A Feminist Admits That Feminism Isn’t About Equality

by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech on May 5, 2013

Feminists say that feminism is about equality.  MRAs and many other anti-feminists know that feminism is really about female supremacism.  Louise Pennington writing in the Huffington Post admits that feminism admits that and believes that “equality” is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the liberation of women:

My original feminism was about equality: women were equal to men and all we needed was the laws to force misogynists to stop being misogynists. The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women. Equality before the law means nothing when violence is endemic;

What is the “true liberation of women”?  It’s nothing more than female supremacism.  Since Pennington is against both equality between men and women and presumably women having a lesser status than men (because women wouldn’t be “liberated” in this case), the only option left is that she supports female supremacism.  This is confirmed by her attack on equality before the law and elsewhere in Pennington’s article:

Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence.

Governments have been waging a war on crime ever since governments have been around despite knowing that the complete elimination of crime (or violence) is impossible.  The only way to even try to do such a thing is a police state the likes of which wasn’t even seen in the Soviet Union.  Neither socialism nor the police state of the Soviet Union were totalitarian enough and female supremacist enough for her because even socialists still pay lip service to equality and the idea that both men and women have human rights:

Until two years ago, I would have still identified as a socialist-feminist, although my awareness of the structural oppression of women was growing. The unrelenting misogyny and rape apologism on the left made me reconsider my political stance as did the creation of the Feminist/Women’s Rights board on Mumsnet. The more I read on Mumsnet, the more radical my feminism became. I started reading Andrea Dworkin, Natasha Walters, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Susan Maushart, Ariel Levy, Gail Dines, Germaine Greer, and Audre Lorde. I learned about cultural femicide and I started reading only fiction books written by women: Isabel Allende, Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Kate Mosse, Margaret Atwood, Kris Radish, Barbara Kingsolver, and Andrea Levy amongst many others. I started reading about women’s lives and the power of real sisterhood.

My feminism, both the definition and activism, has changed dramatically over the past 18 years. Now, I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy. The Patriarchy may predate capitalism but we cannot destroy it without destroying capitalism too. I don’t always feel a ‘real feminist’ or a ‘good enough’ feminist. All I know is that I am a feminist who truly believes that women have the power to liberate all women from male violence; that feminism is fundamentally about the power of sisterhood.

My feminist activism involves privileging women’s voices over men’s voices. I now only read books written by women. I try to get my main news from women’s news sites and women journalists like Soraya Chemaly, Samira Ahmed, Bidisha, Helen Lewis, Bim Adewunmi, and Sarah Smith. I follow only women journalists on Twitter and Facebook. I support organisations which are placing women’s experiences at the centre of public debate: Women Under Siege, The Everyday Sexism Project, and The Women’s Room UK.

Pennington says here that she is privileging women over men.  It’s not just about what Pennington reads or her actvism.  Throughout her article, Pennington doesn’t just attack the a general vague idea of “equality”, she attacks very specific ideas of equality, namely equality before the law.  Being against equality before the law means that Pennington wants to elevate women above men legally which is the most important aspect of female supremacism.  There can be no doubt here that Pennington is a female supremacist and that feminism is about female supremacism.

{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }

geographybeefinalisthimself May 5, 2013 at 11:44

Let’s just hope that this admission blows up spectacularly in her face (as well as those of everyone who never wanted feminism to be about equality in the first place), and blows up in her face at the speed of light as well.

Remember, if she could make this admission in 2013, she could have also made this admission more than a quarter-century ago.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh May 5, 2013 at 11:53

So how do you keep the others from distancing themselves when you confront them with this article?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley May 5, 2013 at 12:01

Holy crap! An (almost) honest feminist! Deluded of course, but honest about her goals. You go girl! The more you say about feminism, the less we need to.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 7
John May 5, 2013 at 12:08

The only way to abolish violence against women committed by men….. violence against men committed by other men. Good luck Ms. Feminist. I won’t be protecting you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 1
geographybeefinalisthimself May 5, 2013 at 12:17

Remember, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, while some of the comments on this article on the Puffington Host (the name the website is disparagingly called) were in opposition to feminism (see for yourself if you don’t believe me) or at least refute feminist claims without being overtly anti-feminist or pro-men’s rights, quite a few of the comments were also deleted, a tactic overwhelmingly employed by feminist sites.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Wilson May 5, 2013 at 12:18

I’m guessing what’s really been going on with her “over the past 18 years” is the diminishment of her femininity and SMV, and post-menopause she is trying to cling to life and relevancy by becoming a butch dyke. A white knight with a strapon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 1
Thos. May 5, 2013 at 12:36

I am sure she won’t be using women only grocery stories/food trucking services, women’s only hydro-electric power, women’s only funded and operated public transport, women’s only paved roads….

That she’s opting out of capitalism means that presumably she wants to live a taxpayer funded life or live off the grid in the woods like the Unabomber. Well, good for her. I hope it works out but it’s kind of sad.

If her energy and dedication could be harnessed in a way that helps her be productive, that’d be socially quite useful. I’m sure there are many roles someone with her passions could fill that would benefit others and make her happy.

Instead, we get a half-thought garble: she’s anti-capitalist but is following X on Facebook. Okay, you know why Facebook bans aliases? Because data about its users are the product that Facebook sells to large corporations. Anonymous users are useless data.

Facebook is the CIA of consumer behaviour.

Moreover, ethically, her position is dodgy. You want equality, great. I’ll sign as long as I get to have some effect in the definition. And I think most people would, too. To say that she’s given up on the idea of equality says more about her than it does about anyone else.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 1
piercedhead May 5, 2013 at 12:56

I would love to see this woman’s vision realised – that she be able to live in a place where only women have rights. How about an all-female island in the middle of remotest nowhere, with nothing anywhere to remind her of men at all? No, not even a resupply ship.

We could send all similarly aspiring feminists to keep her company. I strongly suspect men everywhere would be only too happy to pay their relocation costs.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 0
Brian May 5, 2013 at 12:59

That’s the kind of feminist “journalist” you’d expect from the U.K., which is the current motherland (Gaialand?) of hypersensitive feminazis who cry and whine to their tyrannical and idiotic left-wing government to get whatever they want.

I’m rooting for British men to finally draw a line in the sand and stand their ground against their mad politicians, imbecile bureaucrats, and lunatic women. I also hope the UKIP takes over or at least exerts strong influence in government affairs so that they can finally cut down their leviathan government.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
AF May 5, 2013 at 13:13

This – as she freely admits by her reading choices – is just selective bias, and it’s what all extremists practise – you’ll notice that white nationalists and anti-Semites will focus relentlessly on all the misdemeanours committed by blacks and Jews to “prove” their case, whilst scrupulously avoiding anything bad ever done by whites or non-Jews.

So, in response to Ms. Pennington, yes, many men have been violent. But so have many women. I can’t open the paper these days without reading about yet another mother who has abused or killed her kids.

Why aren’t feminists making a song and dance about laws to protect children from violence – after all, surely they’re more vulnerable than any adult, even poor perpetually-innocent little women?

The reason is that the majority of offences committed against children are by women, or by unrelated men that the women have brought into the child’s life. The person statistically least likely to abuse or kill a child is its biological father. That’s why there’s barely a whisper in the feminist community about child abuse; because they cause or facilitate the majority of it.

I’ve always thought it strange how feminism as a guise to “protect females” doesn’t give even a cursory glance to those females most vulnerable of all – female children . Where it comes to young females, it seems it’s fine to kill them before birth, rip them away from their fathers afterwards, subject them to dangerous “step-fathers” etc – but then suddenly, spontaneously at age 18, they become a special, protected, important oppressed minority?

Somehow in our society, we have managed to give women victim status so great it outweighs that of people who are actually physically unable to defend themselves or exercise any autonomy – children. I’m not advocating violence against anybody, but the facts are that an adult woman CAN defend herself from an adult man – any rudimentary self-defence class teaches that. But can a 3-year-old when mommy’s temper tantrum gets out of control?

Mothers are apparently so important that they are allowed to treat children of either sex however they please – taking them from their fathers, moving to wherever they like (and as often as they like), subjecting the kids to a never-ending procession of mommy’s-new-boyfriends (or girlfriends, or whatever the latest trend is), neglecting the kids whilst they pursue new romances or jobs, bathing them in mental illness as these tend to cluster amongst lone mothers – and so on and so forth.

It’s a funny thing how feminists are so obsessed with women’s achievement and success, whilst also vigorous proponents of the one thing that study after study has shown will damage their prospects for life – family breakdown and being raised by a single mother.

If you look at the most successful, high-powered women in our society and throughout history – Hilary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Sheryl Sandberg – guess what you’ll find? That their parents didn’t divorce and they weren’t raised by single mothers.

So the one feminist beacon of female “empowerment” – divorce and single parenthood – is simultaneously the one thing that disables their daughters the most – disability that is demonstrative and provable by weight academic studies, unlike that supposedly done by “the patriarchy”.

And before any feminist comes on here playing the poverty card, the studies control for all other factors – income, education etc – and the findings are always the same: divorce and single parenthood undermine a child’s chances hugely and for life.

It is simply a fact that it is the traditional family – imposed by that evil old patriarchy – that produces the most successful women.

Would love to hear feminists’ response to that one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 5
God May 5, 2013 at 13:21

After a good start, they’re starting to censor comments, and the radfems are starting to take over. Oh well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Tom936 May 5, 2013 at 13:27

Pennington is what Feminists call a “Straw Feminist”. They love to tell people that she doesn’t really exist. She’s just something that evil men invent in their minds in order to make Feminism look bad.

That’s how little respect Feminists have for the truth.

But all you have to do is quote her own public words to see it. It’s not just Pennington, and it’s not new. It’s been obvious from Feminist actions for a long, long time. At least to us red pill swallowers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself May 5, 2013 at 14:19

@ God

I didn’t know that they were censoring even more comments (granted, the article is five days old), as I had looked at it about an hour and a half ago. Obviously the Puffington Host is not a reputable source if it deletes comments that do not fit its narrative.

Unfortunately for us, whenever the truth hurts for feminists, they don’t let it sting for as long as it takes before they finally realize what they’ve done. You could figuratively sever all four of a feminist’s limbs and she still wouldn’t think about all the damage she has done.

I don’t think a feminist who has literally lost all four of her limbs in one fell swoop will stick to her principle of not needing a man and simply bleed to death as I bet almost all the technology to stanch wounds involving lost limbs was invented by males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Tam the Bam May 5, 2013 at 14:40

AaaHahaHHAhAHHHHHAAA!!!!!1!
She’s a Mumsnutter. Explains everything.
And yes, YABU.
“violence is endemic” What? Does she live in Syria or something?

‘Er Indoors gets right narked when I brush off one of her misanthropic rants, invariably caused by a rare trip outside into ShamelessWorld, with the trite yet accurate observation that the myriad ‘problems’ she encounters are entirely rooted in the fact that her (and by default but not choice, my) society is nowhere near violent enough.
It’s like a soft-play kindergarten staffed by terminal stoners. Of course Lord of the Flies is the result.
Naturally, she then switches to berating me as a psycho. lulzy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
keyster May 5, 2013 at 15:02

Her theory is that the physical strength and size advantage men have over women must be “equalized” before there can be true equality, and this can only be done via a tyrannical Socialist government. VAWA is the first key step in accomplishing this, with the legal system as proxy enforcers defending women from violent men.

This assumes you’re already under the delusion that women are equal to men in all other ways.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Anon7 May 5, 2013 at 15:05

Women seldom display original thinking. It’s too much to expect that women would replace Patriarchy with a novel kind of polity in which men and women live as equals.

They want Matriarchy, in which the government plays the ultimate controlled beta male, holding the doors of opportunity open for an eternal line of empowered women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
oddsock May 5, 2013 at 15:10

Interesting.

Lets not forget the unintended consequence of feminism. It has accidentaly done far more to liberate men than it has women.

Now we are starting to see clear signs of feminists and women in general having no idea which way to turn or who to blame. Soon, even big daddy government will have to reduce its support. By the time the S really HTF the amount of men that will have seen the true nature of women ( thanks to feminism ) will be huge.

“Never interrupt your enemy when s/he is making a mistake.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
Jacob Ian Stalk May 5, 2013 at 15:34

Pennington is describing the blighted world over which Hitler would have presided had he been fully the instrument of evil. Her blatantly bigoted article reads like a chapter from Mein Kampf – grammar, punctuation and tense corrected. It astounds me that any mainstream publication would publish such purified misanthropic drivel.

The society the Penningtons of this world would build for us is built on nothing but purified, distilled misandry. Because of this, its only possible future is one in which it crumbles into dust and burns in flames; one where not a pipe or wire remains connected with not a tree or flowering plant left alive. The very root of such a society will be rotten; its blossom blown away like dust. Such is the fate of a society in which love is cast aside love and half of humanity is despised so much.

Before this century is out the world will rise up against the ideology of hate that is behind feminism and strike it down so hard and so completely the mountains will shake. Its carcass will be torn in the streets in the way it sought to tear down the world of men. I don’t know what will rise in its place, but the anger of the civilised world will not turn away; it will stretch out over all and through all and will remain until the last hateful breath of misandry is taken.

Today, the flag of truth in the Manosphere is riding high. It has becoming a rallying point to men and women all over the world who are fed-up with feminism. They’re heeding its call and coming quickly. No-one is tiring; no-one is faltering; no-one is remaining idle. Words are becoming quick and sharp as lightning; arguments are becoming as solid and unstoppable as a hurricane wind; the information vaults are filling up like a flood; and voices are becoming deep and strong like rolling thunder.

The ideology of female supremacy will never see the calm sea it envisions for itself. Its journey is through the maelstrom, with the roaring of angry winds and seas. It’s only safe haven will be a bleak and barren land, full of darkness and sorrow, with all the light of heaven darkened.

Mark my words.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
Brigadon May 5, 2013 at 15:44

Divorce is worse on children than rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Thos. May 5, 2013 at 15:47

I think she’s confusing a series of problems. Is there violence in the world? Sure? Are men violent? You bet. Are women violent? Yep and that needs to count, too even if it is proxy violence like getting her brothers to scratch up her ex’s car.

This is not cause for withdrawal. It’s a reason to organize better.

What capitalism has to do with this is….obscure. Unless she’s using the fact of differing economic performance as proof of violence. This to me is going to be a difficult concept to prove. [X doesn't apply for jobs or the schooling for those jobs = violence?] Moreover, if you’re writing an anti-capitalist manifesto and internet to distribute it — including your big plan to only use some small portions of the biggest social media companies in the world — you haven’t thought things through.

If she wants to by and large bow out of capitalism because she cannot see a way to ‘win’ or improve by grand strides the economic conditions of all women everywhere, that’s her right but engagement is, I think, a better solution. People who don’t want to be entrepreneurial or work in giant companies have many useful roles to fill.

For example, I have a next door neighbour who works with raped women and men.* This is difficult and necessary work. She has the patience of a saint and I have no problem with a bit being taken off my salary to pay hers. No problem-o!

>Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence.

Okay, so women’s violence against other women is okay? Or is it not on her radar? In the Parson’s case where that girl was hounded into suicide, I am sure that it wasn’t the boys who did it — I’m guessing (entirely without evidence) that it was the other girls at the school who savaged her in word, look and deed.

I just don’t think she’s thought things through.

>The Patriarchy may predate capitalism but we cannot destroy it without destroying capitalism too.

A modern industrialized economy needs both a public and a private sector. For example, periodically governments fire food inspectors as a means of reducing payrolls. “The industry will self-regulate.” Eventually, enough people are poisoned by listeria that the food inspectors all get hired back in a cycle that is predictable to anyone with more than two brain cells.

People with overpoweringly strong senses of social justice and fairness can fill any number of useful roles away from the rough and tumble entrepreneurial sector, or cog-in-a-machine giant companies. That she fails to see this as necessary for the computers she’s using to publish her manifesto means I can’t see how her position will get any traction.

It’s not all about violence. It’s not even always about one definition of fairness. It’s not all about capitalism. It is, however, complicated. Her solution is not a solution at all.

It’s a series of disconnected slogans.

*Wanna guess how cops like to humiliate male prisoners?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Lyn87 May 5, 2013 at 15:53

I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women.

Feminism requires more than equality.

I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy.

My feminist activism involves privileging women’s voices over men’s voices.

This is what a feminist sounds like.

Scratch the surface of a feminist who has taken her absurd beliefs to their logical conclusions and this is what you find: chauvinism, female supremacy, paranoia, socialism, radicalism, and ideological insularity.

Left unmentioned is hypocrisy, neediness, attention whoring, and probably a HUGE amount of sexual frustration.

Common ground? Oh… I don’t think so.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 5, 2013 at 15:56

Earl Silvermans Corpse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHimU654Mr4

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
GT66 May 5, 2013 at 16:49

Women like Louise Pennington are absolute gifts to men. In one article she has justified and legitimized the right and duty for patriarchy to exist. Why? Because if she had her way, she would create a matriarchy and subjugate all men according to what feminists have claimed men do to women. Well, if it is the case where there can be only one true “archy,” and she claims a right for matriarchy to exist for the exclusive benefit of women that I guess the patriarchy has a right to exist for the exclusive benefit of men. May the best “archy” win! Good luck ladies!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
GT66 May 5, 2013 at 16:56

“piercedhead “I would love to see this woman’s vision realised – that she be able to live in a place where only women have rights. How about an all-female island in the middle of remotest nowhere, with nothing anywhere to remind her of men at all? No, not even a resupply ship.”

They tried this on a small scale with female only communes. Big surprise – they were a total failure.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Thos. May 5, 2013 at 17:59

Anyone who writes this way doesn’t understand people much. I mean, no-one ideally is violent to anyone but we buy locks for our doors, and staff our cities with judges, lawyers and police because we need to be realistic.

Her “goals” are prima facie impossible because it would require everyone in the world to stop being motivated by individual incentives, for all generations for all time, and to never rock the boat and give all power to one group “just because.”

This isn’t a plan and I think it’s best to starve it of the oxygen of publicity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater May 5, 2013 at 18:50

Stick all these fem fruitcakes on a man-free Wicker Man island, surrounded by mines and autocannons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Anonymous May 6, 2013 at 01:06

Left/liberal activists are never about equality; they’re about old-fashioned tribalism, pure and simple– my group’s turn, beyatches, bend over!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
tyciol May 6, 2013 at 04:07

I actually really admire feminists who are honest like this. I don’t feel the hate I do for the ones who try and mask this truth behind lies and stuff.

Hell, even though I love MRA, I could even get behind very slight feminist tendencies. She wants to privilege women’s voices over men’s: I probably do that instinctively (albeit perhaps this is due to reptilian desire to want to fuck females?) and am not terribly upset about it so long as it doesn’t get too imbalanced. Something like a 55/45 female/male preference split is a slight feminism I can get behind.

Problem with these radicals is they seem to want a 90/1o or 95/5 or some shit, that’s too much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12
Towgunner May 6, 2013 at 05:08

This is good, now we can finally start the narrative that “equality” IS un-obtainable. And, thank you to the ever dim feminists for finally admitting what we all know – that feminism is only about female supremacy. Now’s the time to start harping on this in earnest and make sure to explain this to all men, especially younger ones, that a parasitic ideology, just as determined and radical as the kkk, is presently in power. Reject it outright.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Prof. Woland May 6, 2013 at 06:33

Feminists are not only parasitic by nature but they are ingrates as well. Socialism appeals to them for two reasons. The first is because it transfers money from men to women without them having to do anything in return. The second is because it is used to cover up and legitimize the scam. If men want to empower themselves, they will demand more transparency and accountability not more open ended generosity and mooching. Men’s ability to create resources is where our power stems from so for us, socializing them would be like women socializing their vaginas. Both are bad ideas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 6, 2013 at 14:32

Louise Pennington is, in essence, nothing more than a very successful troll.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
bruno May 6, 2013 at 14:34

Female supremacists say:
” If men would learn to think like women, this world would be a better place. ”

I completely agree with them.

If men would think like women, this world would be a better place… for men.

But for women, that would be a disaster: they would be living in extreme poverty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Ecclesiastes May 6, 2013 at 14:43

… and all women are Feminists – given appropriate circumstances.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Attila May 6, 2013 at 15:56

This rad-fembot wants separate but equal but more likely superior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Attila May 6, 2013 at 15:59

I would like to ask her WHO invented the rechargeable on her “rechargeables”…. hahaha – most likely Doron Auerbach- the very much Orthodox Jewish rechargeable battery pioneer from Bar-Ilan University. OOOOOO- those misogynistic theocrats -ooooooo!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Dr. Faust May 6, 2013 at 19:28

Overt female supremacists are the MRAs of feminists. The MRAs try to play the victim game but they can’t out-victim women. Supremacy movements are hierarchical, as is the male brain. Women aren’t going to out hierarchy the hierarchy sex. Most things feminists do at this point only grows the men’s movement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
zimmy May 7, 2013 at 09:57

Feminist logic: All men and women are created ‘equal’, but women are more ‘equal’ than men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Dutch May 7, 2013 at 10:21

And wh0 will enforce such laws in her envisioned feminist utopia? PoliceMEN?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Nugganu May 11, 2013 at 05:11

Another article illustrating the stupidity of feminism. But then these are the same people who cry for abortion rights, the right to commit murder. With a host of birth control options available to women, why is it, again, that they need to have abortions? Is it because they are fucking stupid? Because I think it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Andrew Richards May 11, 2013 at 19:22

@AF “I’ve always thought it strange how feminism as a guise to “protect females” doesn’t give even a cursory glance to those females most vulnerable of all – female children .”

It’s not strange at all. Under gynocentrism, active reproductive capacity will always take priority over potential reproductive capacity. Is it completely irrational? By today’s standards, certainly. However that’s what happens when you apply pre-modern age reasoning and paradigms (where you’re working from the presumption of an average life expectancy of 35-40, a high infant mortality rate, a high maternal mortality rate and drastically lower safety rate in many fields we take for granted as safe these days) to the modern age.

@ Dr Faust “Overt female supremacists are the MRAs of feminists. The MRAs try to play the victim game but they can’t out-victim women. Supremacy movements are hierarchical, as is the male brain. Women aren’t going to out hierarchy the hierarchy sex. Most things feminists do at this point only grows the men’s movement.”

Says the gender identity equivalent of a crack addict who refuses to see what’s right in front of him. You and tradcons/gamers in the manosphere are so hooked on what feels good for men, rather than what IS good for men that you cannot see that your stance enables the very gynocentrism which is the foundation of feminism.

You and your ilk CLAIM to be on the right track, that men are conquerers and never the victims of anything, yet that is the propaganda of male disposability – the BS fed to us since we’re boys, to make us think being reduced to dehumanised walking-ATMs/human-shields/penises-on-legs is the epitome of a glorious male existence when the complete opposite is true. Honestly that’s the kind of stupidity which would have had Jews being sent to Auchwitz genuinely believing they were going to a holiday camp.

Here’s the thing which you and your idiot ilk fail to grasp. If men cannot be victims, then by that logic, there is nothing unjust about what feminism does – even when it promotes outright genocide. After all a victim is merely someone who has experienced injustice of some kind. If men cannot be victims, then they cannot experience injustice, and therefore nothing feminism does in regards to men can be classed as unjust. Ergo you cannot oppose feminism on one hand and the notion of men being victims on the other- it is a complete oxymoron.

Furthermore there is a difference between deciding to be in a state of perpetual victimhood and being a victim, working towards healing and recovery, working through the healing and recovery process and ultimately surviving the ordeal and thriving in spite of it.

Yet because male victims wont just “flick a switch” and adhere to the notion that men can never be victims [because only women are victims], the notion the tradcon/gamer section of the manosphere militantly argues along with feminists; somehow being a human being instead of a perpetual superman somehow makes you want to be a perpetual victim for the rest of your life.

If you and your ilk really cared about men thriving in the face of any adversity, you would want a society which recognised men aren’t all from the planet Krypton, are going to be wounded to broken depending on the level of trauma and gave them the time and tools they needed to recover, rather than simply “manning up” until it all leaks out sideways and a man is a hot mess anyway.

Does that mean we should let it take more time then it needs to? Hell no, in fact we should always be looking at ways to speed up the healing process- but that’s the key word, actual healing, as opposed to prescribed repression.

Yet you and your ilk militantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of male victims based on it shattering your male self image – a toxic self image which is and always has been contingent on men only having value based on how many areas were too risky to expose women and more importantly, their wombs to. It is a valuation of males which has always had an end date based on the advancements of modern medicine and the effects of modern technology on the safety of professions.

Each time a profession becomes safe enough under the paradigm of gynocentrism and its manifestation of paternalism for women to enter; it ceases to require expendable labour [men] and as a result, the sphere in which men are valued diminishes and radical feminist arguments gain just that much more justification.

What is the tradcon solution? To put women back in the kitchen and the bedroom and force them from all work completely? After all, that is the only possible way you could counteract the exponentially increasing rise of misandry and feminism in society while sticking with that toxic paradigm.

Forgetting about the fact that such a move would never wash in society as there is no longer any survivalist justification for it in society, such a move would be utterly toxic to men- making men perpetual slaves to women, when once again, the survivalist justifications for it simply no longer hold true.

The fact is that we need a new gender paradigm which rejects the dehumanisation and disposability of men and allows men to embrace their true natures – which are ultimately unique to each and every single one of us. Under such a paradigm, men achieving greatness has nothing to do with our sex drives, our being providers or our being protectors. It is entirely to do with men being the best they can be, because as human beings self actualisation is a fundamental right which each and every single one of us have.

“And wh0 will enforce such laws in her envisioned feminist utopia? PoliceMEN?”

Yep, the very same Alphas (and Alphas will join that class if it’s seen as a means of amassing power and sexual conquests) and Betas who adhere to the very model of masculinity which tradcons and PUAs militantly want to glorify and want to reinforce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
tron3dfx May 12, 2013 at 03:22

She’s an idiot. I couldn’t even finish the whole article.

“Now, I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy.”

As Vox would say: anti-capitalist?? Go live in your grass huts then. ohhhhhhh

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
crypter27 May 23, 2013 at 22:09

The feminist just gave us a loaded gun with this article!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
G-Puff May 27, 2013 at 01:11

Nope. The central claim of your post is completely misguided. She never said she wanted the law to favour women over men. She said that legal equality alone isn’t sufficient to secure true equality. This is pretty obviously true; the law doesn’t prevent people from being sexist fucktards, otherwise you and 99% of your readers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: