First, what exactly is "Feminism"? When we randomly ask this question we find that there is a variety of interpretations among the general public, and the answers one gets are, at best, obscure. Among feminists themselves there is disagreement on a wide range of issues pertaining to it—including what exactly is to be a man or a woman, or what exactly constitute "sexism." Furthermore, feminist "scholars" disagree on whether class, race, or gender is the most fundamental of the alleged oppression they constantly harp on; and even to some extent, what exactly the alleged oppression consists in. And this is in essence the cause of feminism schism. Under the Feminism umbrella fall many overlapping variations of seemingly the same thing: "Liberal Feminism," "Socialist Feminism," "Marxist Feminism." This particular branch of feminism, for example, embraces the Marxist theory which speculates:
"Gender is primarily a political and social convention and not a biological reality." Hence, any perceived imbalance is viewed as some form of oppression. And Gender Feminism further obscures the issue by advocating its own state-of-the-art idiocy: "Male and female characteristics are mere stereotypes." Yep! The idea of women setting down and men standing up to pee must be a patriarchal social construct to, of course, keep women oppressed. Damn patriarchy! But the list continues. "Radical Feminism," "Separatist Feminism," "Lesbian Feminism," "Anarcha-Feminism," "Conservative Feminism," "Cultural Feminism," "Individualist Feminism," "Ecofeminism," "Black Feminism" and on it goes.
Division in feminist thought multiplied as the effects of post-structural and post-modern theorizing merged with grassroots challenges to a feminism perceived as the expression of needs and concerns of middle and upper middle class white First World women—the ones who were hardly exposed to any oppression (certainly not to the degree of women of color, and black women in particular), the ones far more protected and cared for, yet the most vociferous, oppression-mongers, the ones with the biggest sense of entitlement and the most favored of them all. They are, in the "oppression" business, cashing in grossly higher than and at the expense of those who actually suffered real oppression. Amongst all the groups of people who were truly oppressed, western white women need to take the end of the line. When we bring in the reality of the African-American and Native-American experience, white women's narrative as an "oppressed" group gets disqualified, or at a minimum must be called into question. Consequently, the subject of Feminism became increasingly difficult to define. So as we can see, some degree of misunderstanding and confusion is to be expected. In a nutshell, Feminism is a conglomerate movements established to address and tackle exclusively women's issues--the real ones and the non-existing. But no matter what brand or branch of Feminism we may be talking about, perhaps with the exception of or to a lesser degree the Equity Feminism, the one thing they all have in common—from the lesser to the extreme—is hostility toward maleness. For many women, no other reason than just being a man is needed in order to display contemptuousness and hostility toward him.
Equity Feminism, as a movement, sought the economic and legal freedom that permits women to become self-determining. The thrust of this movement was aimed at peacefully removing the barriers and inequities women (so goes the claim) were confronted with thus achieving due suffrage, equal access to opportunities, and equal legal rights that many (not all) male counterpart have enjoyed for the last 200 years or so; or at least that is what is claimed the thrust was. At any rate, those demands were met bit by bit over the years, and—unlike the Civil Rights Movement—relatively peacefully. No fire-hose, no dogs, none of its leaders assassinated or as much as getting their heads split with a baton by the police. No rocks thrown at them or spitting in their faces by a crowd of people which, interestingly, a great number of them were women. It was the sort of transition that most men, for most part, thought it was reasonable and thus supported.
One particular branch of the feminist movements, however—the Gender Feminists—decided that they wanted more. All the progress made by women in America—according to them—was not sufficient. In fact, many well-known top dogs (or top bitches?) of that branch of Feminism—MacKinnon, Steinem, Bunch, Wolf, Faludi, Lee Barky and others—argued that the "equality achieved by women in America is illusory." They wanted more and they knew they could get it, and they were determined to get it by any means necessary; and so they went to work. Equity Feminism was thus hijacked by these intractably contemptuous and well-favored connivers whose deranged ideology is grounded in an aberration of gynocentrism, counterfeit-oppression, perpetual victimhood, wayward divisiveness, narcissism, statistical fraud, and institutionalized misandry. This particular branch of feminism—the Gender or Radical Feminism—has come to be known as the "FEMINAZIS"—a well-deserved acronym and we shall see why. With the consolatory exception, of course, that they never mustered the kind of concentrated power the NAZIS once did.....at least not yet.
