'Surrender', She Says...
"Men have not lost any right that they deserve. What is occurring is that men are finally getting what they deserve - punishment for centuries of abuse against women and children. I have absolutely no illusion that men are bad and women are saints; however, the hard cold truth is that the chaos we are currently experiencing is largely not the fault of the female gender. Men are the ones who perpetrate the majority of all the real violent crime. Men are also the ones who overwhelming refuse to take responsibility for their poor behavior. Period.More here...
....If men want to win this battle, they must first SURRENDER."
Very well, Faith of the Feminist Country blog, I'll play your game! Yes that's right, I am ready to SURRENDER exactly as you have said. And which is more, I will employ the power of my bully pulpit together with the silver-plated charisma of my peerless eloquence, to sway my many thousands of men's movement followers all around the planet to line up behind me and lay down their armaments likewise.
Dave Sim was truly onto something, when he remarked that nothing less than absolute capitulation to feminism's demands will satisfy the feminists. Well I am happy to credit Dave Sim for his wisdom in that instance, and I am willing to follow his wisdom, too!
But you know, in situations like these, it is customary to make clear the terms of surrender, since the word 'surrender', all by itself, says very little. It means "to give up" - but give up what? I need to know exactly what I am giving up. And so do my many thousands of followers around the planet!
You see, I don't want to do my surrender incorrectly. If I don't get a sign or a clue of some sort, or if the surrender instructions remain incoherent, then I will have no choice but act interpretively and, as it were, to "roll my own".
Faith, I know that you speak in good faith—and I have faith in what you say! You demand surrender from us men if we wish to win this battle. And since I do most ardently desire to win this battle, I think I would be wise to take your instructions to heart. And so would my many thousands of followers around the planet, who sway like a bed of sea-grass under the god-awful rip tide of my peerless silver-plated eloquence!
Give us a sign, oh Faith! We, your Legions of Surrender, await your word! In good faith, we do!
posted by Fidelbogen at 12:50 AM
12 Comments:
Hee, hee. Great parody. Obviously, she can't answer your question, because she doesn't know what the terms of surrender will be. Remember, she's a dearie, and their promises and statement of terms mean nothing. She is just generating hot air.
I am reminded of the battle at Goliad in Texas with Santa Ana. Many surrendered, were lined up, and summarily executed. Who really believes any of the 'all men are rapists' crew would behave diffferently?
My view is Get the Hell Out. I am in the Third World..
Just a quickie little addendum to this post:
It has been a commonplace observation over the years, that "feminists have no sense of humor." Now, whilst one could readily identify this as cheap stereotyping, one should realize that stereotypes don't arise out of a vacuum. In nearly all cases there is a grain of original truth about them.
"Grain", did I say? Oh hell, sometimes it is a considerable jagged chunk. Or more likely a front-end bucketloader's worth of gravel strewn into the mix...!
At any rate, here is one realm that affords us a golden opportunity to be very, very different from "them". He who laughs, lasts!
My view is Get the Hell Out. I am in the Third World..
Interesting point you have raised, anon. But I suppose that many of us are wondering where "out" might be...?
I'm not sure where the anonymous commenter is from but, in my view, India might be a good place to go. Even though Feminism has caught on there, men have wised up to it pretty quickly. I have to believe that radical feminism is a parasite that feeds on an already existing advanced existing infrastructure. Such a creation is largely absent throughout most of India.
Also, there isn't a large enough critical mass of lazy upper class wives to nag their husbands into getting the ball of radical feminism rolling.
Further, the predominant joint family system distributes the wife's control over the family because the mother-in-law also wants to control the situation. The 'divide and conquer' analogy works in favor of men. It would be interesting to see a study done to investigate if an increase in the number of joint families in a given area correlates with an increase in social conservative attitudes there and vice versa.
It is to the great detriment of modern Western white and black families that they strive desperately to kick their kids out before 18 and wash their hands of anything to do with the kids' marriage or the in-laws. This is why the feminists in India are trying desperately to break the joint family system.
The western coastal regions of India (in Maharashtra and Kerala) are extremely beautiful. It is inadvisable to go to the east coast (Calcutta etc.) especially as the Communist Party of India has held sway in there for 40 odd years.
India is a reasonable place to head to, although you probably have to be allergy free and not disease prone. The cost of living there, ona average, is much cheaper than that in Canada, from what I've heard. The economy is poised to boom, big time, and one might as well surf the surging wave if no better alternative exists.
Anyway, that's my two cents on where 'out' might be.
"Anyway, that's my two cents on where 'out' might be."
Others may do as they see fit, and I wish them all the best. As for me, I'll grow where I'm planted and tough it out.
Out...
Yes, "out" is like the sign in the shop window: "Inquire Within".
In more practical terms, "out" is likely to involve both "men going their own way", and men sticking together. Which is not such a paradox as you might believe once you put your mind to it.
As for the recent commenter, I noticed in the country list of my visitor log that both Brazil and Chile appeared at roughly the same time that the comment was posted.
I think I'd like out to mean waking up from this nightmare. I mean honestly what else can you call it.
As to the linking done.
I have to concede that while a few men may be able to jump ship to more traditional countries, it is not feasible for an en masse male leap of faith, literally.
I'm still mulling the idea over. 'out' might also mean new and innovative ways to make money that dont rely on regimented 9-5 rat race jobs, where women are favored through AA.
Ya know, these people are misandrists. I wish they'd grow up and stop calling women like me a traitor just because I believe men have rights too.
If women ruled the world, we'd kill each other with bitching in days!
Vetch Yue
Hey anon, nice to see folks from your side of the X/Y hill pop in here occasionally!
Granted, that these folk are misandrists. (Or just man-haters, I think the anglo-saxon version works best here.
;-)
But...I just love to watch them bend over backwards in the shape of a pretzel denying it. Like they seriously believe that their paper-thin words are fooling anybody.....
I'm so suck and tired of 1-sided feminist historical revisionism.
You want the REAL TRUTH about Men and civilization? READ THIS and spread the word!!!
It is comments like these (from Faith of the Feminist Country blog) that really, truly show them for what they are, beyond any reasonable doubt. The fact is that she is not just speaking abstractly; it's a response to the MRM, which routinely highlights issues such as false rape accusations, abuse of men and children by female perpetrators, etc.
So given the context, that she is referring to these things - physical and sexual abuse, false imprisonment - it is undeniably SICK that she could ever present these as 'deserved punishment'.
Sitting in jail for 20 years on a false rape charge is a justified punishment, she says.
But a punishment for what, exactly? 'For centuries of abuse against women and children'. This part blows my mind, because she is essentially saying that men who are alive today should pay for the crimes of men from hundreds of years ago.
What principle of justice is this, that I could be held accountable for the crimes of previous generations of men, to which I had no involvement; and for which my appropriate punishment may be sexual or physical assault by a woman, or a false allegation which deprives me of my liberty for years or decades?
Why, a feminist principle of justice, of course!
Men, the ones who overwhelmingly refuse to take responsibility for poor behavior?
I don't recall a man ever promoting anything along the lines of this horrific conception of criminal justice. 'Innocent men, you shall pay for the crimes of guilty men ... the consequences of false rape allegations and abuse against you are deserved'.
Wow. And the 'period' is a nice touch; discussion is over, because I said so. Feminists are NOT interested in the free exchange of ideas, but in monopolising 'truth' and placing it beyond question or discussion.
All of this is why it's so important to keep citing them. Keep quoting them. Put it everywhere. A child can see through the logical fallacies of such arguments. Men and non-hateful women certainly will.
The quotes don't even need commentary; they speak for themselves. Having said that, good call on asking her what surrender would actually entail. Giving up all our civil rights to the whims of whimmin, I guess; accepting those false rape allegations and sitting in prison feeling so very bad about ourselves for being born male? Comforting ourselves when we are victims of female assaults or prison rape, that whatever the case, we deserve this, because of the actions of our ancestors?
If men want to win this battle, they must first come together to laugh in the face of feminism, to disregard its lies, and drink to its death.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home