Where I live, liberalism and feminism are rampant. It's a bad place to be a conservative, an even worse place to be pro-life or pro-heterosexuality. Liberal ideology runs the town. In fact, even the local police department was banned (by their lesbian chief of police) from wearing the American flag on their uniforms.
However, a strange thing happened today. I picked up a free newspaper called the "Herald Examiner". After years of reading the Ithaca Journal, I decided to try something new. The first article I read blew my mind away.
Culture Check: Love According to Darwin
by Kay Hymowitz
Reprinted from CITY JOURNAL
The article itself is a follow up to responses the author received from a previous article "Child-Man in the Promised Land". The original was about how "too many single young males (SYMs) were lingering in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood, shunning marriage and children, and whiling away their leisure hours with "South Park" reruns, marathon sessions of World of Warcraft, and Maxim lists of the ten best movie scenes."
The original premise followed the standard cultural stereotype of men as immature, boyish, and unwilling to grow up and face the responsibilities of adulthood. But for the first time that I have ever seen, men responded accordingly to set the record straight on this outdated and erroneous cultural cliche. The author goes on to write:
"It would be easy enough to hold up some of the callow ranting that piece inspired as a proof positive of the child-man's existence. But the truth is that my correspondents' objections gave me pause. Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood-one wife, two kids, three bathrooms- not because he's immature but because he's angry. He's angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He's angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He's angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for me."
Here are some responses that his original article illicited:
Jeff, from Middleburg, Florida: "I am not going to hitch my wagon to a woman who is more into her abs, thighs, triceps, and plastic surgery. A woman who seems to have forgotten that she did graduate high school and that it's time to act accordingly."
Another SYM, Alex writes: "Maybe we turn to video games not because we are trying to run away from the responsibilities of a 'grown-up life' but because they are a better companion than some disease-ridden bar tramp who is only after money and a free ride."
One more, from Dean in California: "Men are finally waking up the ever-present fact that traditional marriage, or a committed relationship, with its accompanying socially imposed requirements of being wallets with legs for women, is an empty and meaningless drudgery."
The part that shocked me was this little paragraph: "You can find the same themes posted throughout websites like AmericanWomenSuck, NoMarriage, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and Eternal Bachelor ("Give modern women the husband they deserve. None.")"
Not only does this article talk about the growing Ghost Nation and give constructive and pertinent thought as to why, but it also proves that these websites are becoming mainstream. They are becoming a part of our cultural awareness. This is exciting because it shows that the common feminist response to MRA, the whole burying their heads in the sand and saying "Meh, no one is gonna care about some misogynist chauvinists or take them seriously. They're isolated occurrences on the web, probably virgins living in mom's basement." is wholly and totally: Wrong. There are books about the subject... from Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" to my latest acquisition, "The Decline of Men: (How the American Male is Tuning Out, Giving Up, and Flipping Off His Future" by Guy Garcia. There are at least half a dozen more that you can purchase at Border's right now. Sure, any hack can write a book, and just about anyone can put up a blog. However, the sentiment behind these writings is valid and is now being the subject of newspaper articles.
Whether the publicity is positive or negative, as newspapers and soon perhaps radio broadcast pick the subject up, the fact is that more and more men will be made aware of this movement's existence, and seek out more information. It will be hard for many men, men who have not been completely feminized, to read the literature and not be persuaded.
Also exciting is the growing idea that men aren't playing computer games, delaying marriage, and opting out of college, career-oriented lives, and seeking a lifestyle of seduction (Pickup Artists, or PUAs) because they are immature and mature slower than women, or because men are simply boorish dumb neanderthals... but because men are simply frustrated and angry at a society that leaves them alienated and exploited.
This is what upsets feminists so much about the MRA and the Ghost Nation. Because if they can't blame men for the way men are, then the only other entity to place blame upon is simply the prevalent mainstream male-bashing culture and the slutty, manipulative, picky, entitled, arrogant and gold-digging Western women. Both spawns of the feminist movement.
Really, the only entity to place blame upon: is them.
I'm sure more articles and literature will pop up over time. I'm sure that more newspapers will write stories about this. I'm sure more men, more father's who have had their children stolen, will protest in front of city hall's and the courts. I'm sure more awareness will be raised, and the movement will grow until it reaches critical mass. At that point in time, critical eyes will be on feminists and Western women.
The movement can be dismissed as misogynist, as immature, as being "scared of strong women", or as a display of male chauvinism, or whatever other shaming language feminists try to use. The fact is, I have met an increasingly large number of women in my day to day life who are sympathetic to the movement. I have met an inordinately large number of men who are sympathetic. Their numbers are growing.
It may take time for the movement to grow - a few more years, perhaps, or even a decade. This is because the Men's Rights Movement truly is a grass roots operation. While feminism operated from the top down - with privileged women such as Betty Friedan writing books that seeped down to the masses, the men's right movement works mostly in reverse; with disenfranchised dad's standing up to speak out. Every man who suffers the real oppression of having his child stolen in divorce, who suffers the extortion of child support payments, of living in a world where women are "liberated" and he's expected to fullfill the same traditional gender role of the Walking Wallet. Every man who suffers under the oppression of "women's reproductive rights" whilst men have virtually no reproductive rights. Every man who is tired of how women behave and act in highschool, college, the workplace, and the dating scene. All these men are sleeper cells for the MRA, and it only takes one hyperlink, one article, or the title of one book they notice at Barnes and Noble to activate them.
And as the movement grows, the shaming language will become meaningless. Men, who suffer silently, will finally stand up and force society to start asking the deep, hard questions.
While the article posits that "the reason for all this anger is that the dating and mating scene is in chaos. SYMs of the postfeminist era are moving around in a Babel of miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations that are alternately proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional.", this is only part of the reason. Lack of father's rights, lack of men's reproductive rights, a prevalent male-bashing culture, a culture that demonizes and shames men, a culture that is becoming more and more anti-boy, however overt or subtle, are the factors that play into the scenario.
Only time will tell. But maybe soon men will finally become liberated and empowered.
Showing posts with label MRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MRA. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Feminism: Fascist Communism
Feminism has been compared with nazism and communism many times throughout the years. It is known, though not popularized, that early feminist leaders held communist beliefs or were outright communists and soviet sympathizers. It is ironic that during the Cold War, when America was fighting against communism, that a form of gender-communism was taking root upon it's own soil. Indeed, this lends some insight to feminists leading the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era, which as we all know was a war fought to slow the spread of communism.
The purpose of this article, then, is to further illustrate the comparison between feminism and communism/fascism. It is a work in progress, and as time goes on the grammar and arguments presented will become more refined.
****
To really understand feminism and get a full grasp on it's goals, it would be important for us to study and examine critically the lives and writings of the prominent feminist leaders and authors. Many feminists rightfully claim that they are "not all like that", and while it is true that the constituents of a movement may not hold to every view expressed by the movements leaders, it is the leaders and writers of that movement that inspire the general thoughts, views, and doctrines of that movement. Therefore it is important for us to hold feminist leaders in a critical light.
Here are just a few quotes from prominent feminists, past and present. Although I admit that the source could be viewed as biased as it belongs to the Men's Rights sphere, the quotes contained on the page are true and anyone can pick up any feminist literature and view it for themselves.
"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129..
"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983..
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." - Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
Feminist women are seemingly free to write this sort of misandric drivel, indeed, to shovel it out by the pageful in their writings, without any consequences. Even female members of Congress are able to slander and generalize half the population and get away with it scotch free. When criticism of these writings are offered, it is either ignored, or the two most common responses are "Well I'm not like that." or "Men have oppressed women for hundreds and thousands of years, so it's only fair."
The first argument, "I'm not like that." or "Not all feminists are like that." is very ad hoc and while it may stand to reason and be very true, it misses one glaring point: As a constituent of the feminist party, it would be your responsibility indeed duty, to stand up to this sort of sexist hatemongering crap. If you indeed stand for equality, if you indeed want equal treatment of men and women, and if you indeed sympathize with men's issues and hate the idea of sexism, then it is your very duty as a feminist of that camp to stand up and actively and openly criticize remarks such as "all men are rapists and that's all that they are." Here actions, not words, are to be judged. And judging actions, we see that yes, all feminists are like that, because there is very little protest against misandry within the feminist literature and blogsphere. Even such statements as "I hate men because..." go unchallenged by fellow feminists.
The second argument is just crap, and takes past grievances (which have been shown to be exaggerated or wholly untrue) as a justification for current behavior. IE, men oppressed women in the past, so it's okay for women to spread hate-speech against men. This of course is not a valid or logical argument and doesn't stand up against rational scrutiny.
When the sexism inherent in feminist writings is exposed or questioned, it is either ignored or justified by crap arguments. But if any man stands up and merely disagrees with any tenet of feminism, however minor, he is instantly labeled a misogynist and a sexist brute, even though he may not have said anything at all sexist or misogynistic.
I would like to take a moment to study some feminist leaders, past and present.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the first well-known feminist woman, was the main author of the Declaration of Sentiments. I have refuted much of what was written in this intellectual refuse in the second half of a post I wrote here. The thing I want to point out about Elizabeth was that she was a woman of privilege, as you can find out for yourself if you read about who her father was, who her mother's father was, and who her husband was. She was obviously not a woman who was ever in want for anything.
Later on during the first wave of feminism, a woman named Millicent Fawcett emerged. She played a key role in women's suffrage in England. If you read about her, you'll see that she, also, was a woman of privilege. She attended University for medicine, and her friends were also educated women of privilege. Hardly an "oppressed" woman.
Another prominent feminist author, the woman who sparked the second wave of feminism, Betty Friedan, was also clearly a woman of privilege. In fact, it's reported that she never did a day of housework in her life, and was also a communist party member and Soviet sympathizer. One questions her credibility given the idiosyncrasy of being a privileged enough woman to have a maid in her service, with enough money to go to University, but who also counted herself amongst communists and other radical politics.
The early feminist leaders really knew nothing of the "plight of women", having never actually experienced it themselves. Though Friedan came from a poor background, she didn't stay there for very long and by her 20's was traveling the globe and studying at different colleges. These were women of privilege who wanted even more privilege; namely, they wanted to be equal to their male counterparts who were chiefly doctors, laywers, etc.
There was little they could do about this, except to appeal to the masses of women with whom they really had nothing in common. As we can see with most political leaders, be they democratic, fascist, communist, or anarchist, the leaders rarely have much in common at all with their constituents, however, the constituents sympathize with the leaders and indeed take on many of their doctrines and theories as their own. This is how leaders, though unrelated to their followers via socio-economic background or education, represent the majority that follows them.
Feminism really gained momentum in the 1960's, after a few middle class white women wrote some books blaming a lot of stuff on men. Feminism, a movement of hatred towards men, really began when women were at their most unoppressed. Let's look at that next.
The telephone, the refrigerator, the microwave, the vacuum cleaner, washing machines, drying machines, gas stoves, electric stoves, chemical cleaning sprays, and a myriad of other little inventions: these were all geared towards making life easier for women. It was during the time that these things were starting to make women's lives easier (and indeed, many had been around for decades), that women started to complain about how bad their lives were because of men (note: all these devices were invented by men.) It is doubtful that these women, who could now be comfortable even in lower-class situations, would have ever blamed their husbands for buying them a dishwasher to grant her more leisure time, for working 9-5 and sometimes longer to provide a roof over her head, and for financially supporting the family of a wife, a pet goldfish, and x number of children, had it not been for the political poisoning of a few radical upper-class women who stood to gain even more than they already had.
It was a "capitalism of idealogy" - these authors wanted more, more prestige, more money, more power, more status, so they exploited the naivete and gullability of the masses of women of lower status to gain.
Ironic, isn't it?
That is the nature of feminism: The Doctrine of Spoiled Brats. Most of the early feminists and feminists authors, after a little research, were middle to upper class, if not outright rich, women. Their lives were easy, especially compared to men of lower status. It would seem that this entitlement, this status and prestige and being spoiled, went to their heads. It was not enough now that they were prominent women in society, that they had educations most men were denied, that they didn't even have to do "woman's work" because they had others (maids, machines) do it for them: No, they wanted to be able to do what their husbands do, namely, work. But it was not the typical work they wanted to do: not coal mines, factories, fishing boats, soldiers. Nope. They wanted to be things like doctors and university professors- you know, the top 5% of jobs, the glamorous jobs that earn a lot of money.
If you don't believe me, look around you. How many women do you know who do physically strenuous jobs? Can you name five? When you go past some state workers who are repaving a road, do you see any women? If you do, what's her job? Directing traffic, right? Go to a school: how many of the teachers are female? Most, right? How many firefighters are women, and of them, how many actually rush into burning buildings? All of the police and firefighters who died during 9/11 were men, although female police and firefighters were present (you can see them in the videos).
Nobody raises awareness for coal mining or oil drilling. But these jobs are open to women. Nope, everyone raises awareness for ENGINEERING, LAWYER, and DOCTOR... three of the most prestigious and top-earning jobs in the nation.
There's very little talk, blogging, writing, lobbying, or awareness campaigns to get women into active combat roles. That subject gets almost 0 attention. However, listen to the news, read MSNBC, or Time, or even the plethora of countless feminist blogs, and what's it all about? Rape, rape, sexual harassment, the debunked "wage gap", and of course how "hostile the blogsphere is to female bloggers."
So with vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, electric freezers, automatic car starters, cars with heaters in the seats, AM/FM radio, people to make our clothing for us... women lead relatively comfortable lives. They can even go to University and get a degree in anything they want and become successful. Yet, they still manage to complain about how shitty it is to be a woman!
Ever notice how everything bad seems to be men's fault? I mean, even from the Declaration of Sentiments, one of the first American feminist documents, all the blame is placed on men for how "shitty" women have it. If something bad happens to a woman, like, say, if she goes to a party full of men she doesn't know, gets so drunk and high on drugs that she passes out, and someone, God forbid especially if she was taking the initiative, has sex with her sometime during that night, it's rape. Which is, of course, men's fault and if anyone tries to place any responsibility on her for her life (after all, how wise it to get mentally incapacitated in a room full of men, when "all men are rapists and that's all that the are."...?), they get called a "rape apologist".
But if something bad ever happens to a man, well, that's entirely his fault. Even if he's drafted and dies in war, well, that's because men start war, even though women are the majority of voters.
(Do you know who voted the most in the 1970's? Women. Majority by 5%. Not much, you say? Doesn't matter. If they were the majority by half a percent, they're still the majority. What about the 1980's? Men, by only a small margine. In the 1990's? Women, again. And the 2000's? Women, by a longshot. So since the 1970's women, overall, have been outvoting men. It's safe to assume that when a woman goes to the poll, she's only thinking about herself and whether the new guy will make her life easier.)
What if Hillary Clinton became president, and America found itself at war with some other nation? Well, it would be the fault of the (male) leader of that other nation, because, after all, men start war!
Another issue to be looked at: Female sexuality.
Women wanted to be sexual liberated. So they could do stuff like this, and be in pornography and walk around at 15 years old in a miniskirt with no underwear on (and kill their unborn babies).
But then another group of feminists stood up and said this was wrong, this was sexism, this was the objectification of women, this turned women into nameless sex symbols, etc.
And of course it was men who were at fault for it even though modeling, porn, and being in commercials for make-up and beauty products to wearing miniskirts and sexual clothing is the woman's choice, not anyone elses. So men are at fault for... women turning themselves into sex objects? I mean what about Natalie Dylan, who's supposedly selling her virginity and there's some proof coming to light that she is in fact a virgin. She's turning herself into a sex object that you can buy, but I guess the man who gets to take her cherry will be some "creepy perverted dude" or something.
But what we really see in the topic of "female sexuality", and female "sexual liberation" is really nothing more than the sexual repression of men.
Men's sexuality is shamed. When he buys pornography, he is supporting the objectification of men. We are told that pornography depicts violence against women and the domination of females by males (even though there is much pornography that depicts the same power-dynamics in reverse- but feminists never complain about, and indeed sometimes endorse, that sort of thing). We are told that pornography makes men violent; correlation not proving causation is completely thrown away as a concept and we are told that "serial killers often possessed pornography".
When men want sex, they are shamed. If his partner is "not in the mood", he is shamed for "coercing" her, and shamed for fulfilling his desires elsewhere and escaping a sexless relationship. If a man manages to escape a sexless relationship, he is seen as a pig only after 1 thing. (But if a woman escapes a relationship in which she is not financially supported, she is "empowered"to be rid of the "bum"...). A man is labelled a "rapist" if his wife or girlfriend consents to sex with him even if she's not very excited about the idea or not entirely in the mood.
A man who is married is sexually repressed because he is trapped. If he cheats, he is blamed and divorced and since the fault is his own, he can lose his house, his assets and a portion of his income. If he stays, he is forced to endure the repression of his sexuality vis-a-vis his wife. He has financial incentive to stay and sexual incentive to leave- imagine the frustration that goes along with being trapped in this way.
All these situations and dynamics in society point to an alarming conclusion:
The purpose of this article, then, is to further illustrate the comparison between feminism and communism/fascism. It is a work in progress, and as time goes on the grammar and arguments presented will become more refined.
****
To really understand feminism and get a full grasp on it's goals, it would be important for us to study and examine critically the lives and writings of the prominent feminist leaders and authors. Many feminists rightfully claim that they are "not all like that", and while it is true that the constituents of a movement may not hold to every view expressed by the movements leaders, it is the leaders and writers of that movement that inspire the general thoughts, views, and doctrines of that movement. Therefore it is important for us to hold feminist leaders in a critical light.
Here are just a few quotes from prominent feminists, past and present. Although I admit that the source could be viewed as biased as it belongs to the Men's Rights sphere, the quotes contained on the page are true and anyone can pick up any feminist literature and view it for themselves.
"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129..
"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983..
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." - Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
Feminist women are seemingly free to write this sort of misandric drivel, indeed, to shovel it out by the pageful in their writings, without any consequences. Even female members of Congress are able to slander and generalize half the population and get away with it scotch free. When criticism of these writings are offered, it is either ignored, or the two most common responses are "Well I'm not like that." or "Men have oppressed women for hundreds and thousands of years, so it's only fair."
The first argument, "I'm not like that." or "Not all feminists are like that." is very ad hoc and while it may stand to reason and be very true, it misses one glaring point: As a constituent of the feminist party, it would be your responsibility indeed duty, to stand up to this sort of sexist hatemongering crap. If you indeed stand for equality, if you indeed want equal treatment of men and women, and if you indeed sympathize with men's issues and hate the idea of sexism, then it is your very duty as a feminist of that camp to stand up and actively and openly criticize remarks such as "all men are rapists and that's all that they are." Here actions, not words, are to be judged. And judging actions, we see that yes, all feminists are like that, because there is very little protest against misandry within the feminist literature and blogsphere. Even such statements as "I hate men because..." go unchallenged by fellow feminists.
The second argument is just crap, and takes past grievances (which have been shown to be exaggerated or wholly untrue) as a justification for current behavior. IE, men oppressed women in the past, so it's okay for women to spread hate-speech against men. This of course is not a valid or logical argument and doesn't stand up against rational scrutiny.
When the sexism inherent in feminist writings is exposed or questioned, it is either ignored or justified by crap arguments. But if any man stands up and merely disagrees with any tenet of feminism, however minor, he is instantly labeled a misogynist and a sexist brute, even though he may not have said anything at all sexist or misogynistic.
I would like to take a moment to study some feminist leaders, past and present.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the first well-known feminist woman, was the main author of the Declaration of Sentiments. I have refuted much of what was written in this intellectual refuse in the second half of a post I wrote here. The thing I want to point out about Elizabeth was that she was a woman of privilege, as you can find out for yourself if you read about who her father was, who her mother's father was, and who her husband was. She was obviously not a woman who was ever in want for anything.
Later on during the first wave of feminism, a woman named Millicent Fawcett emerged. She played a key role in women's suffrage in England. If you read about her, you'll see that she, also, was a woman of privilege. She attended University for medicine, and her friends were also educated women of privilege. Hardly an "oppressed" woman.
Another prominent feminist author, the woman who sparked the second wave of feminism, Betty Friedan, was also clearly a woman of privilege. In fact, it's reported that she never did a day of housework in her life, and was also a communist party member and Soviet sympathizer. One questions her credibility given the idiosyncrasy of being a privileged enough woman to have a maid in her service, with enough money to go to University, but who also counted herself amongst communists and other radical politics.
The early feminist leaders really knew nothing of the "plight of women", having never actually experienced it themselves. Though Friedan came from a poor background, she didn't stay there for very long and by her 20's was traveling the globe and studying at different colleges. These were women of privilege who wanted even more privilege; namely, they wanted to be equal to their male counterparts who were chiefly doctors, laywers, etc.
There was little they could do about this, except to appeal to the masses of women with whom they really had nothing in common. As we can see with most political leaders, be they democratic, fascist, communist, or anarchist, the leaders rarely have much in common at all with their constituents, however, the constituents sympathize with the leaders and indeed take on many of their doctrines and theories as their own. This is how leaders, though unrelated to their followers via socio-economic background or education, represent the majority that follows them.
Feminism really gained momentum in the 1960's, after a few middle class white women wrote some books blaming a lot of stuff on men. Feminism, a movement of hatred towards men, really began when women were at their most unoppressed. Let's look at that next.
The telephone, the refrigerator, the microwave, the vacuum cleaner, washing machines, drying machines, gas stoves, electric stoves, chemical cleaning sprays, and a myriad of other little inventions: these were all geared towards making life easier for women. It was during the time that these things were starting to make women's lives easier (and indeed, many had been around for decades), that women started to complain about how bad their lives were because of men (note: all these devices were invented by men.) It is doubtful that these women, who could now be comfortable even in lower-class situations, would have ever blamed their husbands for buying them a dishwasher to grant her more leisure time, for working 9-5 and sometimes longer to provide a roof over her head, and for financially supporting the family of a wife, a pet goldfish, and x number of children, had it not been for the political poisoning of a few radical upper-class women who stood to gain even more than they already had.
It was a "capitalism of idealogy" - these authors wanted more, more prestige, more money, more power, more status, so they exploited the naivete and gullability of the masses of women of lower status to gain.
Ironic, isn't it?
That is the nature of feminism: The Doctrine of Spoiled Brats. Most of the early feminists and feminists authors, after a little research, were middle to upper class, if not outright rich, women. Their lives were easy, especially compared to men of lower status. It would seem that this entitlement, this status and prestige and being spoiled, went to their heads. It was not enough now that they were prominent women in society, that they had educations most men were denied, that they didn't even have to do "woman's work" because they had others (maids, machines) do it for them: No, they wanted to be able to do what their husbands do, namely, work. But it was not the typical work they wanted to do: not coal mines, factories, fishing boats, soldiers. Nope. They wanted to be things like doctors and university professors- you know, the top 5% of jobs, the glamorous jobs that earn a lot of money.
If you don't believe me, look around you. How many women do you know who do physically strenuous jobs? Can you name five? When you go past some state workers who are repaving a road, do you see any women? If you do, what's her job? Directing traffic, right? Go to a school: how many of the teachers are female? Most, right? How many firefighters are women, and of them, how many actually rush into burning buildings? All of the police and firefighters who died during 9/11 were men, although female police and firefighters were present (you can see them in the videos).
Nobody raises awareness for coal mining or oil drilling. But these jobs are open to women. Nope, everyone raises awareness for ENGINEERING, LAWYER, and DOCTOR... three of the most prestigious and top-earning jobs in the nation.
There's very little talk, blogging, writing, lobbying, or awareness campaigns to get women into active combat roles. That subject gets almost 0 attention. However, listen to the news, read MSNBC, or Time, or even the plethora of countless feminist blogs, and what's it all about? Rape, rape, sexual harassment, the debunked "wage gap", and of course how "hostile the blogsphere is to female bloggers."
So with vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, electric freezers, automatic car starters, cars with heaters in the seats, AM/FM radio, people to make our clothing for us... women lead relatively comfortable lives. They can even go to University and get a degree in anything they want and become successful. Yet, they still manage to complain about how shitty it is to be a woman!
Ever notice how everything bad seems to be men's fault? I mean, even from the Declaration of Sentiments, one of the first American feminist documents, all the blame is placed on men for how "shitty" women have it. If something bad happens to a woman, like, say, if she goes to a party full of men she doesn't know, gets so drunk and high on drugs that she passes out, and someone, God forbid especially if she was taking the initiative, has sex with her sometime during that night, it's rape. Which is, of course, men's fault and if anyone tries to place any responsibility on her for her life (after all, how wise it to get mentally incapacitated in a room full of men, when "all men are rapists and that's all that the are."...?), they get called a "rape apologist".
But if something bad ever happens to a man, well, that's entirely his fault. Even if he's drafted and dies in war, well, that's because men start war, even though women are the majority of voters.
(Do you know who voted the most in the 1970's? Women. Majority by 5%. Not much, you say? Doesn't matter. If they were the majority by half a percent, they're still the majority. What about the 1980's? Men, by only a small margine. In the 1990's? Women, again. And the 2000's? Women, by a longshot. So since the 1970's women, overall, have been outvoting men. It's safe to assume that when a woman goes to the poll, she's only thinking about herself and whether the new guy will make her life easier.)
What if Hillary Clinton became president, and America found itself at war with some other nation? Well, it would be the fault of the (male) leader of that other nation, because, after all, men start war!
Another issue to be looked at: Female sexuality.
Women wanted to be sexual liberated. So they could do stuff like this, and be in pornography and walk around at 15 years old in a miniskirt with no underwear on (and kill their unborn babies).
But then another group of feminists stood up and said this was wrong, this was sexism, this was the objectification of women, this turned women into nameless sex symbols, etc.
And of course it was men who were at fault for it even though modeling, porn, and being in commercials for make-up and beauty products to wearing miniskirts and sexual clothing is the woman's choice, not anyone elses. So men are at fault for... women turning themselves into sex objects? I mean what about Natalie Dylan, who's supposedly selling her virginity and there's some proof coming to light that she is in fact a virgin. She's turning herself into a sex object that you can buy, but I guess the man who gets to take her cherry will be some "creepy perverted dude" or something.
But what we really see in the topic of "female sexuality", and female "sexual liberation" is really nothing more than the sexual repression of men.
Men's sexuality is shamed. When he buys pornography, he is supporting the objectification of men. We are told that pornography depicts violence against women and the domination of females by males (even though there is much pornography that depicts the same power-dynamics in reverse- but feminists never complain about, and indeed sometimes endorse, that sort of thing). We are told that pornography makes men violent; correlation not proving causation is completely thrown away as a concept and we are told that "serial killers often possessed pornography".
When men want sex, they are shamed. If his partner is "not in the mood", he is shamed for "coercing" her, and shamed for fulfilling his desires elsewhere and escaping a sexless relationship. If a man manages to escape a sexless relationship, he is seen as a pig only after 1 thing. (But if a woman escapes a relationship in which she is not financially supported, she is "empowered"to be rid of the "bum"...). A man is labelled a "rapist" if his wife or girlfriend consents to sex with him even if she's not very excited about the idea or not entirely in the mood.
A man who is married is sexually repressed because he is trapped. If he cheats, he is blamed and divorced and since the fault is his own, he can lose his house, his assets and a portion of his income. If he stays, he is forced to endure the repression of his sexuality vis-a-vis his wife. He has financial incentive to stay and sexual incentive to leave- imagine the frustration that goes along with being trapped in this way.
All these situations and dynamics in society point to an alarming conclusion:
Feminism: A Doctrine of Socialism for Women and Fascism against Men
The Points of Fascism
Point One: At Once Victim and Superior
Fascist ideology always asserts that they are at once oppressed and superior. For instance, Nazi's didn't believe the Germans lost WII — they couldn't, because they are superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. Who stabbed them in the back? Their scapegoat- the German Jews who did not do their part to support the war as German citizens.
Feminists will at once assert that women are superior: better communicators, more loving, more intuitive, and in some cases outright divine (see also the myths of matriarchal societies here and here.). When the question arises "If women are so superior, how come...", feminists attempt to explain how they are the victims of male oppression in a "patriarchal" society. Men "betrayed" women millenia ago and siezed power, and then men are the ones who rewrote history to hide this fact from women.
Feminism is a conspiracy theory against men just as German Nazism was a conspiracy theory against the Jews.
Also interesting to note that feminist will often deny the general instinct or behavior of men to protect women ("all men are rapists") but at the same time use that behavior to their advantage (victim-feminism and "men are responsible for stopping rape.").
Point Two: Rewrite or Reinterpret History
Part of the Nazi tactics was burning books that explained history contrary to the Party's tagline. New literature, inspired and written by the Thule Society, was introduced that gave a skewed and often fabricated version of history. The Nazis literally rewrote history and explained that the German people were the descendents of Atlantis, and that "inferior people's" such as the early Hebrew tribes contributed to the destruction of Atlantis. Here, their scapegoat is rewritten into a a psuedo-history. This is only a minor point, but worth noting, as many radical feminists and female chauvanists attempt to reinterpret history and in some cases rewrite history; depicting peaceful and superior matriarchal societies, claiming that God was originally refered to as a "She" and that God is indeed a female entity, etc. Like the Nazi writings and propaganda, there is 0 archealogical evidence and 0 recorded historical evidence for these claims.
Also notice the Nazi conspiracy theory that the "Jews were oppressing them", just like the feminist conspiracy theory of the "patriarchy" that took roots millenia ago and has sought to oppress women for men's benefit. We see here that a paranoid conspiracy theory runs throughout all of the major points of fascism, and is, indeed, the foundation of fascism.
Point Three: Blame their Victims
The Nazi regime blamed their economic troubles, lower education, and just about every malady they could on the Jews, turning them into villians, criminals, and a scapegoat. Indeed, every fascist regime has a scapegoat. The purpose is to villianize and create animosity towards a group of people, so sympathies towards them are low, setting them up for injustices, slavery, and genocide without public intervention in said policies. Here, when someone is "guilty", it's okay to exploit them, which moves us onto the second point:
Point Four: Theft and Exploitation
The Nazi regime siezed Jewish assets, transfering the wealth of Jewish businesses and families to Germans. Jews were inducted into concentration and forced labor camps, where they were starved, forced to labor, and then systematically exterminated when they were no longer useful. Minimum input, maximized output, and discard the components of the system that have run down to minimize upkeep expenses. When the Jews were gassed, the expoitation continued when the Nazis began removing gold teeth and jewelry from the bodies.
Feminists have state sanctioned wealth tansfer systems: namely, no-fault divorce, alimony, and child support. They also have the option of killing their husband, either descretely through poison and indescretely through direct violence while he is sleeping, and then claim a "battered woman syndrome" defense and still recieve his life insurance policy. When the man becomes obsolete and his life insurance policy (his metaphoric "gold teeth") exceeds his yearly income, a wife has the option of disposing of him and then seeking a new man to exploit.
***
The Nazi's were famous for their propaganda, twisting the facts, rewriting history, and blaming everyone else for the economic crisis in Germany. Through scapegoating a group of people, they were able to exploit them economically and become a world power once more.
We see this happening in America with the feminist party and their propaganda, twisted facts, dirty statistics, and in some cases even attempting to rewrite history. Of course, everything bad is blamed on men, who have become such an accepted cultural scapegoat that misandry is now a lucrative venture for fields from writing to t-shirt manufacturing.
(Click for Larger View)
Communism/Socialism - How the "radical left" relate to the "radical right".
Interesting to note that despite it's similarities to fascism, feminism also has components of communism and socialism, namely social welfare and egalitarianism. This should not be surprising, however, when the similarities of radical politics are highlighted.
Indeed, the word "Nazi" dervies from the German word "Nationalsozialismus", which translates into "National Socialism". The Nazi party's full name was the "National Socialist German Workers’ Party". In other words, they preached German superiority to their target group: the working class. So the Nazi party was left wing in function, and right wing in idealogy. This gets overlooked and rarely mentioned, as lefties would never tolerate a comparison between themselves and the "fascist right", although the comparison has been made many times and with more credibility than liberals condemning conservatives as "right-wing fascists!"
Nazism, communism, and socialism all seek to target workers (or another economic minority of appreciable population size; a "bio-mass majority" but "monetary minority", the mass of exploited peasants, serfs, proletariat, etc) to instigate social reform. It is in this way that these radical political groups gain their power; by targeting the mass of workers and convincing them that they are being exploited and oppressed by a group; in fascism, namely the rich members of a minority group, in communism and socialism namely the rich entreprenuers, or "bourgeoisie".
In feminism, the bourgeoisie or exploiter-class can be equated to men. It is men who have "the power", therefore, women who don't have "the power" are oppressed by men. A woman's labor was "exploited" (unpaid for) by her husband, in the same way that the proletarian's labor was exploited (underpaid) by the bourgeoisie. (However, feminism rears it's ignorance: the housewife's labor is not unpaid: the man supports her financially).
Feminism can be described as fascist communism, "one law for them, one law for us", or "a socialist network for women, based upon the oppression of men."
The socialism for women are the options she is granted at the expense of men: affirmative action programs that get even underqualified women positions in whichever field they desire, the state subsidized support of childcare at the expense of men (men pay the majority of taxes) or privately through enforced child-support (a woman also has the option to recieve both welfare and WIC as well as child support). At the same time, she has the option to be directly financed by her husband and, should he change his mind (or, more likely, she changes her mind about him), the state can strip the man of his assetts and grant them to who for, really, no good reason since the woman still has the option of entering the work-force, indeed, any field she desires.
There is state subsidized school loan programs for women, private funding for women's education, welfare programs for women, outreach compaigns for women, shelters for "battered" women, organizations trying to stop all forms of violence against women, birth control, etc etc.
Men, relatively, have very little options except to support themselves through direct labor, while at the same time supporting women through his taxes whether he recieves the benefit of sex and children, and when married to still support a woman who can legally steal everything away from him while at the same time supporting women he recieves no sex or children from.
Women seem to have a seperate society, a socialist society, that is built upon the backs of men's labor, reputation, and sexuality.
Feminism: Exposed.
Conclusion
While I will most certainly be labeled a misogynist, a rape apologist, a paranoid conspiracy theorizer, a male supremacist and many other allegations up to and including erectile disfunction and homosexuality, it is important to note that all such reaction to this document will only confirm my supposition: that feminism is a radical political idealogy of fanatic gender-fascist communists, and that anyone who questions this current status quo must be shamed and humiliated into silence. I refuse.
While I do not proport that men and women are inherently inferior or superior to one another, I do posit that there are real, scientifically measurably differences in the physiology, psychology, brain structuring, and roles that men and women ought to play in society. These roles had one purpose: To bear children and bring them to adulthood.
The roles that men and women play have been tampered with. The family is being destroyed, and social havok is ensuring. Some places see it worse than others; in England, there is a whole generation of fatherless children running around like feral primitives, stabbing and shooting one another and forming youth gangs. In America, there is a gender-war in which men are only now beginning to see the implications of.
Feminism, from the beginning, has had insideous intentions. Though there have been positive gains made from feminism, one could also argue that positive gains were made through Nazism. Do the ends justify the means? I do not think so.
It is obviously time for men to stand up, men who have had their communication networks, their clubs, their families taken away from them now have an important resource: The Internet. We must guard this resource jealously and be vigilant against any attempts to impair our freedom in this medium of communication, the Last Bastion of Free Speech.
Point One: At Once Victim and Superior
Fascist ideology always asserts that they are at once oppressed and superior. For instance, Nazi's didn't believe the Germans lost WII — they couldn't, because they are superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. Who stabbed them in the back? Their scapegoat- the German Jews who did not do their part to support the war as German citizens.
Feminists will at once assert that women are superior: better communicators, more loving, more intuitive, and in some cases outright divine (see also the myths of matriarchal societies here and here.). When the question arises "If women are so superior, how come...", feminists attempt to explain how they are the victims of male oppression in a "patriarchal" society. Men "betrayed" women millenia ago and siezed power, and then men are the ones who rewrote history to hide this fact from women.
Feminism is a conspiracy theory against men just as German Nazism was a conspiracy theory against the Jews.
Also interesting to note that feminist will often deny the general instinct or behavior of men to protect women ("all men are rapists") but at the same time use that behavior to their advantage (victim-feminism and "men are responsible for stopping rape.").
Point Two: Rewrite or Reinterpret History
Part of the Nazi tactics was burning books that explained history contrary to the Party's tagline. New literature, inspired and written by the Thule Society, was introduced that gave a skewed and often fabricated version of history. The Nazis literally rewrote history and explained that the German people were the descendents of Atlantis, and that "inferior people's" such as the early Hebrew tribes contributed to the destruction of Atlantis. Here, their scapegoat is rewritten into a a psuedo-history. This is only a minor point, but worth noting, as many radical feminists and female chauvanists attempt to reinterpret history and in some cases rewrite history; depicting peaceful and superior matriarchal societies, claiming that God was originally refered to as a "She" and that God is indeed a female entity, etc. Like the Nazi writings and propaganda, there is 0 archealogical evidence and 0 recorded historical evidence for these claims.
Also notice the Nazi conspiracy theory that the "Jews were oppressing them", just like the feminist conspiracy theory of the "patriarchy" that took roots millenia ago and has sought to oppress women for men's benefit. We see here that a paranoid conspiracy theory runs throughout all of the major points of fascism, and is, indeed, the foundation of fascism.
Point Three: Blame their Victims
The Nazi regime blamed their economic troubles, lower education, and just about every malady they could on the Jews, turning them into villians, criminals, and a scapegoat. Indeed, every fascist regime has a scapegoat. The purpose is to villianize and create animosity towards a group of people, so sympathies towards them are low, setting them up for injustices, slavery, and genocide without public intervention in said policies. Here, when someone is "guilty", it's okay to exploit them, which moves us onto the second point:
Point Four: Theft and Exploitation
The Nazi regime siezed Jewish assets, transfering the wealth of Jewish businesses and families to Germans. Jews were inducted into concentration and forced labor camps, where they were starved, forced to labor, and then systematically exterminated when they were no longer useful. Minimum input, maximized output, and discard the components of the system that have run down to minimize upkeep expenses. When the Jews were gassed, the expoitation continued when the Nazis began removing gold teeth and jewelry from the bodies.
Feminists have state sanctioned wealth tansfer systems: namely, no-fault divorce, alimony, and child support. They also have the option of killing their husband, either descretely through poison and indescretely through direct violence while he is sleeping, and then claim a "battered woman syndrome" defense and still recieve his life insurance policy. When the man becomes obsolete and his life insurance policy (his metaphoric "gold teeth") exceeds his yearly income, a wife has the option of disposing of him and then seeking a new man to exploit.
***
The Nazi's were famous for their propaganda, twisting the facts, rewriting history, and blaming everyone else for the economic crisis in Germany. Through scapegoating a group of people, they were able to exploit them economically and become a world power once more.
We see this happening in America with the feminist party and their propaganda, twisted facts, dirty statistics, and in some cases even attempting to rewrite history. Of course, everything bad is blamed on men, who have become such an accepted cultural scapegoat that misandry is now a lucrative venture for fields from writing to t-shirt manufacturing.
(Click for Larger View)
Communism/Socialism - How the "radical left" relate to the "radical right".Interesting to note that despite it's similarities to fascism, feminism also has components of communism and socialism, namely social welfare and egalitarianism. This should not be surprising, however, when the similarities of radical politics are highlighted.
Indeed, the word "Nazi" dervies from the German word "Nationalsozialismus", which translates into "National Socialism". The Nazi party's full name was the "National Socialist German Workers’ Party". In other words, they preached German superiority to their target group: the working class. So the Nazi party was left wing in function, and right wing in idealogy. This gets overlooked and rarely mentioned, as lefties would never tolerate a comparison between themselves and the "fascist right", although the comparison has been made many times and with more credibility than liberals condemning conservatives as "right-wing fascists!"
Nazism, communism, and socialism all seek to target workers (or another economic minority of appreciable population size; a "bio-mass majority" but "monetary minority", the mass of exploited peasants, serfs, proletariat, etc) to instigate social reform. It is in this way that these radical political groups gain their power; by targeting the mass of workers and convincing them that they are being exploited and oppressed by a group; in fascism, namely the rich members of a minority group, in communism and socialism namely the rich entreprenuers, or "bourgeoisie".
In feminism, the bourgeoisie or exploiter-class can be equated to men. It is men who have "the power", therefore, women who don't have "the power" are oppressed by men. A woman's labor was "exploited" (unpaid for) by her husband, in the same way that the proletarian's labor was exploited (underpaid) by the bourgeoisie. (However, feminism rears it's ignorance: the housewife's labor is not unpaid: the man supports her financially).
Feminism can be described as fascist communism, "one law for them, one law for us", or "a socialist network for women, based upon the oppression of men."
The socialism for women are the options she is granted at the expense of men: affirmative action programs that get even underqualified women positions in whichever field they desire, the state subsidized support of childcare at the expense of men (men pay the majority of taxes) or privately through enforced child-support (a woman also has the option to recieve both welfare and WIC as well as child support). At the same time, she has the option to be directly financed by her husband and, should he change his mind (or, more likely, she changes her mind about him), the state can strip the man of his assetts and grant them to who for, really, no good reason since the woman still has the option of entering the work-force, indeed, any field she desires.
There is state subsidized school loan programs for women, private funding for women's education, welfare programs for women, outreach compaigns for women, shelters for "battered" women, organizations trying to stop all forms of violence against women, birth control, etc etc.
Men, relatively, have very little options except to support themselves through direct labor, while at the same time supporting women through his taxes whether he recieves the benefit of sex and children, and when married to still support a woman who can legally steal everything away from him while at the same time supporting women he recieves no sex or children from.
Women seem to have a seperate society, a socialist society, that is built upon the backs of men's labor, reputation, and sexuality.
Feminism: Exposed.
Conclusion
While I will most certainly be labeled a misogynist, a rape apologist, a paranoid conspiracy theorizer, a male supremacist and many other allegations up to and including erectile disfunction and homosexuality, it is important to note that all such reaction to this document will only confirm my supposition: that feminism is a radical political idealogy of fanatic gender-fascist communists, and that anyone who questions this current status quo must be shamed and humiliated into silence. I refuse.
While I do not proport that men and women are inherently inferior or superior to one another, I do posit that there are real, scientifically measurably differences in the physiology, psychology, brain structuring, and roles that men and women ought to play in society. These roles had one purpose: To bear children and bring them to adulthood.
The roles that men and women play have been tampered with. The family is being destroyed, and social havok is ensuring. Some places see it worse than others; in England, there is a whole generation of fatherless children running around like feral primitives, stabbing and shooting one another and forming youth gangs. In America, there is a gender-war in which men are only now beginning to see the implications of.
Feminism, from the beginning, has had insideous intentions. Though there have been positive gains made from feminism, one could also argue that positive gains were made through Nazism. Do the ends justify the means? I do not think so.
It is obviously time for men to stand up, men who have had their communication networks, their clubs, their families taken away from them now have an important resource: The Internet. We must guard this resource jealously and be vigilant against any attempts to impair our freedom in this medium of communication, the Last Bastion of Free Speech.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Early Morning Ramblings
Just some ramblings before I head off to work.
There's been a lot of talk over the past few years about how boys aren't doing so good academically, they're falling behind, they're dropping out, they can't pay attention in class, they're on Ritalin, etc etc. Most of this it's plain to see is due to the absence of fathers, which was caused by feminisms "No Fault Divorce" thing, which really turned marriage into a joke at best and a fraud at worst.
Well, feminists don't really seem to care about this whole thing. If you read the blogs, it's all about the same old things. "Fat is beautiful, too." "The media objectifies women." Rape issues, more rape issues, and more rape. Hunting and pecking for examples of sexism against women, which really must take up a lot of their time because you really have to stretch the definition of "sexism" to really find any examples of anti-female sexism in America these days. In fact it's interesting because as they keep stretching the definition of sexism to keep finding examples of it against women, they're really just making examples of anti-male sexism more and more exposed.
But anyway, so the feminists don't care about the boys falling behind. Which is really going to have some negative impacts on women in the future. Everyone knows most women marry up, that is, they marry a man who has more income than she does, and if he doesn't, well those marriages don't really last very long. Not that marriages last that long anyway, but a man has a better shot if her earns more money than she does. Well, with male college enrollment dropping, while women make up to 70% of college students in some areas, with boys dropping out of highschool and getting doped up on Ritalin, these boys aren't really on the path to becoming very successful or to earning a high income.
So what's going to happen is we're going to have this workforce full of women earning lots of money, and while there'll be men in that category too, there'll really be more women than men. So we're going to have all these career women trying to find a man who earns more than she does to marry, but those men just won't be there. Coupled with the fact that by the time the average American woman is in her late 30's, she hasn't married and has 1 or more kids, which just makes her so unappealing to a successful man who could easily date a 20-something who has no kids, these women are really going to find that it's nearly impossible for them to get married. We're going to have this huge generation of spinsters who are really going to be bitter towards men, or just turn around and look at the past couple of decades and go "Oops."
What's sad is that they won't even notice until it's too late; until feminism has directly interefered with their life plans, they won't even pay attention to this sort of thing.
Which is really why feminism has to stop being so gynocentric right now. Of course the feminists will alway ssay "oh, we're not gynocrentic, patriarchy hurts men too." but that sort of idealogical tokenism is so played out, I mean the proof is really in the pudding if you ever take the time to read that drivel they call blogs. It's all women's issue after women's issue after women's issue, with some man-hating and self-righteousness injected into it. And a lot of recent articles I've read have really been trying to take some obscure news articles about this or that, I think one of them was about a Muslim man or something in California "selling" his daughter into marriage, of course it wasn't a "sale", it was more like a bill for the wedding ot the groom's family, but anyway these feminists were trying to use this story, this obscure little story about a misunderstanding in a small farming community, as the justification for the continued existence of feminism.
I mean if you have to stay up all night looking for these sorts of articles to justify yourself, I think that really says a lot.
So anyway, that's my early morning rant. You have all these gynocentric feminists really falling behind the times and just focusing on the same old tired issues, meanwhile there's an entire field of research on boy's falling behind, and of course the feminists don't care and it's really setting a lot of American women up for maritial and emotional failure in the future.
There's been a lot of talk over the past few years about how boys aren't doing so good academically, they're falling behind, they're dropping out, they can't pay attention in class, they're on Ritalin, etc etc. Most of this it's plain to see is due to the absence of fathers, which was caused by feminisms "No Fault Divorce" thing, which really turned marriage into a joke at best and a fraud at worst.
Well, feminists don't really seem to care about this whole thing. If you read the blogs, it's all about the same old things. "Fat is beautiful, too." "The media objectifies women." Rape issues, more rape issues, and more rape. Hunting and pecking for examples of sexism against women, which really must take up a lot of their time because you really have to stretch the definition of "sexism" to really find any examples of anti-female sexism in America these days. In fact it's interesting because as they keep stretching the definition of sexism to keep finding examples of it against women, they're really just making examples of anti-male sexism more and more exposed.
But anyway, so the feminists don't care about the boys falling behind. Which is really going to have some negative impacts on women in the future. Everyone knows most women marry up, that is, they marry a man who has more income than she does, and if he doesn't, well those marriages don't really last very long. Not that marriages last that long anyway, but a man has a better shot if her earns more money than she does. Well, with male college enrollment dropping, while women make up to 70% of college students in some areas, with boys dropping out of highschool and getting doped up on Ritalin, these boys aren't really on the path to becoming very successful or to earning a high income.
So what's going to happen is we're going to have this workforce full of women earning lots of money, and while there'll be men in that category too, there'll really be more women than men. So we're going to have all these career women trying to find a man who earns more than she does to marry, but those men just won't be there. Coupled with the fact that by the time the average American woman is in her late 30's, she hasn't married and has 1 or more kids, which just makes her so unappealing to a successful man who could easily date a 20-something who has no kids, these women are really going to find that it's nearly impossible for them to get married. We're going to have this huge generation of spinsters who are really going to be bitter towards men, or just turn around and look at the past couple of decades and go "Oops."
What's sad is that they won't even notice until it's too late; until feminism has directly interefered with their life plans, they won't even pay attention to this sort of thing.
Which is really why feminism has to stop being so gynocentric right now. Of course the feminists will alway ssay "oh, we're not gynocrentic, patriarchy hurts men too." but that sort of idealogical tokenism is so played out, I mean the proof is really in the pudding if you ever take the time to read that drivel they call blogs. It's all women's issue after women's issue after women's issue, with some man-hating and self-righteousness injected into it. And a lot of recent articles I've read have really been trying to take some obscure news articles about this or that, I think one of them was about a Muslim man or something in California "selling" his daughter into marriage, of course it wasn't a "sale", it was more like a bill for the wedding ot the groom's family, but anyway these feminists were trying to use this story, this obscure little story about a misunderstanding in a small farming community, as the justification for the continued existence of feminism.
I mean if you have to stay up all night looking for these sorts of articles to justify yourself, I think that really says a lot.
So anyway, that's my early morning rant. You have all these gynocentric feminists really falling behind the times and just focusing on the same old tired issues, meanwhile there's an entire field of research on boy's falling behind, and of course the feminists don't care and it's really setting a lot of American women up for maritial and emotional failure in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
