation [innovation?, you are much too kind]….
    flows from the same source: the violent and vindictive emotions of individual feminist operators. Feminism is so dangerous because it exists to validate these emotions, and to assign them a permanent place in discussions over how society might be better organized.
    The success of feminism in this regard can be appreciated when we consider the popularity of collective guilt,….
    – This dreadful social movement nearly filled to the brim with dreadfully deluded females and traitorous others has only partially succeeded. It did so past as the commonor (us) was out busy earning a family living, had no readily organized evidential countervailing rebut to their organized emoting madness and so, through avoidance, was almost virtually complicit in rearing this retarded beast.
    The ride is over, girls – get out and push. Now prove that you want to be the same as men. Advance the developmentally arrested to the front lines of armed service in exclusive female battallions away from men to defend the standard of living they so think is inherently due to them. Privilege comes with a price and not through someone else’s blood.
    Circular emoting is simply not going to work. Those who practice such will be turfed from their protected lofty heights when reason and the known facts become part of regular discourse.
    Feminist (female) “ways of knowing” (non-thinking) and base emotion (yin), through slight of hand, appears to be superior but is still no match for deliberation with reason. Yet, finally and, out of necessity the commonor is now entering the fray. It is never too late to begin doing so. Only, it has to be done. Reason vs emotion – the mob only appears to be winning.
    Essays such as the top one above are good to identify issues to make sense of them but acting upon reasoned conclusions is required. The more that is written and digested along these lines brings about eventual individual moral courage. Yet, acting alone amongst the mob defeats all. Forget who can piss the most and the furthest – organize. And an organized common goal would help, too. That is coming. No fear.

  • Passerby

    The man is an absolute genius with the written word and with logical analysis of feminism and the problems it has set in motion. I have digested all the main books on this subject -spanning 50 years- and can say that Adam’s analysis is peerless. His Gynocentrism Theory lectures will change the world discourse on gender relations and on feminism and we need to draw EVERYONE’S attention to them.

    Spread the link to his blog far and wide, this is important shit: http://gynotheory.blogspot.com/2011/01/same-old-story.html

    Looking forward to his return to the lecture series on June 2nd, bring it on!

  • George Rolph

    Hmmm.

    Not sure I buy this theory. It’s weakness for me and speaking personally, is right here: “It must be that feminism offers such individuals something that other movements do not. I propose that, by opening up space for perfectly satisfying, collective man-hating, feminism offers a form of catharsis eagerly seized upon by those already predisposed to misandry.”

    I believe this is a false premise. Were it not so then the KKK membership, for example, should have gone through the roof during and since the civil rights movement as all those closet racists out there went looking for a home. After all, having someone to hate others with would stop them being lonely and give them an outlet, which is the central premise of this article.

    Sorry but I am certain that this article misses the mark. — OK. You can throw fruit at me now, if you want! Done that? Good. Now hear me out.– Here is why I say this. I have studied feminism now for 35 years or more. In that time I have discovered a few things about them that are deeply disturbing.

    So what! I hear you cry. We all know they are nuts. I know that too, please give me time! I want to explain why they are nuts.

    About five years into my studies I had to go and stay with a old friend of mine in the south west of England. His name is Steve and his calling was getting people out of cults, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Mormons and so on. What this guy did not know about cults had not been written yet. He really knew his stuff and was good at what he did. After staying with him and his family for two weeks I had soaked up a lot of information regarding what goes to make up a cult member psychologically and how cults work to attract new members. As I was returning home on the long 300 mile coach journey I was thinking about what I had learned when I suddenly realised that feminism has many of the major characteristics of a cult.

    When I got home I reviewed my notes and realised I had hit upon something. I began to research political cults as well as religious cults and in the process came across and old movie called, ‘The Wave.’ This great film documented actual events in a high school in the States where a teacher created a Neo-Nazi movement from scratch without the students being aware of it even though they were members of it, that, frighteningly, began to create the Nazi mindset in the students from the first day. You can watch it here for free: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689717947890475769#

    ‘The Wave’ documents a brainwashing process on students and carried out, inadvertently, by the teacher. He was not trying to brainwash his students, but by following the same structural, social and psychological model as the Nazi’s had, he had nevertheless succeeded in doing just that. In a remarkably short time, he succeeded in creating a monster that threatened to run out of his own control and which quickly developed signs of violent, often irrational, behaviour and elitism in the group. As I watched I realised that had this teacher not terminated his social experiment when he did, the group would have gone on to become a very dangerous, Fascistic and rapidly growing political cult.

    For this and for other detailed reasons I do not have time to go into now, I believe feminism is a political cult which, just like the Nazis before them and the Communists around the world, are cleverly exploiting certain female and male psychological weaknesses and using these as a recruitment tool. Feminist members are people who are TAUGHT to hate men by people who know exactly how to do so.

    Now. I realise there may be some who will say, “My Aunt Dorothy was a feminist and she was not nuts. She was too level headed to be brainwashed.” Well, no one is immune if the circumstances they find themselves in are right. Watch this. These people were normal too: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb8dmu_obedience-to-authority-stanley-milg_webcam

    For these reasons I do not buy into the theory postulated here in this article. Sorry.

    OK. You can go back to throwing fruit now if you like. I am out of here.

    George Rolph
    London

  • Ky

    My only problem with this articles is that the author who wrote the Scum manifesto as crazy as she was said her work was not to be taken seriously. I know there are alot of Feminist out there who action indicate this but it’s better to be cognizant of the real problems and not the sarcastic ones. The problem is when scum manifesto is read by a true misandrist.

    • Snark

      I always saw Solanas’ claim that SCUM was ‘a parody’ to be an after the fact rationalisation.

      There are plenty who treat the text as a bible even today.

  • Peter Charnley

    Great article. Somewhat OTT – I don’t know if the imagery portrayed of the, for want of a better term, mysterious chimneys was delivered by the author with ‘tongue in cheek’ – but the star of feminism will implode long before any openly genocidal activity takes place (abortion aside).

    The life cycle of the star of feminism has already reached a stage and has set off on a direction which guarantees its destruction. It is called extremism. Once any ideology widely embraces that it is doomed – simply because it becomes totally disorientated and loses touch with what made it powerful in the first place – the real human being – which it was able to exploit and manipulate.

    Feminism was once another dot in the ideological sky. It is now a ‘red giant’ – to use an astronomical analogy. And keeping to the same parallel, it will eventually become a black hole in the space of human consciousness – no longer seen, but not, thank God, forgotten.

  • Benjamin

    @Paul… what sort of insanity is this?!??
    “More pernicious than this is the entry of women into politics – not because of the fact that they are women, but because almost every female politician, whatever her party allegiance, makes women’s issues her priority.”

    Please repeat that to yourself; but with your brain switched on, this time.

    Yes, it is pernicious BECAUSE they are women. You just said so. Nearly every woman who enters politics will make women’s power issues her priority. Paul, she does that BECAUSE she is a woman! There will never be a day when women don’t do that! The only right answer is to keep them out of politics, including the ballot box.

    This isn’t an issue of “fair” or “equal”. It’s an issue of , only disaster comes from women being given a voice in power. They aren’t made for that, and they CANNOT do it. Don’t tell me about Margaret Thatcher… tell me about the 4 million women who exist that cannot rise above their ovaries, for every one Margaret Thatcher.

    • Benjamin

      The above post was aimed at Paul…

      when he wasn’t even the author.

      I apologize, Paul.

      • chris

        I agree with the sentiment, regardless the error of aim

  • Pingback: The beast within « A Voice for Men

  • Pingback: (Don’t) Fuck the Police | A Voice for Men

  • DK

    Adam Kostakis’ is right on!! It is chilling to realize feminist movement hatred of men is analogous with the events-propaganda-hate talk that preceded horrendously brutal Rwandan Genocide. Also, the term “politically correct” is a term used by the old defunct Soviet Union Communist Party. If you towed the Communist party line, you were seen as being politically correct.