Feminists are Going Underground

by W.F. Price on December 11, 2012

The popular hatred of feminism has grown to such an extent that even self-proclaimed feminists are abandoning the term. Alex Cranz, a feminist who runs a site called “fempop,” grew frustrated when she found that people were avoiding her site because she had explicitly labeled it a feminist site. Her tagline read “Pop Culture Through A Feminist Lens,” and although she felt it was an accurate description of the site, she encountered resistance from friends, particularly men, who said that it made them “uncomfortable,” and was too exclusive. They explained that feminism isn’t for everyone.

After some investigation, Cranz decided to make a change. Her article about it, titled “Feminism Isn’t the Problem; The Word Is,” documents her retreat from explicit feminism:

Feminism was, to these people, a moniker used by angry hairy-pitted activists who hated men, loved women too much, were physically incapable of humor and probably didn’t wear a bra.* It was a word intoned by activists. Not “real” people. I can only guess they still talked to me because I “wasn’t like a normal feminist” or something. It must have been all the dead rape baby jokes I used to tell in high school.**

Frustrated I went and whipped up a Tumblr, “You Might Be A Feminist.” It was a way of defining what feminism meant to me and other women and it was a very quick success, if moderate, success. But only with people already identifying themselves as feminists. It wasn’t changing anyone’s way of thinking or converting the Katy Perrys, Carla Bruni Sarkozys and Rooney Maras of the world. The people who NEEDED to see it weren’t. It started to feel a little masturbatory.

In February 2012, after yet another explanation from a well-meaning friend that the word was alienating to FemPop’s audience I snapped. I abruptly changed the logo and removed the word “feminism” from its prominent position on the website. I told myself it was an experiment I could later write about. I briefly even deluded myself into believing nothing would change.

Except there was a change, and it was so immediate and immense I actually thought I’d broken something on the website in my minor bit of rebranding.

[...]

I changed one word and suddenly visitors felt comfortable poking around. Nothing else changed on the site. There wasn’t a huge redesign and the clearly feminist title of the site didn’t change. I didn’t alter color schemes or suddenly post the best article in the history of the universe. It was still pop culture through a feminist lens–but with a little less feminism on the front page.

It disturbed me that my friends and family had been so correct. I set the knowledge aside a little too scared to write about it. Because there are implications. Feminism is a dirty word with the mainstream and that’s a little terrifying to me.

It’s funny how she describes calling oneself a feminist as “masturbatory.” Too true — for both the male and female variety.

The video of feminists showing their true colors in Toronto was important, but people have been getting the idea about feminists for quite some time now. Thanks in part to our efforts on this site and others. This has prompted rage on the part of feminists and their sycophants. Just the other day David Futrelle used search stats from some bestiality sites he’d been browsing in an attempt to prove that zoo porn is more popular than men’s rights. While I’m sure this is the case for Futrelle, it doesn’t matter all that much whether people are interested in men’s rights specifically so long as they get the message about feminism.

MRA is never going to be a broad-based, widely popular movement like feminism, because men are never going to be able to all get together in one big circle singing solidarity songs. We don’t do that kind of thing. At least not the normal men. But what men can do is get together and fight a common enemy, and that’s what we’ve been doing.

Being popular is far more important for women than for men, and that’s one of the weaknesses of feminism and strengths of MRA. In fact, as men, whether people think we are nice or not doesn’t even matter. All that matters is that we aren’t contemptible, sniveling weaklings. I know that really bothers some people, but those are just the cards we’ve been dealt. Men are hated most of all for their weaknesses.

Recently, I saw some feminists suggesting that the SPLC playing politics and siding with the feminists in their little “hate the haters” campaign against men must have crushed our souls. You know, that’s pretty funny. If I were a woman, I might feel that way, but as a man I just think “screw them.” I know, for example, that SPLC founder Morris Dees is widely hated where he lives in Alabama. Do you think Dees, rolling around in his luxury car or swimming in his private pool, gives a damn? Nah — he just thinks “screw them” and collects a check. Dees is loved by his liberal allies because he beats up on their enemies; not because he’s a nice, friendly fellow. Actually, from accounts I’ve read he’s a grade-A asshole who leaves “broken lives” in his wake. But he is a strong, resourceful, unintimidated man, and that’s what counts.

For women, however, it’s a different ball game. Women’s power rests largely on the public perception of femininity as inherently good. This perception is instinctive for men, who are programmed to see all sorts of goodness in women from birth. It’s an enormous source of power, but it isn’t guaranteed, hence women’s constant insecurity over what people think of them. For the most part, it is quite literally based upon the male concept of beauty. Men see beautiful women and this activates the “good” response in their brains. Men then immediately fall all over themselves to serve the woman in order to obtain some of this goodness.

But a few changes have come about. The “women good” perception can be severely damaged by certain things. First, men do not feel good when the woman they desire is screwing other men. It’s very distressing to them on an instinctive level, and today women are very promiscuous. Secondly, when women start acting like men (e.g. compete with them in careers), it also significantly erodes their appeal. Combine promiscuity with competition in the workplace, and women have really shot themselves in the foot. It’s like a reverse makeover where they come out looking uglier than when they went in, and this is leaving the obesity epidemic – the real elephant in the living room – out of the equation. To men, feminists have begun to epitomize all the worst things about contemporary females, and young women are starting to catch on and run very quickly away from the feminist label.

So, in order to beat the feminists, all we have to do is show them as the awful, nasty, unattractive, slutty and hateful people they are, and as women they instantly lose most of their appeal and power. Fortunately, they do a pretty good job of that themselves, so we just have to remind people from time to time, helpfully point out the terrible things they do and promote, and keep up the pressure.

If the feminists fight back with all they’ve got and get vicious, calling us names, smearing us personally, getting low-down and dirty and so on, we win. We win because while they may have some success in smearing us, they’ll come out with just as much filth on their faces, and it will look worse on them.

I suspect we’ll see them trying to drag more men in on their side as they get desperate, but it won’t be enough. Just look at the guy they had with them in Toronto — that’s the face of male feminism’s future: drug-addled street scum.

There’s only one way that the feminists can ultimately preserve their power. They have to adopt femininity again. They have to stop being sluts, stop trying to rule men in the workplace, and stop trying to match us on the battlefield. In short, they have to stop being feminists.

{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }

Zorro December 11, 2012 at 07:46

Agree with every word.

The entire feminist mentality must die.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anon7 December 11, 2012 at 07:49

Feminists haven’t gone underground. Their movement is now the one that defines our culture. They’ve won every cultural battle, and their ideological followers are comfortably in the majority. And since the female motto is “It’s never good enough! Why aren’t you working harder to make me happy?” there is constant “improvement” and especially no backsliding built in. Feminism is so pervasive you can hardly see it for what it is anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
driversuz December 11, 2012 at 07:56

Wow. That was stunning. Reposting!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
POD December 11, 2012 at 08:00

What women are doing is, avoiding the label while still acting, actively or by per-using the ill-gotten benefits feminism gave them for being born with a vajajay. The MRM shouldn’t sit idle, we still need to gather all the men that show any sign of being ready for the red pill and go closer to critical mass.

Their actions betray their speech. The good women fight against the wrongly , unearned privileges conferred to women, usually at the expense of men. Very few such women exist, and they’re not all that influential to turn the tide back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anon7 December 11, 2012 at 08:07

Maybe you’re referring to women feeling uncomfortable with the strident harridans who used to be needed as front line shock troops. Women like to be comfortable; jarring language and poorly chosen outfits (no bras? gross!) are unpleasant, and now are unnecessary.

Can’t we all just put on our pink ribbons to raise more money to fight women’s diseases, and our pink “support women’s troops” ribbons to show our love for single mothers who need the good jobs in the military, and insist together that it is men’s fault that women are not men’s equal in all things? Women just want to be haaaapy after all, and what are you doing about it?

Women no longer need strident unpleasant feminism, they’ve turned America into the beta provider of their dreams. Women have what they want, now, and like always they’re turning toward what makes them feel good.

I guess I’m just feeling extra sarcastic today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Take The Red Pill December 11, 2012 at 08:13

Let them “run away from the label” all that they want — feminism is still feminism no matter what label the feminazis comes up with to disguise their hate movement.
And I don’t see any mention of the feminists who are ‘running away from the label’ intent on surrendering any of their government-sponsored ‘women-only’ misandric privileges (e.g., Affirmative Action regs, VAWA-sponsored ‘must arrest’ laws, ‘his-fault’ divorce laws, Title IX, etc.).
You can take the swastika off a Nazi, but you will have a Nazi.

“If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,…”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer December 11, 2012 at 08:40

Elmer has a “disqus” account and left a comment that avoided “mansplaining” :

A wise parent teaches their child to think for themselves while presenting their own view on the world. The author’s mother inflicted a serious delusion on her by proclaiming “sexism” in everything, much as some parents school their children to see “racism” in all of life’s disappointments. This is a self-defeating attitude that colors their decisions and perspective, inevitably leading to disillusion and bitterness.

