Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Man, Woman & Myth Website

Here is a new website that you mightn't know about yet. I've only known about it for . . oh, maybe twenty minutes. I think you will be impressed:

http://www.manwomanmyth.com/about/

And a few blurbs from the site:

"This site is principally a video repository and video blog concerned with male-female relations and the damage caused by Feminism in what is, essentially, an ongoing War on Men in Western society.

"Men are under fire from numerous directions and in various ways. Indeed the size, scale and sheer variety of misandry – the hatred of men – almost defies belief and yet is plain to see in many areas of life.

"This attack on men is perpetrated by governments, businesses (including charities) and also by “Radical Feminists“. The assault against men and the very idea of manhood, has been steadily increasing in ferocity over the decades to the extent that men are increasingly being treated in law and by custom, as second-class citizens. . . . . . .

". . . .Feminism has simply got to go: it’s no good for women and it’s worse for men and children. The first step in getting rid of it is to recognise its reach and scope and most importantly, its source. If we can do that, we are a good way towards its elimination."

Briefly noted: MRA and feminist-unfriendly websites of every kind are sprouting up so quickly and thickly now that I cannot possibly keep track of them—let alone read EVERYTHING contained in ALL of them on a regular basis! As 'Fred' would say: "Just can't do it."

This is happening so fast it makes my head spin! I am aware of several sites that I haven't gotten around to looking into yet, and I feel vaguely "guilty" about this. ;) Anyhow, do enjoy the website that I have linked in this post!

Oh, I suppose now would be a good time to mention that visitor traffic to this present blog (CF) has increased dramatically over the last few months. And I'm pretty sure it is due to a rising tide floating all boats—including my own little kayak! :)

35 Comments:

Blogger Bwec said...

This man is doing very important work. I've spread the word on my blog as well.

ALSO ACADEMIC LEADERS ARE MEETING ON APRIL 7TH to discuss the formation of male studies departments in colleges,MEN'S RIGHTS and MISANDRY!

It is important to spread the word on the astounding development!! SHOW YOUR SUPPORT

http://www.malestudies.org/

1:36 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

You know, I almost think that men should take some of the strategies from the feminists for making sure certain political decisions go their way. They are willing to play dirty, hopefully once there enough men against feminism, one could have local clubs in every city and town where one can plan for political action - if they can do it, why may not men?

7:18 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

Thanks for the website link - I really like his point of view thus far

7:25 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

YEE-HAW!!!
DAMN THE TORPEDOES!
FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!!

(in reference to the exponentially increasing number of anti-feminist/MRA web-sites).

I try to provide a list of them - I cannot keep up with them either.

9:50 AM  
Blogger Joab said...

Thank God. I started a blog about the bullshit that happened to me but for a while all the anti-feminist blogs I looked up were defunct. I started to get paranoid. I look forward to reading here.

8:55 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Joab:

Welcome to the non-feminist revolution.

I have been publishing this blog since Oct 2006, and there is a ton of material to keep you busy.

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This version of Feminism was started by women who simply hated men. These women (mostly lesbians, incidentally) wanted men dis-empowered and some wanted Gendercide (the elimination of men). They saw the unique potential of Feminism as a means to bring ordinary women into their ranks and effectively hijacked it, wrapping it up in misandry and creating the Feminism we are burdened with today.

Most women today who call themselves Feminists are probably (and hopefully) ignorant of the far-reaching hatred embodied in the term. Women often believe it is to do with equality and fairness when in reality the ideology is now based on misandry."


As long as that writer maintains that "bad", "radical" feminism is some kind of perverted "version" of feminism - as opposed to the essence of feminism itself - he's talking nonsense.

I don't know why some men in the men's movement do their best not to call a spade a spade.

This "radical feminist" nonsense - as if there is any other kind - that MRAs are talking must end.

Looking at things realistically, all feminism is anti-man, matriarchal and radically pro-female. Therefore, it cannot be accepted in any form. Feminism is the most cohesive political ideology on the planet, and has no significant splintering.

"Gendercide" is a meaningless term also, it's a feminist term, I don't know why the writer uses it. "Gender" is a feminist and women's movement term. Using the enemy's terminology to define yourself is a surefire path to failure.

Feminism wasn't "hijacked" - this is yet another "moderate" MRA lie - it was ALWAYS evil, it was ALWAYS anti-male, it was ALWAYS matriarchal. It always WILL BE. These characteristics didn't just "creep into" the 20th Century "version" of feminism - they were always the basis of feminism. The notion of feminism being "hijacked" is a lie so great that it warrants great rebuke.

Feminism was NEVER worthwhile or just, it was NEVER not a threat to men (as it always favoured the abolition of all male power).

As for his second paragraph this is naivity and stupidity. Who is he to tell women who proclaim themselves to be feminists, and who champion feminist causes, that they aren't actually feminists, and that they don't really believe in what they're fighting for. His argument is becoming absurd. The sad truth that the writer refuses to acknowledge (denial complex) is that these "normal women" who are feminists know the anti-male hateful core of feminism, and they support it.

These "normal women" talk about "equality and fairness" the same way "radical feminists" talk about "equality and fairness". I.e. the removal of all male power + matriarchy = "equality and fairness". They have internalized - internally justified - this meaning so all is fine in their heads, and you won't change them. The proper MRA way is not to argue with feminist women as a legitimate force at all. Certainly, we shouldn't try to excuse their actions. Our only interaction with feminist women should be opposition. The time for extending olive branches and engaging in a "dialogue" is over - indeed it never began in the first place, feminist women would never allow it (and never will).

3:25 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"The time for extending olive branches and engaging in a "dialogue" is over - indeed it never began in the first place, feminist women would never allow it (and never will)."

Sigh! Somebody around here does not understand the art of political gamesmanship.

I'm the one who planted the idea of the olive branch. I had my reasons, and those reasons did not include surrender or compromise in any way. Trust me! ;)

5:45 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

""Gendercide" is a meaningless term also, it's a feminist term, I don't know why the writer uses it."

Probably because "sexicicde" sounds kinda weird and clunky! ;)

(A bit like "insecticide".)

But yes, I agree that "gendercide" is a term best left to gather dust in a corner.

6:06 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"The time for extending olive branches and engaging in a "dialogue" is over - indeed it never began in the first place, feminist women would never allow it (and never will)."

All right. Fine. If they will never allow it, so much the worse for them! If that is the bed they insist on making for themselves, they shall lie in it.

But really, even if they will never allow it, they are still concerned about the need to "keep up appearances". (THEY understand the art of political gamesmanship, trust me.)

Thus: they wish to avoid the APPEARANCE of "not allowing it".

And THAT, i submit, is their great weakness. . .

(Well, one of their great weaknesses, at any rate.)

6:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually I am very well versed in political dynamics, FB. My assertion is that it takes two to tango - if your enemy is not interested in dialogue, then there's little point in engaging in dialogue. If you have a relatively small amount of power compared to your enemy, then that makes the "dialogue" approach an even worse idea.

You have to weigh these things up on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes in politics, dialogue works; it depends on the issues and the parties. Sometimes it does not. Where there are vast power differentials (e.g. between men and women / feminists and anti-feminists today, due to matriarchy), dialogue tends not to be an option. Attempting to dialogue with an omnipotent ideology who does not want to talk or be open to outside criticism is really just tantamount to supporting the status quo (supporting them).

In real terms, that's how us extending olive branches is politically.

Our Enemy (the feminist and women's movement ideologies and their adherents) is not interested in dialogue or exchanging olive branches. We have to accept this reality and act on it.

If you're advocating peacefulness and moderation and meekness, your political opponent has to have some of these qualities too. If not, it's a clear mismatch and your opponent will annihilate you.

This is what's happening with regard to "moderate" MRAs and necessarily radical* feminists, and men-vs-women.

One party is weak and meek, indecisive, unwilling to call things as they are, unwilling to be realistic, extending olive branches repeatedly without reciprocation; the other are hardened revolutionaries who will not cede on a single point of their matriarchal agenda. You don't need to be a genius to work out who wins in that battle.

*(men are not human beings being the basis of all feminism)

6:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree also on your point of feminists "not allowing dialogue" to be "just for appearances". Like so much else, "zero-dialogue and zero-compromise" is an essential part of the feminist ideology/spirit, they are not just "putting it on for an act".

As I will outline in another comment soon, and as I've alluded to already, "dialogue/compromise" goes counter to the radical/revolutionary nature of feminism which seeks to destroy all and any male power and instigate matriarchy. Feminists are, and always were, the most virulent revolutionary ideologues around. There is simply no place for "dialogue" in the feminist / women's rights framework; never was.

Even all of that aside - that feminism is genetically anti-dialogue/anti-compromise - we must consider that feminism has amassed such power now that it does not need to dialogue. It literally does not. It has the luxury of having absolutely no opposition in the political real world of any description, and this is not an exaggeration; this is a fact.

As I said, men need to simply recognise and accept these facts about feminism, and act upon them appropriately - our Enemy is patently not interested in dialogue, dialogue is an inadequate strategy tantamount to supporting the matriarchal status quo. Denial will not serve any good.

6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said a few things in my second last post about meekness and moderation in the face of an violent omnipotent uncompromising enemy, and how the meek will lose in this battle.

You might invoke Gandhi here, saying this disproves my hypothesis, but this is wrong. Gandhi was a revolutionary who set up his stall clearly. Refusing British rule was a clear act of opposition. He drew the line in the sand between Acceptable and Unacceptable; Enemy and Friend. He advocated acts of opposition in his supporters; not acts of meekness to the prevailing status quo.

6:31 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

F, is your olive branch kind of like a, "don't say we never tried," kind of thing?

And yes, all feminism is bad, from it's inception to its modern strain.

6:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm the one who planted the idea of the olive branch. I had my reasons, and those reasons did not include surrender or compromise in any way. Trust me! ;)"

Extending an olive branch is inherently an act of compromise, and it legitimizes your Enemy.

Feminists never - not once - extended an olive branch to its Enemy - the patriarchal system, male power (collectively, "men"). Extending olive branches is not necessary to success, in many cases it will impede it; and in many cases it is simply an invalid strategy.

6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a scenario:

MRAs (foolishly) extend an olive branch to their Enemy (Feminists) - they seek to compromise and engage in dialogue (foolishly).

Feminists, because of the inherent total-revolution ideology (Patriarchy -> Matriarchy is total-revolution), and because they have immmense power, refuse this olive branch.

Now, feminists are supposed to "look bad" and this "decreases their credibility". Does it, really?

Feminist lies and anti-man hate have been peddled for centuries, feminists have had total free reign for the last forty years; why are people going to suddenly wake up now and scrutinise them?

The entire political real world supports feminism and their act of refusing the MRAs "olive branch" is not going to matter one whit in the wider context. It does not mean a thing to the political real world.

6:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Therefore, the focus must be less on "making feminism embarrass itself" and more on "opposing feminism head-on".

The former is a reactionary strategy (doesn't work against an omnipotent uncompromising power), the latter is a revolutionary strategy. The male power movement needs revolutionary strategies against its Enemy (feminism / women's movement).

6:45 AM  
Anonymous Captain Courageous said...

This is a terrific resource. These videos are not the usual You Tube
shuck 'n jive. They can be used for training MRA's and providing veteran MRA's with a nice refresher course, if needed.

9:13 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Warrior:

All right, so they refuse my olive branch. No skin off my backside. Can't honestly say I expected any better, but hey, a gesture's a gesture!

"Therefore, the focus must be less on "making feminism embarrass itself" and more on "opposing feminism head-on"."

Head-on, foot-on. . . whatever saps them, whatever weakens them. It's all good.

""The former is a reactionary strategy (doesn't work against an omnipotent uncompromising power), the latter is a revolutionary strategy. The male power movement needs revolutionary strategies against its Enemy (feminism / women's movement)."

And "head-on" means what again, exactly? Does it augment our strength, or (depending on the case) perhaps undermine it??

Consider that "head-on" is not necessarily the best policy against an uncompromising, omnipotent power - or against a speeding locomotive.
(For the latter, try sabotaging the tracks. Or getting aboard and sabotaging the engine.)

OMNI-potent, did you say? ALL-powerful?? Well if that is truly what they are, then what, truly, is the use?

My philosophy is "suit the measure to the matter."

Oh, just for the record, I don't believe they are OMNI potent. Not even close. I believe they have flaws, cracks, weaknesses that may be exploited.

Of course, some of them THINK they are omni-potent. . . but that is only their hubris. ;)

4:29 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Trent13:

"F, is your olive branch kind of like a, "don't say we never tried," kind of thing?"

Y'know. . . it can certainly be seen in that light. And I guess it could have that effect, depending on what rolls.

SO. . if you want to look at it that way, be my guest! :)

4:36 PM  
Blogger Joab said...

trent said -

-And yes, all feminism is bad, from it's inception to its modern strain.-

My own "awakening" came last year, but I purposely kept quiet about it because I knew I was just filled with rage and liable to spout nonsense. But, even after a cooling off period, I agree with Trent. It's just plain evil. There's no way to finesse it and we should stop playing games. Women need to be put down and put back in place. It's not just to score a point in some culture war. The survival of the race is at stake.

Does anyone think the road we are going down leads anywhere but to the edge of a cliff? We can't convince these histerical harpies to stop the car. We need to kick them out of the driver's seat and take over.

I said I had cooled off, right? :-)

7:35 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Joab:

"Women need to be put down and put back in place."

You meant to say feminists, right?

I, myself, do not make global statements about "women" of the sort you have made here.

You, however, are welcome to your opinion. The feminists would tell me it is my duty to jump on you and correct you for saying such things, and that if I do not, then I am as "guilty" as you.

Piss on them! I've done enough by simply stating my position frankly and manfully, and although I consider such statements (as you have made) counter-productive and unnecessary, you are certainly welcome to make them. The feminists have absolutely NO moral license to preach at ME if I don't play their wretched little game!

My policy, you see, is GLASNOST. i WANT the world to see what men are saying and thinking; I believe I do the world a better service in that manner, than by attempting to censor them.

Oh, by the way, welcome to my blog! :)

10:12 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"I disagree also on your point of feminists "not allowing dialogue" to be "just for appearances". Like so much else, "zero-dialogue and zero-compromise" is an essential part of the feminist ideology/spirit, they are not just "putting it on for an act"."

No, my point was that they (the feminists) will sometimes put on a shallow charade of allowing "dialogue" - just for appearances. Say what you will, but they (some of them anyway) ARE sensitive to outside opinion. (Again, for appearances. They know that bad opinion of outsiders can in SOME cases them. MRAs know it too, which is exactly why they seek to arouse such opinion.)

"Feminist lies and anti-man hate have been peddled for centuries, feminists have had total free reign for the last forty years; why are people going to suddenly wake up now and scrutinise them?"

Judging by the growing number of anti-feminist voices, and the feminists' evident discomfiture, people indeed can and will "wake up and scrutinize them." Unless I am hallucinating, this is veritably HAPPENING.

6:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fidelbogen said...
@Warrior:


"Oh, just for the record, I don't believe they are OMNI potent. Not even close. I believe they have flaws, cracks, weaknesses that may be exploited."

"I believe they have flaws, cracks, weaknesses that may be exploited."

It appears they do.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/12/second-wave-confronts-third-wave/

10:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, just for the record, I don't believe they are OMNI potent. Not even close. I believe they have flaws, cracks, weaknesses that may be exploited."

"I believe they have flaws, cracks, weaknesses that may be exploited."


They do, for sure.

Feminists have accumulated very real power over the last 200 years or so, and these compensate for any minor weaknesses they have.

The friendly "invitations" to "debate" that many MRAs extend - as opposed to a callous militaristic spirit that They perform against Us - isn't going to exploit feminism's weaknesses much. They are not going to bring the beast down.

10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Women need to be put down and put back in place."

You meant to say feminists, right?


No, he clearly said "women". He said this because if men do not put women in "their" place, they put us in "our" place (via feminism). This is a classic zero-sum-game, ying-yang, nature-abhors-a-vacuum scenario.

The distinction between feminists and women is slight if any, if we take the grand view of things. Feminism is after all about "female collectivism". And we cannot say that the female collective has disowned its representatives (feminists) in any meaningful way, because they have not.

Remember, before women (or significant portions of women, if you prefer) decided they spontaneously hated men (post-getting the vote), feminism was known as the "women's movement". Let's face it, women and feminism are intrinsically bound.

Feminists say, we can only generalize about women if the statements are positive ("we must empower women", "women are paid less"), otherwise we cannot speak in generalizations or collectives, we are all just individuals and "everyone is different". I say we flip that script.

"I, myself, do not make global statements about "women" of the sort you have made here."

But why not, if the statements are useful to Our interests, and if they are true?

It worked for feminism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But even this, generalizations on an entire sex working for feminism, does not matter: what matter is formulating tactics that are effective for Us.

10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/12/second-wave-confronts-third-wave/

Feminism does not do internal criticism. They all accept core boundaries, and none strike at the core of feminism itself. "Intra-feminism" criticism is a fraud.

That's why this "second-wavers" attacking "third-wavers" thing is bunk.

(The feminists "waves" themselves were only invented in the 1970s. Some feminist academic dreamed them up, but they have no basis in reality. Feminism is monolithic in reality.

BTW this conception of feminist "waves" is indicative of the war mentality that is at the heart of feminism.)

"Second-wavers" vs. "third-wavers" might give the impression of weakness, but this is not in fact weakness at all. First of all, because the distinction between "second-" and "third-wavers" is false, and second, because their points of disagreement are minimal and petty. There is no meaningful internal division or criticism in feminism.

10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You, however, are welcome to your opinion. The feminists would tell me it is my duty to jump on you and correct you for saying such things, and that if I do not, then I am as "guilty" as you.

Piss on them! I've done enough by simply stating my position frankly and manfully, and although I consider such statements (as you have made) counter-productive and unnecessary, you are certainly welcome to make them. The feminists have absolutely NO moral license to preach at ME if I don't play their wretched little game!"


This is a mature policy which I respect.

10:37 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"But even this, generalizations on an entire sex working for feminism, does not matter: what matter is formulating tactics that are effective for Us."

Agreed.

In fact, I agree with MOST (though not all) of your position as you have laid it out in your various comments.

By contrast, you seem not to grasp the subtler nuances of MY position.

You seem to think that I am saying things, or advocating policies, which I am not in fact saying or advocating.

In lieu of composing something long-winded, let's see if I can wrap up the grist of what needs saying in a few brief points.

point: I have no illusions about the essential nature of feminism. You have outlined its totalitarian and uncompromising character, and I fully agree about that.And I certainly hope I made this opinion clear in reams of writing on this blog.

point: you have made sweeping generalizations about the nature of women (the female collective), and upon such theses I remain stubbornly AGNOSTIC. I will not 'foreclose' on women in the abstract, although I do most certainly foreclose on FEMINISM. (It is indeed "monolithic" as you say, although weak on its surface layer, which can be chipped away like rotten rock on a cliff face.)


point: to adopt a militant 'war of the sexes' rhetorical model would be, in a pragmatic and strategic light, the worst idea since the chocolate frying pan. Furthermore, what of that considerable number of women who are willing to identify as 'anti-feminist', and take the heat from the feminists? Such women DO exist. You wanna say to them "hey you! Bugger off!!"?? Well in my opinion, that is not a wise plan.

(Or could it be that you wish to start an extremist movement that would shift the spectrum and draw the heat away from the moderates and centrists? Ahhh-so! Velly crever! ;)

point: as for 'dialogue', yes I know perfectly well that they would be holding a knife behind their backs while they were talking. So. . . what's to prevent US from doing likewise? It's all part of the game, you know. . .

point: you suppose that the enemy is (omni) potent. As such, you propose a policy which is equivalent to holding up a fist to a speeding locomotive. Personally, I recommend sabotaging the track, or else getting a 'fifth column' on board the train to sabotage the engine.

point: I am not so convinced that the enemy is OMNI potent. If history is any guide, all powerful entities and empires are subject to failure and collapse. Goliath meets David eventually. Roman meets Goth eventually. . .

point: "what matter is formulating tactics that are effective for Us."

I could hardly agree more. Pragmatic is my middle name!

More later. . .

12:52 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"
This is a mature policy which I respect."


Glad to hear it! It is a policy which I have spent quite some time 'maturing'.

12:58 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"The distinction between feminists and women is slight if any, if we take the grand view of things. Feminism is after all about "female collectivism". And we cannot say that the female collective has disowned its representatives (feminists) in any meaningful way, because they have not.

Remember, before women (or significant portions of women, if you prefer) decided they spontaneously hated men (post-getting the vote), feminism was known as the "women's movement". Let's face it, women and feminism are intrinsically bound.

But why not, if the statements are useful to Our interests, and if they are true?"

By your own reasoning I could just as easily write off men (oh, collectively, of course) as pussies, and man's lack of initiative or drive to regain authority and power justifies women (collectively) having taken it from you in the first place. Using your reasoning, the patriarchy of former years was just a cover for man's true nature, of being pussified, because obviously if men (again, collectively) go along with feminism as they have, fundamentally they MUST have been pussified long before, women were just ignorant of it.

So that puts the shoe on the other foot. I'm a woman, and I don't like feminism or the evil it has wreaked. I didn't ask to be born a woman, or to be born into this f-ed up time. Saying women, to include all women and to disparage all women in order to serve your interests and is unjust. While the majority of women are feminists, at the very least benignly, what would be considered enough of those who are against it for categorizing "women" as models of lying, conniving, man-eating whores not to be a true statement? 5%? 10% I imagine that you would apply the label were 90% of women against feminism, that ten percent would be enough to justify your position to yourself.

Just because feminism is about female collectivism does not mean that all women are about female collectivism. You are applying the label of a branch to a label of the whole. (Gosh, I know there is a phrase for that, but I can't remember what it is.)

I don't write off all men as pussies, though I have been frustrated to no end by their agreement, indifference and apathy, or weak opposition to the "good" that feminism has brought to our culture. You would not include yourself in that bunch, and I would not include you because it would be an injustice. I would ask the same in return of you, but I'm not stupid.

It is evident that you have little care to alienate those of the opposite sex who hate feminism. I'm just wondering though, what in the hell kind of society are you hoping to win with that? A society without women at all? That's pretty foolish.

F, I can't take it! I see too much of this attitude and it turns me off just as much as feminism does. Well, whatever. What would men care, I'm a woman, after all, I have some hidden agenda to enslave all men, don't I? It seems that an anti-feminist woman "can't win."

8:05 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"F, I can't take it! I see too much of this attitude and it turns me off just as much as feminism does. Well, whatever. What would men care, I'm a woman, after all, I have some hidden agenda to enslave all men, don't I? It seems that an anti-feminist woman "can't win.""

I think you have given a pretty good demonstration that women should not be considered 'monolithic' for political purposes. (Although FEMINISM is most certainly monolithic!)

And to suggest that women are somehow culpable for not rising up "spontaneously" against feminism, makes BOTH as much AND as little sense as the counterpart proposition that MEN are similarly culpable.

You 'can't take it'. *I* can't take it. We ALL "can't take" whatever it is that we cannot take! It's tough. . . but think of it as a learning curve.

I think it is quite remarkable that you and "warrior" are BOTH present here now and saying what you are each saying, because each of you represents a key force in society defining the shape of the the upcoming struggle, and whatever lies beyond that struggle.

All of this is making me THINK. And deeply. . .

10:25 PM  
Blogger Bwec said...

I think our problem lies not so much in feminism though this is the name given to it, what we are really speaking of is female politics, essential nature and the resultant general ethos.

Feminism and feminist politics is the embodiment and action of real female propensities. Women are by nature socialists.

See:Aristophanes 390BC. Aristophanes wrote the play Ecclesiazusae or Assembly Women.
He revealed then what men have always know of women...

Women by nature seek provision, protection and are generally risk adverse. They, as a collective are not free enterprise individualist who seek to distinguish themselves from other women...men are..

Women seek from the government and justice system what they seek from men or the mated pair bond in general..

When the male becomes personified in politics and justice system, actual males become disenfranchised. Lets call it government husbandry.. Women HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK GOVERNMENT HUSBANDRY. THEY WILL NOT STOP EMPOWERING THE ALPHA MALE STATE.

I see no recourse now but to let women consume the system of its own means of production, i.e. males and the enfranchisement of males as part of the family..

The enfranchisement of males as part of the natural order of competition that leads to an equal opportunity for competitive advantage must be destroyed by women before we can rebuild and establish individual liberty and a system of free enterprise once again....

The only thing we can do is remove the vote from women which will not happen....

Understand that the male workhorses of the matriarchy are our male leaders...See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0

We must let these male workhorses destroy the country by catering to the female vote...

In the meantime it is important for men to arm themselves and prepare for the war and tyranny that will eventually come from this.

Feminism, i.e. the right of women and the agency given to them will not subside....Women are empowered and will dictate the course of this... We as men are viscerally aware of where women's empowerment is leading us..

I can only say gentlemen that we must hold the line, do not break ranks, stick together and the time for war will be among us soon enough.

11:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Feminism and feminist politics is the embodiment and action of real female propensities. Women are by nature socialists."

Close. Women are by nature feminists - i.e. man-haters, matriarchists.

"Socialism" is actually a very broadand imprecise term, and does not describe female politics properly.

Socialism can take care of both men and women in society (and should, to be genunie socialism).

Feminism cares only cares for female individuals in society, which makes it quite a different beast to "Socialism".

"I think our problem lies not so much in feminism though this is the name given to it, what we are really speaking of is female politics, essential nature and the resultant general ethos.

Feminism and feminist politics is the embodiment and action of real female propensities."


I agree with all of this. I take the essentialist view of woman - and I think most feminists do too, if they are honest. Female essentialism - an essential nature that women have - proves itself continually, most especially through their political faction ("feminism") and its consequences.

8:30 PM  
Anonymous dom said...

Well, I took issue with some statements made in the manwomanmyth videos on youtube, so I left a few comments to that effect & was immediately blocked from commenting again & also patronised in a reply to my comments by the creator of the videos.

I also make semi regular comments on articles on a UK feminist site called The F Word...none of which are published, despite being within their posting rules.

So I have been denied a voice on both a feminist site & an anti feminist site. This makes very little sense to me. It seems that people on both sides of the fence are more interested in what they have to say rather than in listening to the dissenting voices of their reader or viewership. Or maybe it's just a British problem.

10:05 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home