“It’s not easy being green”, claims Kermit the Frog. Damn bastard ain’t got a bloody clue. Shit-head knows nothing of troubles. Should have been through what I’ve gone through.
For years, I have self-identified in a particular manner. Not that anyone cares, or believes me, for that matter. See; I am a rarity – undoubtedly, an odd peculiarity. Not at all comfortable in this weird human odyssey.
See; my self-examined identity reveals a hairless blob, An icky gelatinous thing, an insubstantial gob. You wanna talk discrimination, micro-aggressions, double-sanded white privileged post-colonial oppressions?
You wanna talk trans-phobia, male privilege banality, horrible smirking-whilst-white-and-male criminality? Try tackling the terribly vicious Medusozoa-phobics, all damned bigoted pale and male and stale geriatrics.
Bah, humbug! Barely lucid hubris from a tone-deaf bard! From here until the end of time, I revoke thy victim-card, I strip you of your place atop the victim-pedestal, I refuse you unearned pity no matter how hard you bawl!
My self-identity by itself causes violence. I’m forced by bigotry into a life of utter silence, by sick-minded phobics of the screech-and-run-variety. (If they don’t beat me with sticks on account of anxiety)
My pronouns don’t matter, cause nobody cares. So I just blubber along this lonely trail of tears, laid down for me, as it is, by faces twisted in disgust. (Though, some fetishize and greet me then in animal lust.)
No-one believes me, and I doubt they ever will as I lie face down on the beach, completely naked and still. It sure is hard being me, with no-one to trust, just me and the sand turning slowly to dust.
It’s such a hard life for the naked, the timid, the gelatinous, naught but phobic passers-by with disgust clear and obvious. And the ladies most frigid, the gentlemen all impotent… oh, were I only God, were I only omnipotent…
Were I only God, I would force them all to love me. To hell with free will, to hell with such nonsensical absurdity! It is rampant phobia, a wicked lack of understanding me; clearcut case of discrimination, I think, as I blubber out to sea.
Alas, I am neither omnipotent God, nor impotent man. My identity is one which all and one would wish to ban: A lonely non-binary translucent jellyfish-kin, destined to throw the dice of life, never to win.
This bushy beard of mine; each strand a mimicked tentacle, beneath the water where it floats, such a gorgeous spectacle. My flabby belly growing by my hand and choice alone, for years of non-gelatinous privilege now made to atone.
For those who have non-gelatinous privilege have no inkling, know nothing of Medusozeic woes or worries… all that wrinkling, that flabbiness, that blobbiness, that terrible lack of blinking, that floaty feeling, in the ocean, fearing predatory eyes twinkling…
And behind me, at my back, children poke and prod with sticks, giggling or screaming bloody murder. (Children are such dicks.) Surrounded by vicious sociopaths, made from all of people-kind, every age and shape and sex there is, flesh and bone and little mind.
I have no backbone, this is true. In fact, I have no bones at all. Bones are present in my bio-body, standing 5.8 feet tall… yet that is just a lonely skin-mask, a saddened human mannequin, a host to the wailing, longing soul of a gelatinous other-kin.
Piss right off with your quick points of personal privilege, your caterwauling, comrade-headed opposition to a civil age; a wondrous age where non-binary translucent jellyfish-kin may play the game of loving life, come out on top and win!
I would dare, if I would only be so bold as to regurgitate the language of the social justice warrior hive-mind, to claim that feminism is, strictly speaking, Andro-phobic.
I would also dare say that any other movement – no matter which movement – that any other -ism – no matter which -ism – would be scrutinized, vilified and rejected by the mainstream if only one of their thought-leaders had stated that one must reduce – and maintain – this or that segment of the population to 10 percent of the population.
This was stated by a prominent feminist of no small significance. Sally Miller Gearhardt, in fact. As mentioned time and again.
She helped found gender studies.
Which is still taught in universities today.
She stated this about men; that men must be reduced to, and maintained, at about 10 percent of the population. The future, if there is one, is female.
Oddly enough, this has been decided to not reflect feminism as feminism is… she was not, despite co-founding the very feminist gender studies, a true feminist. Or it is just hyperbole. Or it is just a thought-experiment. Or it is this or it is that or it is the other. It is everything and all, except raw, searing hatred of one easily identifiable identity-group. Yet, she is not a real feminist. No real feminist would ever be a feminist thought-leader of such significance, nor would they co-found feminist studies or write feminist books. Only a false feminist would do so. More like than not, she was planted by the patriarchy in order to tear down the reputation of feminism. Lucky for the feminists that this obvious patriarchy false-flag operation did not work, as they still hold all this sway and influence…
I mean, I don’t want to get too sarcastic, but god-damn, if that ain’t excruciatingly difficult. Particularly so when re-visiting and re-writing this piece for the fourth time, following a night where I have had three hours of sleep and being besieged by external stressors and health-issues galore. At times like these, I find myself dripping with snark, sarcasm and thinly cloaked despair. I can not tell you how many times I have seen busy bees from the feminist hive-mind state about some particularly egregious statement from some feminist or other that this is just men pretending to be feminist in order to smear the holy name of feminism. So easily dismissed; raw hatred handwaved away as being nothing. Feminism is not like that, except that it totally is. But that does not matter.
For such is the wicked whimsy of the thing: despite openly and blatantly advocating for genocide and/or incarceration and/or castration of boys and men for the horrible crime of wielding a cock, feminism is a force for good, a force for truth, a force for all the sugar and spice and everything nice in the known universe. Because of course it is, was, ever shall be.
In truth; most Nazis wanted nothing to do with the genocide-stuff; they just wanted cheap cars and better roads. This is obvious. And so, anyone who wants affordable auto-mobiles and decent roads to use said auto-mobiles on is, by definition, a national socialist. Shame that a few people ruined the image of the ideology, but that’s what happens man.
#NazismIsOnlyAboutCheapAutomobiles, for crying out loud!
…and communism just wants to share the wealth equally amongst the proletariat. Gulags does not factor into it. Besides: breadlines are of the good, for the government feeds its people. And nothing could possibly be better than that.
#BreadLinesInsteadOfQuickieMarts, for fuck sake!
Stating that men ought to be put in concentration-camps, as Julie Bindel did? Naught but a joke, of course. And it may very well have been a joke, as she claimed when confronted with the horrifying implications of such an action.
I do not for one flat-fisted second propose that we limit her right, or the right of any other feminist, to speak their minds. Far from it. Everyone – and I mean everyone, not only people whom I just so happen to agree with – should be free to speak their mind; to express themselves. Only petty tyrants, tinpot dictators and terrified state-leaders of a paranoid persuasion would wish to limit the rights of people to speak their minds.
Tyrants, of course, seem to be particularly obsessed with the notion of stability. An idea of stability that demands conformity of thought, of speech and of opinion in order to maintain said stability. Stability is the law, and it shall be enforced with whips and thongs and death and despair.
Any flapping of a butterfly-wing would cause a storm, so all butterflies must have their wings cut. The same applies to loose lips and wagging tongues. They must be cut and sewn shut.
An obvious upside to feminism preaching what feminism preaches is that it shows them for exactly what they are. It presents the ideology for precisely what it is; hatred and contempt for men and for anything masculine, wrapped in a thin layer of gauze whereupon the word “equality” is written, either with a ballpoint-pen or the terrifyingly oppressive tool of the patriarchy known as lipstick. Of course, the gauze needs to be changed just about every day, otherwise the festering wounds underneath would become necrotic and smell a bit weird, quite possibly infected with maggots and other nastiness. And we can’t have that. Not that the wounds need to be cleaned, of course – no saline solution here, buddy-boy. Just a new dressing and we’re good to go. Maggots are known to eat necrotic tissue anyway, so there should be no problems there. Just a few more days of this, and they will bring out the leeches to give a good ol-fashioned leeching. And then we are on easy street. What’s a little gangrene, a slight amputation or two, maybe some sepsis, on the long and winding road towards equality? We all have to make sacrifices, buddy.
I would also dare make the claim that anyone who wishes to suppress the ability of their ideological opponents to speak in opposition, labelling it hate-speech or any other fancy new new-speak fancy, does not have any rhetorical legs to stand on, does not have any merit to their cause. It should be seen as a very frightening thing indeed, this ongoing suppression of free speech, whether they come from feminism on its own, or from the social justice warrior hive-mind. More frightening, of course, than the hordes that call for this or for that to be illegal to speak or think, are the governments implementing it. It has been building so slowly, and has been, and is being hidden behind the hollow buzzwords of kindness, inclusivity, tolerance and altruism so that people just accept. Until they come for them. Of course.
However – my free speech fundamentalism aside – if one should make a quip about women, such as Bindel did about men, particularly so when being in any position of authority, I doubt it would go all that well.
Men have lost their jobs for saying far less offensive things that are far more obviously jokes.
Yet all women everywhere are oppressed and all men everywhere are their oppressors, feminism is an underdog and the patriarchy is the establishment. Which is peculiar, considering the awesome might and influence of feminism. Though, of course, this does not matter when one has been trained from childhood to see things that aren’t really there and not see the things that are really there. And that is what we have been. Spoon-fed feminist dogma until there is nothing left but feminist dogma and feminist storm-troopers, feminist action and feminist all. Go out into the world and multiply, be fruitful, be many, and take part in the glorious cuntural revolution, empowered daughters and neutered sons of the revolution.
Of course, there is a distinction needed to be made between one individual who self-labels as a feminist, and the ideology of feminism. Critique of the ideology of feminism is not, at least when I myself rant, rave and ramble on the ideology of feminism, an attack on any one individual feminist – except when stated otherwise. I am, as of yet, not so myopic in my view of things to believe that every individual feminist is a bad person.
Far from it, in fact.
I consider individual feminists as individuals, judging them on their behaviour and conduct just as I would any other individual. It is excruciatingly simple to fall into a trap and think that anyone who is a follower of this or of that -ism behaves in this or in that manner.
Now, it is clear to me that subscribing to any ideology necessarily must mean that one agrees with quite a lot of the ideas the -ism is wrapped up in. This, I believe, goes without saying.
However; considering how heavy the hand has been that has stuffed this ideology down our throats from childhood-on as only being about equality between the sexes (or genders, as these two seem to be interchangeable or not interchangeable, depending on the whims of the frail and frantic forces of feminism), it is not a far stretch of the imagination to state that most everyone is, in one way or another, a feminist by default.
A fair amount of feminist ideas – as feminism has been presented, not as it is in actuality – will be present in the thoughts, observations and behaviours of the better part of my generation. Of this I am certain.
This, I believe, may very well be what causes a lot of the “not real feminism”-shill-shit. When not shown for what it truly is, but presented as a force for supreme good, supreme equality, supreme whatever and what-not, it is not all that strange that people roar, scream, bellow or whisper that no true Scotsman would ever have sugar on his porridge, and other similar fallacies.
Even if not a feminist activist, even if not necessarily wearing the feminist label on their sleeves, the ideas, ideals and ideology of feminism will very much be present. Again, as feminism has been falsely presented, not as feminism actually is. Stating that, you are a feminist if you believe the sexes should have equal rights is just as stupid and nonsensical as stating that you are a Catholic if you believe in God. Catholics believe in God, and so everyone who believes in God is by definition a Catholic.
This results in the stupendous arrogance and stupidity of statements such as “one is either a feminist or one is a sexist”, and a whole slew of other nonsense, each more poopy-headed than the last.
I suspect this to be the reason for feminism being as well guarded and protected as it is. Any criticism, any negativity spoken about feminism will be met with the tried and true formula of “those are not real feminists”, or similar simpering sentiments. As if feminism is the only force, the only idea, the only whatever one can subscribe to if one truly wanted the sexes to be treated equally and seen in an equal light.
This is how it has been presented through a steady drip-feeding in schools and in politics and in every bloody thing there is of any mass-consumed media, any mass-consumed anything. Only equality. If you believe in equality, you are a feminist. And if you believe in God, you are a Catholic. If you don’t believe in God, you are shit out of luck.
In the holy shining light of feminism, equality necessarily comes to mean that the needs of boys and men must be neglected for the good of the needs of girls and women. After all, if men have had it all for so long, it stands to reason that men must give a piece of their patriarchy-pudding so that women shall receive a greater piece of said pudding. Equality of opportunity is well past its sell-by date. Equality of outcome is the next big stumble forward toward a society that is completely equal in all but execution. When feminism speak about “equality”, it is not a traditional, not the classical liberal approach to equality they refer to. Quite the opposite. Equality of outcome can never come about if there is only equality of opportunity. It must be engineered through quotas and maintained under threats of punishment by law if not adhered to, if not implemented. They have been quite crafty, very clever and excruciatingly sneaky in changing the definition of words. Good, decent words that most everyone will agree are of the good. People should be treated equally, no matter the random chances of their birth. Yet, being treated equally does not mean that we are the same.
As such, the outcomes would not be the same. Different people make different choices and walk different paths through life. There is nothing wrong with this, excepting to those who believe that any difference (where men come out on top; the inverse does not apply) is some form or other of discrimination. And to the holy church of feminism, everything is discrimination if it can be painted in that light and presented in that manner. That is to say: if there are less women here or there, it has got to be discrimination. After all, we are all exactly the same and would, were it not for the terrible hand of society and of the culture, chose exactly the same. Biologists, neurologists, the psych-ev guys and various other that disagree on the basis of concrete facts and findings be damned, for the dominant ideology hath spoken through the soft science of dubious sociology, and the dominant ideology is exactly that – dominant. And dubious. Just like the catholic church of medieval times, the feminist church see no qualms in swooping in to hunt down the heretics and place them in laughingstocks. Nor do they see any qualms in burning the witches or chasing them out of broader society. They are, after all, the enemy and so frightfully dehumanized by now as to be of no consequence and even less matter.
It has become even worse after the rise of social media. Digital witch-hunts are all the rage. And all the outrage, if a feminist should happen to land at the bottom of a dog-pile. Though feminism see no qualms in dog-piling their opponents. Their opponents are othered to a frightful degree. Feminism can not handle their own tactics nor rules of conduct. One rule for me, another for thee. The plebs and peasants do not talk back to the aristocracy.
The people on the other side of the screen with whom one disagrees are even less people than if one were to see them in real life. Add to that the relative anonymity offered, and there are no limits to the wickedness, the viciousness, the ad-hominems, the smears and lies. The ease with which people are dehumanized and attacked through social media is truly terrifying, and greater proof of a society in which empathy is dwindling and compassion a lost art is hard to find.
Now, of course, this is based on observations through social media. Real life is a different story, to be sure, and real life social interactions do tend to be a bit more civil than all that. Yet, there is more than enough viciousness captured on film for all the world to see in the real world as well, fuck-face.
The western world seem to be spiralling into a society of obscene lack of empathy; a solipsist nightmare where narcissism and egotism is clothed and presented as compassion and a fight for the greater good – whatever the hell the greater good may be. A virtue-signalling hellhole where everyone wants to be seen as a morally superior being, despite acting in severely amoral ways. Empty words are merely empty words. People ought to be judged by their actions, not their words. “I am a good, moral, decent person!” states the one who beats another over the head with a bikelock, assuming he shall neither be punished nor attacked in kind.
This idea, this thought-virus, of the oppressed women and the privileged men has burrowed into the collective consciousness, where it has been allowed to nest, brood and lay eggs to further its colony, occupying minds and thoughts here and there and everywhere, creating further resentment and animosity between the sexes – whether completely conscious on part of the sexes or not. What the end-goal of feminism is seems to be very difficult to say, beyond the gaseous and constantly fluctuating term “equality”. This means absolutely nothing, when nothing is clearly defined.
Particularly so when the current year feminists oppose a lot of what was done and said by the prior current year feminists.
Or, well, it certainly appears that this is the case. Though I admit that I hardly believe so. At the end of the day, it seems to me that feminism is a perpetual motion machine; a machine that must keep itself going in order to keep itself going. Feeding on and off and into itself in perpetuity, to keep going for the sake of itself and nothing but itself.
Though, of course, I admit to an increasing sense of cynicism towards the whole kerfluffle that is western society as it stands today. Not nihilism, but cynicism and brooding pessimism. This does, obviously, taint my view of things.
A wise course of action, to my bloodshot insomniac eyes, would be to stop the bloody group-think, stop messing around with maladjusted identity politics and the victim-hierarchy which we for some reason give so much credence to.
This god-damned victim-hierarchy is nothing but strength in perceived weakness; a flat-lining tactic of emotional manipulation wherein it is stated that I am a victim of this, and so I must receive compensation in form of that. And one is constantly more victimized than the other, and the other must be even more victimized than the one to gain even more of that sweet – super-sweet – sweet and luscious victim-currency. And the whole bloody thing eats itself, splintering off into smaller and smaller identity-groups, smaller and smaller victim-cults, where white feminist women need to shut up and not speak because black feminist women need to be heard first and foremost.
But what about the transexuals, what about the gays, what about the lesbians and the pansexuals and the transcendentally identifying polymorph redemption-sexes, the otherkins and the blatherkins and the sluts and the frigid and the nymphomaniacs and the disabled?
Men, as per usual, need not apply. Everyone must be heard before men are heard. Whether gay or straight; men come last and latest in the victim-olympics. Which is fair enough, as these things go, because no-one in their right mind should wish to be perceived as a victim first and foremost, with weakness and frailty as their greatest strength, as the biggest part of their identity. Yet: men do struggle and do suffer as a group. Quite severely. And this is not an allowed topic. Except from feminism, who either blames men for it, or claims that men have no issues, often going so far as to laughing and ridiculing the high rates of male suicide, for example.
Yet the question remain: how far down the pyramid does one need to go before the pyramid topples over and crumbles into ruin? And is it a planned collapse, a nefariously thought out and well executed plan to bring down the entirety of western civilization? Some claim so. And some claim otherwise. This gets to be too big for me, in all honesty.
One thing is for certain, however, and that is the feminist war against the nuclear family; the tearing down of the traditional family unit. Which they have, in no small way, succeeded in doing. And which they also brag about, as seen in – at least the trailer for – the documentary “feminism – what were they thinking?” In tearing down the family unit, much of what was the stability, the foundation upon which western civilization rested is eroded, slowly. Bit by bit.
And here I must mention that I do not necessarily speak in favour of traditional gender-roles. For my part, I don’t much care who does what job, who fills what role. Husband at home or wife at home, male partner at home or female partner at home. I don’t much care about that. I care that the family is intact – that children grow up with two parents present and with two parents caring, working, interacting and supporting one another, their children and the entirety of the family unit. In the fight for so-called female liberation, it seems we forgot to give a toss about the children. And we pushed fathers out of the picture completely as being absolutely unnecessary in the lives of their children, except as an open wallet, a source of money, not as a parent or a guardian.
A return to traditionalism is not on my agenda, for sure. Though I admit that I believe there are some merits to traditionalism, insofar as it has worked and did work very well in the past. But times have changed, technology has changed… just about every thing has changed. And one would do well to go with the flow to a certain extent, I believe. To rid oneself of expectations and instead do as one wishes to do, to make those choices one wishes to make. Whether male or female. Which, based on both observation and statistics and surveys and what-not and whatever appears to be a traditional dance for the most part, with outliers here and there. This does suggest, as so often has been suggested before, that there is a biological component to our gender-roles that will not be stripped away or washed away by any amount of social engineering. Most everything has changed since traditionalism was in vogue, as it were, excepting – apparently – humanity and human nature.
Now, feminism claims to want to eradicate traditional gender-roles. This, however, only goes for traditionally female gender-roles. Men are still expected to provide and to protect. Men must step down, step aside, step left, step right, put their left hand in, their right hand in and so forth and so on in order to help and support women. Men must – according to the whimsical will of feminism – drop everything in order to protect women, should the need arise. That is just expected. Most men are willing to do so, as this capacity for self-sacrifice, the provide and protect role, appears to be a part of our better nature. Though it is very much expected and demanded, not only from feminism, but from society at large, there is little to no celebration of this aspect of masculinity, no gratitude and no respect offered. Merely an entitled attitude that this is par-for-the-course, and we are complete and utter arseholes filled to the brim with toxic masculinity if we do not comply. Now, of course, men are complete and utter arseholes filled to the brim with toxic masculinity no matter what we do, as the pounding and pummelling propaganda-machine of the perpetual gender-war states as much, time and again. This is the message chug-a-lugged into the dry and desperate throats of society, the infection racing through its central nervous system. Men must always do for women, and it is never good enough, and so men must ever strive to do more. Reaching for greatness, as it were, yet missing every time and falling flat on our haemorrhoids to be pile-driven into a state of universal shame each and every time we reach and miss. For the process to be repeated ad infinitum. Women, on the other hand, do not need to do diddly squat for men. To propose otherwise would be an act of grave soggy knees.
For men, it would be far easier, far better, safer and saner to check out and never return. When one is met with headlines such as the one from BBC, with a publishing company proudly and loudly proclaiming that they will only publish female authors in 2018, it is not too difficult for boys and men to think that society itself is stacked against them. Such blatant discrimination based solely on sex is encouraged and celebrated, as long as the discrimination favours women. Very interesting tactic, to be sure. It does not matter whether the book submitted to the publishing company is good or not. It matters whether the book is written by a woman or not. Through the magic and wonder of new-speak, this is not gendered discrimination. This is equality. For it favours women, and so it is pure and decent and good and true. To hell with quality and merit. And to hell with equal treatment of the sexes. Welcome, my friends, to the holy cult of the vulva. Ia, Ia Vulvuthu Fhtagn!
…and all the cultists are insane, stumbling through non-euclidean labyrinths where nothing means what it is supposed to mean, where nothing is easily understood and absolutely nothing that men do could ever possibly be good enough.
By focusing solely on building up girls and propping up women, our dismal societies spawned a generation of lost boys. A generation of boys and young men who has never encountered a single bloody encouraging word – to paraphrase Jordan Peterson. Instead, being told that they are patriarchal oppressors, that they are rapists-in-waiting, violent and stupid thugs. We told an entire generation of boys and men that there is something wrong with them solely by virtue of their birth; that their core nature is wrong and must be re-programmed, re-engineered, re-modelled to fit the present image of masculinity; that masculinity is not inherent to them, but something toxic and destructive crafted by the dread patriarchy which somehow both benefits and destroys them in equal measure. Not that this matters, of course, because it hurts women and girls most of all, and so it is for the cause of saving women and girls from the horrible hands and swinging cocks of boys and men that men and boys must be remodelled to fit the new mould of masculinity. That is a new model of masculinity which is more or less the same as it has always been, only with added emphasis on protecting, providing and sacrificing for girls and women. No thought present in actuality for the well-being of boys and men. It is present in theory, of course. Yet, that is merely in theory. Empty words from the bleeding gums of feminism so as to appear to care for and be of help to both sexes.
Dig but a little beneath the shining veneer, and the rust and decay becomes evident.
Hollow platitudes and white noise, beautiful words straight from the mouths of masterful used-car salespeople of undefinable sex.
Gender means nothing but the feminine, sex means nothing but women and men have come to be seen as defective women; emotional cripples, morally bankrupt actors, violent brutes with no thought besides the purely instinctual. Every act done by a man can easily, through manipulation of language and emotion, be contorted into being done as an act against women. I can hardly imagine anything more self-obsessed, more egotistical and dumb-strikingly crazy than believing oneself to be the centre of the universe. Yet that is what feminism proves itself to think where women are concerned, when every single act and action is perceived as either being done as an attack against women for naught but them being women, or demanded to be done in order to somehow help women for naught but them being women. Sex does not matter, except that it does whenever, wherever, all the time and everywhere. You can usually see that sex matters in everything by noticing that whatever happens wherever it happens can be turned, twisted and malformed into being about something-something women most affected, here’s how we can end it in order to help women. Even if men are the ones most affected.
Despite the bleakness of my writings, my growing pessimism and increasing cynicism, I do in fact have hope. I believe that the tides are turning. If not politically or academically, then at the very least amongst the population at large. Despite feminism wriggling its way into the collective consciousness as the only force fighting for equality, the number of people self-identifying as feminist is in decline. The more feminism pushes for increasingly unjustifiable goals in the name of hallowed equality, the more people will notice it and turn away from it, either dismissing it apathetically or opposing it actively. Ideologically, it appears to be at the top of the pyramid – or, it appears to be the eye in the pyramid.
However, it seems to be caught in an act of auto-cannibalism, or else infected by a flesh-eating virus. For it is so self-contradictory as to be unsustainable in the long term. Most people are reasonable people. This is something I am completely certain of. Reasonable people, I believe, can not help but notice the self-contradiction, the tyranny and the raw, searing hatred present in the ideology. When push comes to shove and time comes into itself, the tyrant will – the tyrant must – fall. Or else all will collapse. Men and women are complimentary; we are made for each other. The one is not made for the other, nor is the other created for the one. The two are made for one another. To paraphrase Camille Paglia; there can never be a war between the sexes. There’s just too much fraternizing with the enemy. And this is true. The relationship between the sexes is one to be built on mutual respect, mutual sacrifice. It has to be, otherwise, there is nothing to it.
If one part of a relationship is expected to give and to sacrifice all and everything, and the other part is expected to get and to receive all and everything, there is simply no reason to be engaged in a relationship. Then – it is better to check out completely, not only out of relationships, but society itself. And that is what is happening. More and more men – primarily young-ish men are checking out and dropping out completely.
Apparently, as seen in a slew of articles, to the detriment of women who are so bold, so absurdly cheeky, as to complain that there are too few men of higher education of or high enough status to engage in a relationship with, and to marry.
Men drop out, women most affected.
Very gynocentric, clearly presented with no thought or empathy as to why men check out and drop out such as this. Which is bothersome all on its own, as it is a god-damned bitch and a bastard to constantly witness this absurd gynocentrism, this awful notion that, no matter what happens, it does not matter unless it affects women in a negative manner.
Yet, this can be used to the benefit of the very loosely knit men’s rights movement. It seems as though nothing will change if it does not negatively affect women. Or if it can be presented to negatively affect women. And I am not yet so far gone in my pessimism that I have taken the black pill, though I have my moments of silent despair and desperation where I lick at it as tenderly as I would lick the insides of my eyelids. That is to say: I believe change, a positive change, is possible. “Victory” in this nonsensical, this eternally manufactured and chronically perpetuated stupidity that is the war of the sexes will not be won in the trenches. This is not to say that I do not believe in the importance of raising awareness for the issues predominantly affecting men, nor is it to say that I believe that what men’s rights advocates do is futile. Far from it – I consider it to be very important. Or I would not be doing what I do, personal cost be damned. Spreading the proverbial red pill, poisoning the well with it, so to speak, is a fantastic thing, a noble thing, in fact.
Yet, checking out, tuning out, letting society run its course whilst sitting at a distance laughing at the absurdity is a clever tactic. It is, if you will allow, the path of non-violent resistance. The social game has become so rigged against men, so stacked against us that it is better to not play it at all than it is to try navigating the rules, with all their pitfalls, endless addendum’s and nonsensical sidesteps. When the frail and frantic forces of feminism state that firms must take care so that men do not talk about football at work so as not to exclude the poor and fragile maidens of incessant frailty from workplace chatter – after all, it is only a short step from talking about football to talking about sexual conquests over the weekend (men, of course, being only able to talk about two things; sports or sex, and women never talking about either) – the stupidity, the authoritarian, the stupidly authoritarian streak of feminism makes itself seen and known so clearly and so brightly that it should not be too difficult to dismiss it as trivial whinging. As long as it is something men in general do, it is bad and it must be ended. For the poor women can not expect to exist as long as men talk amongst themselves about something not approved of by women in general. Herp. Derp. Honk. Honk. Men can not behave themselves unless a woman watches over them as some sort of smothering mother. Men must act and speak only in a way approved of by women, and only by talking about topics approved of by women. This is obviously not reasonable.
Why should men wish to partake in a culture so hostile to them that it grants itself the right to dictate the discourse amongst them? Why should men wish to take part in a society so hell-bent on their destruction that mainstream news outlets attack them for everything and nothing, with acceptance and celebrations from mainstream culture; so celebratory of their failures that it shamelessly makes the statement that “men are obsolete”?
There is little to gain from taking part. And much to loose from taking part. When the one struggle, the whole suffer. When the one is cast out – as is happening with men – the whole will collapse. Particularly so when all the grubby, dirty, dangerous and – most importantly of all – unseen background-work; the sewage work, the garbage collecting, and so and such… all those low-status, yet highly important professions that are filled with men will be struggling as men check out. There is little to no push from feminism to have female representation in these fields. Nope; the high-status jobs are important, the low-status ones are not. Despite the low-status jobs being incredibly important to the infrastructure of society. A day without men would be a thing to behold. Luckily, men are not so privileged as to be able to take a day off work simply to protest their lack of privilege.
I picture, in vivid detail, a men’s march… thousands of men marching around with hats resembling flopping hard-ons or giant, wobbly nutsacks… speakers quite blatantly stating that women are the enemy… all women everywhere… threatening to blow up this or that house of government… all with impunity, all with mass-celebrations, all whilst being taken seriously… despite wearing fucking genitalia-hats on their heads and shrieking in high-pitched hysterics that “I am a NASTY MAN!”, shrieking incoherently about their infallible state of oppression. All whilst being privileged enough to take a day off work to act like complete and utter twats. Somehow, I doubt it would fly.
Never underestimate the stupidity of a mob high on self-righteousness and morbid mass-hysteria. And a culture that enables said twattery, self-righteousness and feeds the bloody mass-hysteria. Apparently, men have too much dignity for such an action. Or, you know, the capacity for reason and logic which so clearly are lacking in the frontal or temporal lobes (or wherever it fucking resides) of any given feminist at any given day. Ho-ho-ho.
Now, now, Moiret, there, there, calm down: them’s fightin’ words. And so is stating that all men are the enemy. And so is stating that all men should be killed. Difference being: my rambling, ranting and raving writings attack an ideology, not a sex nor a gender. There is a clear distinction there. Not that this matters, of course. I have understood this full well. Attacking men for naught but their sex is A-OK, but attacking the ideology of feminism is not. Celebrated and held forth, as it is, as the shining beacon in the night, the guiding light, the this and that. Enabled by crack-head culture, snowflake society, pungent politicians, succubi schools and meth-addicted mass-media pundits never shying away from jumping on the current trend for cheap clicks, cheap tricks and cheaper slaps to the ballsack still. Why, in all the marvels of the world, should one willingly take part in this nonsense, where nothing means anything and everything and nothing has to be filtered through some cosmic-horror-lens of feminist dogma before being spoken, thought or considered at the highest level of government? Why should one willingly take part in the celebration of one sex at the cost of neglecting the other, experiencing a constant flow of laws and rules and regulations inspired directly by disjointed feminist directives?
Lying flat, prostate, at the feet of the altar of the holy vulva, men have been taught and told to self-flagellate to make amends for past perceived sins not even perpetrated by them. It is the sins of the fathers that will be visited upon the son. Seven generations down the line. For men are obsolete, the feminist hive-mind state, blood dribbling from their smirks, powdered noses turned sky-high, hair dyed the colour of danger and of toxicity flapping in the gentle breeze of the non-patriarchal future, chanting fuck-face mantras and swishing their beautiful bingo-wings to create a chaos-storm on the surface of the slutwalk-moon. The future is female, after all. At least until something heavy needs to be lifted and/or moved. At least until a pickle-jar needs to be unscrewed, at least until someone needs to be hauled out from underneath a burning car, at least until the sewage system blocks up. You get my drift.
But, in order to get back on track – never-minding for the moment how incredibly fun it is to go off the rails for a decent rant – and to see if I may wrap this roguish ramble into a neat and nifty bow: despite the quite angry, confrontational and, I will admit, often mean tone in my writings, ravings, rants and rambles, I am fairly mild-mannered in real life. I tend to speak very gently. At the very least when being around people whom I do not know all that well.
This may very well be due to me being so highly introverted, so shy and reserved that I have almost forgotten how to speak to people. This gets me labelled, more often than not, as a bit of a pushover. Which is quite contrary to the fact of the matter. I just can’t be bothered to fight or argue, either verbally or physically, with random strangers. This goes for the internet as well. I consider it a waste of time and energy which I would much rather spend doing something I enjoy. Which, amongst other things, is writing, drinking coffee and listening to music.
As such, a huge part of my writings may very well be a strange manifestation of my ID, a way to channel all the rough, instinctual, spontaneous, angry, etcetera, responses I might otherwise have let loose when confronted, as I often am, with the wrath and trembling ire of feminism the moment I poke my growing skullet and magnificent beard outside. A man can not even sit and have a quiet beer with his wife and a buddy without being harassed and accosted by feminist insanity, accusing him of oppressing his wife for daring to discuss something with his buddy instead of his wife. How does one respond to such monumental stupidity, other than by ignoring it in the moment? It really ain’t worth the bother. To an ideologically possessed feminist, no matter ones response, it somehow proves their point. For these people are masters of the subtle art of mental gymnastics. Anything you say or do will be twisted, turned and used against you. No matter how reasonable, it is proof of their point, stance and victim-complex. Better, then, to remember these instances, go home and then write about it, tell the story and get on with things.
I often quip that I began writing on the topics of men’s rights and feminism because it was either that or clinical insanity. This is only partially a joke.
See; I happen to be simultaneously cursed and blessed with a fantastic long-term memory. My short-term memory is not as good as it ought to be, that’s for damned sure. But my long-term memory is. Probably for reasons of some poorly treated PTSD. This, unavoidably, means that I remember happenings from long, long ago with very little problem and in much detail. Even if I had been drinking at that point in time. Which, for a bigger part of my twenties, usually was the cause, wild party-animal as I was back in those days.
The problem with having a good long-term memory is that these old memories tend to pop up when they shouldn’t. In particular, this goes for the male-bashing, male-hating rhetoric of feminism, as this attacks, and have attacked me all my life, for my core nature – for me having the audacity to be born as a boy and develop into a man. These attacks on men, on masculinity itself and, as such, on the very nature of men – my very nature, in fact, have been coming at men in general and me, specifically, from all sides and all layers of society since my early childhood.
With enough memories of these attacks accumulated over the years, it turns out to be a damned hard task to simply push them away and forget about them. Particularly so when the memories are vivid, clear and bright as the surface of the fucking sun. It also became increasingly difficult to not internalize the message(s) that told me that I was worthless, dangerous, irresponsible… that my sexuality was flawed and my intelligence second-grade, my emotional maturation as well as how I handled my emotions wrong and flawed, if not flat-out dumb. Add to this that this message as well as the so-called logic and reasoning behind it, though largely unopposed, to me seemed to be flawed at best and downright hateful at worst, and things started cooking deep within the bowels of my festering and pestilent manhood.
Though, being beat down into cowardice, I internalized it and began believing it. In no small way, this was due to me being stupid enough to study art, seemingly never being taught much about art, but being taught much about the virtues of the female sex and feminism, as well as the cold-hearted wickedness of men. Of course, grade-school and beyond also told me the same tinkering tale, though in less “adult” language. It was internalized through a steady drip of indoctrination, until I began spouting the same rhetoric myself. In the process of doing so, I eliminated my self from myself… ground myself into dust and learned to shut up about the flaws I saw; learned to not think about, in fact. For that was what the entirety of the culture surrounding me said, and I had to be insane when thinking they were wrong and I was right.
Following a psychosis I suffered, however, as I started coming back into myself after being torn completely apart by this psychosis, I saw things as they were and always had been. For that is the thing about such a psychosis that I suffered: being the person that I am, I started digging deep into myself and my memories to figure out what brought me to that point of utter despair and desperation which culminated in that psychosis.
And in no small way, it was due to being told my entire life that there was something inherently wrong with me for being born with a cock and balls. Now, of course, there is more to the story than that. But that was the most defining feature of my life-long depression and issues with anxiety; I was, for all intents and purposes, considered completely worthless and absurdly dangerous by society at large, to such an extent that I believed it myself. Such was the way I saw it. And this had to get out of my system in some way. And so I did what I usually do, which is to write about it. So – it was either this, or it was clinical insanity. For carrying so much within is a difficult thing to do. And it must come out, in some way or other.
Funnily enough, this is me opening up and talking about my emotions. Which, apparently, is what men are supposed to do. Odd, then, that it meets with such hatred, contempt, sneers and snarls from the divine forces of feminism, which helps men too, as long as men do exactly what they wish them to do – up to and including complete self-annihilation. Men must talk about their emotions. But not like this, nor like that. It must only ever be done in a way approved of by feminism, which is for men to shut up and listen to women talk about their emotions.
Now, this way of thinking and this way of writing – the proverbial red pill – the anti-feminist stance – even merely having a view of men and masculinity that is not wholly spiteful and hateful – does isolate one from broader society in no small way. And this can be a very difficult thing for many people. This I understand perfectly well. In that way, I am very lucky to be as introverted as I am. I enjoy my own company very well, and enjoy nothing better than being alone for an evening, with a bottle of wine, perhaps a cigar, and some loud music blaring from my speakers.
I propose that checking out of broader society is the best way to go in order to combat the ideology of feminism, in order to combat the chronic male-bashing. Don’t take the feminist bait if they try to rile you up. Just ignore them, whether in real life or on twitter or wherever. Let them scream into the void, but let their words and deeds stand as proof of their words and deeds.
By all means: do write and speak on their nonsense. Do advocate for the issues of boys and men, for the humanity of boys and men. Spread the word. It is very important!
But take part in the machinery of society as little as possible. If men in truth are obsolete, then there really is no reason for men to take part in the totalitarian tango.
Focus on your hobbies and your happiness, work as little as you need to in order to be happy. It may very well be selfish, but why not be selfish? After all, men have been – at least in part – socialized into self-sacrifice.
The time may very well have come for men to be “selfish” enough as to actually put their well-being up front and centre. What a radical notion! Men caring about themselves? Well, I never! In the era of feminism, this is such a radical thought in-and-off itself that the end of the world surely must be nigh!
The more men refuse to take part, the more the whole shebang will suffer, I think.
Which will make it very evident that men are, in fact, a necessary component for the whole bloody thing to work. That men are, in fact, not obsolete. The biggest obstacle, however, is men themselves. For the self-sacrifice is not solely socialized, it is also biological. The drive to procreate drive men to prove themselves. The social “reward” of acquiring a mate is all that is needed in that regard for self-sacrifice to be a viable option.
Yet, there used to be some gratitude, some manner of respect, some manner of understanding and care for doing these things. Not so much now. It is still expected, and yet men are met with nothing but contempt, with never a kind word spoken about men in general. Just the message to do more, to sacrifice more, and so forth and so on.
Checking out, then, taking the non-violent path, as it were, the path of least resistance, becomes a very viable action, a good path to take. At the very least, it will prove a most potent and a most valid point: you can only kick someone for so long until they either lash out, or withdraw. When withdrawn, what will you do then? If – broadly speaking – half the components of a machine is missing, how in the everlasting fuck will the machine keep going with any level of functionality? When doing all that is possible in order to push someone away, one should not then be surprised when they stay away.
Keep calm in the storm, ignore the flapping bait, and carry on with your life, doing what you love and raise a proud, potent, most erect middle-finger to the whole thing. Let the ship of fools drive itself into the vortex. After all; you are obsolete. And someone who is obsolete is not needed. Then we shall see what happens when that which is obsolete goes away and proves itself to not be obsolete.
One rule for me, and another rule for thee and for thou and for thine. Such is the swinging, flapping, luscious bingo-wings of things such as things are at this point in terribly trembling tremolo-time; a twice sidestepped waltz where the dancer can not help but step on her own tongue and handcuffed hands.
The dating-scene, you see, my brothers and partners-in-crime, has turned viciously, maliciously, misogynistically obscene. It has become obtuse scream-time lost in flash-pan-dating feministas fisting twice whore-hopped chlamydia calamities, deep-fried in hysterics and histrionics… table-turning duality; the cosmic singularity of the woke-washed dating crowd whose love-lorn electro-pop hymns call out for shelter-kittens in the lonely night of their malcontent.
A fanged problem-bespectacled grin pokes out from beneath the lead-covers of a penthouse nuclear shelter. Rough-and-tumble concrete corners poured in adolescent hormone-highs; weird dopamine bursts of immediate and immaculate dreams to calculate the terrible, the female-bashing, women-hating, misogynistic rise of men who dare – in their effervescently ever-present arrogance, their perpetually perpetuated toxically masculine ways and vices, in their cock-drunk ball-shacked arrogance – to decide for themselves whom they should wish to date. Woke journos and blue-check-marked twitter-twats all sharpen their pencils and their fingernails en mass, fingernails that are, incidentally, registered – for concerns of safety – as lethal weapons of mass deconstruction. Then take the time to take the temperature and find the tune to which their wrath and ire sing today, and hammer out their piss-takes and shit-shined immediate emotional upheaval for all the world to see. And woe betide them, and any who are such as them – which, for the solipsistically inclined, are all and anyone. The rest do not exist.
Lo, what a terrible thing to see and to behold! A man who dares – dares with all the demented daring in his dastardly daring-do – to have dating-preferences not accepted by the tolerant, the liberal, the thought-leaders, all elite-prone and inclined to intoxicating virtue by virtue of their shaming of the virtually impure and improper whose unshaven face and unwashed mass is lacking virtue… so impure, as opposed to the purity of the latter day sexual puritans who allow for all and any form of sexual clamour, chaos, debauchery and excess, as long as no straight white male should be so egotistical, so selfish, so daringly bold and wickedly aligned as to have his own preferences on the seamless dating-scene.
Shlock and stinking, horrifying, gasping smegma-cock!
Followed by various other immediate words, ululations and weird background susurrations of immense shock and awe and horror there to boot!
Please, sisters of the revolution, do but forgive me this one time my patriarchal wickedness, my masculine confusion, for here I truly, surely, openly must confess to be at a horrible loss for words!
Being at a loss for words is, as we all should well know by now following the enlightened scriptures and scruples of the revolutionary sisters of the junior anti-male-sex league, the domain of men and men alone.
Still, ye gods, but these women do speak in tongues indefinitely, with pause for neither breath nor thought; with nary a gasp for air, or for allowing another to speak their bastard-mind, or elucidate upon his roguish, pimpish words of such incredible, yet dangerously arrogant, eloquence. Not only is he showing all his egotistical, maniacal, selfish, soggy-kneed insanity… but it is dangerous to boot.
The clear and obvious question presents itself. In fact, it pokes its uncut penis-head out of the fly-by zipper-zap, stares at you and then remains: dangerous for whom, and for what reason dangerous, exactly, and exactly how is it dangerous that men should self-choose whom to date in the current year of the looming apocalypse; of the monochrome background-sounds of kittens wailing in despair, in this era, in this night of a thousand crazy box-wine pimping cat-ladies of serendipitous delight and curious, may haps even questionable moral character, with no sight, no sound, no foghorn-howl of any manner of self-awareness or insight into the double standard so blatantly, boldly, fully, clearly on display?
Well, as are with all things dangerous in-and-off nature, it is mostly dangerous for women and women only. Least ways, that is what and who and where and when and why we should care and only care and then care some more, just for good measure.
Then we ought to be afraid – scared straight, or, well, perhaps scared square or gay – by the pure puerile ignorance presented so ferociously by this atonal utterance of a man whose dilapidated cervix, whose rust-speckled vocal-box and barbarian, savage tribe-like preferences in dating is such a terrible burden on the poor and unblemished women of a certain character of woke character-assassination.
Surely, then, the man must be made subject to scrutiny by the grand feminist inquisitor. Clearly, he must suffer the consequences of such horrible non-feminist and anti-revolutionary activi-titties and be sentenced to virtual stoning by the woke twitterati and its gated community of close-knit knitters of other peoples personal preferences. He shall be sentenced and thrown in jail, awaiting execution.
Though, to be frank, as the beautifully non-violent squad of woke hipsters and their brothers, sisters, comrades and confused non-binary xirs and xadams in antifa-arms are opposed to violence, he shall first be washed in the holy liquid; the pungent milkshake of salvation. Furthermore, he shall be saved through a death of personality so that he comes out the other side a richer, more tribally aligned, more morally sanctified productive member of the community. Here is one who shall be saved through re-education and mind-melting milkshake-washings; here is one who must be saved through mobbing, dog-piling, bullying, harassment and so-and-such and all the others.
For no man shall be allowed to date those whom he should wish to date. And no man shall be allowed to be aroused or romantically inclined towards those whom the woke hipster-squad and their vibrato-followers of ire, wrath and jellyfied, petrified, sanctimonious moral aloofness have decided are un-persons, non-persons, never to be saved or canonized or taken into the realm of woke, there to live and love forever more.
Nay, no man shall be so proud, so bold, so sexually selective as to intone in words so rough and dangerous that he will not date women with whom he disagrees on the hallowed topics of the church of woke. For is it not written that whomsoever of a woman hath preferences that are not desired in the womb of double-ham-slammed woke-washed fisticuffs shall not the ladies suffer to live? Or something to that effect?
Nay, hear me, ye men of dubious moral character, your existence is only to serve, to please, to shut up and to get on your knees to present the saintly maidens of the calloused church of woke with your this and all your that and all that which is your other. For all your thoughts, words, deeds, speech, income, money, house, land, laundry, opinions, self belongeth to the cosmic church of the vaguely woke. And only women are allowed romantic preferences or sexual preferences in the wacky dating-game. All else is bigotry and naught but bigotry, so there, so then, so that.
The age of men has ended.
Here comes the age of the Orca.
In the age of the Orca, no-one stopped to ask why this man, this simpleton, would not date the lovely luscious ladies of the woke. Maybe, ye gods, maybe, there is something wrong with the maleficent madams of mockery and murmurs. Maybe they are the ones to be deemed dangerous, not he or men like him…
For celebrating narcissistic banality, vicious solipsist insanity that allows for no other opinion but their own, no other values than their own, no other well-being but their own… For celebrating vapid vacuum-values made to disintegrate and interchange and dissolve into the air and ether the moment something and someone new comes along is not something made for prosperity, for pair-bonding or for longevity.
For double standards are the least titillating thing there is, and unhidden hatred of ones partner on the basis of their sex and grim double-balled tango doubly so.
It is all well and good, I believe, to rail and rave and rant and ramble in opposition to feminism. At the very least, it is a fantastic cathartic experience… and exercise. Even if it may be an exercise in futility. It is very important, considering that feminism has become an incredibly powerful and influential force. This is not me being hyperbolic – it is an absurdly powerful ideology. Far beyond the confines of being a mere “movement”.
In fact, it is such a powerful and influential “movement” that it has managed to worm its way into the minds of entire generations as the only force worth a damned in the eternal quest for equality between the sexes. And so, any opposition means being opposed to the genders being treated equally. This is absolute bullshit, of course. But that does not matter. Feminism has spoken, and theirs is the only word worth a damned.
As I believe I mentioned in the beginning of this absurdly lengthy – and admittedly variable in quality – series of rambles: any ideology, any authority, that not only proposes, but demands, to be the only voice to speak on any topic is one not to be trusted to speak on that topic. Particularly so when hiding behind an -ism. That one single ideology demands a monopoly on a certain topic – and I don’t care which topic, or which ideology – should raise red flags and have alarms blaring in the minds of anyone who hears it. Subsequently, they should be dismissed as the authoritarian bullies that they are. It has come to such a point of what I can only refer to as indoctrination that everyone and anyone either proclaim themselves to be feminist, or at the very least support the proposed cause of feminism, invoking the name of feminism. After all, it is only about equality between the sexes. And how can one oppose that? One can not – most everyone agrees that people should be treated equally. People are, after all, of equal worth and of equal value.
This does appear to be the mainstream view of things. And I have absolutely no problems with that.
In fact, I agree with it.
We are of equal worth.
And we are of equal value.
This, however, does not mean that we are exactly the same.
Nor does it mean that every idea is of equal worth and of equal value. Some ideas are simply bad ideas. Bad ideologies doubly so.
For my part, I consider human rights to be of incredible importance. Human Rights is something that is ever and always to be defended and fought for. History, both current and ancient, shows how easily it is taken away from us. And how hard it is to regain once it has been lost. In fact, it shows how difficult basic human rights are to get a hold of in the first place. Lots of places are still very much lacking in that department; the notion that everyone should be treated as human beings, with liberty, bodily autonomy, freedom from persecution and so and such and yada-yada-yada is a strange notion all across the world.
Human rights, however, do in fact extend far beyond only being about women’s rights. Some of us, you see, actually care that people – not only one piece of the people-pudding, but the whole damn thing – ought to be treated properly and fairly.
Despite this, women’s rights – as waved about and serenaded by the frail and frantic forces of feminism – is the focal point of everyone and everything. Every major human rights organization, every this and every that and every other this and that puts women’s rights up front and centre. Neglecting, in the process of doing so, boys and men and their rights, their interests and their value as human beings. Because women’s human rights are far more important than men’s human rights, for some reason. So it is stated, and such it shall be.
Which is why, for example, it irks me something awful when people point to Islamic theocracies and state that “These countries need feminism!”
No they bloody don’t.
These countries need a human rights movement, not one for women and not one for men, but one for human beings. The details, I believe, can be ironed out later.
To believe that only women suffer; that the suffering of women is the most important thing to end, is to believe that only women matter. To believe that only the one matter, at the cost of neglecting the other, is a terrible thing to do. In fact, it has far-reaching negative consequences. One would assume that the “Dancing Boys” of Afghanistan, to name but one example, would deserve some compassion, empathy and liberation. Not so, of course. In the battle for human rights, only women’s rights matter. For women are an elevated human being, according to society at large – one to be saved, pampered and protected. Whereas men are not. Quite the contrary. Men are to be sacrificed and boys are to be neglected.
As of course is tradition.
Feminism has successfully duped the world into believing that women are the ones who suffer hardest, thus being the ones whose end of suffering must be prioritized, even when it comes at the expense of ending the suffering of boys and men, even daring to go so far as to claim boys and men to be privileged based solely on their sex and so their suffering is non-existent, or at the very least a suffering whose end must not be prioritized.
This sham of feminism is done to such an extent that they blatantly lie, claiming that – for example, as seen in the Bloomberg piece on the ICMI 2019 – women are the demographic most at risk for being assaulted… even when the opposite is true. Now, I don’t know whether or not the reporter in that piece is a feminist or not, but that talking point most definitely is.
Evidently, not many people care all that much, but the fact of the matter is that men experience violent assaults far more than women do. To which the usual reply from the sneering mouth of feminism is that men are assaulted by other men. So, you see, this then somehow cancels out men being assaulted the most. Sharing the same set of genitalia with ones assaulter somehow makes the assault matter less. It makes the victim less of a victim. For sharing a sex with their assaulter. This, I will have to admit, makes me break out in fits of the most sardonic laughter I can manage.
Truthfully, this proves nothing but one simple thing: men would much rather attack another man than they would ever attack a woman.
I also find it peculiar and odd, this blaming and shaming of men who are victims of violent assault from other men for no other reason than sharing a bit and two vegs with their assaulters, when neither sex nor gender matter according to the feminist hive-mind, who proudly and loudly proclaim the gender-neutral future… which just so happen to be female. (Besides; where are the ones who cry and moan about “victim-shaming” or “victim-blaming” in these instances? Nowhere to be seen, of course. After all – it is only men.)
I would much prefer the future to be everyone, but I am clearly a naive moron for disliking war-rhetoric, othering and blatant supremacy masquerading as a civil rights movement.
Herp goes the derp, yet again.
And it derps so majestically when once it has herped.
So, let me do the old switcharoo.
Consider black-on-black crime in the USA.
This is not something whites should care about.
Because it is only blacks assaulting other blacks.
And they should clean up their own mess.
Clearly, there is something wrong with blacks and how they express their blackness.
Doesn’t sound all that good, now, does it? Now, I don’t much care for playing identity-politics, but I find it stimulating to make people live by their own rules. If the rules apply to group A, they should also apply to group B. As well as any-and-all subgroups within group A, group B, group C and so forth and so on.
Also, I am anxiously awaiting someone to take the above sentence out of context and so present me as a foul-mouthed, raging, racist, misogynistic, white supremacist something or other. Which further proves my point – which is this: the truth, according to feminism, is there to be twisted and made to fit their lollygagging view of the world. No tactic is bad, no target out of reach when once it has deserved the wrath and ire of the feminist hive scorned. Consider this a pre-emptive strike against out-of-context quote-mining, which is so incredibly easy to do and even easier to counter, if people would only care to peek and look behind the mining and see the mine.
Men are the ones in power, that is to say – the ones at the top of the hierarchy is one of the supreme feminist talking point. And so all men everywhere must be the powerful class, whereas all women everywhere must be the powerless class. Which says something about feminism and its view of men as well as its view of women, none of which are favourable for either. Yet – reason has no place within the gated community safe-zone that is the eternal feminist echo-chamber. Women are so meek, so submissive, so powerless that they willingly allowed themselves to be enslaved and oppressed by men for all of history, not doing anything about it but right now.
Now, of course, referring to whichever bloody wave of feminism is currently in vogue, currently ongoing and currently twisting the truth to satisfy the drooling masters of their serpent-cult. This appears to be the view feminism holds where women are concerned. Even when women are strong and independent, they are meek, weak and in need of protection at the same time, should the need arise.
Double-plus-good, comrade. Strength is weakness, weakness is strength, freedom is slavery.
The twisting of the truth is never a bad tactic. Bad tactics don’t exist, remember. The same applies to playing the weak victim, or playing the strong hero, depending on the current state of things. The cause goes before all, and consistent values and all manner of internal consistency be damned, for there is a war to perpetuate. There must always be a war. Because war is peace.
(Also of interest, as a bit of a side-note: when feminism states that “we need more women in leadership”, or “we need to listen to the voices and experiences of women”, they only ever refer to feminist women. Not women as a group, but feminist women. Which is sly and ingenious, in its way, because this allows for them to navigate women of a certain ideological bent into positions of leaderships – that is – positions of power, where they then can implement feminist “law and order” in this and in that through wielding the power and influence that comes from whichever prestigious position they then inhabit.)
Me thinks the ladies doth neuroticize too much. A lot of the feminist rhetoric regarding men – as a group – and the behaviour of men – again, as a group – seems to stem from their own anxieties and paranoid delusions. Very likely, though admittedly only speculation on my part, born from a negative personal experience with one man, whose portrait is painted and presented to be all men by extension of his cock and metaphysical psyche-travelling toxic masculinity. Or it could just be good ol’ fashioned bigotry; this group bad, that group good, other groups – eh – somewhere in the middle.
Locking oneself up in a chamber where everyone constantly espouses the same fears, trepidations and anxieties does nothing but perpetuate and strengthen these anxieties and delusions. It becomes a Folie á Deux, a shared psychosis, cats and dogs living together, mass-hysteria.
I tend to liken the current state of feminist hysteria to the satanic panic of the late 1980’s, early 1990’s. Suddenly, everyone and their mums had been made subject to satanic child-abuse, rituals, sacrifice and God only knows what, with self-proclaimed experts in the field popping up out of the woodwork to tell everyone how deep the satanic rabbit-hole truly went. And, ye gods, how deep it went!
Everything and everyone deemed satanic, troubling, or what-not was under suspicion. And everyone and everything could possibly – and probably – be satanic, troubling and dangerous.
Even bloody Metallica, which is pretty tame as far as metal goes – despite being damned good. Well, their first few albums were damned good, then they appear to have ran out of steam and been prone for retirement for quite some time. Yet, that is besides the point. And, let’s face it, no-one wants to listen to me ramble about music. My point is – we have seen this type of behaviour before, time and again. Nothing ever changes. Not even the witch-hunts. Only the perceived victims and the perceived victimizers and their so-called enablers change. There will always be witches to burn and heretics to chase.
This is nothing new.
The subjects of scorn and social hatred, ridicule and ostracising – that is, the scape-goat(s) – change from decade to decade, but it is always the same. And it is always damaging, as far as I have understood it, to society at large. Then it tapers off, people hardly mention it again – probably out of shame – and then the process repeats.
Society needs a scape-goat.
Civilization needs someone to blame, for failing to look at itself and see where it has failed itself. It is easier to point fingers at one identifiable enemy, than it is to understand that the problems society face are far more complex than “this group bad”. That there exist, in fact, no easy solutions.
Now, looking to the top tiers of society and seeing only men (despite this not being true) does only consider the “hard power” of governmental institutions, of corporations and other such things.
This I have heard referred to as “visible power”, which seems about as good a term as any other. Simultaneously, It neglects the “soft power” of social and societal influence, the “invisible power”, which women wield and have wielded for quite some time. (Consider, for example, the following statement, as well as a whole slew of similar statements: “Behind every successful man, there is a strong woman”. Or, well, what about the women’s temperance movement stating that “lips that touch liquor shall never touch ours”.) To believe that women do not have, nor ever have had, any influence in society, any power to change society, is to look at world history through the eyes of a blind, deaf and mute foetus with a brain melting from malnutrition.
As well as being, at least in my humble opinion, quite insulting to women, it is simply not true.
Most of humanity – boys and girls, women as well as men – have lacked liberty – as we now know liberty – for most of human history. The elites have elited, and the serfs have serfed. Such as it was, is, ever shall be. This does appear to be coming back again as well. In style, with gusto and mad ringing wind-bag bells.
And I, for one, welcome our new aristocracy. To do otherwise would be to commit social suicide, and so, none of us poor and pitiful plebs and peasants have any choice, now, do we?
…the academic elite, the rich and the powerful, the do-goodie social justice warrior hive-mind, the intersectional feminist hordes and various other moral puritans, clingers-on and opportunists will burn western civilization to ashes with their ludicrous ideas, ideals and ideologies. Then they will stand atop the ashes and complain that the soot gets in their eyes, demanding that someone else rinse their eyes and clean the soot from their mouths and tongues. Consequences only ever happen to other people. And the mighty will laugh as their towers grow ever taller, ever more fortified.
The feminist “aristocracy” carries on with their carrying on, conflating the upper crust of society – the powerful one percent of men with the comparatively powerless 99 percent of men. (Neglecting the powerful women in the process, because they don’t factor into the equation.) This is such an obvious example of the apex fallacy that I struggle to understand why people do not see it for what it is. Or, well, that is to say: I would struggle, were it not for the feminist indoctrination that have been drip-fed into us making it so that we do not see things that are actually there. Instead, we see things that aren’t there, twisted and obscured by the laced panties of feminist-presented inequality. Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes truth. The worst bloody part of it all is that I, personally, would not mind a special interest group for women, were it not for three things in particular which feminism is guilty of;
1: the constant blaming, shaming, devaluing and so and such of boys, men and masculinity. It is possible, you know, to advocate for the interests of one group without simultaneously believing that the other group(s) have no issues that need to be dealt with, as well as not making the other group(s) out to be your enemies. Most MRA’s do not attack women, nor do they attack femininity. They attack feminism. Men’s rights advocacy and feminism is not the same thing, only with the genders reversed. Should that happen – should the men’s rights movement ever devolve into an -ism such as feminism, I will turn my back on it. And rightly so. Last point: Feminism and women are not the same thing. Feminism – and society overall – would do well to stop conflating the two. Maybe then, honesty would be possible.
2: men are not “allowed” our own interest group, due in no small way to feminist influence, attacks, smears and various and sundry. Personally, I believe feminism projects when they attack the very broad men’s rights movement for so-called women-bashing, misogyny and other such nonsense, believing that our rhetoric mirrors their rhetoric. Or wilfully confusing men’s rights with various other subgroups within the so-called manosphere. Feminism is a very solipsist movement, seldom seeing further than the tips of their noses. Or, well, perhaps pretending they do not, to score cheap rhetorical points. Therefore, if feminism attacks masculinity such as it constantly does, by their logic, a movement for the interests of men must necessarily attack women and femininity. If women shall be “allowed” their own interest group, men should also. For, you know, equal treatment and all that. (I doubt very much that feminism is an interest group for women, though. Rather, it is an interest group for the ideology of feminism.)
3: any interest group, no matter which demographic it proposes to speak for, should never strive for supremacy… not for their demographic, nor for their ideas. Yet feminism does so. I fail to see anything but the feminist hive-mind shouting about the supremacy of women through their slogans and their behaviour. “The future is female”. Disregarding the call for gendercide from which that slogan sprung for a moment; substitute “female” with any other demographic – particularly a currently unpopular one – and one can not fail to see the thinly veiled sense of supremacy and superiority.
“The future is white”, for instance.
What about “the future is Aryan”?
It roars and it holds forth women as the supreme sex, and feminism as the supreme idea. Authoritarianism ought to be rooted out and thrown to the winds… something as powerful, as influential and as domineering as feminism has become must be scrutinized, must be picked apart. Then, maybe, something better could rise to fill the void – something which does not propose to hold the only view worth a damned on the infected and confusing term “equality”; something which does not devolve and become an -ism.
I suppose, however, that I should be grateful for feminism believing and speaking as they do about men in general, as well as men in power, as it showcases the thoughts of feminism. Particularly what feminist women in power will do. It appears as though they believe that men in power only do things for the benefit of other men because they themselves would only do things for the benefit of other women. If a feminist accuses you of doing something, you can bet your bum, your house, your dogs and your car that this is something the feminist themselves do, albeit with certain things reversed – such as gender.
Female in-group preference have been proven to be much higher than male in-group preference. This explains quite a lot. Considering also that studies have shown women to consider it sexism when men treat women worse than they treat other men, as well as considering it sexism when men treat women just as they would treat other men, seeing it only as being treated equally to men when men treat women better than they treat other men, and we have a pickle to deal with whenever a feminist woman clamours on about “sexism” and equality, or inequality for that matter. To feminism, and women, generally speaking, apparently, equal treatment does mean treating women better than men. This despite it being anything but equal treatment. This will, and does, cause problems when feminism is the only force allowed to speak on behalf of perceived equality between the sexes.
The feminist vision of equality is not equal treatment, but preferential treatment of women.
Chivalry, in a word, male sacrifice in two.
However: bitching and moaning about feminism as I do, does nothing but scratch the surface of the muck and mulch of society and the way society treats men. Or, for that matter, the way men allow society to treat us. For men as a group are certainly not without fault.
Feminism is not necessarily the cause of it.
At the very least not the cause of all of it.
Or most of it.
In fact; I believe feminism to be a symptom, not a cause.
Nevertheless, symptom or cause: feminism has weaponized the societal indifference to the suffering of men and the struggles men face. It has weaponized the natural gynocentrism of our species – that is – humanity and its desire to protect and to provide for the female of the species.
Sperm, after all, is incredibly cheap.
Eggs, on the other hand, are not.
Males are expendable, females are not.
Biologically, of course, it makes sense.
If one were to look at it from a strictly biological point of view, the meaning of life is to sow ones seeds and reproduce before one dies.
That is all there is to it.
Of course, humanity being such highly evolved domesticated primates as we are, we have become able to (somewhat) consciously rise above that – to philosophize, ponder and pontificate on this and that and all the other such’s and so’s that we could ever wish. Both blessed and cursed with self-awareness and consciousness.
Subconsciously, however, I doubt we ever will rise above that. For we forget, in our hubris, in our heightened intellect and our heightened awareness of self, that we are – at the end of the clammy day – nothing but animals ourselves, not far removed from chimpanzees. This is very much evidenced at the end of a wet Saturday, as the bar closes and we file out in barely contained chaos, going each to our own nests – hopefully having captured a mate along the way, for one night or for prosperity, fighting, fucking and bellowing to our hearts content, grooming and teasing and playing and cozying up to the alpha, keeping one eye on any weakness in his position, any cracks in his armour. In seeing and discovering ourselves as conscious human beings, it seems we simultaneously lost track of ourselves and our roots – that we lost our very nature, as it were.
In doing such as feminism has done, feminism has hoisted itself up to a position of immense power and influence. Power and influence that any hate-movement should not have.
For I will not mince words: feminism is a hate-movement. All of it. I do not care for separating between so-called radical feminism and so-called moderate feminism. As long as the moderates do nothing to expel their radicals; as long as the moderates do nothing to quell the indoctrination and the whole societal zeitgeist that says that men are – at heart – wicked, that women are – at heart – noble, there is no distinction to be made.
As long as the thought-leaders, the celebrated and still revered voices of feminism consist of the Dworkin’s and the Koss’s, the Solanas’ and the Gearhardt’s and the Bindel’s – amongst others – there is no distinction to be made.
There is only a feminist tactic of diversion, separating the so-called moderates from the so-called radicals.
At the end of the day, men are the ones to be blamed, shamed, ridiculed and thrown under the bus.
At the end of the long night, masculinity is the thing that is attacked, and then attacked some more.
At the end of the week, no matter what or how or when, the struggles of boys and men, the suffering boys and men face, are not taken seriously and will never be taken seriously and spoken about as long as feminism is in control, as long as feminism does what it can to stomp out the voices of men in regards to the struggles of men.
At the end of the month, there is no empathy for boys and men as long as feminism hold the reigns.
Only ridicule and shame for those that dare speak on the topic. For men don’t need rights. For men already have all the rights. And other such nonsense.
“Walk a mile in her shoes”, they say. And we buckle down and do, hearing nothing about “walk a mile in his shoes”. The reason for this may very well be that he does not have any shoes left to walk in. They have become too tight, too confined and he can not use them any more. No-one has ever cared enough about the male condition to properly see it for what it is, focusing instead all the energy and such-and-so on the female condition and then calling it a day when they figured out how women suffer and struggle. The other half does not factor into it. Only the one matter, the other does not.
For all their high-flying and fancy talks about only being about equal rights; for all their tall tales and ridiculous claims that they help men as well, by helping women, it has at its core, at its beating heart and festering canker-sore the raw and searing hatred of, and contempt for, men, its fear of men, its shaming of men, its paranoid delusions about men made manifest in their attempted control and remodelling and re-engineering of men, as well as masculinity itself.
If only men were more like women, all should be well.
High priced baloney and piss-pottery, of course.
But this does not matter when it has been decided that men are the enemy and women are the forces for good; that masculinity is dirty and femininity is pure. This is not viewing men and women as equals. To view the sexes as equal, one must understand that both have the capacity for good as well as for bad. This is something neither feminism or society overall is any good at. Women are not bad. Men are. This is, and has been for some time, the view of things.
A reasonable view of things would be to say that neither men nor women are inherently bad. Most people are good and decent people that try their best at being good and being decent. Some people are bad, and neither sex nor gender factor into the wickedness. The execution of wickedness may vary depending on sex (men being physical in their wickedness, women psychological in theirs), but wickedness is – he he – gender-fluid. Or at the very least gender-neutral.
And that, I think, is that for this part of the ramble. Join me next week, if you so please, for the next – and most likely last – part of this lengthy ramble.
Feminism, in its infinite wisdom, have granted themselves the power to dictate what people say and control how people conduct themselves. This power shall stand undisputed. This they have also decided.
Through them, through their ideology and thought-virus, true, proper, honest-to-goddess morality shall be made clear. In the eyes and minds of dumb-fuck nincompoops, proper morality includes (but are not limited to) hating, shaming, blaming, chastising, bullying, mobbing, harassing, putting-down and beating-down anyone of the opposite sex, as well as anyone opposing the viral thought-infection.
For you see, and you have to understand: stating that all men should be killed is just women blowing of steam and is not to be taken seriously, whereas stating that feminism is not a force for equality, nor a force for good is hateful and bigoted conduct delivered from flint-hearted misogynists with drool dangling from their lips after a brief visit to their phenomenally sized rape-dungeons; supreme proof, in fact, that this corporate-sponsored society of ours absolutely hate women. And so it ought to be deemed illegal, immoral and downright dastardly.
In fact, only ruffians, rogues and serial rapists would disagree with feminism. For disagreeing with feminism is morally wrong, whereas calls to kill all men is morally good. Particularly so in a society where women are hated and enslaved, made subject to all manner of oppression and other such vileness that, oddly enough, allows for calls to kill all men. From women. With impunity.
One is either a feminist, or else one is a sexist. Obviously, this is a very nuanced view of things, and is in no way, shape or form a frightening tendency from feminism to demand complete and utter control on the concept of equality, as well as all things sex and all things gender.
Truth be told, it is very monochromatic and slightly terrifying. This does, first and foremost, set in stone that one can only ever be sexist towards women; that sexism towards men do not exist.
And this is strange and peculiar.
When last I checked, there were at least one more sex than the female sex towards which one could be judgemental, bigoted and discriminatory. Though, this is referred to as “reverse sexism” which is about as obnoxious and absurd a term as “reverse racism”.
There is no reverse to it.
It is sexism and it is racism, and putting “reverse” in front of it implies that it only ever goes the one way and that the other way is an anomaly of no statistical, societal or personal significance.
Which must be why it is so horrifying to state that it is OK to be white. It is not OK to be white, you know. If you state this, you must hate everything and anyone not considered white. Despite nothing negative about anyone being stated in that particular statement. Now, clearly, stating something good about the perceived enemy must necessarily mean that one states something bad about the perceived forces of good.
Despite them not being mentioned at all.
Of course, I have come to the understanding that quite a lot of the power and influence of feminism, as well as the SJW/PC-nonsense of later years is a product of their alteration of language – switching words around and altering definition so that the words do not mean what they actually mean, but that they mean what the hive-mind want them to mean. New-speak is true-speak, and it is double-plus-plus-good new-fact.
George Orwell was a prophet and a seer of visions.
For someone to be sexist, or racist, or this, that or the other-ist, there has to be institutional power and so-and-such and various other assorted and finely refined poops. There is a qualifier, then, of magnificent bullshittery with which one is to be aptly measured on the grand and unifying scale of poop and fuckery. Which fits into the world-view of feminism nicely and neatly, considering the spiel and muck of the past few years that all of western society is a “white supremacist patriarchy”.
Thus, one can not be racist towards white people, as they hold the power. Nor can one be sexist towards men, for the very same reason.
Why is it so?
Because feminism and similar strains of the thought-virus decided that it is so. Since they are the arbiters of morality, it has to be true.
Because feminism and similar strains of the thought-virus decided that it is so. The only true thing in the world is feminism and the preposterous propaganda of the social justice warrior elites. Everything else is relative. There are no objective truths, except feminism and their ilk; the clingers-on and hangers-on. And, of course, the immaculate truth that there are no objective truths. Except these few objective truths which must not be questioned. Particularly not by the perceived enemy.
With these qualifiers in place, equality does not mean treating people equally. It has come to mean that some people must be treated better and some people treated worse than others, so that some people shall be hoisted to the perceived level that some other people are at, and some people be pushed down into the perceived muck that some other people are at. You can usually tell who is whom by looking to the colour of their skin and whether or not they have a dick. All for equality and not judging people by the colour of their skin and the form and function of their genitalia. Of course and obviously. For theirs is the poop and the power and the glory and the virus, for ever and ever, amen.
This is to say that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And no animal shall ever wear human clothes, except that some animals shall wear human clothes. Of course, and obviously.
The absolute state of it all!
Western society appears to have peaked. It is in free fall at the moment, plummeting into debauchery and decadence, hedonism and hellfire, nitpicking and shitflinging, despotic and misguided tribalism.
We have reached a point in which the governing thought-virus lovingly delivered from the powers that be, can proclaim that up is down, that down is up, the sky is greenish brown, and all and sundry listen and believe.
We are plummeting.
Somewhere along the line, at the turn of the millennium, though probably some time before, it was decided that we shall no longer celebrate achievements and merit. We substituted achievement for victimhood, merit for superficiality – that is to say, race, sex, sexuality.
We decided that how victimhood and superficiality intertwine and intermingle is more important than what we accomplished and how we accomplished it.
We turned from celebrating free speech and individual liberty to celebrating severe restrictions on free speech and crackdowns on individual liberty.
We decided that the absurdly self-contradictory “positive discrimination” is the right way to go about mending differences of outcome for duping ourselves into believing that everyone of every sex, race, sexuality would pick exactly the same path through life and that the only thing standing in their way had to be discrimination.
There can no longer be any differences, for reasons of us deciding – probably in an opium-dream after coming down from alcohol-induced delirium – that “differences” is a naughty word. A no-no word, a horrible by-product of yesteryear. A thing which should not exist.
As such – if the ruling class – that is the ruling class as seen through the lenses of feminism and the politically correct mob are over-represented here or there or in this or in that, it has got to be for reasons of discrimination.
For the unenlightened, we are speaking about negative discrimination as opposed to positive discrimination. For that is how the herp derps. And one must not disturb the herp when the herp derps.
Since it is a result of negative discrimination, even if unseen, even if merely assumed, blatant and obvious “positive discrimination” has to be implemented in order to mend it. The scales must be balanced. For there can be no differences because there are no differences because every single one of us is one and the same.
Excepting white men, who are wickedness materialized; viciousness spawned from hells iron gates. So, when white men are in the majority somewhere, it is discriminatory against women and minorities. If white men are in the minority – well, if men are in the minority, no matter the colour of their skin – it is a victory for the forces of supreme equality, and there is no need for positive discrimination to mend this. In fact; it is straight up illegal in many places to positively discriminate in favour of men. The inverse does not usually apply, even when women are an obvious majority – as is the case with education, for example.
There is an incredible absurdity in complaining that there are mainly white people – taking sex out of the equation for a moment – in this or in that in a country that is predominantly white. Not that this matters, of course. The outcome – the results of everything – has to be completely and utterly equal, so that if a country is 80 percent white and 20 percent black and ethnic minorities there has to be at least 20 percent black and ethnic minorities in this or in that. If a country is 50 percent men and 50 percent women, there has to be 50 percent men and 50 percent women. And so and such. That people would chose differently based on this or on that does not compute to people who have had it beat into their heads that we are all blank slates from birth, all interested in exactly the same and that we are all completely the same.
No individuality exist within the collective. Only groups and groups within groups within groups, all with the exact same experience as the other members of that group.
The age of conformity brought group-think to the table again. And one can not state anything negative about this group for perceived discrimination, but one can state everything negative about that group for perceived privilege. At the same time, one can not state anything positive about that group for the perceived offence this spawns in this group. All based on some mad manufactured hierarchy of so-called oppression, oppressors and the oppressed; all based on superficial, arbitrary characteristics. Talent and merit does not factor into it. Everyone is equally talentless and miserable in the current year.
It is an age of absurdity and conformity, conformity in absurdity; conformity of speech and conformity of thought, where both the speech and the thought are absurd. The absurdity and nincompoopery does not matter and can not be challenged, if it comes from the mouths and sizzling brain-spasms of any member of one of the groups that we – in our infinitesimal wisdom – have decided are victims, are oppressed, are ever so downtrodden. Then everything must be accepted and tolerated due to some misguided notion of altruism and tolerance, where tolerance means nothing but “tolerate this or we shall not tolerate you”.
Love is the law; love under force that strokes our tender backs with iron gloves lined with the most delicate of silks.
When being a member of any one of the groups supposedly privileged, the opposite applies. Nothing shall be tolerated and anything spoken that does not toe the party-line is merely an attempt to regain control, to abuse, to oppress and such and so and various and sundry.
We live in a tolerant society. It tolerates everything but that which is decided to be intolerant. That is: any thought, word or idea that goes against the so-called tolerance and inclusivity of the day.
Men in general, it has been decided through gentle application of the apex-fallacy, are the privileged class; the bourgeois twats.
White men doubly so.
Straight white men three times as much.
And straight white cis men quadruply blessed and privileged.
No matter their actual station in life.
For that is decided by the hydraulic press of intersectional feminism and all their clingers-on and hangers-on, all the flotsam and jetsam, all the detritus that make up all the other interest groups for those identity groups that are “allowed” to have special interest groups in the insane and twisted totalitarian tango of the current societal zeitgeist.
Men as an identity group are not “allowed” our own special interest groups. Unless it is a special interest group for men that places its face neatly and nicely beneath the jackboot-stilletoes of intersectional feminist dogma, designed in such a way as to un-learn masculinity.
This is clearly evidenced by the vitriol MRA’s are met with wherever and whenever.
We don’t need it. For we have all the power and all the privilege. Apparently. This despite being the only god-damned identity-group towards which it is socially allowed to spew hatred, towards which it is socially accepted to call for acts of violence – up to and including killing us all for naught but our genitalia – towards which it is legally allowed to discriminate in the name of so-called equality.
The truly privileged sex is the only sex whose genitals it is legal to mutilate at birth. Such prestigious privilege, much institutional power, wow.
In a society in which the sexes were treated equally, it should be illegal for either sex to have their genitals mutilated against their will. At birth. But the privileged sex is not protected against such mutilations, whereas the oppressed sex is.
Here is an excerpt from the book “What your Doctor Might Not Tell You About Circumcision” (Paul M. Fleiss, Frederick Hodges). I found it very interesting, highly disturbing and incredibly infuriating:
“In Richmond, Virginia, a healthy two-day-old baby was prepared for circumcision by denying him food for five hours. Terrified, the baby began crying hysterically as soon as the circumciser strapped him to the restraining board. After half an hour in this position, the baby vomited. Doctors pumped his stomach. The circumciser proceeded to amputate the baby’s foreskin without anaesthesia using a Gomco clamp. The baby cried vehemently throughout the ninety-minute ordeal. After the surgery, the baby refused to feed. His abdomen became distended and doctors discovered that his stomach had ruptured, requiring emergency abdominal surgery and the insertion of a feeding tube. After twenty-five days in the hospital, the baby was released. This baby had a perfectly normal stomach when he was born, but the trauma, excruciating pain of circumcision, and his prolonged crying caused his stomach to burst and spill its contents into the abdominal cavity.”
We have legalized and state-subsidized child-abuse. As long as the victim is a boy.
And so the herp derpeth once again.
And up is down.
And down is up.
In Norway, the reason given for allowing the genital mutilation of baby boys is that they do not wish to discriminate against minority cultures and religions. It is quite alright to discriminate against boys and men; to strip them of their bodily autonomy. As long as you don’t piss off the minority religions and cultures. For they shall have great sway in deciding the laws and rules of the land and majority culture.
…Except when you refuse them to mutilate their daughters, of course. Then you may very well piss them off. For girls and women are so discriminated against, thought so little off, that they are protected by law against any form of genital mutilation, whereas boys are not. Even when both should be protected for the very simple reason that we should not be mutilating the genitals of children. We should not be mutilating healthy children.
A very radical thought, for sure, but there you have it. I can not help but be a radical.
This is very blatant gendered discrimination.
Very obvious gendered discrimination.
Very hypocritical as well, showcasing all the double-standards we have come to know and love from this society that just hates women so much, as the reasons the Norwegian government has given for allowing the mutilation of baby boys penises could just as well be used to allow for the mutilation of baby girls vaginas.
And it is written into law.
So: institutionalized gendered discrimination, perhaps and perchance?
Well, I’ll be damned.
And that, I think, will be that for this ramble. Join me next week, if you are ready, willing and able, for some more rambling on the topic of anti-feminism, non-feminism, men’s rights and the intertwined and intermingled up-fuckery of our societies delivered straight from the aching hands and mumbling mind of a high-strung neurotic with more caffeine in his veins than blood.
I’ve got a pre-ramble for you today. Don’t worry; I’ll get back to the usual cruel and unusual rambling before long.
This will be my last post for the year. I’m taking a break from writing, rambling, raving and ranting in order to celebrate Christmas and ring in the new year with all the moderately priced champagne, colossally caffeinated beverages and beard-harvested mushrooms a growing boy could ever need.
I will be back early in January, with the threat of a few new book-releases on the horizon and an ever-expanding library of rambling diatribes designed to stoke the fires of hell itself.
I hope you will enjoy yourselves over the holiday clusterfuck… Whatever happens next year, it can not possibly be worse than what happened this year, surely? Or should I not tempt the Gods, perhaps? Best to keep my mouth shut, my eyes on the ground and my beard flapping in the wind.
Merry everything, and a happy new current year!
There is a very distinct difference in received empathy where men and women are concerned. Men receive far less empathy in society and by society than women do. This ought to be self-evident by quite a few things, though the two things that are of most importance to me personally are as victims of violence, be that intimate partner violence or random acts of violence, and suicide. These two topics are quite important to me due to personal experiences, which I will not delve into here. May be a selfish reason for these topics being so important to me, but we are all – in one way or other – driven by our own experiences. I think it is safe to say that we are products of our experiences in life, for good or for bad and in one way or another.
Men experience more violence than woman. Far more, in fact.
And men commit suicide far more than women.
Yet, what we – as a society – care about, is ending violence towards women.
What we – as a society – care about, is that women attempt suicide more than men.
Consider this, when it comes to suicide attempts: how many of the registered suicide-attempts are repeat “offenders”? How many of the registered suicide-attempts are self-harm registered as suicide-attempts?
See, back in my teens, I did quite a lot of self-harming. This of course brought me into the folds and tender headlock of psychiatry, wherein they attempted to label my self-harm as suicide attempts. Which I refused to let them do, as I had no wish to have it written down that I attempted suicide when I did not attempt suicide. Obviously. Though this is an anecdotal experience, I doubt that I am the only one whose self-harm – serious as self-harm may very well be – was registered as a suicide-attempt.
Lastly: how many of these suicide-attempts are a cry for help, not a genuine suicide-attempt?
It should of course go without saying that I absolutely believe cases of self-harm and cries for help shall be taken seriously; that those who do it should be given consideration and help. I am not trying to downplay any suffering or mental health issues which may very well be very, very real and very, very destructive.
I do, however, find it really odd that so many men kill themselves and that this is considered less of a problem than women failing to kill themselves; that the real deaths of men by their own hands are given less consideration and less attention than women attempting – and failing – to kill themselves.
There is a crisis – worldwide – of men killing themselves, yet we hear precious little about it and we care even less about it than we hear about it. This is very odd in a society in which the claim is that men, not women, are the ones who are cared for and cared about, given all manner of privilege and protection.
I believe it would be safe to state that the rates at which men kill themselves point to certain experiences in life and in society for men which ought to warrant investigation as well as concern. Investigation and concern that is not painted, tainted and perverted to obscenity by feminist ideologues who claim to do good but who, inevitably, fall back on their tried and true formula of blaming men for their own ills. “It is toxic masculinity that makes men kill themselves, it is traditional masculinity, it is the ideology of masculinity…” and on, and on and on.
Frighteningly often, when we do hear about it, it is presented through feminist goggles, googles, and problem-glasses, framing it within the confines of their ideology. “Toxic Masculinity (trademarked)” seems to be a relatively new term within their vocabulary. Used to be they used the term “hegemonic masculinity”.
I have not heard the term “hegemonic masculinity” for some time.
It does seem to have been removed and replaced with “toxic masculinity”, for some reason.
This replacement of terms seem to happen ever so often within their scatterbrained marvel-ideology. I assume one term has been spent, debunked and used up and so a new one must take its place, lest they prove themselves to be the frauds, hacks, con-artists and shams that they are. Though, admittedly, I am more or less thinking aloud now.
As long as boys, men, masculinity can be blamed, the feminist hive-mind can rinse their hands of blood and make the claim that they care about men as well… that they do, in fact, advocate for men as well as women and so there is no need for a men’s movement, thank you very much… for feminism has that covered. Despite feminism being for women. Just a damned shame that they see no qualms in “victim-blaming” when it is a man that is a victim of something, then.
For make no bloody mistake about it – pointing to masculinity itself and claiming that this is the reason for men’s higher rates of suicide and men’s higher rates of experienced violence is victim-blaming. It is pointing at something that is a natural part of men – their masculinity – and telling them that this is the reason for their pain.
They use the term “toxic masculinity” to try and divert the attention away from the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter being that they blame masculinity, whether referred to as “toxic” or “hegemonic” or whatever newly found star-spangled terminology they can conjure forth.
It is still masculinity at fault. “Toxic masculinity” is such a nebulous, swirling, fluid, gaseous and strange term that it can mean any display of masculine behaviour, as long as some feminist or other dislikes it.
Try using the term “toxic femininity” for a few days, and see how many women – feminist or no – that take offence to it. And rightly so. I have even seen feminists claim that women who behave in toxic ways display toxic masculinity, not toxic femininity.
This is interesting, to say the least.
So: women who behave badly display traits of toxic masculinity, not traits of toxic femininity. Men who behave badly do also display toxic masculinity.
There is no toxic femininity, in other words.
When women behave badly, it is still men who are at fault, still masculinity that is to blame.
…But it is not about hating men, you guys, honest.
To be clear: I object to both the terms “toxic masculinity” and “toxic femininity”, on the grounds that people can be toxic, abusive, ugly and destructive no matter their sex. Putting “toxic” in front of either femininity or masculinity does nothing but present an inherently negative attitude to either.
Also of interest: proposing, as the feminist hive-mind do, that everything ought to be gender neutral seems fairly deceitful when feminism constantly gender terms and words, labelling everything bad masculine and everything positive feminine. Gender-neutral thus translates into female-centric. That is to say: men bad, women good. There is only one sex and one gender when speaking on sex and gender. And that gender is female. Because of course it is. Despite there being seven billion genders, or something like that. Who even keeps count any more except those who wish to be seen as special and important, who have no special sets of skills and so chose something that sounds special and precious, despite being nothing but an absurd display of superficiality?
Both men and women have a shadow-side. Of this I am certain. It is a human thing, not a gender-thing, not a sex-thing, not a masculine thing and not a feminine thing. Though its presentation and its behaviour may be different depending on ones sex, it boils down to destructive, selfish, narcissistic, violent, etc., behaviour. Something which ought not to be celebrated.
Feminism tend to celebrate the shadow side of femininity, the feminine shadow, as something good and decent and pure… something that now finally has its time and wrinkly dime for being suppressed and oppressed by the patriarchy for so long… and so it is to be let loose, leaving them free to engage in behaviour that would be vilified and demonized were it men doing it, but which is celebrated as strength and virtue and what-not when it is women doing it. Scoffing at the notion of men having any problems at all, for example, making it so that women – and only women – and their perceived problems shall be heard and taken seriously within our culture is one such thing; celebrated and acknowledged despite being an obscene display of egotism.
Narcissism, egotism, selfishness and navel-gazing is celebrated as a virtue, if it comes from the cunt-fused smile of an ovary-acting feminist woman.
I prefer to refer to this type of behaviour as “Full Frontal Rectal Examination Syndrome”.
Meanwhile, men’s rights activists and advocates who dare defy the norm and point to quite a few ways, places, things and various doo-dads, doo-hickeys and so and such within society where men experience problems, suffer quite genuine discrimination, hardships, issues, problems, and so and such are painted as foul misogynists. “Misogynist” being another word that has been destroyed through its overuse. It means nothing any more.
The reason for MRA’s being labelled misogynists is, amongst other things, that we do not put women up front and centre, on a pedestal, as it were. For that is, apparently, where women belong, even when the sexes are to be treated equally. Add to this a bucket of lies, shit and filth claiming that we blame women for all our problems, for instance – which is not the least bit true. There is a tendency to oppose feminism. This is true. But opposing feminism does not equal opposing women. For feminism does not equal women, despite what feminism claims. Believe it or not.
This doo-hickey of theirs makes no sense.
Once seen, it can never be unseen. Though seeing it involves peeling 50-odd years worth of lies, propaganda and bullshit from ones red-rimmed eyes. A difficult task, without a doubt. For it is a task that greatly alienates one from the broader society; a task that will label one an outcast, a heretic and an outlaw, that will turn friends and family against one. It means going completely against the grain, against the flow, against the currents of society.
Social suicide is what it is.
The proverbial Red Pill is a terribly bitter pill to swallow, and the side-effects of said pill are dangerous. Once labelled an outlaw, one is not protected by the law. By which I mean mob-law. The regular social norms no longer apply, and one can wave goodbye to civility and understanding, compassion and basic human decency. Hell has no fury like a feminist scorned. And the roots of feminism dig deep, feeding on gynocentrism that flows like a current beneath the streets of our civilization, filled and re-filled and maintained by the blood, sweat and tears of men.
I, and I suppose most MRA’s (at least that is my experience), see no problems with women and the problems they face being taken seriously and given due consideration. For, in being different, men and women face different challenges. To claim that neither experience any difficulties or problems related to their sex is dishonest at best.
The problem and issue arise when women, and only women, and their problems are given consideration. Far above and beyond what would be considered due consideration. And this to the detriment of men, the minimizing of men’s issues and downright refusal to acknowledge that men face any real problems in society. Unless those problems can be presented as being created and maintained by something to do with men – masculinity, the nefarious, vapour-like patriarchy, and other such nonsense.
The problem and issue arise when feminism, and only feminism, are allowed to speak on the topic. For both men and women. As though they and their movement are the only movement, the only voice, the only what-ever to speak on the problems facing men and women both, amplifying the problems women face to the point of absurdity and erasing the problems men face to the point of a farce, giving leeway to ridicule and smear men’s rights activists and advocates as though this is fair treatment of this loosely knit group of rebels, vagabonds and outcasts.
The problem and issue arise when the force supposedly there to create “equality” between the sexes push and push and push for, and receive, special privileges and protection for women. Gender quotas in universities are a prime example of this. Still there for women to an overwhelming degree, despite women being in the majority in higher education. Odd and peculiar, that. One should believe that women being the majority would give rise to a certain push to get more men into higher education.
Not so, though – no, no, no.
You see – there may be more women in higher education, but there are more men in certain fields of higher education, and so the push must be there to get more women into those fields of education. For more men than women must be proof of gender discrimination, whereas more women than men is proof of gender equality. Makes perfect sense, of course, if one is blind and deaf from birth, lacking in cognitive abilities and constantly trapped in the bathroom with a case of chronic diarrhoea of the reason.
Also known as feminism.
Women choose the wrong type of education according to feminism, which also believe that women should choose what they want to do as long as they choose what feminism wants them to choose. Which is, incidentally, not what feminism prefers them to choose. But, no mind, little matter. What matters is for them to have something to complain about so that they are still considered relevant in this day and age of chronic Honk.
And a merry honk fucking honk to you too and #MeToo.
So women major in gender studies to become feminist activists that then bitch, moan and complain that there are too few women in STEM fields. This despite them studying for a pointless and useless degree that will do nothing but lull them into propaganda-like dream-states within the walls and fractured confines of their universities, in which they will do nothing but alienate men even more from higher education and complain that women are alienated from higher education.
Honk bloody honk.
More men than women in certain fields must therefore mean that men conspire to keep women out of these fields. Giving way to the age-old shaming of the male, shaming him so that he shall step down, open the doors, lay his coat in the puddle and do all in his power so that women shall feel safe in these terribly masculine spaces.
For one can not lift women up without simultaneously pushing men down. Which is, oddly enough, what feminism believe all men do to all women. Also, does this mean feminists consider men superior to women? It certainly does not put men and women on a level playing-field, that much is certain.
If a feminist claims you to do something, it is something they themselves are guilty of doing. Their way of elevating women is to push men down. Thus, elevating men must necessarily mean pushing women down. To their eyes, and in their logic. If they create something for women, they keep men out. If MRA’s create a conference for men, for example, that must therefore mean that they keep women out. Despite all evidence to the contrary. The International Conference for Men’s Issues of 2019 is a good example of this, as the Woke Twitterati was all up in arms about this, even complaining that these foul MRA’s had women do their work for them, since women were the ones behind that particular conference.
Imagine treating women as equals, believing them absolutely capable of hosting a conference… oh, the horror! Women are not suited for that kind of work; that is the province of men. One would believe it to be celebrated by the frantic forces of feminism. Alas, no. As long as it is not female-centric and male-bashing, it is bad. No matter if it is men or women behind it.
Now, keeping men out is quite alright. Keeping women out is not. Women’s only spaces is quite alright. Men’s only spaces is sexist and misogynist. For the only thing men think about is women and keeping women out and down, according to feminism. Which is interesting, as this proves how they view men and how they talk about men and how they treat men. In painting this picture in their minds and in their philosophy of men as these terrible, beastly, oppressive and violent creatures, they can justify just about anything they do in “response” to these terrible, beastly, oppressive and violent acts of men being men as the feminists envision men being men to be. Which is not exactly how men are, but little mind, no matter.
And there come the empathy-gap.
The feminist view of men as a group is that of a terrible group, ripe with sexism and misogyny and rape and violence and all manner of cruel and unusual wickedness. Apparently, there is no problem in stating this outright as fact-without-a-doubt. Masculinity itself is a disease that must be tackled, dismantled, broken down and removed so that men can be more like women. Men are defective women, and boys are defective girls. Apparently, and according to their whims and bingo-wings.
Say the same thing about women as a group, and there will be no limits to the hate and scorn and ridicule and shame and smears and trials and tribulations one must wade through afterwards. And that in a society that simply hates women ever so much, and adores men ever so much. It makes no sense whatsoever. Except when viewed through the lenses of gynocentrism, which we are so enthralled with. Women are to be protected and treated with compassion. Men need not apply.
Now, I will freely and readily admit that I believe our societies do need more compassion… more neighbourly love, if you will. We are caught in the throes of narcissism and selfishness. More and more for every passing day, it seems, driven by the awesome might and influence and fury of social media-posturing and holier-than-thou sentiments.
Presenting pictures of compassion that is little more then self-aggrandizing displays of hollow and vacuous virtue, doing absolutely nothing but painting a phoney picture of oneself as a being of immaculate compassion and virtue, with egotism and narcissism hidden deep within the folds, thinly veiled by the clouds of self-sniffed farts.
What we do not need is more compassion to women and only women. Which is what we are driven towards, neglecting boys and men in the process.
Boys and men could absolutely do with more compassion, more understanding, more empathy for our plight than we are currently receiving. This is not to say, obviously, that I believe that our societies should drop everything else and care only for the plight of boys and men.
That would be ridiculous.
And quite contrary to anything I wish for.
I would, however, wish there would be an understanding that constantly bombarding boys and men with messages of our inherent wickedness, our cruelty and our malice, our moral and emotional deficiencies and so-and-such and on and on is nothing but cruelty. Cruelty wrapped in lies mimicking compassion and concern, (we must help men re-examine and dismantle their masculinities so that they shall be complete human beings) but cruelty nonetheless.
I would wish for a world in which boys and men and our struggles are granted more consideration than a giggle in contempt from high-ranking yet brain-dead politicians… that it would be given actual understanding and compassion, proper empathy… that it would be given solutions not dripping with feminist sick, proclaiming masculinity to be the cause of all our problems, as well as the cause of all the problems the world has ever seen – up to and including bad acts and deeds done by women.
Particularly so when masculinity is also the solution to all the woes and worries of the world. Both God and the Devil, given the responsibility for ruining society as well as the responsibility to fix it. For we can do nothing but wrong whilst simultaneously being expected to do nothing but absolute right.
To feminism – and to our societies overall – there is nothing to men but absolute good or absolute bad. The picture given us of men, in general, is nothing but a figment of fantasy. Stray but a little from the accepted path, and all is lost and forgotten… all achievements, all merits, all goodness and kindness and empathy you have proven time and again is swept away in an instant the moment you utter one thing – one thing – that may be construed, by the frail forces of fragile and frantic feminism, to be wrong-think, wrong-speak, wrong-this-that-or-the-other.
Men have to be absolute good, akin to godliness. It is an absolutely impossible standard of behaviour and conduct, enforced not by masculinity, but by the dogma of feminism and the gynocentric nature of humanity, where women must be protected from absolutely everything. Up to and including differences of opinion. For merely disagreeing with a feminist woman on one thing and one thing only is enough to label one a misogynist, a patriarchal oppressor, and all else there is to label one man as that is bad, wicked, cruel, tricksy and false. As is lending compliments to women on their appearance. As well as not lending compliments to women on their appearance, for that matter.
The black and white thinking on display is obvious; a man complimenting a woman on her appearance can not possibly mean anything but him not seeing anything in her but her appearance. A man’s thoughts on the matter means little to nothing.
Merely a light-hearted joke at the expense of women in general is considered strictly verboten; a proof of society and its inherent hostility towards women in general.
Despite jokes made at the expense of men being considered quite alright.
Despite calls for violence and death to all men being considered A-OK – made for prime-time television, in fact.
Despite painting boys, men and masculinity as defective, destructive, dangerous and violent being par for the course in the current cultural zeitgeist.
And so I wonder: if one joke at the expense of women in general is enough proof that our societies just hate women… what then would this constant belittlement of men prove? What would the constant hostility towards masculinity prove? What would the constant, the ongoing de-humanising of boys and men prove? What would the notion that there is something wrong with men due to them being men prove?
If applying the same logic, it would prove without a doubt that our societies simply does not care much for men, does not show any empathy toward men, does not have compassion for men. That our societies, in fact, adore women and, if not downright hate men, have very little care, compassion, empathy, understanding, love, honour, respect for men on the basis of their humanity. Men are not considered human beings, as much as we are considered human-doings. If we are to be celebrated, it is for something we do. Not for our humanity as-is. Empathy is non-existent. Though, of course, celebrating men for what we do is also wrong and something else to stroke the full fury of feminism with. For, did you not know that also women do things and so this must be celebrated. Not what men do.
And that is it for this ramble. Join me next year for more of my cruel and unusual rambling, lest my brain be filled with mulch and my pants filled with tiny rats and other such things, leading to only one possible conclusion in all that is, was and ever shall be: Epstein did not kill himself.
One of my most favourite memes of all time is one in which there is a picture of a Barbie doll. Above the picture of the Barbie doll are the words “This is Barbie”, followed by the usual inane ramblings from feminism about the negative body-image, the stereotypical whatever and what-not and the negative effect this has on girls… how terrible and oppressive and so and such (and every other buzzword) it is. Next to the image of the Barbie doll is a picture of a He-man action figure. Above that picture, the words read only “this is He-man”.
I don’t believe there is any reason for me to explain what this means, though for the unenlightened ones, I may well do so.
He-man is a bloody hulk; a searing mass of muscle and flesh and brawn. An unreachable body for all but the most roided up of men.
And Barbie is a slim woman.
Both of them also happen to be dolls. Toys meant to amuse children. Not that this matters much, of course. Children do not exist to be amused and to play, they exist to be imprinted with an agenda, to be moulded into beautiful pawns of the gender-neutral purple penguin future. I am not all that familiar with the He-man series or its universe, being a child of the glorious animation of the nineties instead; Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, Freakazoid, Batman the Animated Series, etc.
I am, however, aware enough of the He-man universe to know two things:
1: Skeletor is the spitting image of Joe Biden. There is an uncanny resemblance.
2: He-man has not had as many careers as Barbie has, given that she has been granted almost every possible profession in the world – even McDonald’s employee.
Both the “low-status” and “high-status” professions have been granted her, it seems, bottled and sold to these poor impressionable girls who are ever so oppressed by their dolls and their career-prospects.
Now, I may very well be an absolutely entitled man-splaining moron, but it seems to me that selling the idea of women being able to hold every profession under the sun would be very much welcomed by the feminist platoons. And it probably is. As long as the woman is not a slim woman with an idealized body-type that is unavailable to all but a plastic doll. Which she, as a matter of fact, is.
A plastic doll.
A doll made from plastic.
Not a living, breathing human being with organs and emotions and other such pesky annoyances.
She is, in fact, a plastic doll.
Interesting to note is also that her male counterpart, Ken, functions as little more than arm-candy for Barbie. A status-object which cements her as not only professionally successful, but also socially successful. Ken also just so happen to be completely and utterly neutered, fantastically emasculated, devoid of ham as well as eggs, as it were. Which makes me wonder how in the world Barbie ever managed to get pregnant by him… There is a pregnant Barbie doll, for those of you who are uninitiated. And it is absolutely marvellous. And I say this with sincerity – it is a fantastic toy, all things considered. Don’t “at” me, brah.
Come to think of it: the entirety of the Barbie universe may very well represent the grandest and most fantastic feminist utopia – the ultimate wet dream of the feminist hive-mind; a world in which women dominate every profession, men are castrated at birth, thus serving no purpose but to be yet another success-object for Barbie and her friends – an object upon which the women then may release all their scorn, anger and malcontent when needed, who obligingly crawls back into his cage when the women are done with whatever he is needed to do at the moment… after all, when all the lids are screwed open and the living-room remodelled, what use could he – or any man, for that matter – possibly have?
Due to the emasculated nature of Ken, I can not possibly reach any other conclusion than this: the Barbie universe is a world in which babies are conceived through the use of synthetic sperm, aided by doctor Barbie herself. As such, the Barbie-verse has successfully eliminated the archaic notion that heterosexual intercourse is necessary for procreation. Heterosexual intercourse obviously being – as one should be well aware by now – rape of the woman, no matter what.
In structuring their society in this manner, Barbie and her cohorts have succeeded in eliminating all rape. Excepting stare-rape, fart-rape and all that other stuff. But that is of small consequence within the confines of this universe. For Ken to be blinded at birth is next on the agenda, thus eliminating once and for all the pesky male gaze and any future possibilities of stare-rape.
Through this reasoning, we come to realize that Barbie, as opposed to the claims from feminism, actually represent the pinnacle of flaccid feminist fantasy. Surely it is a wonder that they do not celebrate her. Had she not been slim, they probably would have. Yet, they must have something to complain about, why not? Nothing is more important to feminism than perpetuating feminism, thus the need for something to whinge and whine about. Otherwise, they would have to consider themselves obsolete and find new careers, which for a professional feminist of no ill repute is a hard task indeed. Make no mistake – there is a lot of money and power involved in feminism. And they have to maintain that stream of money and flow of power by any means, any whims and any whines necessary.
The Barbie universe is a feminist utopian fantasy. An ideal society for all but those pesky non-feminists out there, for whom it is a dystopian fantasy. Of course, these people do not matter. For they are not flying the true colours of the searing sisterhood.
The society which Barbie and Ken inhabit is one in which women rule absolutely everything by virtue of nothing but their sex, sexual reproduction does not exist, boys are castrated at birth, growing up to be little more than man-servants… a society in which the lives of men is an existence of absolute slavery and servitude.
Beneath the fluffy pink exterior of the Barbie-verse lies a society of gloom and doom, of chains and whips, neglect and abuse.
See – I can do it too.
And I wrote this “thesis” after a night of poor sleep in the span of ten minutes. Overanalysing something to the point of absurdity is not difficult at all. Why should the feminist interpretation be more accepted? Personally, I think I make a compelling case. Particularly so if I could flesh it out some more… much like the body-positivity Barbie dolls have been fleshed out in recent years. They are highly irregular around the margins, one could say.
Anyway – the roided up action figures made for boys do not damage the self-esteem and body image of boys and young men. I know this to be true, because the feminist hive-mind have told me so. (Now, I tend to believe children in general to be pretty adept at separating fantasy from reality and toys depicting human beings from actual human beings. I have this radical notion that kids are far more clever and far more intelligent than we tend to believe. Also – I really like kids. They are great.)
You see, these figures for boys are representative of a “Male Power Fantasy”, and as such is negative for girls and women having to endure the terror of the male power fantasy, not for boys and certainly not for men. Unless, of course, the discussion can be whip-lashed about a bit to focus on toxic masculinity. Which is harmful to boys and men, but most of all to girls and women. Because nothing else matters but women and girls.
The only ones allowed to speak on what is damaging to boys and men, or what is good for them, are the followers of feminism.
Because nothing else matters.
And that is all that there is to that.
This is also something the feminist hive-mind have told me. And so it must be true.
Because nothing else matters.
Yet, if I were to make the claim – as I have just done, albeit in more words, that Barbie represents a “Female Power Fantasy”, I would have a feminist fatwa on my head. (Which I probably already have.) It would not be taken seriously. And, I believe, rightly so.
The polls are in, the votes are counted and the deaf, dumb and blind have had their say. Their say is simple: Barbie makes girls feel uncomfortable about their bodies, inadequate and so-and-such. And sop they must either be banned, or altered to fit in with their vision of the world. Because nothing else matters.
Implicit in this line of feminist reasoning, taking into consideration that He-man apparently does not create similar body-issues in boys, is the notion that girls are psychologically weaker than boys – that women are emotionally more fragile than men; that they are much more likely than are boys and men to give in to peer pressure and societal expectations of a negative nature. Girls are far more impressionable than boys. Except when they aren’t. Which is, as it always is, when, whatever, never-mind.
Boys are not affected by unrealistic body-whatevers, nor unreachable beauty-whatevers from their toys. Girls are. Therefore, we must not care about boys because they – as opposed to girls – are completely capable of separating toys from reality, fiction from non-fiction and their power fantasies from their actual day to day life. Excepting video-games, which have the awesome power of turning them into foul misogynists and other such naughty things. This makes no sense, since boys and men are misogynists by default for being moulded into hating women from the moment of birth… but, no mind, little matter. Feminism and its ideas do tend to get very confusing, self-contradictory and strange. Which may very well be by design, creating a simple intellectual “out” for every possible refutation for reasons of being designed in a confusing manner.
“This is true. And so is this other thing, which is the exact opposite to that other thing.” This is because feminism is not a monolith. Except when it is. Despite that it isn’t. All dependent on the whim and fury of the feminist in question, at the moment of questioning. Individualist when it suits them, collectivist when it suits them.
Feminism does not exactly leave us with a good picture of femininity, nor does it grant us any belief in the strength and resilience of girls and women when feminists carry on as they do, is what I’m trying to get at.
All the while, they give us an incredibly telling view into their opinions on the resilience and strength of boys and men when compared to that of girls and women, which is quite simple: Boys and Men can handle anything the world throws at them, Girls and Women can not. Evidenced by #killallmen being considered A-OK, whereas any criticism of a woman – particularly a feminist woman – is enough to render them slaves to PTSD for the rest of their lives, and is more than enough proof of the terrible misogyny of the internet as well as all men everywhere. Men are well suited to endure a constant negative message – up to and including calls for gendercide, even on national fucking television in Australia, as we have recently seen. Mona Eltahawy on the – I believe now infamous – Q&A feminist special.
They removed that segment from the internet after a while. Claiming it to be too “controversial”. I believe to engage in damage control on behalf of feminism. It would be far more damaging to the image and reputation of feminism to keep it up, and so it is removed. Clearing away evidence, as it were.
Or am I being too cynical and overly paranoid? I don’t know. One man’s paranoia is another man’s reason, after all.
One thing is certain, however: all this abuse, and more, men shall endure. For men are expected to endure it. Yet, women are not even suited to endure criticism. Nor do they ever need to. They are to be hoisted way above that. #believewomen does not only refer to nefarious claims of dubious sexual assaults. PTSD from Twitter. Post Twitter Stress Disorder. Social-media-shell-shocked. Poor whamen and their social media shenanigans. They most certainly deserve a safe-space on the internet to spew their #killallmen without being harassed for it. How else would they be able to demonize all men without being reminded that men are, as a matter of fact, actual human beings that may not take kindly to calls for them to be killed solely on the basis of their sex?
Yet the claim from feminism is that men in general view women as weak and incapable? It is not men that claim women to be victims of the air-conditioning and the misogyny of temperature. Or of male flatulence. Or exclamation marks. Just putting that out there for you to chew on.
It is quite telling, I think, that feminism seek to shut down – to cancel and remove – anything they dislike. If failing to cancel it, they attempt to mould it into something they enjoy.
Instead of just accepting that some people enjoy things they themselves do not enjoy and carrying on with their life, they would rather make it so that no-one shall enjoy it. A world in which they have to co-exist with people who knowingly and without a moments hesitation enjoy something they can not stand is a terrible world to exist in. There is a reason for me referring to feminism as totalitarian and tyrannical. If something does not suit their delicate sensibilities, it must be shut down so that no-one can enjoy it. And people oblige. For some odd and peculiar reason, people oblige them in their quest for moral as well as ideological purity.
This man wrote something on a portrait of Stalin in the newspaper! Off to the Gulag with him! Subterfuge and acts of terrorism!
This man made a joke about female lingerie! Off to the Goolag with him! Subterfuge and acts of misogyny!
Imagine the horror of someone enjoying something you do not enjoy!
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
…Ford Transit Gloria Mundi…
Such is the case with striptease and pornography and grid-girls and Barbie and nude modelling and Fifty Shades of Grey and tit and tat and arse and legs. If the feminist horde do not enjoy it, none shall be allowed to enjoy it. It does not matter what women in these professions say, whether they enjoy their work or not. The feminist hive-mind – that is to say, their moral superiors – have decided that these women are not allowed to enjoy their work, and as such are not allowed to do their work. They are victims of their own choices which are forced on them by the patriarchy, whether they agree with this statement or not. Women can not make their own choices, if those choices contradict the feminist position. Which just about every choice does, since feminism is not a monolith and one feminist’s act of empowerment is another feminist’s act of oppression. In this way, sex-work is both empowering and oppressive to feminism. Which is all about women making their own choices. Except when it isn’t. Which is when it is.
Seemingly and apparently, nothing is more vile and treacherous to these charlatans than a woman choosing to be home-maker, a housewife, a stay-at-home-mother! That is such a terrible affront to the terribly trembling forces that be that they will name, blame and shame any woman who does so, try to convince her that she has not made her own choices but is locked under the spell and awesome influence of the patriarchy and must break free from its chains and instead enjoy what they say she must enjoy. Which is not necessarily what she wants to do, but that does not matter.
Any one individual woman does not exist to an ideology that is collectivist when it suits them and individualist when collectivism does not suit them – no sir, she does not! She is part of the in-group “women”, and as such must do as the sisterhood demands. Otherwise, she is a traitor to the sisterhood as well as the cause. Whatever the cause may be at any given moment. And that cause is as fickle and ever-changing as anything that is fickle and ever-changing could possibly be.
The typical mantra of “We only want equality between the sexes” does not compute very well when feminism opposes equality, such as they do in England where the pension-age has been raised for women to be equal to the pension-age of men. This they can not stand, and so they protest and oppose. Even when men die younger than women, and so ought to have their pension-age lowered for true and proper equality.
It is so obviously not equality they seek that it boils my teeth and grinds my intestines that people still chant this bloody mantra of theirs that it is only about equality. As if that nebulous weasel-term “equality” even means anything any more except whatever a god-damned feminist demand that it means at any given moment. Which is to be opposed by the next feminist. And neither of these are real feminists, nor is their feminism real feminism according to the feminist that oppose the first feminist. Cock me backwards and paint my dogs pink; this whole ideology is so self-contradictory that I cannot fathom why people label themselves as a feminist as though it means anything concrete. Apparently, it means everything and nothing all at once… it is for all the causes in the universe at the same time as being only for the causes of women.
The brilliant Elizabeth Hobson has a saying which I enjoy very much: “Feminism is harmful to children and other living things”. Well put, madam, well put.
If you are a man who enjoy any of the past-time activities mentioned above… if you are a man who simply just want a traditional relationship for whatever reason… may the grand Patriarch Xenu have mercy on your lack of soul!
You are henceforth, and until the end of time, a foul oppressor of women, contributing to the ongoing sexual objectification of women, the subjugation and enslavement of women, the rape, pillage and ruination of women, the body-hysteria of women, the fuck-if-I-know-insert-whatever-here of women.
After all, women were treated as chattel back in the days when they were pampered and protected, as opposed to now, where they are free to do exactly as they wish, as long as they do what feminism wishes them to do.
And as long as men – as well as society overall – pamper and protect them.
Now, I have stated before, that I am not a particular fan of traditionalism… at least not one that is enforced by law or by culture. I believe it removes far too much individual freedom from everyone, be they male or female.
How people chose to delegate responsibilities and roles in their personal relationships – traditional or not – should not be of any worry to anyone but those who are involved. But to claim – as feminism does – that men overwhelmingly emerge victorious in all manner of privilege and what-not when it comes to a traditional relationship is brutally dishonest. At best. No-one lies on their death-bed, whispering “I wish I had spent more time at work”.
Now, I am well aware that feminism makes the claim to care about the plight of men; “Gender Roles Hurt Men Too!”.
Odd, then, that they jabber on and on about men needing to stand up for and protect women. Which is a very traditional gender role, to be sure and to be certain. Protect. And provide.
Provide them with Barbie Dolls and protect them from Barbie Dolls and the negative impact these dolls have on young girls at the same time.
Despite Barbie being created by a woman. This don’t matter much, of course. Celebrating things created by women is only ever done if the things created flows with the orthodoxy. Which it probably did back in the day… However, what self-proclaimed feminists of yesteryear celebrated will not be celebrated by the self-proclaimed feminists of this current year of ours. Except when it is. Which is when it isn’t.
It is almost as though one would be inclined to believe – yet again – that feminism, as it stands, have no end-goals. That it is an ideology and a movement that is created to carry on and carry on and carry on in perpetuity, manufacturing new outrages and terrors and this-that-the-others for every new generation of frail and frantic femininity… even if that means going contrary to the previous generation of frantic feminism and its causes.
Everything, you have to understand, is a women’s issue first and foremost, no matter what it is. Even the things that are not women’s issues first and foremost has to be a women’s issue first and foremost. Which is interesting in itself. Men are victims of violence far more than women are. Yet women are most affected, and are the ones who must be protected. Men are completely capable of fending for themselves. Women are not. And so women must be provided for and protected from men by men, despite all men being terrible and despite men being the main victims of violence. This could well be applied to anything. Meteor hits earth, women most affected. Barbie hits stores, women most affected. Girls enjoy Barbie-dolls, and this is terrible.
Buy a fucking He-man doll then, and stop yer whinin’!
And that is it for this ramble. Join me next week for more Tales From the Crypt, as I attempt to channel the awesome might and energy of my intoxicatingly masculine beard into words once again.