"Hell has no fury like a woman scorned"
I am quite sure that many of us at some point in our lives have heard that old proverb above. But that is not just a saying; for the FEMINAZIS are, indeed, the embodiment of such a proverb. This group of females, with an ideology on the basis of genders, considers men and women to be separate and necessarily antagonistic classes, and so they systematically and callously (with the help of government) have created a polarizing environment that will further alienate men from women. They seek to alter every institution of social life under the presumption that in so doing it will thus be able to remove every barrier, real or imagined, that presumably hinders the increase of power of women on par with that of men. They call that purported barrier the "PATRIARCHY"—a fallacy with implicitness that all men collectively conspire to keep women subjugated. They talk about this "Patriarchy" myth as if it were a social club or an all-male organization with think-tanks, and with a headquarter somewhere, devising ways to keep women oppressed. And it is fundamentally this chimera upon which the weight of all their rhetoric is unleashed, and conveniently used as a smokescreen behind which the Gender Feminists have built their own overarching and self-serving agenda.
participant—regardless of sex, race, origin, and creed—to have equal access to opportunities and the means that would enable the individuals to develop themselves up to their full human potential. And their success, failure or unequal outcome, therefore, would rest solely on the shoulders of each individual. Therefore, if obstacles, unfair rules, bias or discrimination—in any of its form—that could prevent those individuals from doing so are present, they must be removed; and every effort should be made at removing it. On the other hand, if the playing field is leveled and the rules demonstrably fair, no one group should demand or expect any special accommodation or privilege. Everyone should play by the same rules and the same standard set. Creating two different set of standards is not equality and neither is moving the goal posts, nor it is either to grant any of the participants the advantage of starting a race fifty meters ahead of everyone else--that is favoritism, or worse yet, that is inequality. One cannot expect to eradicate a wrong, assuming there is or was any, by exponentially perpetrating the same wrong. And let us all be clear about one important fact. Equal access to opportunities does not entail that there would be equal outcome. Some people are smarter than others, some people work harder than others, some people have higher IQ than others, some people run faster than others, some people are more talented than others, so forth and so on. Outcomes cannot be legislated. We should not give gold to the second and third place--it would not be fair to the first place guy, nor should we ask the fastest guy in a race to slow down so the other competitors can catch up with him and finish the race tight for the sake of "equality." Our hue, sex or creed does not warrant us entitlement to anything except to what we are willing and capable of striving for. I should not expect any handouts or set-asides from anyone or any government entity. There is clear evidence that many of the sources of inequality have been special privilege granted by the government; so now, in far too many instances, the best, brightest and more qualified does not always get the high position. A malign political ideology made this possible. I only expect people to get the fuck out of my way when is time for me to get what is rightfully mine. What I worked for. What I earned. No more and no less. (http://youtu.be/t_REMnrG2J4)
But is it actually Equality what the Gender Feminists want? Well, the underpinning of their ideology is that men (the male specie) are inherently evil; hence, the answer is a categorical NO. They do not wish to be equal to those they hate and resent—MEN—every one of them. They wish not to be equal to the specie they collectively despise. They do not want to be equal to the gender they regard as"inferior," as the "defective woman" that needs to be "corrected" and the "villain" that must be dispensed with. This, of course, is utter nonsense and sheer hatred, and clearly demonstrates a self-righteous view of themselves and their self-deluded idea that the All-mighty Universe bestowed upon them the task and the know-how to correct this human flaw that only men--not women--possess. But this view of men they hold, then, in and of itself, becomes an irreconcilable dichotomy because under the misconception that equality means sameness women have tried to mimic men, with all their flaws, in every respect.
It is not to increase the power and rights of women on par with that of men what they seek but indeed to surpass them. Their ideology's underpinning is that [all] men—no exception—collectively are to be blamed for any and everything that is wrong in society. That all women, as a group, suffered oppression in the same way and measure, and all men collectively committed and benefited from oppressing women—ignoring the well known fact that most men have not been members of the ruling class. Most men have not been rich. Most men have not been in position of authority to oppress anyone even if they wanted to—then or now. It has been, in fact, most men—the ordinary men, the working class—who have fought, bled, and died in every war; whether the war has been just or unjust. It is men falling from the top of roofs and bridges while fixing them. Reportedly 93% of work related fatalities are men. 97% of military [combat] death are men. It is men with the highest suicide rate. It is men with the highest homelessness rate. It is men who perform the most dangerous tasks. It is men who work the longest hours and retire much later than most women. It is men who are largely discriminated against, not only by the Criminal Justice system, but by the welfare system and the educational system as well. There are allocated far more resources and government funds for women's needs than for men's. Breast cancer research, for example, is given more importance and priority and thus more Federal funds and major Corporations funds than prostate cancer and even children with all types of cancer. It has the entire NFL involved in tits cancer awareness and pumping millions of dollars into it. Why are we not doing, on an [equal] level, the same thing for prostate cancer and children's cancer? So what the hell these men have that they could be considered as part of a privileged group these women call "PATRIARCHY"? Betty Friedan said: "Women don't want to be equal to unfree men." And she was right in expressing this sentiment, because the fact of the matter is that millions of men were just as oppressed, and in the particular case of Black men and Native-American men, they were far more oppressed than any white woman. Let us not forget that the black communities--at least here in North-America--have been traditionally matriarchal. The black men have never been in any position of authority or hierarchy to oppress anyone--then or now. And I use white women for comparison in this argument because it is precisely middle class and upper middle class western white women who vociferate the loudest about being oppressed, and this has always been puzzling to me. They never had to face an Apartheid regime or experiencing living under an unjust Jim Crow law. They were never victim of white supremacy--they were partakers of it--yet they are the ones with the exaggerated pretence of being authorities on oppression. Apparently the slightest inconvenient encumbrance middle class and upper middle class white women deem "oppression" is of far greater importance than the lynching of a thousand negroes or the genocide of the native people. How many of them raised their voice just as loud when "niggers" were lynched? One? Two? Ten? Here is an excerpt from Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young's Spreading Misandry:
"Although they used the rhetoric of equality to achieve their goals for women, they did not necessarily follow the logic of equality to its conclusion. Women were equal to men, yes, but blacks, for example--even black women--were not necessarily equal to whites. The principle of equality, in short, was severely compromised by that of hierarchy. As Ann Douglas points out, white American suffragists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were anything but eager to secure the vote for black women. In fact, 'white women won the vote by playing to the nation's anti-Negro sentiments.'" As a side note, I will suggest you to read a book titled "Women of The Klan: Racism and Gender" by Kathleen M. Blee.
Nonetheless, men—of all races, social status, and age—are the target of misandry. Men are guilty of whatever these FEMINAZI ideologues wish to label and accuse men just by the act of nature of being born male. Throughout our entire existence we're supposed to feel guilty, shame and always ready to apologize for wrongs most of us have never done. Yes gentlemen, maleness is a curse! This is the feminist version of the biblical "Original Sin." Maleness is to be despised, mocked, belittled, and ridiculed. "The nature of men is evil and the nature of women innocuous." This is the theme of Gender Feminist dogma. This is their dogma's hymn. These hate-mongers—the FEMINAZIS—are women filled with resentment, contempt, envy, self-righteousness, intolerance, and the venomous misandry, and Feminism then is their cathartic vehicle through which they can spread their venom. Observe:
"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." -Activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902). It is obvious that this bitch had her head embedded deep in her ass when she spewed that contemptuous inanity. It never occurred to this female fraud that every bridge she crossed, every building she went in, every train she rode, every elevator she rode were built by men; but all she has to show for men is nothing but contempt. A criminal psychopath, such as Georgia Tann, and a woman Court judge named Camille Kelley who used her power to facilitate Tann's criminal activities involving children, would have embarrassed this joker--Ms. Stanton.
Here is another anti-men diatribe expressed by a spiteful lesbian-witch named Mary Daly (1928-2010). She hated men and made no bones about it, yet she spent her entire life trying to look like one. Here bellow is an example of she vomiting her poison:
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the male population."
So here we have, a member of the "innocuous gender," asserting that our planet is contaminated by a deadly substance in human form called MAN. Based on this egregious misandristic rationalization, she justifies the not-so-subtle advocacy of a drastic elimination--or "decontamination"--of men and boys. Her call is implicitly for male-cleanse, tentatively presupposing that evolution would take care of her wishes. This disdainful bitch-butch would have made Hitler proud.
"To call a man animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -Valery Solanas (1936-1988); activist, writer and a man shooter. (Emphasis mine)
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth as an apple in the mouth of a pig."
-Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005) activist, writer, and just plain disgusting.
Here is an excerpt from Valerie Solanas' SCUM MANIFESTO (an inane diatribe of an anti-men bitch):
"It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y (male) gene is an incomplete x (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In order words, the male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples…" For those who may not know what "SCUM" stands for, it is short for SOCIETY FOR CUTTING UP MEN. It is a radical feminist (a group of men-hater albatrosses) manifesto calling for the total extermination of men as specie. This kind of evil can be conceived only in the mind of wicked and evil people. How much different is the mindset of these women toward men and boys from that of Hitler toward the Jews?
"I feel that man-hating is honorable and viable political act that the oppressed have a right to class- hatred against the class that oppressed them." -Robin Morgan. Those are the words of a woman who is, not only a hatemonger, but also a babbling idiot with intellectual pretence. Her statement is, at best, incongruous and incoherent if not outright retarded. If we were to validate her statement as a logical argument, we then would have to validate and accept hatred from blacks and Native-American toward white people (and that, of course, would include white women) as a righteous and justified hatred. Luckly for her most blacks and most native people do not hate white folks.
"All men are potential rapists and exploiter of women." -Adrienne Rich in her book "Of a Woman Born."
Andrea Dworkin--one of the women with the most disgusting and unpleasant appearance I have ever seen--denounced "all men to be rapist." Did this female ape actually believe there was a man with a stomach strong enough to want to rape her? Kate Millett called for an end of the family unit. Catharine MacKinnon declared "marriage, rape, and prostitution to be indistinguishable from each other." She and others of her own kind argue that "false rape allegations are a myth." Of course, we have seen this claimed debunked, but that did very little to deter her from seeking legal reforms which includes reversing the presumption of innocence in rape trials—flatly contradicting the principles of neutral and impartial justice. Her ferocious campaign culminated in a victory. We just recently saw no other than the Office of Civil Rights (what a mockery and disgrace) attempting to coerce universities into denying male students or members of the faculty accused of sexual assault, the right to question their accusers, and also, the need for hard evidence to convict the accuser was thrown out of the window; which means that whatever a female wish to say it happened, that is all is needed as "evidence."
Equity Feminist and former Philosophy professor, Christina H. Sommers, recounts in her book "Who Stole Feminism":
"In the spring of 1993, nine women students, who were taking a course called "Contemporary Issues in Feminist Art" at the University of Maryland, distributed posters and fliers all over the campus with the names of dozens of male students under the heading "Notice: These Men Are Potential Rapists." The women knew nothing whatever about the bearers of the names; they had simply chosen them at random from the university directory to use in their class project…." (page. 44)
At Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York—a college that was initially founded for [women only] in 1861 (founded by a man, Mr. Matthew Vassar)—a situation of similar nature but with far more hurtful consequence took place. Dr. Sommers in her book explains:
"…..Several male students were falsely accused of date rape. After their innocence was established, the assistant dean of students, Catherine Comins, said of their ordeal: 'They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration…..' (page. 44)
"Self-exploration"? What the hell that woman was talking about? Should every man who has never even contemplated the idea of raping anyone be trumped up, so through their painful ordeal they could reflect upon whether or not they could have actually carried out the crime they were falsely accused of? Do these albatrosses actually believe that any person—man or woman—who is falsely accused of committing a crime would be in a state of mind for some fucking "self-exploration"? But this is the kind of rationalization that can only take place in the feeble mind of wicked misandrists. This clearly shows the dichotomy in feminists thought. Can you imagine a world run by albatrosses with that line of thinking? The "logic" in their thinking--if that is not an oxymoron--is akin to someone attempting to make a square, which length and width is bigger than the inside diameter of a circumference, to fit inside the circumference; then with exhausting and incoherent arguments attempting to explain how they did it. I just wonder what a society, that would incarcerate citizens just because they could be potential criminals, would look like. Can you imagine what would have happened if such vile action would have been carried out by male students against female students? Feminist outrage and uproar, from all of its branches, would have been heard in every corner of the globe, and harsh action would have been taken against those males students. Yet those female students were never held accountable for their actions. A social cause—whatever just pursuit it might declare—which contrives wicked deeds, tailors stats, exaggerates stats, purposely uses misleading stats, outright lies, uses media bias and media manipulation to justify its aim, is inherently immoral; thus by definition its real motive and intent could not possibly be noble. When righteousness and truthfulness are on your side you do not need to fabricate lies, you do not need to be Machiavellian, you do not need to rely on treacherous tactics, you should not cry for justice and equality while trumping the right of others. The solution attempting to eliminate any form of oppression—real or perceived—is not by reversing it. The result would be an endless cycle of the same thing.
Make no mistake, if those women, with that line of thinking and that much venom and hatred in their hearts against men would have mustered as much power as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Duvalier and other tyrants of the like, they would have made those men look like altar boys. The comparison perhaps may seem a bit extreme to some, but if those women see men—every one of them—under the same light as Hitler, for example, saw the Jewish people, it would be naïve to think that women are not capable of doing the same or similar thing. And I just wonder what argument could possibly wage any alert observer which would lead him/her to conclude that women would not do it. We have seen they are capable of cutting their own husbands' dicks off, and then having a bunch of women in a nationally televised show sadistically laughing about it; and an audience, mostly women, who find the male organ mutilation amusing and acceptable and laugh right along with those women. I do not know what was the show producer's real intention—perhaps purely entertainment—but intended or not, one thing that show did was to allow those women to expose themselves for what they really are.
No, it is not equality what these contemptuous connivers are interested in. True equality would be an inconvenient encumbrance. What they actually want is absolute power over men. What they want is to usurp and encroach upon even the last refuge where men may go to be by themselves and do male things, whatever that may be, or simply to find solace—the fuck away from them—where they are neither wanted, needed or even welcomed. But the FEMINAZIS have an agenda. A massive invasion of male space. Seek, usurp and destroy or, at the very least, reduce to mediocrity anything and everything that has to do with maleness. The most depressing aspect, at least for me, in this FEMINAZI undertaking is that very few men are offering any kind of resistance against this blatant usurpation embellished as "equality." Many men are meekly conforming, and many more, in fact, welcome it and support it. They could not have accomplished this without the help—willingly or unwillingly—of men. We have many men who refuse to take stand against open and blatant misandry. We have many men cowardly allowing their cojones to be cut off for fear of losing their jobs. We have the limping man-ginas and lap-dogs who call themselves feminists seeking to ingratiate themselves and gain meaningless acceptance among devils in female form who in reality have no respect whatever for them; and who, without the slightest regret or guilt, would throw them under the bus under any circumstance they, the feminists, would deem right or convenient. We also have the fucking White Knights--acting on the medieval "I'm going to save the Princess" bullshit--willing to fight another member of his own species to defend the "honor" of some hoodrat or sleazy whore who felt it was her given right to crawl out of her pond-scum to insult, or even physically assault a man, and deservedly got her sperm-full mouth smacked. And finally, we have the spineless men who never had any cojones to begin with and have always been willing participants and cooperators in their own vivisection at the hands of these female vipers who have invented nothing, created nothing, discovered nothing, built nothing and have not, during all this time of bitching, vexing and moaning, advanced a single idea or concept cardinal and beneficial to humankind as a whole. These men are also part of the problem. How much, and what exactly do we owe these women, that allow them to destroy this nation would be the only thing that could compensate for it? How much and what degree of "oppression" did these women actually suffer? Do not we then owe far more to Blacks and Native-American people (against whom GENOCIDE was committed) whose suffering, subjugation, oppression and discrimination against them far exceed that of these women? The Jim Crow racial apartheid law happened not so distant in the past; yet any black person who points out this fact in an argument--whether his or her reason for doing so in those instances is justified or not--is accused of "using the racial card." Are we supposed to view, believe and/or accept that the so-called "oppression" women purportedly suffered is greater or more significant than--or even equal to--the genocide committed against the Native people and the harsh enslavement of the Blacks and the post-slavery predicament of Blacks? Their exagerated pretence of being "oppressed" and fighting for "equality" is an insult to reason and facts, and a mockery to those who have suffered real oppression. Based on the length and degree of oppression my black ancestors suffered, should not I then be entittled to own a few white slaves? And of course, that should include white female slaves. Check out the link bellow and take a good look at what the so-called male "privilege" in the past really looks like, and today is not much different. So I ask the question again--are these the men women wanted to be equal to? http://kycoal.homestead.com/WorkingConditions.html
In summary, what feminism has become has nothing to do with true equality as we know it--that is just a tactical smokescreen, a charade that sells well. It is a Trojan Horse feminists use to advance their agenda. They have adopted the cult of victimhood as a political strategy to obtain, with very little resistance, special privilege. For who is going to oppose equality--right? A cynical manipulation of public sympathy. This allows feminists to deflect any criticism and label as misogynist and oppressor anyone who dares to challenge them and call them out on their victim-mongering. Feminism is--for all intents and purposes--an ideological subversion which has deconstructivism as its underpinning. This social experiment, of course, has incalculable inherent consequences, and even its actual consequences are only partially foreseeable; but what it is certain is that it will impact not only men but women as well.This manifests feminists' failure to understand, or willfully ignore, cause and effect. And since feminism has never formed alliance with objective reality--either because they know it can undermine their dogma's basic tenets or simply because the may be incapable of any such a thing--the amount of destruction and damage they are inflicting and will continue to inflict further into the future never enters feminist discourse or, for that matter, their thoughts. So male disposability, the increasing of male suffering, male suicide rate, the marginalization of young men and boys, and men as a whole becoming the underclass in western society, is looked upon by feminists frivolously or as purely coincidental. I know femists think of themselves as "agent of change," but in this way feminism will never be able to contribute [positive] change to civilization. In the hope for that to happen, the first thing feminism must do is to abandon the victim-mongering. I for one do not cling to any such a hope--ideological dogma always trump reason. That's akin to ask christians to drop Jesus--the foundation of christianity. If Jesus didn't rise from his tomb, said tomb then becomes the grave of the christian religion.