Alex has learned by experience the toxic connotations of the word “feminism”; likely she will gradually turn away from that poisonous pedagogy and become an outspoken proponent for men’s rights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster December 11, 2012 at 08:48

Feminism failed at it’s quest for ultimate equality between women and men, because the majority of women weren’t that commited to BEING more like men. They find Sexual Power over men makes them much more pliable, than demanding special treatment because they’re oppressed. What we have today are feminist-hybrids that are sassy go-getters by day, and sex kitten/whores by night – – The Cosmo ideal for feminism and sexual liberation; having it all.

You know how men would make that (often gratuitous) remark: “I just can’t figure women out!” – as if they’re these mysterious other worldy creatures beyond any man’s comprehension? Well feminism exploded that myth (the “mystique”) right out of the water…by taking her down from her pedestal and holding her next to man. You’re not ALL THAT honey!

Sexual Power over the male matters. Competing with him at competing with him to attract women (by excelling at career), is very difficult and fraught with stress and misery. Most men don’t even make it to the corner office. Sexual power is so damn easy, even if it defies feminist theory. Sexual power is natural and produces results. Competing head-to-head is hard and guys always seem to win anyway…so what’s the point? Beat the men at the game of climbing the corporate ladder, until there are no men left? How is that winning?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost December 11, 2012 at 08:48

The end of femminism will not be this emotional I’m sorry and was wrong from women. It will be real quiet and as if it never happened. The true end will be a bill to repeal a law of misandry will just pass with out fan fare. Women will get arrested for crimes against men and children for some reason and will actually be prosecuted and sentenced. All will happen very quietly and a blue piller will never know.
It is starting now as Welmer as shown with women hiding the the fact they were ever feminist.
Fuck em the laws and and social custom of misandry are what I want. I don’t care about what some bitch thinks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster December 11, 2012 at 09:02

Feminism’s worst nightmare is the Supreme Court envoking the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution in a ground breaking precedent to truly “equalize” men and women in the eyes of the law.

No one will dare take anything like this to the Supreme Court and MRA’s have no money, but it would be a death knell. Imagine taking VAWA to the Supreme Court as violating the equal protection clause. Who’s man enough and rich enough to take on Washington DC and Feminist Inc.? The entire white-knight, mangina, feminist establishment…AND with 3 (probably 4 soon) liberal female justices.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 11, 2012 at 09:02

“No, really! We NEVER had ANY intention of blowing up Parliament!! We are SO misunderstood!!”

guy fawkeses

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 11, 2012 at 09:03

Feminism was, to these people, a moniker used by angry hairy-pitted activists who hated men, loved women too much, were physically incapable of humor and probably didn’t wear a bra

Hilarious. I just thought they were lazy. Feminism turned me away with a vengeance when they told me my desire for a husband and children was a result of social brainwashing – and that any woman who said she wanted that was lying to herself.

Oh heavens, you think I’m brainless? Way to win there!

Any explicit naming of oneself as “feminist” brands someone as more ardently as an activist for the cause. Its a blatant warning like “BEWARE OF DOG” on someone’s door. If they try using a different term (like “Christian Feminist”), it’s only a matter of time before that one becomes just as sullied and serves as a warning flag to outsiders.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Norm December 11, 2012 at 09:05

Feminism seems to be slowly sinking from it’s peek in the 1990s. They are still fighting today’s “war” with antiqueted theories.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price December 11, 2012 at 09:10

The end of femminism will not be this emotional I’m sorry and was wrong from women. It will be real quiet and as if it never happened.

-greyghost

Yeah, I think that’s pretty much how it will go down. Just quiet as though nothing ever happened, with women all saying “feminist? I was never one of those. I don’t even know what it means…”

zed December 11, 2012 at 09:26

Just quiet as though nothing ever happened, with women all saying “feminist? I was never one of those. I don’t even know what it means…”

carrot spiced poo

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed December 11, 2012 at 09:42

Imagine taking VAWA to the Supreme Court as violating the equal protection clause.

I often wonder if men lost out more than women when the ERA as defeated. VAWA is certainly “Jim Crow for men”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 11, 2012 at 09:57

This reminds me of socialists and communists re-labeling themselves as “progressives”.

Who wants to fight against “progress”? Obviously only uncool old white males – but we’re post-racial these days, wink wink.

Bleh.

The deeds are important, not the words, to most men. Women love to play games with words. Most men distrust guys who do this. Do you remember Clinton saying “That depends on what meaning of ‘is’ is”?

The guys who are fighting to get a job, get a better job, or keep their job are getting really pi$$ed off at this sort of wordplay. Fiddling while Rome burns is a very effective way for a ruler to not only lose his job but to discredit the system that made him the boss in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andrew S. December 11, 2012 at 10:01

Very well said.

I want to see males treated better, and the disrespect of men in America and other places where feminism has a stranglehold stopped. But the end of all the feminist dogma in these countries would make myself, and I would guess most MRA’s much happier.

And speaking of animal porn, I’m guessing this wasn’t the first time that that fat fuck David Futrelle goggled horse porn, or anything else having to do with beastality. Hey Dave, google “overweight men and the unhealthy relationships they have with their kitties” next time you want to google something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost December 11, 2012 at 10:02

keyster
one thing the feminist do understand equality under the law can never happen. Infact I think feminism’s woman’s priviledge under the law with the dropping of the Equal rights amendment gives the pass for all of the non constitutional stuff going on from campaign finance reform to this health care law and war on terror. Liberalism itself dies with rule of law. The true end will be a supreme court ruling on equal protection.
The MRM needs to go foot to the throat. Their is a lot more at stake than obvious men’s rights. We should never forget women’s selfishness has no limits women will vote to have women sufferage repealed if they think it is in there own interest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The First Joe December 11, 2012 at 10:13

Yeah, as I said over there – it’s dishonest to hide that you’re a feminist, especially on a site with a feminist agenda!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rapscallion December 11, 2012 at 10:21

check out the pro slut feminist hysteria at this tradcon student article about SMV: pretty entertaining stuff: http://theconcordian.com/2012/11/putting-a-price-tag-on-sexy-time/

we may see more of this infighting as well

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader December 11, 2012 at 10:24

Meh. Some woman changed a word on her website. This is a big deal?

Look, she still acts the same, no? The ideas she pushes are still the same, are they not?

Game teaches me that women’s words have little to no meaning, that I should watch what they do. what this woman has done is nothing.
She’s still a feminist. She’s still the enemy of any civilization beyond the grass-hut stage.

+1 to Zeds’ comments. Spray paint a turd as gold as you want, it doesn’t change what is inside, what the essential nature is. Beauty is skin deep, ugly – and feminism is very ugly – goes right to the bone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 11, 2012 at 10:42

Interesting video by Stardusk

What can be done about civilisational misandry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80U2JTrzzIc&feature=g-high-rec

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed December 11, 2012 at 10:53

check out the pro slut feminist hysteria at this tradcon student article about SMV: pretty entertaining stuff: http://theconcordian.com/2012/11/putting-a-price-tag-on-sexy-time/

The first response was from a guy who left this woman’s drivel as a pile of smoking wreckage.

His closing line was great –
“BUY YOUR OWN GODDAM DIAMOND RING.”

Younger men are showing signs of waking up, and no matter how women twist to get out from under the consequences of their actions (and women are tying themselves in knots trying) the chickens are coming home to roost on them.

A guy can probably get a decent Rolex for the price of the average diamond ring. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 11, 2012 at 10:58

Always remember to refer to the $LPC as such, never placing an “S” as the first letter of the abbreviation. I hope this will piss off Morri$ Dee$ enormously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 11, 2012 at 11:00

If Morri$ Dee$ hates this so much, he should change his fucking name and that of his organization to anything devoid of the letter “S.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 11, 2012 at 11:06

Sorry, $PLC, but you get the point. Technically Morri$ Dee$’ organization does almost nothing about poverty reduction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 11, 2012 at 11:10

zed
I often wonder if men lost out more than women when the ERA as defeated.

I think there’s no doubt the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment was a disaster for men.

The ERA passed both Houses of Congress in 1972 in an estrogen haze of “a woman can do anything a man can do.” It was in the process of being ratified by the states when a handful of conservative women led by Phyllis Schlafly had a major “oh shit” moment.

They suddenly realized that the ERA did not mean that women could choose to do what a man does if they felt like it. It meant that woman would HAVE to do everything a man does. The ERA would mean women would have to register for the draft, for example, and would lose all the special privileges traditionally accorded to the female sex.

In fact the ERA was the opposite of what women really wanted, which was to retain all their special privileges while also grabbing the few societal privileges traditionally available only to men. The ERA did not mean “having it all,” it meant being forced to carry a man’s responsibilities. Oops.

So Phyllis went to work and stopped the ERA in the nick of time by persuading the remaining states NOT to ratify the ERA.

Just for fun, ask any younger woman when the Equal Rights Amendment was passed. They will inevitably guess at a date. Then you can tell them it wasn’t, there is no Equal Rights Amendment.

The ERA. Where toasted ice met reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
keyster December 11, 2012 at 11:27

I often wonder if men lost out more than women when the ERA as defeated. VAWA is certainly “Jim Crow for men”.

It was a bizarre time. Feminists were fighting for it and SoCon women (Phyllis Schlafly leading the charge) fought against it. You need all 50 states to ratify any amendment, and they couldn’t get it. The Supreme Court (Scalia) claims “Equal Protection” exists under the 14th amendment, so there is no need for an ERA. But yet it’s conveniently ignored with VAWA and ObamaCare and the “Dear Collegue” letter, etc.

Schlafly fought against it because she wanted to retain “a woman’s special place”, while feminists wanted it to prove they were just as good as men when held to the exact same standards. Feminists STILL want it. Schlafly knew women couldn’t compete directly with men, and didn’t want them to.

http://www.now.org/issues/constitution/index.html

Feminists are still fighting for “equality” with men, but in the Paycheck Fairness context…with no mention that the US-BLS .74 cents data is based off of women working part-time and taking time off to have children.

ERA would have been a big win for men, but now it’s become a covert al la carte concept. It was a mistake for conservatives to fight it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price December 11, 2012 at 11:35

ERA would have been a big win for men, but now it’s become a covert al la carte concept. It was a mistake for conservatives to fight it.

-keyster

The ERA wouldn’t have done a thing for us because the version the feminists wanted – the version up for ratification – included the following rider (known as the Hayden Rider):

“The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.”

With that rider, it simply wasn’t equal. It was meaningless. Women do not want, and never will want, true equality with men. They aren’t that stupid.

Anonymous age 70 December 11, 2012 at 11:40

Phyllis said in plain English some years ago that she was against ERA and equality, because it meant women had to go to work, instead of lounging around with their girl friends, over coffee, and volunteer work, while men did all the work. She is not your friend.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo December 11, 2012 at 11:40

@ Price

I only comment here because I love what you wrote; the great part about this piece:

I don’t have to add anything to the comment section other than pointing out you covered everything..

Great post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
driversuz December 11, 2012 at 11:52
zed December 11, 2012 at 12:03

…known as the Hayden Rider

Very interesting. I didn’t follow the debate very closely when it was being fought out, but there seemed to be a general sense that defeating the amendment was a way of spitting in feminists’ faces.

George Will made some recent waves with his opinion that opposition to gay marriage was dying – literally.

Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people.

Likewise, I think support for female privileges may be dying off somewhat – as old men die off.

I cannot imagine most young men – raised by feminist women, educated by feminist teachers, any masculine behavior medicated out of them, and seeing their fathers pauperized by feminist/socon laws – will continue to vote for their own enslavement. Unless they turn out to be stupid as Boomer men, that is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 11, 2012 at 12:11

Anonymous age 70

Ok mate help me out here. As you know I am from the UK and I seem to get confused over the names or labels given to the political parties in the USA.

A So Con is a Conservative ? Which also means right wing ? Is that correct ? In the UK a Conservative is certainly right wing e.g. Maggie Thatcher. Well, that was true up until a few years back, now you can’t tell left from right.

So what is a Republican ? Left or Right ? Is a SoCon perhaps middle ? Perhaps not unlike the UK Liberal or Social Democrats ? They have views from the Labour and and Conservative parties mixed with some of their own. Labour by the way is or at least was, at some point, Socialist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn December 11, 2012 at 12:18

I don’t think that feminism has quite gone underground. Everywhere I look it is still the praised, supported, and looked to standard by the cultural institutions and by the masses of lemmings as to the reality that codifies the excepted “gender” premises about society.

“what men can do is get together and fight a common enemy, and that’s what we’ve been doing”
— Men don’t even have to get together to fight. We can fight on our own and have been doing that. Most men have never even heard of men’s rights. Men are simply being men doing what men do so well after being punched out too many times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet December 11, 2012 at 12:25

“Recently, I saw some feminists suggesting that the SPLC playing politics and siding with the feminists in their little “hate the haters” campaign against men must have crushed our souls.”

LOL. Solipism/projection at it’s most ridiculous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 11, 2012 at 12:34

W. F. Price
The ERA wouldn’t have done a thing for us because the version the feminists wanted – the version up for ratification – included the following rider (known as the Hayden Rider):
“The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.”

Well, there ya go, even the so-called Equal Rights Amendment had fine print stating void where prohibited.

I wonder what the Supreme Court would have made of the Hayden Rider if it had ever been tested. A constitutional amendment establishing explicit equal rights for both sexes that contained an opt-out clause for women. I guess the deep fried ice was just too good to pass up, even for the sake of the ERA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost December 11, 2012 at 13:12

That equal rights amendment without the pussy pass (or opt out clause) will be the “fix” for generations to come. It is the punishment for feminism. Full equality under the law. No more female discounts on arrest and sentencing. Fault restored to family law.
The Patriarchy is gone and will need to be gone. No great grand daughter born 10 years from now will know what the patriarchy is. She will know she will work or marry one hell of a solid masculine beta male. Rule of law loves beta males. In a sane society alpha’s are worthless cads in the large scheme of things they knew it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster December 11, 2012 at 15:10

Thanks. I had forgotten about the Hayden Rider.
In January of 1950 the ERA was debated on the floor of the Senate once again. At the end of the debate, Sen. Carl Hayden (D. Ariz.), at the suggestion of the Women’s Bureau, proposed the amendment.

You could write a book about the ERA, from Seneca Falls to the “Paycheck Fairness Act” and the Wal Mart discrimination case. Go to any college book store and you’ll find several tomes on it in the Women’s Studies section.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Antifeminist One December 11, 2012 at 15:31

I’ve said before that destroying the identity of feminism removes the name that they unite under. So this is great news.

I fully realise that it’s still shit, but not under a nicer name. It’s shit under no name, no identity. Who will rally behind your flag when you have no identity?

Maybe the first -real- strike against feminism will be destroying their name. And by the look of things, it seems to be going well.

Think about the next potential generation of feminists. Pop culture icons are already abandoning the label, so young girls will of course follow them in suit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alex December 11, 2012 at 16:03

oddsock December 11, 2012 at 12:11
Ok mate help me out here. As you know I am from the UK and I seem to get confused over the names or labels given to the political parties in the USA.
A So Con is a Conservative ? Which also means right wing ? Is that correct ? In the UK a Conservative is certainly right wing e.g. Maggie Thatcher. Well, that was true up until a few years back, now you can’t tell left from right.
So what is a Republican ? Left or Right ? Is a SoCon perhaps middle ? Perhaps not unlike the UK Liberal or Social Democrats ? They have views from the Labour and and Conservative parties mixed with some of their own. Labour by the way is or at least was, at some point, Socialist.

—–

Oddsock,
SoCon is a label for a social conservative. Usually church going, right wing, law and order type, generally voting Republican, however you’ll often find in the southern US that older voters are socially conservative, SoCons, but vote Democrat at the state and national level for reasons other than social.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 11, 2012 at 16:31

Cheers Alex

Its when the word Conservative is used I automatically think right wing. It would appear the politcal lines have been blurred globally. They certainly have here in the UK.

Trouble is, it doesn’t matter who we vote for, the government always gets into power.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
justeunperdant December 11, 2012 at 19:23

World economies are crashing down and women are losing the monetary support from the state, welfare check are getting cut.

From zero edge:
“Better Off On Benefits”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-11/better-benefits

From the link above : “In the meantime, I’ll stay on benefits and get as much as I can out of it.”

Women are not rejecting feminism because it is bad, they are rejected feminism because it cannot be used anymore as a tool to manipulate and extract money from men. State have no money left and men have no jobs.

Women being great manipulator, they are switching into a new trick. Pretending that feminism is bad for everyone especially men and now they want to go back to traditional family setting where the men still provide the resource (money) and women stay home.

Of course women want to go back to traditional family value but without giving away their privileges such as divorce law, rape laws and so on. Women still want these laws in order to be able to dominate the traditional family.

Only when women will start to give away their privileges will I be willing to talk with them.

I hate women and I am for the oppression of women. And women you are on your own, I don’t plan to help you during this collapse. Stop using men as tool if you are not read to make compromises.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Steve_85 December 12, 2012 at 05:18

This rose by any other name would still reek of sewerage

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thanatos December 12, 2012 at 05:35

I’m not surprised that zoo porn is more popular than Men’s Rights. There’s a whole lot of feminists out there and all of them are into zoo porn or child porn or sadomasochism or necrophilia or some fucked-up shit like that. Just look at Fruittrelle. Motherfucker didn’t come out right, obviously.Spent too long in the soup,or not long enough. People that look fucked up like that are just as fucked up on the inside (hence the greater popularity of bestiality than men’s rights) as they are on the outside,and 99% of those people are feminists or vegans or neo-nazis or some kind of fucked-up deviant.

Seriously,pick a face at random off of google. If they deviate from the standard feminine or masculine characteristics by more than about 3 degrees,I’ll lay good odds on the fact that they beat off to midget porn or stick medieval torture devices up their cunts/asses for thrills.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lavazza1891 December 12, 2012 at 05:41

In Sweden the Constitution (2:13) actually specifically allows for discrimination against men in words similar to the Hayden Rider:

“13 § Lag eller annan föreskrift får inte innebära att någon missgynnas på grund av sitt kön, om inte föreskriften utgör ett led i strävanden att åstadkomma jämställdhet mellan män och kvinnor eller avser värnplikt eller motsvarande tjänsteplikt. Lag (2010:1408).”

“§ 13 A law or other provision may not have the effect that someone is disadvantaged because of their sex, unless the provision is part of efforts to promote equality between men and women or refers to military service or equivalent mandatory service. Act (2010:1408).”

“Equality” is of course not defined in the constitution, and there is nothing said that efforts to promote equality must be in line with other constitutional rights, adequate and proportional. An obligation that typically only or mainly falls on men is excluded, which does not bode well for the interpretation of this provision.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Opus December 12, 2012 at 05:43

@oddsock

I’d like to help you out, but I can’t.

Every one agrees that Thatcher was a right-wing (not Wet) Conservative, but sadly she was not Patrician – far too common. She was a jumped-up Grocer’s daughter and thought like one (poor Chemist, worse Lawyer – so they say in The Inns of Court). Certainly not a Feminist and the only really good thing she ever did, was the thing for which she was most criticised – abolishing school-milk.

By comparison, Cameron is Patrician, economically market-orientated, but socially a marxist-feminist.

As I say beyond that I cannot help you; United States social allegiances remains a mystery to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thanatos December 12, 2012 at 06:00

@antifeministone

“Maybe the first -real- strike against feminism will be destroying their name. And by the look of things, it seems to be going well.”

The next logical step is forming local groups to cut off business to their establishments,boycott their corporate sponsors,bust up their productions and rallies on grounds of obscenity and public indecency (for which the case could be made a million times over),and eventually,run them out of town on a rail wherever they may be.

The nice thing about this is that a lot of it could be done under a banner other than “Men’s Rights” should we so choose,but I say do it overt. Do it loud,proud, and in their faces. What are they going to do, get the SPLC to list us as a violent extremist hate group in retribution? LOL.

Oops, already burned that card, didn’t ya, ya manhating fucks!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
George B. December 12, 2012 at 08:54

As feminists drop the feminist label, we will still follow them and out their dirty behavior and their messed up personalities. And since they can no longer be called feminists, and since most if not all women are complicit with them, it is the reputation of femininity and women themselves that will be tarnished. People will see for the first time in History, that feminism was not some alien add-on to women, but an outcrop completely in sync with their nature, their femininity, their womanhood. For they are irrational, solipsistic (to put it mildly), less intelligent, less capable, the real commitment-phobes, hypergamous, promiscuous (either serial or parallel)… and so on.

Hopefully, the mainstream will, for the first time, take femininity and women off the pedestal and see women for what they truly are.
Millions of women each year do horrible things and only the “radical feminists”, that harmful (harmful for men’s cause, more than to feminists) stereotypes of the hairy bra-burning women, get blamed for women, who do not identify as feminists, do.

The vast majority of women are not feminists. They’re women. They have “femininity” (which is completely different from the “purity”, “cleanliness”… bullshit version most people think it is), they have their natural in-group preference, solipsism, hypergamy, no innate or socially conditioned morality (don’t cha know, that’s all slut shaming and patriarchal brainwashing)… but they’re not feminists. They benefit from feminist laws and are complicit with it.

Even the most traditionalist women are female supremacists. Show me all those traditionalist women actively fighting, doing activism and lobbying to have anti-male divorce repealed, to repeal rape shield laws, sex-based affirmative action, etc. There aren’t any. Because they want all the goodies too while pretending to be loyal to men. What they fight over, interestingly enough, is not feminist laws and jurisprudence, but rather that women are promiscuous, and that men are not marrying, and that non-issue: abortion.
Feminists and promiscuous women mess up the traditionalist women’s plan and strategy to exploit men. Both feminists and traditionalists agree on the goal, that men should be exploited by women, it’s the strategy they don’t agree on. Their strategies are competing with each other. Feminists exploit men via divorce and state-given goodies and preferential treatment from the State, and they can then be promiscuous. Traditionalists’ strategy relies on exploiting men through marriage and turning him into a life-long workhorse wage-slave and a hollow shell of a man. But if that scheme fails, traditionalists still want the option of a feminist divorce. Hypocrites.

The group of women that defeated several attempts to pass anti-paternity fraud bills passed in several states call themselves “Women’s Lobby”, not “feminists”. Feminism is simply the ideological coating, at attempt to make appear legitimate or well-founded the naked self-interest of females and female political lobbying.

No, feminism is only one symptom of the problem. Social traditionalism is another symptom of the same problem. It is women who are guilty. It is female nature that needs to be indicted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Towgunner December 12, 2012 at 09:30

“MRA is never going to be a broad-based, widely popular movement like feminism, because men are never going to be able to all get together in one big circle singing solidarity songs. We don’t do that kind of thing.”

Yes, agreed. But this article leaves out the enormous state-sponsorship of just women and feminism. We’re bankrupt as a nation, so, we don’t have to necessarily follow the same path of feminists in organization; rather, we can just watch this beast literally kill itself. However, don’t discount the capabilities of men, after all, everything you see around you was made possible by men. The MRM is just getting started, if anything, I think men are willing to unite and look beyond race, ethnicities, etc…we just have to make it clear to all men that women right now look at them as inferior in every way. Not only is proclaiming one group’s superiority the same as the nazis, its also not even close to being true and the later is what hurts the most. Its as if we’re watching slightly over half the population assume that reality is exactly like what they see on tv and the movies, which is even more pathetic and only supports the case, all the more, that women aren’t superior or even equal if you ask me. The MRM would be wise to start telling men, particularly young boys, that there is a very well organized and state-sponsored agenda to destroy them. If that went viral you’d be amazed at the unity of men…I for one am completely speechless at the notion that I’m remotely equal to women much less inferior to them. Concentrate on what hurts, if you’re content with being seen as inferior, you’re nuts, most men when confronted with that statement would see it as a fighting word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
oddsock December 12, 2012 at 10:38

George B.

Yet another outstanding comment. Excellent stuff George B

With respect, just to add something. You are 100% correct in saying that feminism and traditionalism is one and the same. Most men still can’t bring themselves to accept that feminism= women. They just use different techniques of turning a man in to a pack horse wage slave.

This is why I try and point out that there is no political solution. Left or Right of politics does just the same to men. Simply different labels and empty promises.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Fidelbogen December 13, 2012 at 12:33

“Feminists haven’t gone underground. Their movement is now the one that defines our culture. “

They are lowering their profile and toning down their rhetoric, which means they are moving in the direction of concealment. And that equates to an undergrounding trend.

Granted, feminism still does define our culture. But it is starting to do so in a more subterranean way — as trends suggest.

This is good news, however, since it means they are going on the defensive. Which, in turn, means that we can openly give feminism, by name, a verbal trashing — and meet less opposition in doing so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sam December 13, 2012 at 17:06

Feminists will just change their name and tactics, they won’t fizzle out unless we dump a bucket of cold water on them. Perhaps we should push for the ERA to considered again, but no special clauses giving women an “out” while requiring men take responsibility. Selective service registration for all, or for none.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean December 16, 2012 at 15:21

I agree particularly with this point: that women need the approval of men. They need us to like them. If we don’t like them then they cannot rely on us to give them stuff, to protect them from harm, to compensate them for their own stupid choices.

Women have always derived power by controlling men. Their monopoly on reproduction is the source of that power. A hundred thousand years of selective breeding pretty much guarantees that the men in the world will do what women want in order to gain access to reproduction. What’s more, is that we will derive pleasure, pride, and satisfaction from our sacrifices.

The most perfectly genetically engineered slave is one who is happy to serve and incapable of recognizing his bondage. Indeed, that bondage is a source of pride. That slave is men.

And this is why women are even more susceptible to the anger and disapproval of men. They are also genetically engineered to know that when a man won’t do what you want, when a woman has pushed a man so far that he stops walking away, turns towards her and squares off against her, that she’s gone to far. And like most women, she’s suddenly honey and butter.

Well the MRM has squared off against feminism and now we are starting to see some of that honey and butter. Websites are removing the “feminism” from their titles, ideologues like Harding are still saying “Fuck you,” but also grudgingly admitting the position of the MRM is valid.

Of course it’s not going to be that easy. Feminism has entrenched itself in schools, text books, government agencies, and corporate boards. Casting off the moniker of “feminist” isn’t going to be enough for me and it shouldn’t be for any other man who doesn’t want to end up divorced and living in his truck so he can pay the child support.

But it’s a start and it’s far better than we were 8 years ago when I started writing and learning about this stuff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
George B. December 17, 2012 at 14:04

They’re not just going underground, they’re attempting to co-opt the MRM and switch sides.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/jezebels-kate-harding-joins-the-mrm/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DeNihilist December 18, 2012 at 18:03

Women can never be equal to men. Not ever. But they can be unique, and should have the equal rights to persue their own uniqueness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jay December 20, 2012 at 18:00

Despite how they change their camouflage they must never get away with it. The sunlight of scrutiny must be on them with no recourse of escape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jay December 20, 2012 at 18:02

@George B.

A trojan horse to subvert and ultimately destroy the MRM and what it is supposed to stand for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: