After All, Feminism has Two Wings
Feminism has two wings: a left one and a right one.
And just for the record, the left-right distinction in political discourse never did much impress me. As Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. said somewhere once, the only REAL political parties in this world are the "winners", and the "losers". Yes, in the end it is about power!
So in the end, Left and Right are only different schools of thought about gaining power, and which technique they'll use when they finally carve you up.
Back to feminism. The only difference between leftwing feminism and rightwing feminism is that the rightwing feminist wants to "wear the pants in the family", and you can't do that if you haven't got a family in the first place . . right?
The leftwing feminist and her rightwing feminist counterpart differ only in how they want to exploit men, but not in the defining agenda to do so in the first place. They are both female supremacists. They are both "matriarchs".
And they both have their retinue of lickspittle male supporters. The leftwing feminist has the pro-feminist men's movement. The rightwing feminist has the socially conservative traditional male—whom many are now calling "White Knights". Both of these male groups ought to make you very, very ill!
Feminism is nothing new. It is as old as the world; as old as the proverbial "battle of the sexes", and that is very old indeed!
Leftwing feminism is the most recent variation, and it arose in tandem with the rise of leftism in general. Its purpose is to perfect and extend the methodologies of exploitation to new and unparallelled heights. That is all. A central prop of its programme is to transfer many of the functions of old-fashioned "chivalry" to the government, which streamlines the exploitation of men in keeping with a more totalitarian model of the state.
Many are now referring to leftwing feminism as Chivalry 2.0.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
You might enjoy the following:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/05/21/frontier-feminism/
And following that, the following too might prove eye-opening and productive of thoughtfulness:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/05/19/time-for-men-to-abort-fatherhood-at-will/
And just for the record, the left-right distinction in political discourse never did much impress me. As Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. said somewhere once, the only REAL political parties in this world are the "winners", and the "losers". Yes, in the end it is about power!
So in the end, Left and Right are only different schools of thought about gaining power, and which technique they'll use when they finally carve you up.
Back to feminism. The only difference between leftwing feminism and rightwing feminism is that the rightwing feminist wants to "wear the pants in the family", and you can't do that if you haven't got a family in the first place . . right?
The leftwing feminist and her rightwing feminist counterpart differ only in how they want to exploit men, but not in the defining agenda to do so in the first place. They are both female supremacists. They are both "matriarchs".
And they both have their retinue of lickspittle male supporters. The leftwing feminist has the pro-feminist men's movement. The rightwing feminist has the socially conservative traditional male—whom many are now calling "White Knights". Both of these male groups ought to make you very, very ill!
Feminism is nothing new. It is as old as the world; as old as the proverbial "battle of the sexes", and that is very old indeed!
Leftwing feminism is the most recent variation, and it arose in tandem with the rise of leftism in general. Its purpose is to perfect and extend the methodologies of exploitation to new and unparallelled heights. That is all. A central prop of its programme is to transfer many of the functions of old-fashioned "chivalry" to the government, which streamlines the exploitation of men in keeping with a more totalitarian model of the state.
Many are now referring to leftwing feminism as Chivalry 2.0.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
You might enjoy the following:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/05/21/frontier-feminism/
And following that, the following too might prove eye-opening and productive of thoughtfulness:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/05/19/time-for-men-to-abort-fatherhood-at-will/
posted by Fidelbogen at 6:03 AM
9 Comments:
Many are now referring to leftwing feminism as Chivalry 2.0.
That's a good one.
The rightwing feminist has the socially conservative traditional male—whom many are now calling "White Knights".
Wouldn't that make the right-wing feminists "chivalry 2.0"?
That is, the "White Knight" is the one executing the chivalry?
@ScareCrow:
No, I believe the White Knights are deluded ignorati living pathetically in the past, still practicing original old-school chivalry like nothing has changed.
Feminism, in theory at least, was about getting rid of chivalry altogether. But feminism has done nothing of the kind. It has only repackaged chivalry. Indeed, made it worse: sycophantic servility toward women is now expected, but minus any compensative element.
@Hestia:
Yup, that's a good one. Wish I could take credit for it. .
Feminism by any name is still feminism.
Dr. Fidelbogen PhD. I do believe there is a podcast that could be created using the idea behind this thread :)
FIdel,
Excellent, and an important point to drive home. Men get reamed in court in leftist states, and get reamed in court in "conservative" states. The lefties at least are honest about hating masculinity. The damned social conservatives are all pussy-whipped, but would never admit it.
The only way to liberate men from female tyranny is to disinvest women of any political power respecting men.
The woman seeks to dominate men. From the time that she is old enough to walk, she is(possibly subconsciously)training herself for this purpose. I believe this is an evolutionary adaptation, so that only an extremely dominant male gets to spread his genes through her, as the second she dominates a man, she loses interest in fucking him.
The problem with this evolutionary adaptation is that it puts women in danger, as only a psychopath is more controlling,more manipulative, and more bloodthirsty than your average modern woman.
We should not empower women to strip us of our rights, and this is the only logical end of any power granted to a woman. Any power given her, she will find a way to use it to disinvest power from a man,or to directly cause him harm,with no remorse, and sometimes just for "fun".
Women should be completely removed from any position that grants them the right to make any laws respecting men, or from any position that has the possibility to influence men's lives. If women want to rule, let them rule other women only,because the leaders of men must have some understanding of and compassion for men's lives,and women have neither the former,nor the latter,but especially not the latter.
". . If women want to rule, let them rule other women only,because the leaders of men must have some understanding of and compassion for men's lives. ."
Well said. VERY well said.
As I like to say, there is male space, and there is female space. And the feminist project has been to colonize male space.
"We should not empower women to strip us of our rights, and this is the only logical end of any power granted to a woman. Any power given her, she will find a way to use it to disinvest power from a man,or to directly cause him harm,with no remorse, and sometimes just for "fun"."
I should sooner say, that TOO MANY women will behave in such a manner - especially when they are under the tutelage of feminism, which brazenly encourages them along that line. And this alone is reason to insist on "home rule" for men, and to reclaim male space - quite aggressively, if need be!
I agree, Dr. Fidelbogen PhD.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home