Feminists Flaunting Their True Colors
The following is from an e-mail which I've recently gotten from Ulf Andersson. As you take the self-guiding tour, you will find yourself reading a feminist gishgallop-in-an-echo-chamber session on a Live Journal blog. What the grrls are doing, is reacting to the news of that very same International Antifeminist conference which I have written about in the last few posts. Last I looked, this intellectual circle-jerk contained 55 comments -- some of which say very snotty, ignorant and unintelligent things about Ulf Andersson:
community.livejournal.com/ontd_feminism/419416.html?thread=30794072#t30794072
I would encourage you to study this material very, very thoughtfully -- even though the material itself lacks thought altogether! I think you will agree it is a classic case study, worthy of future textbooks. Every juvenile trick in the feminist conversational playbook is on display here, and if you wish to understand the meaning of feminist subjectivism, you'll find it richly painted in all of its gaudy colors! Honestly, this stuff is SO good that I would even encourage you to archive the whole mess by cut-and-paste editing. I intend to do so myself, because I think this stuff constitutes evidence, and in the future we'll be glad we saved it.
The non-feminist world is gathering itself and closing in around the feminist world. The latter is getting smaller, shrinking into diminishing islands as the water rises from all directions. And the inhabitants of those isles are rising to the occasion quite as you might think they would do: by living in la-la-la-la land with their ears plugged! But you know, this is all they have EVER done, from the very first day -- they are simply acting true to form.
Against my inclination and better judgement, I left a comment on that thread -- but for some reason LJ would not post it. However, I have saved a copy, and I would like to share it with you now. It was in response to a very brief remark by a person sailing under the name of "Spankmypirate". Here is what Spankmypirate said:
All right, I am through talking. Here is what I got from Ulf Andersson:
community.livejournal.com/ontd_feminism/419416.html?thread=30794072#t30794072
I would encourage you to study this material very, very thoughtfully -- even though the material itself lacks thought altogether! I think you will agree it is a classic case study, worthy of future textbooks. Every juvenile trick in the feminist conversational playbook is on display here, and if you wish to understand the meaning of feminist subjectivism, you'll find it richly painted in all of its gaudy colors! Honestly, this stuff is SO good that I would even encourage you to archive the whole mess by cut-and-paste editing. I intend to do so myself, because I think this stuff constitutes evidence, and in the future we'll be glad we saved it.
The non-feminist world is gathering itself and closing in around the feminist world. The latter is getting smaller, shrinking into diminishing islands as the water rises from all directions. And the inhabitants of those isles are rising to the occasion quite as you might think they would do: by living in la-la-la-la land with their ears plugged! But you know, this is all they have EVER done, from the very first day -- they are simply acting true to form.
Against my inclination and better judgement, I left a comment on that thread -- but for some reason LJ would not post it. However, I have saved a copy, and I would like to share it with you now. It was in response to a very brief remark by a person sailing under the name of "Spankmypirate". Here is what Spankmypirate said:
"Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny."And I replied to Spankmypirate in the following terms:
So, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that anybody who criticizes feminism is a woman-hater (misogynist)?I share the above as one example -- a prime one! -- of how rhetorical discipline ought to be undertaken. Enough attacks in THAT style can dissolve feminism in the way detergent breaks up an oil slick. And most of the LJ thread we are now discussing is wide open to such an attack mode.
I admit how it is theoretically possible for a critic of feminism to be a woman-hater (or any other kind of hater, for that matter), but I cannot comprehend why the predicate maps to the subject in this particular case.
On what ground of evidence, or reasoning, does it logically follow that a person critical of feminism hates women?
Please enlighten me. I live to learn.
All right, I am through talking. Here is what I got from Ulf Andersson:
From: "Ulf Andersson"
Subject: ENG: The Feminists don´t deny their true colors
Date: 2 nov 2010 01:23
www.dads-r-us.se/2010/11/02/the-feminists-dont-deny-their-true-colors/
Background:www.dads-r-us.se/2010/10/30/swiss-stage-worlds-first-antifeminism-event/
[Note: the following citation is taken from one of the LF commenters -- Fidelbogen]
”Anderson founded the Swedish father’s rights group PappaRättsGruppen after being prevented from seeing his daughter for six years after getting divorced from his wife. With support from a father’s rights group his situation has since changed and he is now able to see his 11-year-old occasionally.
oh you poor bb. excuse me while i play you a sad song on the world’s tiniest violin.”
From:
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_feminism/419416.html?thread=30794072#t30794072
posted by Fidelbogen at 6:44 PM
11 Comments:
huh.
Yes ... all very predictable stuff from the riot grrrlz.
Mocking a man's suffering when he hasn't seen his daughter for 6 years. Stay classy, ladies.
Of course, I remember a particular quote from the finallyfeminism101 blog, which said, "if men want to do something about their rights, they need to be the ones to create the spaces to do this, not women."
Eminently fair, I thought. And yet now that men have DONE PRECISELY THIS, the grrrrlz don't like it one bit.
Still, their emotional overreactions provide us with solid evidence against them.
"I'm just skeptical of any man complaining about being hurt by a divorce. Men statistically do better after divorce."
Apparently he thinks that it feels good to lose your kids so that your standard of living goes up.
"Also it really doesn't matter what he wants, what should be important is what his daughter wants."
Really? It should matter, that's the point.
" Since the whole story wasn't given (which is quite fishy to me in the first place), we can't assume that his daughter actually even wanted to see him, which matters."
A 5 y.o. is intelligent enough to realize what she wants?
"And I'm really sick and tired of butthurt men whining about paying child support so any time I hear a man talk about how a divorce hurt him I'm just like cry moar."
Indeed, and he wonders why this conference took place.
@namaeNanka:
About the one who says:
"" Since the whole story wasn't given (which is quite fishy to me in the first place), we can't assume that his daughter actually even wanted to see him, which matters.""
He does not explain why it sounds "fishy", and frankly, I don't agree. WHY does it sound fishy? Why should they give the "whole story"? Why?? Just to anticipate the snippy requirements of a few obscure readers?
But no, I cannot understand why it sounds "fishy". To me, the fishy one this particular reader, who seems to be "fishing" for something negative to say -- anything at all. And I would say the only fish he has to show for it, is a minnow.
I´d thought that I´d better comment on this. There is nothing fishy:
The thing is, that my daughter
was very close to me already when she was newborn. As my daughter grew,
she really enjoyed herself and having lots of fun with dad who changed her dipers,
fed her, putting her clothes on, playing with her and showing how much he loves her by giving her hugs.
This sounds very fishy to feminists. Men can´t say that they love their children, it´s not normal.
I was one of the best dads in the world, ever (I´m still number 1 to my daughter).
This was brought to an abrupt halt because of her mother.
My daughters mother made me look like a devil when painting a picture for the
red-stocking red wine gobbling ladies at the Childrens Wellfare Office. The bought the mothers version of the truth.
I´m not a suspect, I´m not convicted and I don´t have any criminal record. Not even a speeding ticket or jay-walking.
Of course this makes the feminists
frustrated and they have to make up things
about me and point the finger and say that there must be
something fishy about this guy.
I love women. I hate feminists.
I will stay an Anti-Feminist until my death,
so help me God.
Another gem from the same guy:
"I mean honestly even if it was about hatred of men that wouldn't be a bad thing. We have a right to hate men, they've done pretty bad things to us. They just think we hate them because we want them to confront their privilege."
I don't think that it's because of the history they hate men, but it's because of their hatred for men that they believe in such history of "pretty bad things".
Not to mention the fact whether what happened in the past affects them in some way or not.
What's problematic is that some loonies like this are up in places of power and use it with "We have a right to hate men" in their minds.
FYI - I saved the entire discussion.
It really does show how brain-washed women are.
Since when has wife-beating ever been legal?
Even if it were - how many men would ever do such a thing to their wife?
The cardinal rule of men has always been "don't hit a woman"...
The women and men posting on that thread have been run through some serious indoctrination.
It's just plain sad.
"I don't think that it's because of the history they hate men, but it's because of their hatred for men that they believe in such history of "pretty bad things"."
Exactamente! Manichean ontology in a nutshell. Man-hating came first, and everything that came later was bent, warped, or twisted to accomodate that subtext.Man-hating was never initially "justified" in itself. However, it eventually self-validated on the principle that 'hate bounces'-- that is, the reaction to man-hating, by men themselves, afforded "proof" in the manhaters's minds, that men were indeed as bad as the manhaters said they were in the first.
"What's problematic is that some loonies like this are up in places of power and use it with "We have a right to hate men" in their minds."
And that is why the only thing that really counts in the long run, is what real people are REALLY doing in the REAL world -- and NOT what some "ideology" or some "theory" claims they are supposed or ought to be doing.
And in the case of feminism, it is easy to show by logical steps that the eventual "fruit of the vine" can only be female supremacism or supremacist behavior (hence, man-hating)in some form. There is really no other way it can roll.
Gosh how the boyz whine and moan.....Yep we feminist are an evil lot Huraaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh and Blah Blah Blah.....
You said: "this stuff is SO good that I would even encourage you to archive the whole mess by cut-and-paste editing"
My reply is : "Don't bother".
It's useless and counterproductive.
I have a far better solution:
Just abandon western women altogether. Make sure they do not reproduce.
In time, the problem will go away: I promise.
""What's problematic is that some loonies like this are up in places of power and use it with "We have a right to hate men" in their minds."
In return, however, men have the right to hate women.
I think we must begin doing so right away.
But sides of the equation have to be equal.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home