Hybrid Feminism

by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech on January 8, 2011

Most women aren’t pure ideologues.  They don’t adhere strictly to a particular ideology.  This is key to understanding how the average woman fits into feminism and how feminism has caused the destruction it has.  Too often feminism is defined in terms of what a cadre of lesbians or some other small group has done.  It ends up treating feminism vs. anti-feminism as a purely academic debate that has no real effect on the real world. Feminists aren’t just some group of aliens on the planet, Uranus.  If they were, we would have nothing to worry about.  Instead feminism (or rather female supremacism) exists in various forms all over that many women and even men believe in.

However, a woman may be not purely be a conservative female supremacist (i.e. a social conservative) either.  The average woman while not purely a feminist is not purely a conservative female supremacist either.  Most people don’t think in the necessary post-modern academic terms to adhere to one of those forms of female supremacism.  Not adhering to a pure female supremacist ideology does not mean that a person is anti-feminist/anti-female supremacy.  Women in particular will develop their own personal female supremacism using a combination ideas from various strains of female supremacism.  The “hybrid feminism” of “hybrid female supremacism” they create is not pure in terms of feminism or social conservatism or any other form of defined female supremacism but it’s feminist in the most important way possible.  It’s about advancing women at the expense of men.

Why is understanding the idea of “hybrid feminism” important?  Because the average woman does not believe herself to be a feminist (or socon) in any way.  Her belief that she’s “not a feminist” doesn’t make her an anti-feminist.  She will still have female supremacist beliefs.  We have all heard statements like, “I’m not a feminist because I’m not a lesbian”, “I’m not a feminist because I don’t believe in gay marriage”, “I’m not a feminist because I don’t believe in abortion”, “I not a feminist because I’m a stay at home mom”, “I’m not a feminist because I want to get married”, “I’m not a feminist because it hurts women”, “I don’t know any feminists”, etc.  These “not feminist” women still divorce their husbands, make false rape and false sexual harassment charges, send their sons to be emasculated in feminist public schools, vote for politicians that redistribute male wealth to women, etc.  Despite being “not feminist”, these women have no problem using and support feminist programs and institutions.  A lesbian on another planet (which is how socons effectively think of feminism) is not going to divorce her husband to get half of his assets or have sons to send to feminist public schools (on Earth).

A question that gets asked over and over again is where are these “not feminist” women when it comes to fighting feminism?  They are always nowhere to be found outside of things that don’t affect men like abortion and gay marriage.  They will have excuses like, “I’m too busy raising my family.”  Being “too busy” never stops them from fighting against abortion or gay marriage.  They are only “too busy” when it comes to cases where they benefit or may benefit in the future such as eliminating no fault divorce or eliminating government programs that benefit women.

The debate between feminists and socons is just about how to best acquire and control the resources and assets of men or how to best hold the whip over men.  Many socon women are only against feminism because they believe men benefit from feminism and want to put a stop to men benefiting from anything.  It’s the same with the “hybrid feminist”.  They pick the combination of ideas from various female supremacist ideologies that they believe are the best way for themselves and/or women in general to hold the whip over men.

{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }

zed January 8, 2011 at 08:34

100 thumbs up! This is one of the best articles on the issues I have ever read!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 72 Thumb down 7
Snark January 8, 2011 at 08:35

This is something that needed to be said. Indeed, it has been knocking about in the back of my head, but never articulated in my consciousness, for some time now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 4
Lovekraft January 8, 2011 at 08:37

I, unfortunately, agree with this analysis. My radar can pick up a feminist quickly, but I still held out hope that it hadn’t pervaded every woman. But as this article demonstrates, it infects most if not all of them so that one is looking for a reliable, accountable woman who values a man’s contribution and efforts, he is going to search in vain.

In my case, I found this sweet single mother who had limited finances and stated she would appreciate me for having no debt, a post-secondary education, career, hobbies etc etc, but alas, she eventually showed her true colors: moodiness, unreliable, fingers in too many pies etc etc.

So the future is not looking to good, and I will continue to maintain my principles that compromise is not an option and that ghosting is preferable to living with, and under the control of, a modern entitled Western woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 5
Migu January 8, 2011 at 08:45

You just described my sister to a T.

Still can’t get her to see that she is just a different sort of tyrant…one more palatable to her own sensibilities.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 4
zed January 8, 2011 at 08:49

I still held out hope that it hadn’t pervaded every woman

That is why we need to start thinking of feminism as being very literally FEMININE-ism. It didn’t pervade them, it was born into them. All women are feminists because feminists deal with the issues which concern women – “who will provide for me? me, or some husband I can’t really rely on?”, “what do you mean I can only ever sleep with one man the rest of my life?!?!?! That’s not fair!!!!”

FEMININE-ism is the elevation of the women’s viewpoints, concerns, and issues over men’s, with the corresponding devaluation and dehumanization of men.

“The personal is political and the political is personal.” That is the most destructive idea in the history of the world. People can no longer have personal relationships – all relationships are now political. In the middle of an argument between a man and his wife/gf, suddenly the “oppression” of women in Afghanistan gets thrown into the middle of things.

The only argument between leftist feminine-ists and SoCon feminine-ists is who gets to design and install the software that the manbots are required to run.

Both sides agree that –

1. A manbot may not injure a woman being or, through inaction, allow a woman being to come to harm.
2. A manbot must obey any orders given to it by woman beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A manbot may protect its own existence only if such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 7
Elusive Wapiti January 8, 2011 at 08:54

They are only “too busy” when it comes to cases where they benefit or may benefit in the future such as eliminating no fault divorce or eliminating government programs that benefit women.

I’m having trouble parsing this sentence. Is the average women too busy when it comes to cashes where they don’t immediately benefit or may benefit in the future?

Many socon women are only against feminism because they believe men benefit from feminism

Seems women as a sex tend to fall victim to the Apex fallacy. Feminism has been wonderful for alpha men. Socon women see this and assume that the behavior of the only men in their erotic field of regard (e.g., alphas) has been adopted by all men, and therefore rah-rah behind feminism’s attempts to stick it to all guys.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 3
Doug January 8, 2011 at 08:56

Women will think what men tell them to think. It’s that simply. However, men of the past few generations have sacrificed their authority over women and as a result we are in the state of decay we are in as a society and culture. Men (as a group) have failed to respond and crush the biggest female shit test of all – feminism. The reason is simple: there are far too many manginas an white knights in our midst.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 9
Hestia January 8, 2011 at 09:10

Good article, PM/AFT. Being against feminism isn’t the same as being pro-male. Women need to look at men as brothers and fellow humans before they can begin to appreciate the issues men are currently facing in our society.

The excuse that there isn’t time to act while raising a family is a silly one if a woman really cares about the MRM. Within her life there are likely not just little ways to combat misandry (refusing to engage in husband bashing, writing op-eds, that sort of thing) but larger ways to act if she looks around at her life broadly and sees how misandry fits in. School board meetings where policies that harm boys can be challenged is one example that pops into mind immediately.

For me personally most of my real life efforts are directed towards misandry within the military and genuinely caring about men who serve. This is not merely for the reason that this is the subculture in which I live and the one easiest to get involved in but something that has become almost a calling of sorts. I have been deeply touched by the stories and experiences of many men I know and changed dramatically by what I’ve learned and seen during my time as a military spouse. There has been injustice that has left me stunned and many stories of bravery, compassion, and love that have been inspiring. In the future when my husband is not in the middle of his career and our daughter grown I hope to amp up my efforts volunteer wise and even become a speech pathologist or work in some other “helping occupation” that would allow me to work above and beyond volunteer status with wounded troops and their families.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3
Keyster January 8, 2011 at 09:17

The individual woman has been inundated with feminist messaging from our mass media for 30 years. She doesn’t much think about women as a group, but she will gladly select “empowerment chic” and take it home with her, into her relationships and use it to her advantage to manipulate and ultimately dominate. She knows she needs an edge to rule the roost/get a promotion, appear smarter than she is, and if feminism gives her that edge she’ll take it. And men BETTER pretend to like it!

Not every woman can depend on sexual power to prosper. Some need the playing field tilted to make them appear the same as men. They’ve embraced this concept, like a surreptitious scoop of ice cream before dinner. No one needs to know.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3
Lovekraft January 8, 2011 at 09:21

Feminists, which although having the ability to deceive men, are easily spotted after a review of their demeanor and some background info. They should be quickly classified as counter to our interests and dismissed accordingly.

As for the legions of women described in the article above, they are much harder to handle, as they use various tactics to lower our guard.

I wish the MRM came up with a simple expression when dealing with their crap such as:

“Dear, since I do not enjoy the company of overgrown children who are willfully ignorant of the issues facing the man today, I would respectfully ask that you go away and only come back when you have something relevant to say.”

Then when they try to reenter our life, we can restate our condition and await their response.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 8, 2011 at 09:29

I’m having trouble parsing this sentence. Is the average women too busy when it comes to cashes where they don’t immediately benefit or may benefit in the future?

These women are “too busy” when it involves some form of anti-feminism that would benefit men such as eliminating no fault divorce.

555 Spinner January 8, 2011 at 09:30

Look what they’ve done…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

The question of course is with these fake parents that gays become… why is there even two of them?

The reason for two parents is because it takes a mother and father to make a child. These gays are just playing pretend.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 11
thehermit January 8, 2011 at 09:47

They are only “too busy” when it comes to cases where they benefit or may benefit in the future such as eliminating no fault divorce or eliminating government programs that benefit women.

It’s more that they are not capable to see the big picture, therefore they think something beneficts them, like feminism. In real life, feminism is strongly against the average women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
zed January 8, 2011 at 10:01

The reason for two parents is because it takes a mother and father to make a child. These gays are just playing pretend.

As is the woman who just paid surrogates to gestate children for her. Apparently now it takes 3 people to make a child – a man, a womyn, and a woman to carry the womyn’s babies for her.

In this gender-neutered utopia we are heading for, apparently the only difference between a barren woman – a womyn – and a gay man are some minor anatomical details.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 4
Hughman January 8, 2011 at 10:02

“Many socon women are only against feminism because they believe men benefit from feminism and want to put a stop to men benefiting from anything.”

Mindblowing moment of truth there.

The humanist goals that have been achieved whilst striving for female supremacy are good. But the means do not justify the ends (yes, the polar opposite of Kantian ethics)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Andrew January 8, 2011 at 10:03

The importance of articles like this…especially for new readers…is that yet again it demonstrates the fact that MEN…understand women far better than women understand themselves and other women.
Why?…because as has been said before, all women really have had to do is show up, with a ‘pretty smile’, take advantage of all the perks that society gives them without having to really think about cause or effect or consequences…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3
Uncle Elmer January 8, 2011 at 10:14

Sarah Palin : “I am a feminist.”

Believe it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 3
Binxton January 8, 2011 at 10:17

Of course the average woman doesn’t believe herself to be a feminist in any way. But then, what she believes about herself in a political sense is utterly meaningless anyway because women don’t care about ideas. They care about themselves. Whatever terminology you want to tag them with, women will not feel sorry for men, nor will they vote to remove their privileges.

It is silly, not to mention degrading, for men to engage in debate with women over ideas. Women have an instinctual need to be led and disciplined by men. Their natural place is and always has been in a position of subordination.

You do not elevate such creatures to your level in order to make them “see the light” through reasoned debate. You lay down the law with them and demand and expect obedience.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 5
ZenCo. January 8, 2011 at 11:10

In other words, a ‘hybrid feminist’ is just a fancy way of saying ‘spoiled brat’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 2
aharon January 8, 2011 at 11:19

It seems to me that most (not all) women are motivated to support or deny a feminist value by simply asking themselves “will this X-aspect, law or policy etc, of feminism be good or bad for me personally?” Sadly, I find few women motivated by higher order philosophical concerns or principles. Obviously, feminism is a pro-female anti-male trade union and has little or nothing to do with higher-order values. A man, long ago said to me “women are survivors.” It seems to me that the bulk of women are happily taking advantage of the anti-male policies and laws of society and yet not publicly willing to stick their necks out to far and will go with whatever side is winning. I hope that most men recognize that while they might hear sympathy and agreement from the women they know and speak with personally about misandry, behind their backs the women are probably have a good laugh with other women friends about the plight of men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
Opus January 8, 2011 at 11:20

All ideologies are belief systems, and feminism, (a part of cultural Marxism) is one of them. Marx whilst doubtless correctly observing economic/industrial behaviour in 19th c Britain, then drew conclusions for a Utopia from his observations. Those predictions proved historically wrong from the beginning. The Marxist however is not dismayed and rationalises the discrepancies. The religious believer does likewise and Feminism, being as I say an ideology also does likewise.

By way of example, you will recall that 2nd wave feminism waxed angry that Pornography ‘exploited women’ – a useful shaming device against men; however 3rd wave Feminism finds that Pornography ‘empowers women’ – a device to make men feel inferior. The two views – for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence either way – are diametrically opposite to each other. One is forced to conclude that Feminism (that is to say anti-male female entitlement) is whatever the women have in their head at any time. On that basis, all women, at least some of the time are feminist because their belief system, which amounts to privilege for women, is what they promote.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 4
nothingbutthetruth January 8, 2011 at 11:21

As I’ve said before, feminism and so-con pedestalizers are two branches of the same ideology: the female supremacism or, if you will, the pedestalization movement. This movement started with the troubadours, in XII century, when each poet considered himself a vassal of a lady and hence her inferior. This pedestalization spread for all the history of Western poetry, e.g. Dante in “The Divine Comedy” makes Beatrice a redemptor of the human race and puts her roughly at the same level as Christ. We can talk about Petrarca or “Le Roman de la Rose”. This pedestalization reached its apogee in Victorian times and extended until the 50s: the woman was “the angel of the house” and man was civilized by her love.

The aim of this ideology was to make men willing to economically support women. This is similar to Indian religion, which makes cows sacred in order to protect them from slaughter (which could produce the starvation of the family). Cows were specially vulnerable, because bulls were not killed since they were needed for agriculture. But, if cows were sacrified, there was no way to get future milk and more cows and bulls (through reproduction) so it was necessary to make cows sacred, in order to the long-term interests to prevail so people could have better chances of surviving.

The same way women were elevated to the status of angels and superior beings, because they were the more vulnerable (in a world without contraceptives and without medicines they had to be economically supported in order to make the survival of human communities possible). Women were brainwashed since childhood to be “good girls”, so they get closer to this ideal, although anyone that has had experience with women in their feral state knows how female nature is different from this ideal.

Then technology advanced and women stopped being so vulnerable (the death in labor was almost eliminated, women had access to easy jobs that did not demand physical endurance, contraceptives reduced the number of children and appliances and compulsory education reduced the need of housekeeping). When this happened, the old deal of full-time work for sex, reproduction and housekeeping became obsolete. Since sex, reproduction and housekeeping were not as hard as before, their value dropped and, hence, they could not demand being economically supported by a man only because of it. This is the real reason of the entrance of women into the workplace.

Faced with these new situations, there was a split in the pedestalization movement. Some women tried to cling to a past where her husband economically supported them: these were the so-cons. They shamed men to stick to their traditional role, even if women’s traditional role was not available anymore.

Some other women tried to make the transfer of wealth compulsory, even if men didn’t received anything in return. Unlike the so-cons, the transfer was not from husband to wife, but from all men to all women, through taxes. These were the feminist.

At the end of the day, as someone said, “women agree about the goal and they only differ about the means”. The goal is the transfer of wealth from men to women. But each group thinks that their strategy to reach that goal is the best.

This is why feminism and so-con pedestalizers are so compatible that they can be mixed in a lot of different ways, producing endless varieties of hybrid feminism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 5
fondueguy January 8, 2011 at 11:30

“who will provide for me? me, or some husband I can’t really rely on?”, “what do you mean I can only ever sleep with one man the rest of my life?!?!?! That’s not fair!!!!”

Omg, I could actually hear it.

Sarah Palin : “I am a feminist.”

Believe it.

Yep.

This article was much needed and I’m impressed at how unifying it is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
Beltain January 8, 2011 at 11:32

Excellent article.

How many times have I heard a woman say “I am not like that” or “Not all of us are like them (Feminist)” Until the time comes that they wish to use the entitlements and bonuses feminism has managed to get for them.

Then of course these bitches milk it for all it’s worth don’t they.

They are feminist opportunist with no real ideology of their own except self promotion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3
scot January 8, 2011 at 11:33

How does one reconcile the equality feminism of yesteryear, with the modern “Gender Raunch” feminism of today. Elie levy wrote a very interesting book on modern feminism and rise of the Raunch culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
fondueguy January 8, 2011 at 11:33

This article was much needed and I’m impressed at how unifying it is.

What I mean to say is that it unifies us, people from different parts of the spectrum. This article also help to formulate/unify the beast that is Feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
fondueguy January 8, 2011 at 11:38

IMO this is the sequel or conclusion to “Dealing With The Reality On The Ground”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Cmajor7 January 8, 2011 at 11:49

555 Spinner January 8, 2011 at 09:30

Look what they’ve done…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

The question of course is with these fake parents that gays become… why is there even two of them?

The reason for two parents is because it takes a mother and father to make a child. These gays are just playing pretend.

It’s very Orwellian when it’s made “wrong” to acknowledge children are created through heterosexual intercourse and as a result have a mother and father. The truth is effectively made into a lie and a lie is made into the truth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Keyster January 8, 2011 at 12:04

How does one reconcile the equality feminism of yesteryear, with the modern “Gender Raunch” feminism of today.

The latter is a symptom of the former.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Binxton January 8, 2011 at 12:07

aharon January 8, 2011 at 11:19

It seems to me that most (not all) women are motivated to support or deny a feminist value by simply asking themselves “will this X-aspect, law or policy etc, of feminism be good or bad for me personally?” Sadly, I find few women motivated by higher order philosophical concerns or principles.

Women are ultimately out for themselves. This is what we men have to have drilled in our heads if we want any chance of fixing the problem. They are at the core self-centered creatures, lacking perspective or objective standards.

They are thus creatures of the moment. They are NOT capable of long-range decision-making that benefit the greater good of society.

So no, they will not stick their necks out for men; that would run against their self-centered nature. We have to be more objective and less starry-eyed about who women are. It doesn’t mean that women are evil, but that they will behave destructively when men abdicate their responsibility of directing and disciplining them.

Seeking agreement or sympathy from women shows just how pathetic and brainwashed contemporary men are. It’s high time men everywhere in the west start realizing that controls must be re-imposed on women if we expect them to be better wives, mothers, and just plain people.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 5
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 8, 2011 at 12:18

/sarcasm on

Pro Male. You are totally mistaken. I see these ‘not feminist women everywhere’. I challenged these ‘not feminist women’ who wanted ‘true equality’ to campaign for women to be 51% of the following six categories.
1. War dead
2. Workplace dead.
3. Homeless
4. Incarcerated
5. Alimony payers.
6. Child support payers.

And I am sure you saw on CNN and BBC as well as many of the worlds leading newspapers all the women who have taken up my challenge and are, even as we speak, demanding men step aside from these privileged positions to give women a chance to show us men just how they can compete with us in these most privileged of roles.
/sarcasm off

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 8, 2011 at 12:33

zed January 8, 2011 at 08:49
It didn’t pervade them, it was born into them

Let me back that comment up 200% Zed. Eastern women have EXACTLY the same issues as western women. They want ‘babies and money’ just as much as the western women do. Women are BORN with a uterus and their BIG problem is how to get it filled and the subsequent baby paid for. Or has no-one else here noticed there are more than a few ‘marriage’ magazines at the supermarket checkout. ‘Marriage’ is code for ‘babies and money forever’. THAT is why it is BY FAR the most popular topic of womens conversation.

The BIG difference is estern women are honest about it. When I asked my fav#2 if she would ever consider NOT having a baby she stood before me and said: “Look at me. I am a woman. The purpose of my existence is to have babies.” That’s honesty right there.

Western women have been brainwashed into ‘princess syndrome’ where their mere existence is COMPELLING reason for some man to throw his life away trying to ‘make princess happy’ to a greater or lesser degree. Both my ex and the woman I dated soon after who was Australian said words to the effect ‘if you love me you will do everything I ask’. That’s the new definition of being a ‘princess’. They are ‘entitled’ to a ‘love-man-slave’ and they will not tolerate anything less. Even my lady friends? If they chose me as their ‘partner’ (which is how women derogatively call husbands now so I use it back on them) they would be taking a massive step UP in the world. But that’s not good enough. I have to be their slave or I am ‘not good enough yet’. Well? I guess I am just not good enough, eh?

Eastern women know they are lucky as all shit to find a decent husband because VERY few men in the east want the slavery of being married. For those who are new or missed it. My fav#1 claimed in Russia in communist times if a man was married with two kids he was given a guvment apartment and did not have to do national service. She bitched they STILL would not get married. When I pointed out that showed men thought facing a stint in afghanistan and paying for your own apartment was a better deal than being married she got pissed off. But understood it was true.

Zed is 200% correct. The people born with uteruses are BORN with these issues.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 5
Traveller January 8, 2011 at 12:45

Good post. It shows well the hypocrisy of the average woman.

Every time any woman benefit from a favor treatment society reserves to women, she is feminist, at least in that moment. Of course, no woman will acknowledge that.

Good point even when stated a woman will anyway get advantage of divorce and child support.

In game sites, it is said the “rationalizing hamster”. No Western average woman will acknowledge being a slut. Even with this, they will continue collect thugs in bed until too old, then search a beta provider to a convenience marriage.

Exactly as no married woman think herself to be a cheater, while doing anything with anyone. Her head hamster will find any excuse to consider every case as particular. Or she does this because “the husband does not fulfill her anymore so she is entitled to do it”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
aharon January 8, 2011 at 12:52

Binxton: “Women are ultimately out for themselves… This is what we men have to have drilled in our heads if we want any chance of fixing the problem… Seeking agreement or sympathy from women shows just how pathetic and brainwashed contemporary men are…”

Agreed with your comments to me. Personally, I think society is going to have to crash down first before we can start rebuilding. I think a first step (for me) is to help wake-up men to the reality of how much they have been socialized through repeated messaging to putting our own needs as males and human beings second to a very dangerous narcissistic and entitled princess.

Men need to become aware of the real pain they are experiencing even though they don’t fully recognize it since they are so beaten up, abused, and in shock to be second class drones.

Women need to experience another pain. I think a start is to encourage MGTOW and to avoid marriage, fatherhood, and being a money machine. Already more than 20% of young bachelors are saying no way to marriage and some of those are simply saying no to dating too.

Gotta go. Later.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 8, 2011 at 14:17

It seems to me that most (not all) women are motivated to support or deny a feminist value by simply asking themselves “will this X-aspect, law or policy etc, of feminism be good or bad for me personally?”

And this is why we see no real female resistance to the false rape industry, no fault divorce, etc. It’s also why there is a massive abortion debate because women tend to end up in two main schools of thought:

Feminist: A man will force me to have a baby when I don’t want to.
Socon: A man will force me to have an abortion when I want to have a baby.

In both cases it’s about women asking, “how will this benefit me?” but coming up with different answers. In both cases it’s about what they want and fucking men over. The abortion debate is massive because there isn’t agreement among women about what’s best for women but both sides agree about sticking it to men.

Snark January 8, 2011 at 14:47

Yup. Where feminists and socons are in 100% agreement is on the idea that the man must take full responsibility for the children, even if he never wanted them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
mgtow January 8, 2011 at 14:52

A feminist is one who supports gender equality and/or female supremacy, and rejects male supremacy.

A feminist can be male (mangina or white knight) or female, young or old, married or single, liberal or conservative.

There is no such thing as ‘good feminism’, ‘original feminism’, ‘reformed feminism’ or ‘first wave feminism’ etc. All feminism is based on deceit, usurping power from men.

Woman, you claim you’re not a feminist? Prove it with action. Kiss your man’s feet, wash them and then drink the water.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5
Snark January 8, 2011 at 15:02

Hybrid Feminism isn’t too catchy or memorable.

I prefer Salad Bar Feminism. Because they take those items they want and leave the rest. And they’re free to go up to the bar at any time and pick something else.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Binxton January 8, 2011 at 15:13

It’s also why there is a massive abortion debate because women tend to end up in two main schools of thought:

Feminist: A man will force me to have a baby when I don’t want to.

Socon: A man will force me to have an abortion when I want to have a baby.

In both cases it’s about women asking, “how will this benefit me?” but coming up with different answers. In both cases it’s about what they want and fucking men over. The abortion debate is massive because there isn’t agreement among women about what’s best for women but both sides agree about sticking it to men.

Well, whichever school of thought women choose, my own view is that women should have no so-called “reproductive rights” whatsoever. As far as I’m concerned, they wouldn’t be so caught up by any debate had they not had that right that should never have been granted to them in the first place.

What I’m more concerned about is restricting or reducing the rights women currently have, and convincing men that doing so is the right step forward in restoring sanity and balance in modern society.

When the US legalized abortion in 1973, it was one more traditional control that was lifted on women’s behavior. Society stupidly granted women the freedom to kill their unborn child, on the idiotic principle of “my body, my choice.”

Abortion will have to be greatly restricted in the future, first and foremost to restrict women’s rights. Anything that takes away women’s rights is a beneficial, progressive step forward. And this is what we as men should be concerned with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4
Joeb January 8, 2011 at 15:22

Your description is good. Hybrid-Feminists don’t want to take on the rigid lifestyle of a feminist such as an activist. I think are even more dangerous Then a hard core feminist .True feminists are easily identified at random.

Now the hybrid -fembots. Can blend in to the wood work and Most have a
: whats in it for me attitude . While being lazy and not strong enough to support the group as a hole.

I think there even more dangerous then up in your face fem. Hybrids will lure males into a false sense of wellness then turn when opportunity permit them to damage a stronger male with less conflict .

Then turn back into the average housewife when complains are made . My Ex had a great ability to change on the dime with only a few accessories. Id call her an opportunistic feminist. But these half breed are also the type to ware down resources and take advantage of perks offered by the group. While warring out there welcome at the same time. All in all the true feminist will spot them and ostracize them from the group . Witch makes them even more dangerous to everybody since Mimicry is the next step to feeling accepted. Well we all know aggressive mimicry is the true nature of women . They will become territorial and eat each other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
greyghost January 8, 2011 at 16:55

Well this article should end any standing for a guy still counting on the NAWALT to save his life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
88eight January 8, 2011 at 22:35

It seems they are getting desperate. They have loose ends to tie up. But as history shows they will make more enemies and more problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Robert January 8, 2011 at 23:00

Snark January 8, 2011 at 15:02
Hybrid Feminism isn’t too catchy or memorable.

I prefer Salad Bar Feminism. Because they take those items they want and leave the rest. And they’re free to go up to the bar at any time and pick something elsle.

They can also eat all they want.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
gwallan January 8, 2011 at 23:50

@Snark…

Try “bistro feminism” on for size.

re women living in the moment…

No temporal consciousness.

They live totally in the moment. What is said or believed now will be contradicted in five minutes with blissful ignorance.

What has gone before is fluid, maleable. History is re-invented constantly to suit the need of the moment. Thus history’s lessons are valueless.

There are no consequences for their actions. Thus predicting the outcomes of ones actions is pointless. Make it up as you go. Manipulate or emote as necessary.

No understanding of the past. No respect for the future. Only the
moment. No temporal awareness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Type 5 January 9, 2011 at 06:31

The Law of Generic Woman:

Listening to women and how they talk about themselves these past several years has made me realize that they see themselves as a woman first and an individual second. They live on the priveleges accorded to women generically in a society and within the constraints on behavior required generically of all women in that society.

This seems to be the project of almost all women: To at all times defend the reputation of Generic Woman, to at all times increase the benefits accorded to Generic Woman and, to at all times decrease the social constraints upon Generic Woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
zed January 9, 2011 at 07:06

I prefer Salad Bar Feminism.

The terms Cafeteria Feminism and Lifeboat Feminism have been around a long time. The point I get from PMAFT’s article is not so much wanting to coin a new term, but to point out that the idea that feminism is a purely leftist ideology often blinds men to the many ways conservative women hate men and hold them in contempt. Phyllis Schlafly, the unfortunate darling of so many conservative-leaning MRAs because she campaigned so vigorously against the Equal Rights Amendment, called her organization “STOP” for “Stop Taking Our Privileges.”

Sarah Palin is the perfect Hybrid Feminist because she and many other supposedly “conservative” women have found ways to hold on to all their old traditional privileges, plus all the new ones gained for them by feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
zed January 9, 2011 at 07:09

It’s very Orwellian when it’s made “wrong” to acknowledge children are created through heterosexual intercourse and as a result have a mother and father. The truth is effectively made into a lie and a lie is made into the truth.

2+2=5

“If you continue to insist that it equals 4, we will break you, Winston.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Seamus the Classicist January 9, 2011 at 07:11

Very correct analysis, many warry men (such as myself) have been lulled into trusting a woman because she is not a radical hard-core feminist. To quote my ex, “I am a feminist but I don’t hate men,” which really just a way of them obtaining that womanly need for male companionship while at the same time giving themselves an out.

The analysis of SoCon women is very correct, though they purpost to support traditional principles, they hold the advantages of feminism to protect their own interests. This can be seen especially amongst business type of women who may not support abortion, gay rights, or the “free-love” ideology, but still use women’s lib to obtain what they want from the male patriarchy.

In fact many are vicious hypocritics who use the the principles of traditional society (i.e. strong marriage and “chivalry”) to hold men hostage. For example, if a man acts inappropriate sexually, the blame is placed on him with all too common phrase “well he should have been a gentleman” while disregarding the expectations of a female code of conduct.

All in all the modern woman (whether SoCon, business oriented, liberal, radical, etc.) is solely dedicated to the destruction of male patriarchy, the foundation of ALL civilization.

No wonder it is coming apart.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Malestrom January 9, 2011 at 07:23

I actually disagree with this idea of ”hybrid feminism”. You’re treating feminism like it is a coherent ideology, it isn’t. There isn’t a need to hybridize it with anything, as you said, feminism is simply about whatever is in the short term interests of women. If there is hybridization going on it is only in borrowing the surface justifications from other, coherent, ideologies, such as social conservatism. Socially conservative women believe it is men’s duty to provide for women not because they accept the social conservative ideology which that is part of, but because that is in their interests, and their alliegance to social conservatism probably has a lot to do with that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
zed January 9, 2011 at 08:22

I actually disagree with this idea of ”hybrid feminism”

feminism is simply about whatever is in the short term interests of women. If there is hybridization going on it is only in borrowing the surface justifications from other, coherent, ideologies, such as social conservatism

“Chameleon Feminism”? – it changes color to match whatever background it is on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader January 9, 2011 at 08:33

At first I was not impressed by this term ,hybrid feminism, because like other posters I regard virtually all modern women as cafeteria feminists; they take the parts they like, and leave the rest – while pretending to be on a “diet”. But reflecting on Zed’s term “feminine-ism” for a while, I think I see the point. Hybrid feminism is a fusion of any number of ideas, or memes if you are into memetics, all of which work to the benefit of women. If they also happen to benefit children, or even manbots, that’s ok with some or even many women, but only as a side effect. The primary effect must be to the benefit of women.

So we see so-called socially conservative women who claim their non-feminist cred based on their opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage — but who have no opposition to Affirmative Action. They want to compete with men for “equality” at work, but want their “special” roles as mother and wife to be protected. But what they are really about, maybe subconsciously, is protecting privileges.

Where are all these “traditional” women when an effort is made to require paternity testing on newborns? Either absent or in opposition – either way, they take a feminist position, passively or actively. Makes no difference.

Or take social situations; the AA-benefiting “equal” office drone goes out for an evening, and all of a sudden expects the men to buy her food, drinks, movie tickets, because she’s a “lady” and deserves it. But the next day, all those men become potential harassers, and she needs HR to be vigilant, they become competitors, and she needs AA to protect her from “discriminaayyshun”. She’ll insist that she’s no ball-busting feminist, she’s just a lady in the modern world, too.

Hybrid feminism – the art of eating your cake, and having it , too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan January 9, 2011 at 08:49

Important piece. Great job.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 9, 2011 at 09:28

The terms Cafeteria Feminism and Lifeboat Feminism have been around a long time. The point I get from PMAFT’s article is not so much wanting to coin a new term, but to point out that the idea that feminism is a purely leftist ideology often blinds men to the many ways conservative women hate men and hold them in contempt. Phyllis Schlafly, the unfortunate darling of so many conservative-leaning MRAs because she campaigned so vigorously against the Equal Rights Amendment, called her organization “STOP” for “Stop Taking Our Privileges.”

This is what I was getting at in part. The average woman isn’t purely a leftist feminist, but she isn’t purely a socon either. She will combine whatever ideas from whatever female supremacist source that she thinks will benefit her at the expense of men.

Binxton January 9, 2011 at 10:57

Type 5 January 9, 2011 at 06:31

The Law of Generic Woman:

Listening to women and how they talk about themselves these past several years has made me realize that they see themselves as a woman first and an individual second.

And this is how we should have seen them too.

Someday, we will have to change our entire philosophy that sees people as “only” individuals. The fight against feminism is in reality a fight against the philosophy that dismisses human differences as superficial.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
chi-town January 9, 2011 at 11:36

It strikes me as odd to expect from social conservatism any leadership from women since the very philosophy expects male leadership. Consistent with the belief is that male assertiveness will attract the support women in his sphere. I can certainly see why any man expecting women from social conservative culture to be a driving force will fail miserably since he is both undeserving and ineffectual in the role he fancies.

Its not a battle of sex but that of opposing hyena culture. Are manginas my allies by sex? Are they not recruited by their dominant women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Loki January 9, 2011 at 13:15

“The Law of Generic Woman: Listening to women and how they talk about themselves these past several years has made me realize that they see themselves as a woman first and an individual second. . . . ” [Type 5 January 9, 2011 at 06:31]

“And this is how we should have seen them too. Someday, we will have to change our entire philosophy that sees people as ‘only’ individuals. The fight against feminism is in reality a fight against the philosophy that dismisses human differences as superficial.” [Binxton January 9, 2011 at 10:57]

This is another reason why it is fundamentally a waste of time, at best, to try to include women in anything important.

Men alone have the capability to create civilization because they have the capacity to look beyond themselves, and to seek The Truth to use as a touchstone.

On the other hand, women cannot see beyond their herd, and constantly redefine “truth” to enable their inborn touchstone: “Gimme” (I deserve whatever I want, whenever I want it, and nothing else matters).

I also want to repeat part of Zed’s comment from the “Atlantic Article” thread.

Although I am comfortable with constructing academic arguments, this type of description [the last two quoted paragraphs] is the one that inspires lingering revulsion toward women, since I am the type who rescues puppies abandoned on back roads.

“One of my biggest concerns about a lot of guys I see in the MM today is that they have bought the feminist lie, or they have bought at least half of it – that life for men was great and women were “oppressed”, so they think the answer is to “go back” to the way things supposedly were. ”

“So many people fell for the fiction that uber-male-feminist Warren Farrell had to write an entire book about “The Myth of Male Power.” And, it was a complete myth – every last bit of it. Men have always been the disposable sex, they have always dominated the death professions, and they have always been pretty much considered the slaves and servants of women.”

“The difference [between now and the 60s] is that men of my generation and before were pretty much considered to be beasts of burden – born and bred for the purpose of dragging around a financially and emotionally dependent wife and family. Like any owner of a beast of burden, women were expected to provide a stall with fresh straw, a bit of hay, and maybe a cup of sweet tasty oats for their beast of burden after a long hard day of dragging the plow through the field. ”

“But, for some reason, being kind to their beast of burden, treating them well and taking care of them, so that they could go out and plow the fields again the next day, got twisted by women into “oppression”, and by god that worthless mule-male “ought to” get his own straw and hay!!!! And oats?!?!?! Well, that is just ‘mule privilege.’ ” [zed January 8, 2011 at 09:33]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Joe Zamboni January 9, 2011 at 19:55

Great discussion that helps us get out of the yes/no, black/white, way of looking at women — are they a feminist, or not? I think that “feminist” is just a convenient label, and that in conversations with women, we must always simply deal with the issue that’s come up.

Example with the girlfriend:
In response to my repeated indications of interest in sex, she says “You have a one track mind.” I object, saying “That’s feminist myth shit,” and she rapidly backs down. I point out that “Men focus — that’s normal, that doesn’t mean that we have one-track-minds.” She says, “I don’t know why I said that, it’s just something that women say, I apologize.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire January 9, 2011 at 21:42

Because the average woman does not believe herself to be a feminist (or socon) in any way. Her belief that she’s “not a feminist” doesn’t make her an anti-feminist. She will still have female supremacist beliefs.

Pretty neat trick.

Feminists pretend to be on our side.
“The family court system is because of the patriarchy!”
“We agree with you when you say you hate the phrase ‘man-up’!” (after all, we want to emasculate you)
“It’s those non-feminist women who are the REAL supremacists!”
“We don’t believe in the comodification of sex.” (we just believe we should have absolute control in all sexual matters)

Non-feminist women pretend to be on our side.
“All those feminists are lesbians that don’t shave their armpits.”
“Those feminists want to destroy fatherhood!” (they want to destroy our mules)
“NAWALT”

When the truth is they are BOTH the enemy.
The two groups need each other so they can piss on our heads and tell us it’s raining.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire January 10, 2011 at 03:59

Phyllis Schlafly, the unfortunate darling of so many conservative-leaning MRAs because she campaigned so vigorously against the Equal Rights Amendment

Some of you are sure to disagree with this but I sometimes wonder if that woman is THE reason we are in this situation we are in today.
Maybe the ERA (back then not the version the feminists want now) could have made much of what is happening today unconstitutional.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 10, 2011 at 08:51

Elusive Wapiti January 8, 2011 at 08:54
“Feminism has been wonderful for alpha men.”

EW. Yes. It has. Having crossed to alpha about 6 months ago I notice women act VERY differently to me now. I notice I also say things to women I don’t even know that are FAR more risque than I ever did as a beta.

I was out to dinner with friends in the UK recently. I found a nice little place with guiness and waited for my friends. When I decided to stay for dinner the lady of the restaurant said: “I am glad you decided to say, I am sure we have everything here you could want tonight.” I just looked at her and said: “Well, not quite. You could sell me a hot little blonde number as well, but I doubt you have one on the menu. So I will just have to get by on the food and beer, eh?” I gave her a big alpha-grin to go along with the coy comment.

Yep..she lapped it up like a kitten laps up milk. She constantly attended to our table far more than needed and we got talking as I waited for my cab at the end of the night. She was VERY interested. But she was not up to my standards. It was all just ‘a bit of fun’. I am finding the waitresses/shopgirls etc are paying me LOTS more attention than they did when I was beta. Nothing else has changed except my alpha-attitude.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) January 10, 2011 at 08:56

“So many people fell for the fiction that uber-male-feminist Warren Farrell had to write an entire book about “The Myth of Male Power.”

Glad you said that Zed. A LOT of people say Warren Farrell is ‘doing good by men’. Bullshit. All he ever talks about is how men need to change in order to please women. I took him up on this point and emailed him a number of times accusing him of being totally full of shit and challenging him to stop talking about what ‘men should be doing’ and have a word or two to say about what WOMEN might want to do.Like all maginas. No reply.

As far as I am concerned Warren Farrell is as feminist as they come. If someone shot him tomorrow it would be a big step FORWARD for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
zed January 10, 2011 at 09:26

As far as I am concerned Warren Farrell is as feminist as they come.

Fer gawd’s sake, he was elected 3x to the national board of NOW – how much more feminist is is possible to get? On my list of men who sold out other men for a chance at some quick pussy, he, Phil Donohue, and Dr Phull-of-it are all in the top 10.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
AlekNovy January 11, 2011 at 02:03

You guys need to move out of america for a while :d Even though exaggerated even for the USA… At least you could replace “women” with “american women” or “western women”.

Reading this article is like reading fiction to me when I think about eastern europe. Its just ridicolous to see the word “women” in this article. A complete disconnect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
AlekNovy January 11, 2011 at 02:07

“”Being “too busy” never stops them from fighting against abortion or gay marriage.””

WTF? 99% of women don’t care about that crap, and yes, they’re too busy to care about gays or abortion, and that’s even in the USA. In my country specifically 99.999% of women freaking hate homosexuals with a vengeance and are anti-gay.

Just for your information… Abortion is more supported by men, not women. The approval/support rate of abortion is HIGHER among men, not women.

OMFG A NAWALT POST! Ya ya, settle down… It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat that the sky is green. I’m going to say “mmm, actually its blue”. Truth before all. Even if I thought this kinda crap (saying that the sky is green) serves the MRA cause, I’d still point out that the sky is blue, because truth is the ultimate value.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
David K. Meller January 11, 2011 at 14:02

I suspect that making distinctions between “hybrid” feminists, “traditional” feminists, and “neofeminists” etc. is harmless enough, and might even further enlighten us men in the improving our understanding of what–and whom– we are dealing with! However, it is important to remember that the primary word here is FEMINIST, whatever the particular strategy is of the woman,or the women, in question!

It is important to remember that the woman is always asking the question “How does this benefit ME?” This is the question that is overwhelming in her conscious mind! ALL of her sexual energy, all of her capacity for judgement and all of her capacity for manipulation is inevitably focused on that ONE QUESTION! If, and when, she can benefit, sexually, financially, socially, or any other way, by adapting the tactics of a traditional woman, she will do so, if she can benefit (in the short term) by being a man-hating, spiteful competitor, she will do that, and if she can benefit by “I am not a feminist but…” gaining the upper edge in her dealings with other men (or even other women) she will do that without a second thought!

The Chinese military philosopher SunTzu wasn’t talking about modern women when he advised “know yourself and know your enemy, and in a hundred battles you will see a hundred victories” but his advice applies here more than anywhere else! You CAN enjoy women, if you know what and whom to look for, what to expect, and why they act the way that they do!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

PS-For any Spearhead.com reader who still has trouble understanding the above post–and I don’t think that you have–a simple exercise will help:
How do you spell woman? N-A-R-C-I-S-S-I-S-T!!-DKM

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
chris January 14, 2011 at 09:08

This article expresses how feminism is able to hide itself in the church. One of the most steadfastly female superior places is the average church, indeed the more conservative the denomination the more feminist they are, which should be counter intuitive.
They have sold man bad women good in spiritual terms. they have sold the male condition as one needing spiritual rehab and remediation, and where better to get it than, the ladies of the church?!
Men must be held accountable, women must have help with low self esteem….there you have it, the church.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
spocksdisciple August 3, 2011 at 15:28

Feminism is a cross gender psychological virus, treat it as such. It’s infectious on all forms and high virulent, though symptoms and effects can range from mild to rabid. It’s know to remain infectious for years and eventually it kills it’s victim, it induces hallucinations and a dangerous euphoria similar to many psychoactive drugs in which the infected believe they are invulnerable to any consequences of their actions.

Hybrid feminism is a offshoot strain as feminism can mutate into multiple forms, some forms being very active, others only having periods of activity followed by a dormant phase, much like many STDs(of which those infected with feminism are also carriers of).

Feminism has many characteristics of a Zombie virus and can exhibit many of the same symptoms and effects, the infected are carriers who attempt at all costs to pass on the strain, in the case of the Zombie virus through physical contacts as bites and scratches, and in the case of feminism through a lowering of the self esteem psychological defenses of the victims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lawless January 14, 2012 at 11:29

I’m sorry to say that I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say with this rather confusing article, but I assume you are looking for an explanation to the apparent contradiction that a woman who claims to not be a feminist, would often act in a feminist way (and possibly vice versa).

While I agree that there are different types of feminism (that is what you are trying to say, isn’t it?), there is another way of explaining it without having to make things so complicated. I have the theory that in most cases you can’t say that a woman “is” a feminist. What you can say is that she acts in a feminist way in a particular situation.

Men, much more often than women, hold their political views important and identify with them. Women, much more often than men, use political, including feminist, rhetorics, as a tool to advance their interests in one or another situation. You might hear a woman at your workplace routinely complain how women are so underpaid, but you would be astonished if you were there to observe how she turns into an acquiescent pussycat in the presence of a man she wants to please. It’s not like she wouldn’t like women’s salaries to be higher. It’s just a very minor issue to her, far less important than, say, landing a rich and powerful husband. And you, instead of trying to place her in the multidimensional spectrum of all possible forms of feminism, should realise that she doesn’t give you her feminist crap because she wants you to agree with her (which, I think, is usually the reason men argue with people), but because she feels it’s the best way to manipulate you in that situation.

In particular, she would easily switch from one type of feminism to another in the course of your conversation, without being the least disturbed by sounding contradictionary, like a man would.

Obviously, the above only describes a typical man and a typical woman. Men also do the above, but far less frequently, and there are women who really fight for their principles, but, again, they are far fewer than the men who do. But I think you will understand a women much better if you stop asking yourself what she “is” and realise that it is much more important for her to control you by confusing you than to promote any feminist agenda.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 5 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: