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.
- Please Like, Share and Subscribe
- Moiret Allegiere, 25.01.2020
Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop