Sunday, October 15, 2006

Is Feminism a Hate Movement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Blogger Davout said...

Hi Fidelbogen,

You articulate your ideas extremely well. Perhaps you're familiar with David Byron. His thoughts on feminism as a hate movement are also helpful.

You can link to his article on the subject at:

His other essays are also of considerable value, particularly those on the 19th century equalitarian feminists.

I would like to exchange links with you.

8:28 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Yes, Davout, I am familiar with David Byron -- although it has been a while. Thanks for refreshing my memory with the link!

Anyway, yes by all means, go ahead and link to me, and I'll install your URL here too, probably tomorrow. (It's late now...)

Cheers! :)

10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Late to the party, but I must say, you are much more eloquent than most of us in expressing disenchantment with what organized feminism has become. So much for the ideology of the late 1960's!

A challenge I have issued to others: go to the NOW (National Organization of Women), look at their own self-stated core guiding principles or whatever they call them, and deconstruct them, considering not the rhetoric and ideology, but their implementation in reality. Show me one of them that qualifies as a pro-social force worthy of a social movement that seems to claim so much self-righteous high ground.

Very good work here. If Betty Freidan felt disenchantment with her cooped-up life as a homemaker, yes, there were sexual, personal, and social barriers to her going out and finding meaningful employment. Her strides in that regard are noble, and came very, very quickly. But at what larger cost, when considering the movement as a whole?

Slogans are essential to this movement. You realize quite lucidly how "blaming the patriarchy" is a scapegoat propaganda technique. I've seen the "patriarchy" blamed for just about everything. And while this is happening, take a look at how the feminist movement has hi-jacked critical areas such as family courts, domestic violence legislation, and suppressed meaningful discussion of the social consequences of divorce-on-demand and abortion-on-demand culture "advancements."

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feminism is a tool created by Foundation heads (Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie) who worked the "movement" via useful dupes like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Too much effort is placed on Analyzing this "movement"; it's inconsistencies, it's stated goals etc. There is nothing to analyze. It's purpose is to breakdown the existing social order so the "state" (or in this case the owners of the world's central banks) can replace men and women in all areas (sex roles). The state will replace men as the protector and provider to women, the state will replace women as mother and raise the kids, and so forth.

This of course is accomplished not by consensus but by force- lawsuits, indoctrination in schools, ethics departments in companies and backed up by a tidal wave of propaganda- tv, radio, movies, comic books etc..

There is a ruling Patriarchy in the world, and they are the ones who created feminism for the common man and woman- Divide and conquer and order out of chaos.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Anon, immediately prior:

Yup! I've stated rather the same in the following post:

. . . and elsewhere on the blog.

7:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree that so much of what has gone through history has been orchestrated by those eternally waiting in the wings for an opportunity to profit from mistrust. Of late my thoughts have evolved to more meta analyzing of modern feminism and I now agree that endless analyses, no matter, how insightful, are more or less useless. When there is money to be swindled or power to be usurped, someone will always be there to start a 'movement' to get it. And, let's not fool ourselves, this is a woman's game as much as it a man's. Does anyone think that Oprah Winfrey, Benezir Bhutto, or Indira Gandhi (no actual relation to the real Gandhi) were/are anything more than power mad people? There quite simply are the Christs, Mohammeds, Ghandhis, and Mother Teresas, and then there are the rest of us. The only way to control radical feminism or radical anything is to have a balance of power--a balance of terror, if you will. When you work in the adult world for long enough you notice an interesting thing about power and victimization: When there is a rule preventing an abuse of power those in power simply wait for another opportunity. And for this I give feminists and the race movement great credit, even if they ended up taking it too far. They helped shape rules and laws to protect people that had many spinoff benefits for others--even men. So, in the small picture men must stand up for themselves in courtrooms and leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of self-actualization through education of themselves and their children. The other counter-force to the Nazi-like advance of feminism is that our children will sooner or later see what a miserable existence feminist culture has not only created for them, but also solipsistically and arrogantly expected them to unquestioningly follow. Young females attack and harshly criticize men in order to prove that women don't really need men to live up to their potential. I agree that families and men mostly tend to hold women back, but then women have to face up to the fact that they are making choices that they themselves have to be responsible for. In a more general sense, no one deals with the fact that if we had chosen to have a fair culture, we'd have it. Part of this choosing not to choose is that women refuse to face their deep insecurity about having power. Women feel so guilty about possibly making mistakes, and then mistakenly (or conveniently) blame men for this insecurity. Is this me just being afraid of 'strong' women. No, it is not. That fact is that if women really believed in such radical politics there would be no need to have everyone 'agree'. I personally can't imagine a more boring existence than to be married to a woman who isn't her own person, but being her own person need not come at the sacrifice of my dignity or our children's happy childhoods. We have now had more than 20 years of the 'utopia' of women increasingly in power. As a result of radical feminists' rapacious quest for power and their indoctrination of other sectors of society to follow suit, our culture has morally and socially collapsed. Yes, they were helped by the increasingly docile US male population and used by super powerful magnates who look at the world as one economy which they manipulate at will. Radical feminism will die out because, at some point, feminists will have no one to blame but themselves and try as they might, the problems that they have created will simply be too big to rationalize, or sweep under the rug. The superpower thugs will sink back into the darkness and wait for the next opportunity, which will no doubt appear shortly.

12:21 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Comments left on ancient posts deep in the archives tend to gather dust and not be seen. So, I will post this comment topside for the enjoyment of CF readers. . .

5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eliminate the mindless hatred for men, for children, for society, for life itself, and you eliminate feminism. Eliminate the lies and infantile emotionalism and you eliminate feminism.

Without hatred and lies there is no feminism.

8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you SO much for this great analysis ! I know I'm a few years late but I'm currently enrolled in a Women's Studies course that seems to be a Feminism 101 in disguise and I was double checking my thought process which is basically exactly what you boiled down.

1:34 AM  
Anonymous Ruther said...

Thanks for the great share!

11:47 AM  
Blogger ayaz said...

Feminism has transformed from a phenomenon that once truly uplifted and empowered women, to one that is nothing more than a hate movement directed against men.

I do not support oppression against women nor do I maintain any traditional or old fashioned ideas as to how women and men should relate to each other. But I do demand a true equality within the sexes; one that is not skewed ( as many feel it is today) in favor of women

11:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You - and your commentors here - make me very sad. You froth and rage at feminism... You claim we need to eliminate "man-hatred" and "family-destruction". What has this got to do with feminism? Feminists agree with you! We need to get rid of hate for both sexes, we need to make families better, to raise children free of hate and in a world where boys and girls have more potential than their parents.

The problem here is...
You, sir, don't understand what feminism is. You're attacking amazonism.
Amazonism is my name for people who think women are superior and who hate men.
Feminism is for people who want true equality for men and women. By freeing women they also free men, so that either sex can be free to perform both gender roles.
Amazonism is about putting men instead of women into the "stay home, clean the house, make me a sammich" position. Feminism is about the removal of that position entirely.

Drop the hatred of feminism, please. Instead, join us in yelling at the people of both sexes who say that one side is better than the other.
Trust me. We don't like them either.

-Disappointed and confused feminist who is banging her head on the table over yet another stupid misunderstanding.

3:52 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"You, sir, don't understand what feminism is."

Oh, I'll betcha i DO!

You. . are a stellar example of what we in the sector call an Earnest Feminist. Maybe the best example I have ever seen.

Those "amazonians" are INDEED feminists, just as you yourself are a feminist. You are ALL feminists! "Feminism" is a social organism defined by a symbiosis. Without BOTH kinds of feminism working together, feminism as a movement would have no traction and make no headway.

Basically, you're playing good cop/bad cop. The reason that feminists such as yourself exist, is that you provide cover and camouflage for those other feminists. If feminists like you were the ONLY feminists, feminism as a movement wouldn't last two weeks - it would be reabsorbed into "liberal humanism" or the like. Those other, nasty feminists are the true spiritual core of the movement, and the true powerhouse that makes it run. They are the "little man behind the curtain" whom feminists like yourself tell the world to "pay no attention" to.

As for you personally, I think you are just a misguided liberal. But since you sound like a very sincere person, I won't be hard on you. Although, I would advise you to drop the term "feminist" as a self-descriptor. That label is permanently tainted.

I have an idea. I am going to do honor to your comment by publishing it as a blog post unto itself, so that others may be . . . enlightened. ;)

4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sitting in the U of L computer room as I read this blog. I look around at the young men and women in this room and I am aware of one very salient fact. The men here are getting educations so they can get jobs and make enough money to some day support a wife and children. But, whatever reasons the females are here, it is assuredly not to some day get a job so they can support a husband and children. In fact, many of these women would like to have children and have the luxury of staying home and raising them. (and thanks to feminism it is a luxury these days) The irony, of course, is that by competing directly and unfairly against males, these women are reducing the chances that they and many other women will ever have that luxury. This is especially true for working class women who's ability to position themselves to meet high status men is limited and will therefore be forced to work because their husbands, having been forced down the job hierarchy will be unable to support them sufficiently.

I'm all for equal rights and eliminating gender roles. However, I cannot subscribe to feminism because it does not attempt to achieve that goal and the recent campaign to relate feminism to humanism is a ridiculous stab at logic and sensibility. If women want to end gender roles then let's do it. Let's force women into combat instead of giving them a choice. Let's punish women for making babies they cannot afford like we do men. Let's give men the right to walk away from parental obligations the way we do for women. Let's give women equal sentences for crimes committed. Let's start protecting men from violence at a level of funding which is proportional to the violence suffered.

We of course will never do this. Males are genetically programmed to defer to women and females are genetically programmed to discriminate against men. To suddenly come to our senses and realize that feminism as a social/political movement has been a sinister exercise in bias confirmation is impossible. Cognitive dissonance will punish the majority for resisting the lies of feminism with a visceral anxiety which can convince them that up is down and that wrong is right. Men defer to women. Women accept women. To do otherwise is to work against a million years of evolutionary programming.

2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Want to end feminism ,continue to be macho,eventually they will give up. Women are emotional and will cry when defeated. Men don't give in because they are women,be tough like your father was. Continue the tradition.

11:06 PM  
Blogger Tatiana H said...

I'm very late in commenting!
Well written article that certainly drives the point home.
This generation's feminists are very interested in the media (e.g. Toy Story 3 is misogynist).
I certainly believe in equal opportunities, but think that children should have a mother who looks after them and does not constantly leave them at home with a babysitter (my mother's experience with this is the reason shequit her job after having children). Movements are always most radical at the start. Mark my words, the fever will die down eventually.

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear sir,
It appears to me that you seem to be unaware of the amount of WOMAN-hating in the world. Perhaps you are unaware of rape, domestic violence, honour killings, female genital mutilation, street harassment, and sexual discrimination?

Feminism, kind sir, is the radical notion that women are people.

And as long as women are treated like animals or sub-human, then there is a need for feminism.

5:57 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


We've heard your song and dance before, so don't waste our time.

Women suffer the aches and pains of life like everybody else, but they are not "oppressed".

So grab your bucket of old dried-up horseshit and take it down the road to a different customer.

'Cuz we ain't buying any.

8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feminism isn't just for women; it's for men, too. Patriarchy is damaging to boys as well as women. Feminism allows more freedom for males to act in traditionally 'feminine' ways as well as for women acting in traditionally 'masculine' ways. Judging feminism based on extremists, or 'man-haters' is like judging the Muslim religion based on Islamic extremists when most Muslims are peaceful, charitable people, or in the case of feminists, most of whom love and care for the men around them.

9:19 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Anon 9:19:

Oh yeah?

Then the peaceful, charitable feminists had better start ripping hell out of those "extremists" in order to prove their bona-fides.

And boy have they ever got their work cut out for them -- cuz they've been schluffing off for YEARS!

10:41 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Also. . .you mean feminism allows me to act more "feminine" by wearing a dress, or allowing me to cry, or some such?

Sorry, not interested in the above.

As for women acting more "masculine", do you mean feminism permits them to be tomboys?

Well that's funny, 'cuz most tomboys are "male socialized" and want no part of feminism.

10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feminism is about respect and choice. Not hate.
It's about giving me the CHOICE to work. It's about giving me the CHOICE to stay home and raise children. It's about giving me YOU the choice to do those things as well, as long as we both find partners willing to accept that. It's about giving me the CHOICE to make my own major life decisions. It's about letting me face the consequence for MY CHOICES.

I would like nothing more than to stay at home and raise children, but I accept a woman's choice to work outside the home. That's her prerogative. Heck, I respect your right to stay at home and raise children, as long as you and your wife work it out (hopefully that sort of thing would be discussed prior to a domestic union). I won't sleep around outside of marriage, but I accept your right to choose to do so. You're the one who's responsible for your own actions.

I darn hope you identify as an egalitarian, if you're not a feminist. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

(What I primarily meant by 'masculine' was working outside the home. 'Feminine' was meant to encompass showing emotion. Since when is crying weakness? Some of the strongest men I know have cried publicly, and have been respected by other men for that show of emotion. And if you want to wear a dress, go for it, because that means I can wear pants, but if you, personally, don't, then that's fine too.)

7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


So, women have NEVER been oppressed, eh?
From the moment a woman is born, she is oppressed. It is significantly better in the United States and other developed nations, but it's still there. How about not being able to vote? Go ask an African-American if that was oppression. Same with having no property rights, or losing them at marriage. Or hmm, what about women not being able to go to school/college/work in 'male' fields? How about aborting female foetuses or anti-woman violence?? What about how it's practically a given that a girl will be sexually harassed or assaulted before she gains adulthood? Ooh, maybe you'd like to have acid thrown in your face because your parents can't afford a good enough dowry! Or having your sexual organs scraped off and sewn shut, leaving an extremely high possibility of death and highly painful sexual intercourse! Sounds fun, right??

I don't hate men. I know many extremely strong, brave male feminists. I love many men in my life. But I won't walk alone at night. I won't enter a male's home when no one else is there. I don't talk to strangers in the street. You know why? Because 77% of rapes are committed by people the victim knows. A woman is raped every two minutes, on average, in the United States. In South Africa, it's every 17 seconds. That's not okay. I trust the men I associate with, but even then, I will not risk the emotional and physical pain and suffering I'd face if I were wrong.

Ten percent of rape victims are male, too. That's not a woman's issue; that becomes a human issue. Feminism is about human issues. Feminists have long been involved in human issues. Consider abolition, temperance, etc. Those aren't just women's issues.

When's the last time YOU talked to a stranger in the street? Consider yourself lucky.

I won't enter a man's house alone, even if I trust him. As a victim of domestic violence, I'm wary, and a man made me that way. I'm not a man-hater. I think it'd be lovely to marry a man with strong career goals and drive, who's gotten far in life. I applaud men who can attain high positions. I also applaud women like Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, and Condoleeza Rice, even though I dont agree with all of their beliefs. I applaud these folks because they are human. Not because they are men, or women, or gay, or straight, or Catholic, or Muslim, or atheist, or Mormon, but because they are human beings, like me. That doesnt sound like man-hating to me. What's a woman done to you to make you hate her?

'Feminists' who hate men aren't feminists. True feminists respect men and women alike.

(I'm presuming you're a heterosexual white male, based on that nice little show of homophobia evidenced by your repulsion at seeming feminine; am I correct? I could very likely be wrong...also, I find your grammar to be a little distracting...)

7:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, almost forgot:
"Then the peaceful, charitable feminists had better start ripping hell out of those "extremists" in order to prove their bona-fides."

Hmm, peaceful, charitable feminists ripping the hell out of extremists? Continuing with the Muslim analogy, those peaceful, charitable Muslims better start ripping the hell out of terrorists. Because that's what peaceful,charitable people do...yeah.

7:27 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

All right, fair enough. The peaceful charitable feminists are free to sit back and look the other way, and never, ever raise their voice against the "baddies", and never prove their bona-fides, and drive the credibility of feminism straight into the ground.

As for the rest of it. . .

1.Don't drag "African-Americans" into this. That's off-topic.

2.The world is full of calamity, injustice and "oppression", hitting many targets from many sources. We knew this already.

3. Prove, in 50 words or less, that you understand what is wrong with VAWA.

4. Egalitarian? Of course I am. That's why I'm not a feminist.

11:07 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Addendum: You don't need to "presume" what I am. Since the blog author is not the topic, comments about the blog author are off-topic.

Still I must admit, that was a nice little try with the "homophobia" jab. Classic stuff there! Although I was sort of wishing you'd weave in something about "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen".

But non-feminist men and women are not impressed. And if you reflect upon your own behavior in the present case, you might gain some insight as to WHY they despise feminism so heartily.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with my grammar. It is excellent. You just pulled that statement out of your ass because you haven't got enough real ammunition.

11:32 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Since when is crying weakness?"

Did somebody SAY that crying was "weakness"?

No. Nobody did.

Work on your reading comprehension.

And in the future, kindly don't bore us with non-issues.

11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Finally, there is nothing wrong with my grammar. It is excellent. You just pulled that statement out of your ass because you haven't got enough real ammunition" - Fidelbogen

Since we are arguing over petty semantics, I figured I would dissect your "excellent grammar". First, you should have written "there is not anything wrong with my grammar" -- nothing and wrong combined infers a near double-negative. Further more, "[i]t is excellent..." is improper use of pronouns as the reader does not know what "it" is referring to. Finally, contractions (such as haven't) are very informal, especially within the context of "intellectual discussions".

Now, as for equal rights movements, is it not evident that feminism in name sake alone eludes to female superiority? Subsequently, if feminism is about equality for men and women, why then is masculinism demonized when the latter argues for equality just the same as the former?

It would appear that there is an unfair bias in play. An example that feminism has gone beyond equal rights would be that of abortions. The would-be mother decides she does not want the child (insert excuse here); the would-be father does. Child aborted.

This is the reality that feminism creates.

I wish with all my heart that life were fair -- for both sexes -- but unfortunately I am a male and society does not allow me to play the victim role.

I do however, find all of this slightly humorous (objectively speaking) as the same gender roles that feminism wants to destroy end up being reinforced by said party. Simply put, women get together and complain (feminism) while the men sit quietly and watch the women be women. Oh how delightful irony is!

1:45 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Are you sure you're the person with whom I was previously speaking?

Oh. . .and where you said "eludes", didn't you mean "alludes"? ;)

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, haha yes I did mean "alludes". For being so wrapped up in my grammar speech you think I would have caught that.

Anyway, no I am not the other anonymous person that you were speaking with.

Just another anti-feminist person supporting your opinions in an unorthodox kind of way.

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate is good,feminism is good, it's the fuel of a civilization,look at what the nazis achieved nearly 70 years ago, they almost conquered the world but they bit more than they could chew opening an eastern front.
We need to spread hatred in each and every possible form. Feminism has turned into one of the forms of hatred and thus success, that's why I support them as I would support any long term vissionary movement.

3:26 PM  
Anonymous steve said...

@Anon 3:26. Are you honestly implying that had you been alive when Nazi Germany was in power, you would have supported them because they were a "long term vissionary movement"?

You are suggesting that you would support the murder of the innocent Jews, Gypsies, Prisoners of War, Homosexuals,Jehovah's Witnesses, Elderly, Disabled, and Mentally ill? You mean to suggest that you support something that has proved itself to be a dogma of anti-male echo-chamber propaganda, backed strictly by emotional appeal and false statistics? You support that, because it is fueled by hate?

I agree that hate can be a powerful and useful tool to accomplish great things; but keep in mind, the nuclear bomb is a great invention, but it is by no means a good invention. It is great in terms of vastness, raw power, and destructive force. It, however, is not good; because the only thing it is good at is destruction. Much the same as a nuclear warhead, feminism is a 'great' invention. It is a vast, powerful, and destructive ideology. That is exactly why I will NEVER associate myself with it.

7:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home