Oh, snap, I did it again. At long last. Another compilation in vanity-book form. This time, it is the whole of the “Why I am an Anti-feminist” series of rants, rambles, writings and ravings collected in floppy paper-form or for your digital reading pleasures. (The digital version is not recommended as a substitute for toilet paper. The paperback one is, though admittedly it is a bit coarse and grainy.)
As I usually do with these kinds of things, I cleaned up the ramblings a bit, attempting to make them slightly more coherent and professional. I even added a lengthy list of sources and resources in the back of the book, such as those proper writers do.
Now – how’s that for professionalism? Almost makes me feel like a proper writer, you know. Stuff like this is something the professional publishers of the world wouldn’t touch with a five foot meat-pole. All manner of controversy is good for business, except anti-feminism apparently. For the powerless women of the world; the poor and downtrodden feministas of the world, have the power to squash any business attempting to object to their serpent-cult.
Very interesting that, I think.
The title of the collection was proposed by one Tom Golden, of menaregood.com as well as regardingmen.com. It was such a damned good title that I had to use it, albeit with a slightly bruised male ego on account of not coming up with the damn thing myself. At the very least, I came up with the subtitle. And that’s got to count for something, and that something is not nothing, it sure as hell is something.
And so the damned book is called “Feminism – the breakfast of champions (And why I’m fasting)”, with the eminent and supreme subtitle of my own creation: “A plebeian critique of feminism”. If you allow, I must admit to being pleased with the artwork for the book as well. One of my finer designs, even if I do say so myself.
Given that we are closing in on Christmas, I would dare propose that this book would make for a perfect Christmas-gift for anyone not as yet converted to non-conformism. Or for anyone wishing to be yelled at through text for a few hours, I suppose. Or just for yourself, for that matter.
Hey – I never was any good at self-promotion, bloody introverted and reserved hermit that I am, all but one misplaced therapy-session away from being diagnosed with avoidant personality disorder, or some such. This is as good as my self-promotion will ever get. I almost said something good about my ramblings. It almost became a sales-pitch. And that’s got to count for something. And that something is not nothing, it sure as hell is something.
If interested, please follow the links below. They should, Gods willing, take you to the tome in question.
Every single day, it seems, there is some new nonsense from the ever-so-oppressed hordes, so lacking in clarity of thought and vision; so sheltered and so shamelessly swaddled, so hopelessly echo-chambered that they don’t see themselves. They see a funhouse-mirror reflecting themselves. A mirage. An illusion. I find this striking. And obvious. The solipsism on display; the navel-gazing and the narcissism growing, growling, expanding and exploding and becoming popular is disconcerting, to say the least.
Do you remember that Democratic Socialist convention, or whatever it was called, of some years ago? The one with the “quick point of personal privilege” absurdity? The one with the “don’t use gendered language to address anyone” nonsense? The one with the jazz-hands? The one with the “Don’t talk amongst yourself, I can’t take the noise”? The one with all the triggerings? The one that appeared to be a real-life remake of South Park? Life sure as hell seems to imitate art at the moment…
They seemed like a happy, well-adjusted and inclusive lot didn’t they? High-functioning, resilient, equal, inclusive and tolerant of other people’s everything as they were. This was made most evident by the remarkable rules of conduct which they forced on other people for reasons of they themselves as selfish individuals not wanting to be triggered by the horrifying use of the word “guys”, and similar horrible crimes against humanity. That is hurtful to everyone for being hurtful to that one person. The possibility that someone could be of a different opinion… a different state of mind… lesser levels, let’s say, of frailty than that one person does not come to mind. I am me and me must be all that is I in this group of me’s, they seemed to be saying. Also known as the wise old saying: “Me, me, me!”
If it is true for me, then it must be true for everyone like me. Because all exist in this world as a reflection of me, sprung from my line of thought and my way of seeing. If I feel as though this is hurtful, everyone must feel the same and must comply. Anything else is unthinkable.
This is what the debacle left me with; the impression these people left on me after watching the whole spectacular implosion. It is not without reason that I refer to this whole social justice warrior thing as narcissism veiled as altruism. To me it is so obvious, so transparent. Anyone who believed that this whole thing would burn out and die as quickly as it came were, I am afraid to say, mistaken. The beast graduated from grievance studies and moved into positions of power, carefully navigating their way in, infiltrating decision-makers and policy-makers and all, being oppressed all the way to the top. All for them being oppressed and denied a voice. Obviously. The beast became the norm. Far from fizzling out and dying, it became omnipresent, became total, became totalitarian.
The ideological take-over is damned near complete, and any who oppose will be cancelled.
The Norwegian government, in its infinitesimal wisdom and lack of understanding of what a certain term means – in this case “freedom of speech” – gathered a bunch of people and created a “commission on freedom of speech”, there to decide what one is or is not allowed to speak. This is a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one. But, no matter – it gets even better.
One of those chosen to take part in this most hallowed commission was of a certain, and for us delving into the insanity of the world at present, well known political bent. Her real colours were shown as she took over administrative duties on a Facebook group wherein certain tender topics, such as equality and immigration, was discussed from a perspective not necessarily feminist, not necessarily progressive. Long-ish story short; she ended up banning anyone with whom she did not agree, deleting comments she did not agree with and otherwise acted like a censorious cunt. Only the opinions which she agreed with was proper, all else was hate-speech. Granted, this was only on Facebook and Facebook is only Facebook, after all… It does not, however, give me good hopes for our freedom of speech when one who is so eager to censor and ban things which she does not agree with is one of those chosen to decide what is or is not allowed speech. Hate-speech is not free speech. Only a few are allowed to decide what is hate-speech, though. Considering what side it is that is frequently pushing for censorship, it does not bode well for our freedom of speech, gentlemen.
But, to get back to the democratic socialist convention of conceited socialist censors: one speaker from the democratic socialist convention of champagne-socialist censors mentioned in the introduction of this rambling diatribe against all that is good and noble and proper – you will know him when you see him – really stood out to me.
Remarkably so.
Now: why did he stand out, you might wonder and ponder. And I am glad you asked, kind and inclusive non-gender specific person of non-individualistic characteristic, I’m glad you asked indeed, comrade.
The man, you see, was wearing a costume.
The man was bloody well LARP-ing.
He was wearing a – most likely highly expensive – costume, designed to show himself as a revolutionary of a certain political bent. There is no doubt in my mind, no doubt whatsoever, that this was carefully planned and bought and put together in order to project this image. It was so bloomingly obvious, right down to his carefully designed and perfectly tended to scruffy-looking three day stubble.
Appearances matter more than all else; superficiality has become the guiding light of our societies. The ideas matter less than the appearance of the one presenting it. Which may very well be identity politics summed up in one short sentence.
Appearance, not ideas. Superficiality, not depth.
When one can be dismissed for reasons of being a white male, no matter the quality of ones argument, I fail to see it as anything but superficiality feigning depth. It is not particularly rare to encounter sentiments such as “Well, you are a white male, so you should just shut up about this”. I fail to see anything in such dismissals but a confession that the one being so dismissive has no argument, no rebuttal, no nothing. And so dismissal on basis of sex and skin it is, which sounds an awful lot like sexism and racism, but that don’t matter for one can not be sexist towards men, nor can one be racist towards white people. The ones who decided that one can be dismissed on the basis of being a white male decided that one can not be sexist towards men, nor racist towards whites, and so be it.
How very convenient.
These people are not strong and capable people. They are weakness personified, weakness and frailty weaponized.
Let it be stated that, whether you believe me or not, I do not intend this to be an insult. Far from it, in fact. I am aware that it sounds as though I am just crafting an insult, but truth be told: it worries me and I kinda feel sorry for these people – the celebration of weakness, the fetishization, the deification of perpetual victimhood. To view oneself as a victim all the time… to make ones whole identity that of a victim, and then to create a hierarchy of victimhood and of oppression… to live within this constantly, all ones life gnawed by doubt and by weakness and by a certain fear that one will, once the hierarchy shuffles a bit, be considered more privileged than one was and as such deserving of less… It is frightfully worrisome.
Being a perpetual victim; basking in whatever beauty one perceives ones weakness to grant one… it does not make for strong and competent people. It does not make for a generation capable of standing up to anything, when they are ripped up by their roots with every slight breeze or gust of wind. If one has been a victim of something at one point – and let’s face it, most all of us have in varying degrees – the best one can do is rise above said victimhood. The best one can do is heal from it. This creates strength, it creates self-respect and it creates an ability to withstand hard times, to thrive even when seemingly impossible.
A society can not function properly when weakness and helplessness is the guiding light, when mother government must step in everywhere to maintain order… to such an extent that it decides what is or is not allowed speech; to such an extent that it decides that certain groups are more deserving than others of protection from having their feelings hurt. For that is all this strange hate-speech thing is: someone being protected from having their feelings hurt at the expense of someone else’s freedom to speak their mind. Words, it transpires, have become violence. And actual acts of violence – particularly when enacted upon the out-group by the in-group – is not violence. Hate-speech is violence, violence is not violence… Particularly not when enacted upon the hate-speechers, for they are violent through their speech and as such deserve to be met with violence. Political violence is quite alright. Until it goes the other way, of course.
The so-called mostly peaceful protests would be a good example of this.
When society has decided – with the blessings of the government – that some groups are deserving of less protection than other groups, society sure as hell has got problems that need to be dealt with. A good starting point… a good way to deal with these problems would probably be to extend the same protection to all groups. That is – to make everyone equal under the law. Such a radical notion, that, terrifying as the notion that this is a radical notion is.
Alas: hate-speech laws do not grant us equal protection.
Far from it. For some, it is decided, are of a stronger constitution than others. I’m not entirely sure how this is not insulting to those supposedly being protected, but then again – I am a white and straight male, so I have no say in anything. This is quite alright to state, see. For my part, I think black lesbian women, be that trans-women or not, should not have a say in anything, but that would be horribly bigoted and hateful. So I’ll just keep my privileged hate-filled mouth shut.
You see my point?
In order to keep ones head above the water, one has to become strong, one has to have the fortitude to soldier on, no matter the circumstances. One has to become like water, capable of flowing with, flowing through, flowing below, flowing over, rushing, standing still, moving, and – if need be – break down whatever halts free movement.
Actual strength, whether physical or psychological, is slowly becoming more and more of a no-no thing; a naughty thing. Seemingly for it being tied to masculinity, which is also a naughty no-no thing in this era of the mighty freak-out. This says a lot – probably more than intended – about the view of the hive-mind regarding femininity, but no matter.
Stoicism is not a celebrated virtue. It has become a damaging and terrible thing, a dangerous thing, linked to toxic masculinity and other such horrible manly gender-norms which are absolutely terrible and frightening and icky for some reason, mainly to do with the fee-fees of the feminist and social justice crowd.
There are no differences between men and women, except when there is, when is when women can be made out to be better than men in some way.
I find this remarkably interesting, given how our societies now attempt to condition boys and men into being “in touch with their emotions”, in essence conditioning boys and men into a feminine model because that has to be the norm, even for those who are masculine.
This of course means that men need to emote and feel like women do. That men must be forced – for lack of a better word – into coping with their emotions like women do. Differences don’t exist, and if they do they are a negative not a positive.
I really don’t understand why we have become allergic to the mere whiff of difference, but we have. I assume it is because the people who consider differences to be a negative see differences as meaning that one is better than the other, instead of it merely being differences.
Given how differences are held in a glowing light and presented as a good and noble real-fact whenever women can be made to be better than men, it seems likely that their view of differences is such; that it necessarily must come from, or result in, some manner of competition.
From where I sit, differences – particularly between men and women – mean that we complement one another, that we fulfil one another. Interdependence is not a bad thing. Differences are a virtue and a strength in my book, not a vice nor a weakness. But, as stated – I am a straight white male, and so it does not matter what my opinions on things are. Unless I agree with the zeitgeist. Then it matters.
Stoicism has come to mean that one denies oneself ones emotions; has come to mean that emotions are suppressed and then, eventually, boils over and explodes. This sounds absolutely nonsensical to my understanding of stoicism, which has to do with controlling ones emotions. That is: to not be guided, ruled and dominated by them.
In order to control ones emotions, one can not help but be in touch with them. One has to be able to identify them, as well as their cause, be that cause external or internal, if one is to control them and not be governed by them. I would dare propose that one who is able to control his emotions and so make rational, logical decisions despite what his emotions tell him is way more in touch with his feelings than someone who shouts, breaks stuff, screams and otherwise throws temper tantrums. Someone who makes their decisions based on emotion rather than reason tend to not be a reasonable person. Someone who is guided by their emotions instead of being able to control their emotions are less in touch with their emotions. Gabbing about ones emotions does not mean being in touch with them. It simply means that one gabs about ones emotions.
To make the claim that “traditional masculinity” means being emotionless is missing the point completely. It means controlling ones emotions, no matter their cause and no matter their impact. It means truly and really being in touch with ones emotions.
Alas, as we have come to see in this day and age, self-control is not considered to be a good thing. Except when it is, when is when men are supposed to control themselves because women find men scary whatever men do. So men must be in touch with their emotions, but they must also control their emotions such as women demand it. Sounds like traditional masculinity to me, but that can not be for it is painted in the flashing flaccid light of feminist fancy.
And the men who openly speak about their feelings and their experiences are dubbed as whiny man-babies, amongst a whole slew of similar insults. But we don’t need to think about that right at this moment.
Self-control is a good thing, you see, but it must be self-control such as women desire it, not such as men do it. Men don’t matter and don’t get a say, as per usual. Men’s emotional lives are the domain of women. Didn’t you know? Particularly of feminist women, because none but feminist women can speak to how men are doing and what men should do. Who else should speak on that? Men? You’ve got to be fucking kidding.
Just a damned shame that women find men who are open and expressive about their feelings to be such a turn-off then. Made evident by the male tears mugs, perhaps, the “I bathe in male tears” shirts, maybe; made evident by the “whiny man-baby” thing being so popular amongst those who claim to believe that men need to open up about their feelings, perchance.
You know what kind of man is open about his experiences, his issues and his problems? The ones the feminist hordes see fit to shame and label misogynist and other such horrible things. The ones from our neck of the woods.
A pox on us in the horrifying men’s rights thing – we may be open about our issues, but it is not done such as feminism believes that it ought to be, and so it is wrong. Besides, we are just so blunt and mean in our speech; so overwhelmingly masculine in the way we chose to speak about our masculine issues that comes from being men in a society that does not exactly treat men decently, that does not exactly view men in a favourable light.
How does feminism believe this exploration of men’s emotions and feelings and so and such ought to transpire, how it ought to be and what shape it ought to take?
It should be supportive of women and of feminism, not of men nor of masculinity. It must be done in the way feminism dictates and in the way feminism demands, which translates into “shut up and listen, men”.
In a way, this men’s rights thing is the most progressive damned “movement” in the world. For heaven knows there has been precious little aid, help, concern, compassion, empathy and such thrown the way of boys and men. I mean, the claim is that men have always had it all, but that falters and fails the moment one dares look away from the top tiers of society and gaze but a little in the gutters and the graves.
For being a society that supposedly benefits men over women, there sure as fuck are a lot of broken, beaten and bleeding men. Oh, my, but patriarchy hurts men too. Seems as though it hurts men more than it hurts women then, if numbers, statistics and facts are anything to go by. But that is not what one should go by – one must go by feelings. Women feel more unsafe, and so that matters more than men actually being more unsafe. Solipsism ho, and add one more solipsist ho.
Almost makes one believe that the whole thing is a lie, a sham, a fraud and a power-grab by authoritarian tyrants seeking little else but money, power and complete and utter control. Seeking complete and utter revolution, in fact. Makes me want to use these words: “Female Supremacy Movement”.
Oh boy, how naughty. I’ve been a bad boy now, mother government. Please don’t disappear me, please don’t cancel me, I’ve got a growing family to take care of. Very sorry for burdening you with my troubles and my issues; very sorry for you having to deal with all that emotional labour.
Sigh and harumph, and other grumpy noises of a very manly variety.
There has always been precious little empathy sent the way of men; precious little societal concern. Just a whole hell of a lot of obligations, responsibilities and duties.
Fuck it, I’m calling it – men’s rights activism is doubtlessly progressive. In fact, it is the most progressive thing in the world at the moment.
Don’t “at” me, brah.
Oh boy, that one is sure to gift me enemies from all over the spectrum, particularly from the hopelessly regressive and reactionary feminist hordes, who wish for nothing more than to keep, maintain and grow the incredible amount of power it has, the incredible claw-like, vice-like grip it has on the balls and ovaries of society.
Behold the water. Water is cool. Water don’t give a fuck. Water just flows and beats against the thing until the thing gives way and the water moves ever onwards. Water don’t care. Be like water.
And that concludes part six. Join me next time for what I believe will be the last part, at least at the moment of writing. But, that don’t necessarily mean much. Inspiration is a hell of a thing, and the flow even more a hell of a thing.
Times ain’t so bad, gentlemen. I mean: they sure as hell are rough and tough and mean and wicked, spiteful, chaotic and violent. But they ain’t so bad. It’s just a few fires, just some rioting, looting, pillaging, burning and a few murders. But times ain’t so bad. It’s mostly peaceful. Sure; freedom of speech is slowly being eroded and removed on account of muh hate-speech and other such naughty things, effectively revoking democracy by denying people a right to speak their mind thus forcing conformity of speech and thought, but, hey, all’s well that Orwells, one supposes and imagines. Who gets to decide the intent behind a sentence written or spoken but the one who wrote or spoke it? The powers-that-be and anyone who is slightly offended. This has been decided. These are the truth-holders: the only ones capable of deciding the intent behind a sentence. Not the sentence-wielder, but the sentencer.
The UK is considering making horrid misogyny illegal, effectively making women their own specially protected class of citizen. Even more so than usual. The same, one observes, does not apply to misandry. (Of course, one is forced to admit that the hearing included a question that sounded something like this, even when I admit to paraphrasing: “should we include hatred of men in this silly little hate-speech law of ours, or is hating women the only thing that we can consider bad?” That the question even needed to be asked is a bit worrisome, but at least men are mentioned in something to do with gender. Mentioned and, I predict, ignored, neglected and forgotten as per usual.)
As it stands, hating men for men being men is still quite alright. Hey; it’s basically your duty as a citizen by this point in time to hate and fear men, in particular white men, for we killed the heavens and raped mother Gaia with our fantastic wits and our two-toned whistling.
All of us, by virtue of sex and skin and next of kin.
Come now, sisters and brothers of the shevolution: do your duty for the mother-land and write me up some hate-filled screed about how it is quite alright to hate men and that it is not about hating men, why don’t ya?
Allow me to inform you that despite movement being restricted and free association being removed or severely limited on account of the commie-cough and other such pesky problems, let me assure you that times ain’t so bad and that we are still free to exist and to live our lives as we see fit. As long as we bend the knee and don’t say or think anything out of line, that is. Especially not online. Online is the worst place to step out of line. Online, one must always stay on the line when encountering anyone who is not male. The internet is a den of rapists, murderers and other woman-hating evils. And you have to point it all out. You get extra brownie-points, applicable to the social credit system if you inform your nearest and dearest big sister certified neighbourhood watch. Become an informant. Save the motherland. Get ready for your daily twenty minutes of hate. Times ain’t so bad, you see. We’ve got it all under control.
No-one is asking that you stand for this.
All that is asked of you is that you kneel for this, kowtow and accept, and all will be well. So spake the glorious furies of the great big red fury.
You know what the worst part of this pre-ramble is? It’s not hyperbolic enough. Which worries me to no end. Seems mother government brought down the ban-hammer hard, seeking to remove undesirables from the public forum. Dissent is not allowed. Order must be maintained. Stability kept. Even when stability at the moment is chaos in the guise of order. The status quo must be upheld; this misguided altruism of ours that demands that no-one shall hear or read anything that may be offensive to their delicate ears and emotionally underdeveloped minds. No-one, that is, except those who are not protected.
Suddenly, I have this strange sensation of deja vu, as though I have written and rambled this exact thing before. How very strange. Things never change. Only the circumstances of the thing.
Everyone is free to speak their mind. We do have freedom of speech, you know, but… those who don’t deserve to be free to speak their mind shall not have freedom of speech. You can tell who those dastardly undesirables are by looking to who we decided are the wholesale merchants of hate speech in this time and in this space and in this place. Of course; one would be wise to also look to those whom deserves protection from that nebulous “hate-speech”. The undesirable elements are usually those who are not afforded special protection under the law; a law that is apparently made so that everyone is to be equal under the law. Equality, it is decided, does not mean treating people equally. So said the ones proposing unequal equality as a virtue. This ain’t even joking.
This of course begs the question: why should anyone be afforded special protection under the law, if the law is supposed to treat everyone equally?
Well, buddy, treating people equally means that some must be treated preferentially to others. It’s pure caterwauling ramshackle logic, see. For some to be treated equally, others must be treated unequally. This makes perfect sense when one cries and snivels in a corner because someone else got first dibs on ones favourite toy. “Oh, my poor child, of course I shall reclaim the toy from him – you deserve it more.”
In other words: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
God-fucking-damn, but I had to invoke Orwell again. I swear: I never intend to. It just happens all the bloody time. The man was a blooming prophet and a ruddy visionary. It’s not my fault.
Though, admittedly, anything read during early teenaged years – such as I read Orwell, Thompson and similar voices – tend to stick in the memory and shape ones perception of the world more than anything else. I also read a lot of Kafka, Poe, Dostojevskij and old poetry. Make of that what you will.
That leap towards independence during those early teen years of development is sure as hell a powerful leap. Seems few, if any, take that leap any more. Even though I certainly admit to a not-so-well curtailed cynicism as well as more than a few dark and brooding thoughts about where our societies are going at the moment, things might not end as bad as I, in my darkest moments, fear that they will. The pendulum may yet swing back and offer up a crumb of hope. Though I fear I will be long dead before that happens.
I don’t particularly want to play the dirty game of hate-speech laws, but if that is how the rules are to be, I propose that we play by these rules – should one still wish to play this silly social game – and flood the bloody system with complaints about what could be construed as hate-speech targetting men in particular. There is quite a lot to pick from. Seems that muh hate-speech is taken very seriously when muh hate-speech affect women and other so-called minorities who, apparently, are incapable of handling anything that us tough and thick-skinned guys are capable of handling. As it stands at the moment, any criticism of any feminist woman is labelled as misogynist in nature, and as such falls under the strange and peculiar umbrella of hate-speech. Non-feminist women are, as they always are, free game for any hate-speech. But this goes without saying. The same lackluster logic also applies to any minority, as long as they toe the party line.
And so, if these frail and fragile few start being punished by law for their speech, one assumes we would see changes. It happened with Facebook some years back, when the feminist hordes were offended that their hatred of men was censored after the feminist brigades had pestered Facebook enough that they made hate-speech targetting gender verboten. Proving, of course and once again, that gender does not mean gender – it means women. Making gender a protected class means nothing but making women a protected class.
Though, what is more likely to happen is that we would just see more protection towards the protected class. Still – if the rules are as the rules are, the best one can do is to play by those rules. The weapon, rules and tactics of the “enemy” can effectively be used against the “enemy”.
Now, I am not particularly comfortable with this. I would much prefer that those who I am in disagreement with should be able to say whatever the hell they want to say, since I expect that I should be allowed to say whatever the hell I want. This would be treating people equally, ya dig?
No matter how hateful and horrible, the venomous harpies and other troglodytes should be allowed their right to speak their mind.
If these are the rules as they are supposed to be, however, then that is how the game is to be played. Considering the one-sidedness of the law, we are steadily moving towards a society in which one side can say what they wish, and the other side can not respond. The other side then just have to stand there and take the hits, kicks and shit-flinging.
This is not equal treatment. I don’t understand why I have to state this, but there you have it: not treating people the same is not treating people the same. Nor does it open up for debate. When one side is silenced under law, and the other is not, the scales ain’t balanced. This ought to be obvious, but, hey – no matter. Equal treatment is what the harpies say that it is, not what common sense says that it is. If one chooses to play this silly game, these donkey-defilers must be forced to play by their own rules. Or forced to admit the unequal nature of the rules. Which they do, by labelling it positive discrimination. And so come the new-speak.
For my part, I elected to withdraw from broader society. Which sounds worse and more defeated than it in actuality is. I don’t much care for the path we chose to walk down. And so I withdrew. At least as much as is possible. Becoming as self-sufficient as possible is part of the plan. Next year, I will be growing my own food. Would have done it this year, of course, were it not for the move being postponed due to the commie-cough so that we arrived far too late in the season to grow stuff. Gosh-darnit, consarnit and bugger all.
However strange it may sound, given the nastiness and mean-spirited tone in much of my ramblings… however corny and silly it may sound… the path I have elected to walk through life is a path of love. A path of empathy, care and compassion. Believe it or not, but I am a very compassionate man. It just so happens that I am empathetic and compassionate towards those whom the powers-that-be; those whom the opinion-deciders decided are not to receive empathy, care and compassion. Aye, ‘tis true: my compassion, care and empathy extends to the ones who are supposedly privileged enough to kill themselves in disturbing numbers. The ones who are so privileged that their deaths by despair, their grief and their loneliness, their sorrow and their quiet desperation becomes nothing but a statistic and a sordid punchline by those who don’t hate men even when they state quite clearly that they do, you see.
For those who claim they don’t hate men; those who claim that there is no empathy-gap, those who claim that men are privileged seem to lack the empathy, the care and the compassion to understand that telling men – particularly boys and young men – that they are inherently defective; that they are undeservedly privileged; that they are vile, wicked, violent oppressors of women (and of everyone else, for that matter), proves the point of the empathy-gap more than anything else.
The proof lies in the pudding, so to speak. But the pudding is devoured by those who have demanded control of the discourse. And so we can not dig into the pudding to find the proof proper.
It makes little sense to me that those who are oppressed can dictate laws to protect themselves, handed them on a silver-platter by their oppressors, but, hey, reason has no place here – objectivity is, after all, a tool of the patriarchy; a white supremacist and misogynistic invention meant to make white men and their naughty reasoning-skills, nasty capacity for logic and horrible leaning towards objectivity the dominating class.
I wish I were joking, but this – and similar sentiments – are apparently spoken in all seriousness at high levels of the gloriously sheltered academic institutes of higher indoctrination. If one is to follow this incredibly silly and – quite honestly – insulting line of thought, one can only deduce that anyone who is not a white male are born defective; incapable of logic, reason and objectivity.
Were I a woman, or anything but me, for that matter, I would be severely insulted by the suggestion that I am incapable of clear, rational and objective thought. I assume this is nothing but my personal bias at work, of course – I might just be projecting my heteronormative cis-gendered white male capacity for reason and logic out into the world… basking in the affluent glow of my unearned privilege. Or something nonsensical like that.
This is not to say that I don’t own any stocks in the oppression-olympics or in the victim-hierarchy, of course. I am disabled, for one. Secondly – the illness that makes me disabled is somewhat rare, and even more so in men, and so that has to afford me even more victim-credentials. Thirdly, I am a life-long insomniac. That’s gotta count for something, right? I am also prone to depression, though this is most likely linked to the severity of my chronic pains as well as some long-lingering PTSD so this may or may not count, according to the whims of the great quivering pussy in the sky. PTSD is a hell of a drug. Don’t try it, kids, it’s even worse than crack. Or whatever drug is the popular drug at the moment. I can’t keep up with all the trends.
Being introverted in an extroverted society has got to give me some brownie-points for the budding victimologist. I also used to be fat. But I lost weight, so I can’t use that as a bargaining tool unfortunately. I’ve got thin-privilege now, you see. I can reach and I can reach even further, picking whatever could serve as a tool to grant me a piece of the glorious victimhood-pudding. But, I am sorry to say, I am unable to keep the tone serious enough. It would have devolved into screeching something sarcastic before long. Well, more so than usual.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
It should, one hopes, not come as much of a surprise that I am not particularly fond of these chronic pains of mine, nor of my lifelong struggle with insomnia. If I wanted to use it for victim-points, I probably could. But, ya know, it is all rendered null and void by my straight, white, cis male privilege. This privilege revokes empathy. Renders it effectively null and void. Apparently. The privilege granted me by the dubious powers-that-be makes it so that I must endure the steady stream of misandry and other politically correct hate-filled drool that run through our societies at the moment. The privileged must always tolerate unbridled hatred and must never experience empathy, nor care, nor compassion for reasons of unearned privilege. Privilege which, incidentally, is invisible to the privileged one. Which is a brilliant way of doing things, since it can be neither proven nor unproven yet used as bludgeoning tool by those who claim to be able to see this privilege floating in the air like some strange ghost of patriarchal privilege past, come to shame you into compliance.
Aye; ‘tis a river of shit in which one must learn to swim before one sinks and drowns and dies.
Or, one could elect to not step into the river of shit at all.
The option to turn away is always there, and will always be there. It is not an easy path, not by any stretch of the imagination. But, hey – most of the work is already done by those who decided that men are privileged and so shall be afforded less care, love, empathy and compassion.
I got my finest lesson in the empathy-gap when I was wicked and mean-spirited enough to ferociously showcase my undeniable privilege by complaining about the searing pains I live with every day on the most hallowed platform for social maladies and social justice; Facebook.
Some feminist – you know, the ones who live and breathe chronic victimhood – saw fit to tell me that I was not allowed to make myself out to be so pitiful. This was sent my way in a private message, which I found to be interesting. Almost as though she did not dare shine a light on her own uncaring nature for all to see by posting her complaint about my complaint about my pains on my wall. Still, it was much compassion, such empathy, wow, from the ideology known to hold the true empathetic nature of peoplekind in their sweaty paws.
Though I knew of the lack of empathy levied at men prior to this, this really was to me the most distinct marker of just that. Feminism is for men too, you know, as long as men don’t complain about anything and just do what feminism dictates. Which includes not complaining about being in constant pain. We are naught but whining man-children. All of us. And so they bathe in male tears, or drink male tears when men speak about their problems, only to complain that men don’t speak about their problems.
Coming from the throats and tongues of those who believe that the Iphone is sexist and that women should be offered free rides home after being out on the town for a night, despite men being more likely to be victims of violence and thus the ones more deserving of a free ride home.
This happened in Norway. Four taxi-cabs gave free rides home for women and women only. As tradition dictates, they were painted pink. Which is interesting all on its own, because I was led to believe that this was horrible gender-stereotyping. Feminism, one learns, is allergic to the colour pink. Unless it comes with some unearned favour, one supposes.
It follows that our department of equality – there to make sure nothing of a discriminating nature happens – decided that they could not speak to whether this was gendered discrimination or not. Very interesting, I think. They could not even decide whether this was gendered discrimination or not, when it most certainly was and thus most probably was illegal under the law such as the law is. Well, it probably ain’t, considering that the law is written to particularly help women and minorities, which in itself is discriminatory and thus contrary to the law itself. And so it begs the question: if they can not speak to whether or not something clearly discriminatory is discriminatory, what the hell are they there for then? To protect whamens and minorities. Women, after all, feel more unsafe than men, despite objectively being more safe than men.
That is what the laws state; there to protect women and minorities. And to hell with men. Except men with minority status. Which I, interestingly enough, am due to this rare illness of mine. But, no matter: as opposed to women and the protected minorities, men are capable enough to care for themselves. This is the line of thought straight from the mouth and saggy tits of mother government. Women can’t cope with life on their own. Men can. Yet, men it seems are not allowed to care for ourselves, because we are supposed to sacrifice our safety and our sanity on behalf of women (he for she, as an example, the laws of the land as another example), and minorities.
And yet, me – and people such as myself – are considered to be the ones with a negative view of women. It is incredibly hostile, incredibly spiteful and hateful to expect women to act like adults are supposed to act. That would be demanding too much of women, it seems. And of minorities, apparently. Proposing that the rules be applied equally is also demanding too much of women. And minorities. They shall be offered extra protection and granted extra laws for them and only them. For that is all-encompassing and all-devouring equality.
These societies of ours claim to be all about inclusivity, claim to be all about equality, claim the tender term “altruism” and humanitarianism to be the guiding light that shines and beckons.
Yet that path is not a path of love. What is proposed as love, as compassion – as human compassion in fact – is nothing but divisive drivel. It is scorn, it is hate and it is shame.
The insults fly, the hatred spreads and grows, if one wears the cloak of non-conformity and so fly in the face of the narrative such as the narrative is. We are all-inclusive, all-encompassing, all-loving and all-empathetic as long as no-one dares come with the proposition that we should, perhaps and perchance, listen to what men go through.
If you do just that, all hell breaks loose. For including men in the equation is haram. Particularly white men, wicked and mean majority as we are.
Those who are allowed to speak on behalf of men are not men. Or they do not speak from being men. They speak from being feminist and they speak from feminism. They may be men, but they do not speak as men. As common, ordinary men. They speak as feminist men. They speak from intersectional feminism. They speak from critical race-theory and from gender studies. Experts in the fields, driven by naught but ideology and scorn and – dare I even say it – penis-envy. These are the ones who speak on behalf of the common man. Not the common man.
I remember watching a debate on our national television-station – functioning much the same as the BBC – about men’s rights. The ones they hauled in to speak on this topic were two feminist women, who stated that men who whine about their rights – or lack thereof – are unsexy. That was the main argument; the main bone of contention, apparently. Men who complain about their station in life are just plain unsexy. No MRA was there to defend, no man at all was present in order to propose another way of looking at it. Just two feminist women, complaining that these men weren’t sexy enough for their liking. How incredibly arrogant. How very objectifying of them. Not surprising, though – this was the same channel that funded and produced a show wherein a feminist woman went to a high school in order to turn all the students at that school into feminists. One realizes that no counter-point was made to feminism. Pure propaganda for one ideology, and that is all. Funded by the money of the common man, as we all are forced to pay for this trite trash. Now, isn’t that interesting, in light of how oppressed women supposedly are? So oppressed that all and sundry must pay for a program that is nothing more nor less than propaganda for a movement only for women.
Anyhow: that is the measure of a man’s worth, gentlemen – whether or not women find him attractive. Whether or not women find him sexy or not. And men swallow this shit. And men bow down to this.
Because men, such as we are, measure our worth by much the same. We measure it by whether or not we are good at what we do, whether or not what we can do will attract a partner. Whether or not we are useful, whether or not we have utility. As do all of society.
Our rights – or lack thereof – do not matter, as long as women find us sexy and attractive for not whining.
There is a reason Incel became a slur, unfortunately used as an insult even within the so-called manosphere. A man who is not attractive to women has no worth. This too is absolute nonsensical bullshit, of course, but that is the way it is viewed. Men would do well in unlearning this learned behaviour; this way of viewing the world. But the drive to procreate appears to be stronger than anything else. Not a need for sex, but a need to procreate. Which, of course, translates into a need for getting laid in our societies, as we circumvented that whole pesky pregnancy-thing with birth-control and prophylactics. Yet, it remains: a biological, primal drive that makes reptiles and primates of us all. If we are not attractive to women, be that through looks or through work or whatever, we are losers. We are incels. This, when internalized – as it surely is – can not be anything but damaging to a man’s self worth. If women are shamed for being sluts, men are shamed for being virgins. Slut-shaming tend to mainly come from other women. Virgin-shaming of men tend to come from women as well, at least based on my personal observations. A man who can not get laid… well, there must be something wrong with him.
As fantastic as it is to be in a committed and functional relationship – and by functional I mean just that and by fantastic I mean just that – it is not a necessity for happiness and for being content. This, I believe, is the lesson that needs to be learned first and foremost, if the incels are to come out of the very dark places they are in.
A functional relationship is a relationship in which both parties pull their load. Built on mutual respect and co-operation. Love that is nurtured and maintained.
Not romantic love; that sweet and short period of utter psychosis at the beginning of a relationship. Nor merely lust.
Nope.
Love that is nurtured, that is grown and that is kept by both doing for the other. A partnership is a two-way street. All in equal measure.
As fantastic as this is, it is not a necessity to live a good life. A man’s self-worth should not be tied into whether or not he has a partner, whether or not he has gotten his willy wetted by a willing willy-wetter. Nor should his worth to society be measured by his attractiveness to women and his willingness to sacrifice – and not “whining” about his problems is to sacrifice – for women and for society overall. The way our societies neglects the issues of men is in itself a sacrifice from men; it is the disposable nature of men showcased and burning with the might and power of aeons of evolution.
It seems that the path of non-conformity for men is for men to find worth in themselves first and foremost. That this can be considered as non-conformity sounds terrible. And that’s because it is. Non-conformity beckons, gentlemen. Embrace it with your all.
Men define ourselves, and are defined, by what we do, how we earn, how much we earn, things like that. We are defined by our utility first and foremost. The path of love, of compassion and of empathy begins first and foremost with loving ourselves, having compassion for ourselves and having empathy for ourselves.
In short, to find worth in being, not only in doing. Not to lay our happiness or our value in whether or not we have a partner; in whether or not we are attractive towards women, but in whether or not we can care for ourselves, love, honour, respect and nurture ourselves.
And that was this part done. More to come next week, if you can bear my cruel and unusual rambling for another go-around. This thing spiralled out of control and got way bigger than I originally intended. God bless the flow.
#KAM2020 and #KillAllMen is running rampant in the sacred halls of Twitter, delivered by a certain cult who proclaim their opposition to hate-speech in all its shapes and forms.
Obviously.
This trash is tried and true, tested and terminated with eloquent efficiency: men are privileged oppressors, supposedly, and so one can not hate-speech the menfolk… just punching up without expecting any punitive measures.
Of course.
When once the enemy is found; when once the other is delightfully othered, the one can do whatever and what-not to the other with no repercussions expected.
Just as long as one remembers that it’s not really about hating men, honest to Goddess, it’s only about equality between the sexes. The dictionary says so, and so it must be true, despite these calls and wishes and hoarse whispers to kill all men. Quite alright, of course, it’s just a prank, brah, just a prank. It’s just a joke and men must tolerate this elitist call for extermination.
Nothing ever changes. This is naught but a tired old re-run; a road-raging repetition of past years genuine genocidal grandiosity.
It don’t matter much.
It’s only men, after all.
Forget it, guys and gals, this is naught but mechanical and unfeeling menfolk, you see. Not to care.
All men everywhere hurt and oppress all women everywhere, after all. That’s what the feminist brigade has told us, and so it must be true. That you yourself don’t do it don’t matter – you are guilty by virtue of masculinity and so must be purged and expunged and exterminated like we do with cockroaches, lice, rats and other such pests.
And, of course, the oppressed can call for their oppressors to be killed and the oppressors don’t clamp down on it with the full fury of the patriarchy. For some strange and peculiar reason. Must be an error in communication… lines of communication broken, beaten, burnt down by the plight of the common womenfolk; united as they are by their common communal hatred of the terrible bourgeoisie.
And should you dare to complain; should you dare to express some disagreement with this obvious hatred presented here and now as a call to kill all men, you will be made subject to scorn and to ridicule, to mockery and contempt… then it’s all re-reruns of fragile masculinity and drinking male tears and bathing in male tears and oh, but you must understand a joke and oh and wow and my goodness how dare you react negatively to a ferocious force that calls for the death of you yourself for being so incredibly rude and obnoxious as to dare being born a boy and develop into a monstrous man… All the while bitching and moaning and wailing like banshees with gonorrhoea about the slightest and tiniest manufactured so-called trespass against women… like the size of Iphones and women pooping at work or spending more time on the toilet than men. Very discriminatory, much sexist, wow. The same fucking people that go up in arms at the tiniest perceived offence against the sacred whamens, labelling it hate-speech and calling for a banishment from society for all those who dare be so rude and obnoxious consider calling for killing all men as naught but a joke. It’s not hate speech when men are the recipients of hate. We all know this, of course. And there are no repercussions against these people who think that the rules and laws they so dearly wish to be put in place so as to protect people from hearing offensive things should never be used against them… private law… privilege. One rule for me, another for thee, peasant.
Then all the so-called moderate feminists – the supposed real feminists – will come calling at the doors of the so-called manosphere, proclaiming oh-so-loudly and oh-so-proudly and profoundly that this is not real feminism, this is not my feminism and so-and-such, all the while doing absolutely nothing to purge their so-called beautiful and equality-seeking movement of these so-called fringe elements; these loud-mouthed radicals; the very vocal minority who give the other five percent of feminists out there a bad name and an even worse reputation.
It’s more important, you see, to get the horrible men who might perhaps and oddly enough object to being wished death upon for being born such as they are to understand that this is not real feminism, it’s only ever about muh equality and not about hating muh men… Protecting the sacred name of the movement is more important than anything else.
OK, maybe it’s only about hating men a little bit, since it is all toxic masculinity that brought about the #killallmen, but that is not the fault of men that is the fault of the patriarchy which… ehm… supposedly is men and thusly the fault of men, even when it isn’t because double-speech is the style of the time and everything is a social construct that ought to be deconstructed except those social constructs which the feminist hive-mind hold near and dear to their heart – that is truth and must be held forth as absolute truth, even when absolute truth don’t exist. And why? Because it feels right. And so, ultimately, it is the fault of men that #KillAllMen came about. If only men buckled down and did exactly what feminism demands of them – even the things that contradict the other things – then there would be no need for this supposed “venting” from the poor and downtrodden whamens. Sounds an awful lot like victim-blaming, if one were to steal a phrase from their book. But that can not be, for men can never be victims.
Yeah, defending the holy name of feminism is more important than purging the church of feminism of these supposedly undesirable elements that give feminism a bad name… And then you’re told that this is not feminism, it is in fact misandry… even when misandry is not a thing, according to the very same fucking feminists.
It is all very predictable. And incredibly droll. Every year is the same as the last, is the same as the next. The fake feminist is not a real feminist, even when feminism is not a monolith and I have this strange sensation of repeating myself here… must be something in the water or in my bloodstream… surely this can’t have happened before, time and time again? Surely – if this is naught but a loud-mouth minority, screeching and roaring and raging on and on, they would have been squeezed out by the good, honourable, noble and decent feminist who only ever seek equality by now, wouldn’t they and surely, surely, my oh my…
And of course feminism helps men too. After all – if all men are killed, men wouldn’t have any problems any more.
Check mate, foul misogynist. We told you that feminism will help men too.
It’s not exactly a good culture for boys to grow up in, one would think. Nor is it a good culture for men to live in, one assumes, where this constant hatred… where these constant attacks and assaults, this constant hostility… a barrage of insults and of ridicule… of constant calls that men need to change, that men need to fix themselves… that masculinity is toxic, that testosterone-poisoning exist… it is not what one would call a healthy environment, nor is it a healthy society. (Must be toxic femininity.) Particularly not when it has been going on for so long and is so prevalent that people don’t even fucking notice it. And those who do notice it are shamed, shunned and ridiculed even more than those regular guys who don’t notice it. Ridiculing men and boys; poking fun at masculinity, calling to kill all men… it’s commonplace to a terrifying extent. And yet we – we who oppose this, we who protest against this, who don’t exactly find it amusing or helpful to be told that we are somehow at fault and inherently flawed for being men are attacked for being hateful, attacked for being bigoted, shamed and named and blamed for hating women and contributing to the so-called oppression of women.
As well as being referred to as fascists, as Neo-Nazis, as white supremacists, as racists, as homophobic and transphobic, as incels and mass-murderers and rape-apologists and rapists and whatever else these terribly oppressed whamens can conjure forth to attack their oppressors with impunity. For, of course, advocating for men to not be constantly attacked solely for being men is absolutely and undoubtedly the same as believing in the master-race of Aryans and the excellence of the third reich, or whatever. And this imbecilic shit-flinging from the ever-so-oppressed whamens is not even the biggest issue facing men. It’s just become so rampant, so big, so incredibly engrained in our society that one would do well to open ones eyes – and the eyes of other people – and actually fucking notice it, see it and – in the end – object to it.
The comparisons to Nazis is a bit strange and peculiar of course, for I do declare that calling for killing a certain identity group for no other reason than their identity has happened sometime previous in recent recorded history… now, what could that have been, and where could that have happened, I wonder? Some industrial-sized genocidal war-machine… I can’t quite put my finger on it. Might have been the same type of rhetoric running around as well… the same conspiracy theory; that odd “we are oppressed by this group of people because they hold all the wealth and rule all the banks”… “Jews are lice” “Men are trash”.
Well, would you look at that.
Now; I don’t particularly enjoy tumbling down the rabbit hole, coming out the other side and pulling “Reductio ad Hitlerum’s” out my arse, as I consider it the cheap shot to end all cheap shots.
However: I do tend to believe that people should be made subject to their own rules and their own behaviour.
After all: if one wants to play by certain rules, one should damned well be expected to play by certain rules.
And if the feminist storm-troopers and their vile trash-talking troglodytes who ain’t seen the sunshine in seventeen long years of sucking their fingers and painting their toenails to resemble beef-curtains have the gall and the audacity to attempt to draw parallels between Nazism and the men’s movement, they damned well ought to take a good and long look at themselves and what rhetoric the 97.8 percent of the not real feminists spew and sputter at the screen and at the world.
Now of course; I get that attacking these troglodytes who post the #KillAllMen might be me attacking low-hanging fruit. After all; it’s just random people on anti-social media, it’s just some low-level street-trash with daddy-issues and a chronic cerebral constipation yelling for people to please pay attention to them.
They don’t matter.
Except that they do.
For this, you see, is normalizing a terrifying thing: it is normalizing hatred of men for no other reason than them being men. Even worse: it is making it perfectly acceptable to wish for death upon people for no other reason than the circumstances of their birth. Now, being a free speech fundamentalist, I do not wish for them to be censored. Or cancelled. Or anything of the sort. Quite the contrary. I wish for them to be free to spew their abhorrent hatred as much as they wish. Them doing this such as they do shows them for what they are. It shows the movement for exactly what it is: a hate-movement of the foulest, meanest sort with claws and fingers and fingered claws reaching so far into the societal zeitgeist and the institutions of society that they are still fucking bloody protected against scrutiny and criticism, even when showing their obvious and visceral hatred with no fear of repercussions. In fact; they play victim when called out on their atrocious behaviour.
Little by little, their behaviour will be their downfall.
And then, we will only have gynocentrism to combat.
I have very few illusions about my station in life. By most societal metrics, there is no doubt that I would be considered a “loser” – that most endearing, caring, compassionate and oh-so-loving term. Now, this is not to say that I consider myself a loser. Because, frankly, I don’t. By societal standards, however, I most definitely am.
High school drop out, pretentious art school moron, disabled and distraught by chronic illness. Funnily enough, this is a chronic illness whose origins can be traced back, step by lingering step, to my experiences in various schools. At least in part. In fact, in big part.
I have written about a few of these experiences in schools previously, only for it to be dismissed as lies and bullshit by the very voices that say we should listen to personal experiences because they matter more than anything else. If the personal experiences is that of a woman. The male experience don’t matter. One assumes because this would poke a hole in the flaccid and frigid bubble of feminism and gynocentrism.
Men can not suffer on account of anything but masculinity or masculine norms or the patriarchy that rewards them and punishes them simultaneously; that privileges and displaces them at the same time. When men suffer, it is the fault of men. And so it is when women suffer. Always and ever, it is the fault of men. For men, to the eyes of feminism, are both omnipotent and impotent; almighty Gods and useless, fragile vermin; above and beyond women just as much as we are beneath women. Not that strange, when considering that feminism is collectivist (at least when it suits them) and so see the world in terms of “us” and “them”. “Us” being women – innocent victims of “them”. “Them” being men of course, upon whose othered form “us” can paint and project whatever the grand and unified “us” could ever wish. There is no need for consistency. “They” are nothing to “us” but what “us” makes them out to be. And so “they” can be all and “they” can be nothing, as long as there is consistency in “they” being and remaining the eternal enemy of “us”.
All the while the patriarchy does all it can to make things hard for women, despite women making up the majority in higher education in just about every western nation… despite women being given all manner of special programs and treatments and what have you in said education, even when being in the majority. And more of this so-called positive discrimination, each more delicate than the last. You get my drift.
All allowed and accepted by the governing patriarchy that cherishes men so much that it has no special programs, treatments and so-and-such in store for them. For reasons of that being considered gendered discrimination. Helping men is discriminatory. Helping women is equality. To such an extent that merely pointing out areas in society in which men and boys are disadvantaged gets one labelled a hater of women. Even when women are not mentioned. Even when feminism is not mentioned. Compassion, empathy and consideration for boys and men is painted and presented as an attack on women. What a preposterously useless patriarchy this is.
When I wrote my first ever piece on the topic of men’s rights, namely “remembering rebellion”, I invoked the archetypal rebel character; the outlaw, the rogue, the quintessential rebel-without-a-cause. This I did by drawing on my experiences and memories of teenage rebellion, of being full of piss and vinegar and not giving much of a fuck about anything except vandalism and drunkenness (not necessarily in that order), except being up to no good, no-good punk that I was back then…
Juvenile delinquency, in other words.
Back then, it was rebellion for the sake of rebellion; chaos and havoc for sake of chaos and havoc. Raising hell in order to raise hell. A necessary part of growing up, perhaps, though admittedly not to the extent which I and the small group of friends (or fiends) which I ran with at that time rebelled and spread chaos and havoc.
I will admit that I am still very fond of that particular piece, even when I have written multiple pieces that are – at least in my humble opinion – far better. It was where I broke my silence on issues that had pestered me for years, and so it will always have a special place in my supremely bearded and chest-hairy heart.
There is a certain romanticism connected to the rebel character which I happily admit that I am very fond of. For whatever reason, the rebel, the rogue, the outlaw living by his own rules has a certain sheen, a certain glamour about him that is much beloved in the collective consciousness.
No wonder, I think, as someone has to stand firm with a potently erect middle-finger to remind those who are not rebellious that somewhere, somehow, someone is talking back and kicking up… that someone carries the burden of balancing the scales… or, at the very least, attempts to do so.
For every sheriff of Nottingham, there has to be a Robin Hood.
So to speak.
In such instances, the rebel without a cause is a rebel without a cause no longer – he becomes a rebel with a cause. Which may very well not be quite as romantic as a rebel without a cause. Still – I would dare state that the rebellion then transforms from fantastic romantic imagery to grim realistic necessity. Even when the legend of Robin Hood is very much romanticized. Which is kinda the point of the exercise.
Since its inconsiderate inception, feminism has been very adept at presenting itself as rebelling against the establishment. As bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool rebels.
One can not help but wonder how long that image can be maintained, as it is painfully clear and obvious that they have become the establishment. And so we have an establishment fighting against the establishment, for something which could only be described as complete social and cultural revolution – a turnabout of everything western society stands for; the classical liberal values upon which most of it is built.
Presenting it as only ever being about equality between the sexes, despite being Marxist to the core and at its barely beating, rotten and reeking heart. “Socialism in panties”, as Karen Straughan so wonderfully put it. Men are the bourgeoisie, women are the proletariat and the proletariat has every right to hate and attack and ridicule and so-and-such the bourgeoisie.
It is a beast that is attempting – and very much succeeding – to turn western civilization away from the age-old, tried and true formula of “classical liberalism” into something that is liberal in name only. It does not make much sense to me to claim liberalism, freedom and equality whilst championing laws meant to govern what people are allowed to say.
When aiming to make certain opinions illegal and punishable by law – misogyny, for example, (whilst not considering making misandry illegal), one is neither a champion for liberal values, nor equal treatment. Far from it. One is a champion for tyranny, privilege and unequal treatment.
With privilege, I mean “private law”.
And that is private law for women and women only. Particularly feminist women. Making the nebulous and ever-changing “misogynistic opinions” illegal is a dangerous thing to do, considering that misogyny means absolutely nothing any more. Just as much as various other no-no-isms means absolutely nothing any more. Racism, Fascism, Nazism, this-that-and-the-other-ism is overused… is overdone and dry and so have lost all meaning, all power, all everything. When used as a shut-down and a shaming tactic instead of a mere statement of fact, it is watered down, boiled and then evaporated. It all becomes as substantial and hard-hitting as fog. It really is pointless. And one has to wonder, in what world where women are hated as much as the feminist hive-mind claim them to be would it work wonders in their favour to shame people for hating women? It really is pointless.
Misogyny now refers to simply disagreeing with any one particular feminist woman, or with feminism in its entirety. It is, in other words, whatever a man does or says that any feminist disapproves of. It would ultimately render criticism of feminism illegal – as hate-speech, in fact.
And that is remarkably dangerous. Any -ism should not be allowed to dictate laws that specifically protect their ideology from criticism. (Make no mistake about it – feminism very much is an ideology.) That is authoritarian, that is tyrannical, that is complete and utter privilege on part of feminism and on part of women. Female privilege, as a matter of fact – female private law. One rule for me and another for thee. This becomes even more obvious when looking to the sentencing gap between the sexes – something which is strengthened in Great Britain by feminism pushing for women to never be imprisoned. The observant observer amongst us will most likely have noticed that this does not apply to men. Prison is too hard for women, but men deserve it.
Female private law.
The aristocracy is untouchable, the word of the elite is law.
The establishment establishes the prevailing cultural narrative.
And so, if feminism claims to be rebelling against the establishment despite very much being the establishment, then that is truth.
If the APA guidelines for dealing with boys and men says that their masculinity is their biggest problem – that their very nature is at the root of not only their suffering, but the suffering of girls and women as well – then so be it; that is truth and that is how boys and men shall heal from trauma. By being told that them being male is the biggest problem; by slowly and surely being turned into feminists by the forces supposedly there to help them.
Is this not a terrifying display of misuse of power?
Is this not incredibly dangerous?
Is this not political indoctrination?
Is this not putting ideology before facts, before reason and before any consideration for the well-being of the patient?
If the UN says that women’s rights are more important than the all-inclusive human rights, then so be it. That is then truth.
The fight for women’s rights becomes separated from the fight for human rights. Women then become the most important, and to hell with all notions of equal treatment. Women are not human – they are above that.
Women matter, men do not.
And that is equality, for the establishment – that is feminism – has decided that it is. Boys and men do not suffer. Girls and women do. And so we can piss on boys and shit on men to our hearts content. For they have all the power and privilege, despite being the recipients of all this hatred, shaming, ridicule, neglect and whatever else can be thrown their way by law and by popular vote.
Rebelling – so to speak – against feminism, or rather – against its hold on our institutions – becomes a grim realistic necessity. It is rebelling against the status quo, against the dominant narrative.
One could almost say that it is rebelling against nature itself, if one is a biological determinist – or something to that effect. Eggs are precious and rare and must be protected by any and all means, sperm is cheap and plentiful. One man can impregnate many women over the course of nine months. A woman is pregnant for nine months. Women are, by nature and for the continuation of the species, more rare, precious and important than men.
Welcome gynocentrism, fare-thee-well empathy for men.
Fare-thee-well men in fact – we are disposable biological entities.
It does not matter that feminism claims to be championing equality when their actions prove otherwise.
And their actions do prove otherwise, time and time again.
Shutting down talks on men’s issues, burying domestic violence research that shows women to be perpetrators and men to be victims in just about equal measures, phoning in bomb-threats to conferences on men’s issues, calling for reducing men to ten percent of the population, writing articles such as “why can’t we hate men”, the Duluth-model for dealing with domestic violence, viewing men as constant perpetrators and women as chronic victims, stating that men ought to be placed in concentration camps, refusing male groups on college campuses whilst allowing for female groups, sending death-threats (amongst other things) to Erin Pizzey for daring to attempt to open a shelter for abused men after having opened the first-ever for abused women, protesting against – and getting funding withdrawn – from shelters for abused men, calling for violence to be enacted upon men, #killallmen, making it so that women by definition – by law, in fact – can not rape men, etc. etc… these are not the actions of a movement that wishes for the genders to be treated equally. It is the actions of a movement wishing for only the one voice to be heard, for only the one side to be seen, for only women – in fact – to receive any help, any laws, any systematic or institutional anything. It is, in fact, the actions of a supremacy movement and a hate-cult.
It is the actions, words and deeds of feminism.
It does not matter that the coffee-shop feminists, the useful idiots, state that “this is not my feminism” or other such stupid, dimwitted and overused lines, lies and bullshit. Nor does it matter that “those are not real feminists/that is not real feminism”. Not when the not real feminists who brandish the sword, who cut the tongues and vocal-chords of men – so to speak – are heard, are taken seriously, get their very sexist laws implemented, get to spread their hatred through university studies such as “gender studies” as well as national fucking god-damned television.
It does not matter.
As mentioned time and again: any other -ism, any other powerful movement whose thought-leaders, whose intellectuals, whose authors and word-salad-spreaders, whose ideology-propagaters, whose propagandists and pundits and public personas spread such hatred and contempt for any other group – and that is a group that is tied together by virtue of nothing but the random haphazardness of cosmic chromosomal chance – would not be embraced such as it is, would not be excused such as it is.
Not in our present-era dimly lit enlightenment where everything and nothing is deemed offensive and verboten, that is for damned sure.
Yet feminism and its hatred, contempt and attempted destruction of men and of anything masculine – excepting the masculine in women for some reason – is excused.
Constantly, chronically, sickeningly.
And those who criticize it are attacked and smeared.
Constantly, chronically, sickeningly.
Feminism can do no wrong, and those who are feminist who do wrong are not real feminists, despite that they are since feminism is not a monolith and so they are just as much a real feminist as the coffee-shop feminist, even when they aren’t. It makes no sense, but the movement, the -ism, the ideology must be protected at all costs.
Now, who among us can spell penis-envy?
It’s remarkably easy, see.
You start with a P, and work your way to Patriarchy.
Against this, it is a necessity to rebel.
Yet – rebelling against this movement, against the establishment such as it is, is a lonely path.
A very lonely path indeed.
In that regard, I suppose I am lucky. The path I have walked through life has always been a fairly lonely path… in one way or other. As such, I am very much used to being alone… separated from the whole, as it were.
If one is not used to this… it can very much be a shock to the system. Objecting to feminism – critiquing feminism – is not like objecting to or critiquing anything else. At least not in my experience. Being a feminist is the new ideological purity test. One is either in or one is out. Just about everything else can be picked apart and criticized and one can have opinions and one can object and one can do whatever and whatnot. And it does not have the same social punishments as objecting to feminism. For some strange and peculiar reason, given that women are so hated and oppressed that one should believe it would be the other way around. But, no matter – feminism have stated that it is true, and so it must be true. Otherwise, you just hate women.
Now, I get that people would want to defend their beliefs and their world-view. This is not strange, however much I may disagree with their beliefs and world-views.
However: when one is attacked for simply advocating for boys and men… when one mentions neither feminism nor women, yet still get attacked for merely showing compassion and understanding, empathy and consideration for boys and for men then one does not defend an ideology… one defends ones hatred and neglect of one group of people. In fact, one defends a societal and cultural hatred and neglect for one group of people.
When something is as engrained in our culture… as embedded, as deeply dug-in as feminism is… presented as it is as the one and the only true movement for equality, one shall be hard pressed to oppose it. For one does not wish to be perceived as being opposed to that fluctuating term – that gaseous, nebulous, ever-changing term “equality”. In fact, people do not oppose equal treatment. People wish for people to be treated equally, by and large. People are, as a whole, quite alright.
And that is all fine and good and dandy.
And so along comes feminism, claiming to be championing equality.
And people say – hey, now, hey, wow – this sounds good. I’ll get behind that – I want people to be treated equally, god-damnit.
And so it grows and so it festers, until it is taught in schools as the one and as the only. Its ideas spread like wildfire, like rot, like the uncontested truth of this day and age… political indoctrination in schools and at work… ensnaring us and dragging us in, deeper and deeper into its web and vortex, until this -ism becomes the truth, and any questioning of it an act of rebellion so grave and so terrible that social ostracising is brought upon those who question it. For no other reason than the notion that killing them for going against it would be inhumane and barbaric, and besides – we don’t need that.
Not with our new public laughing stocks; our Facebook and our Twitter and our bloody blogosphere where these undesirables can be hung out, scrutinized and vilified as the bastard woman-hating misogynists that they are, as the reactionary dangerous whatever-and-whatnots that they are.
This may sound like hyperbole.
Considering, however, that #killallmen was trending on Twitter, that the “why can’t we hate men” article was published, that Mona Eltahawy can be interviewed about her wishes to start killing men or enacting violence upon men on statefunded national television, that Julie Bindel can write about placing men in concentration camps in mainstream publications, that Jezebel can write their “ever beat up a boyfriend? Because – uh – we have” article with little to no repercussions, (Yet Paul Elam get shit for writing a satirical reply to that piece of fucking shit article) and we are not far off.
Calling for violence against men for reasons of them being men is slowly becoming normalized. This is a terrifying thing, however hyperbolic and “oh-no-I’m-just-being-edgy” they claim it to be. It is alright to hate men because they are men. Because being a man – being masculine – is something society has taught men, not something men are by nature. According to the whims of the great feminist gobble-de-gook.
This means that they can change, and so it is only hating an idea… not a sex, not a gender. Except when it is. Whatever. Internal consistency matters little. It is all according to feminism, who view men as defective women; who view the masculine as a perverted and destructive ideology that must be torn down, erased and replaced with femininity. Unless the traditional masculine traits is made manifest in a woman. Then it is empowering and shows just how many ways there are to spell Penis-envy.
Or something to that effect.
Men must learn to open up and talk about their feelings, their issues, their everything they say. And then they proceed to shame and smear, ridicule and attack the men – such as myself – who do just that.
For it is not done as they say it should be done, and so it is fragile masculinity and so it is toxic masculinity and so it is that they bathe in male tears or drink male tears, or whatever else they do that is expressions of pure contempt and hatred, effectively shaming men for doing exactly what they claim they want men to do – to talk about their problems and their issues.
The only problems and issues men can have are what feminism says that men can have; that which feminism allows men to have. That which fits their lopsided world-view.
For, ya know, a bunch of women lovingly deepthroating an ideology that have decided that men are the problem are exactly the ones I want to speak on behalf of myself, or on behalf of men in general. Muh lived experience only ever apply when it is a woman’s lived experience. A woman – particularly a feminist woman – may very well speak on behalf of men’s lived experience as if they know anything about it. A man may not, probably for reasons of not studying it in universities but living it. And that is not the same thing, god-damnit. The theoretical trumps the practical. You should damned well know this. A gender-studied theoretical feminist approach to the male experience will always matter more than the male experience.
For it is feminist, and so it is truth because feminism has decided that it is. And feminism don’t lie. Men do, and feminism don’t. Got that, bucko?
Probably for reasons of naivety on my part, I did not expect the social penalties for writing what I write to be such as they became. There is a reason for me using a pen-name and not my real name, though I admit that it is a very lack-luster attempt at anonymity. If it can even be referred to as an attempt at anonymity. I don’t want attention focused on myself for writing what I write. I want attention to be focused on that which is written. I don’t matter. The content that is produced matter. With a slight fear of reaching far too deeply into the nest of tired old clichés than what is good for me, my writings, you the audience and the power of the patriarchy, I will state it as such: it is the cause that matters. The cause.
And now, listen, look, marvel and behold as a man becomes a radical. Even when I am pretty fucking far from being a radical, boring pseudo-hermit shut-in that I am.
But, ah, you see – the mere idea, the mere notion that boys and men may face significant issues and challenges in our societies that are specific to them and should be viewed and mended and treated as the issues, problems and societal hardships of boys and men is a radical idea; the very thought that women are not the only ones who matter when looking at problems relating to sex and gender is as radical as it gets. Imagine that: gender means not only women. In fact, it includes men. How very radical a thought, indeed!
That all is not sugar and milk and honey and expensive craft-beer in the land of men is such an alien notion to our cultures that people are shocked, terrified and offended to hear it. Both men and women. Particularly so when the idea is presented that feminism is not what is needed to fix it. That feminism, in fact, may be a major contributing factor to it. Though far from being the only contributing factor.
Gasp.
Shock.
Shudder.
Shake, shiver and such.
The path less travelled is a difficult path. Going against the orthodoxy, so to speak, makes an outcast out of one. It is a path that has to be walked, though. It has to be walked, beat, cleared and widened so that people are able to find it in the wild, where the only ideas allowed and the only thoughts expressed – beat into us, as it were – are the ones that say “men bad, women good, men have it good, women have it bad. Because of men.”. The path needs better signs, is what I’m getting at.
I am sure there are plenty of people out there – both men and women – not daring to speak out against feminism, or simply in support of boys and men. For fear of the social punishments, for fear of ridicule and shame and whatever and whatnot. I did so myself for many years. A hearty and goodly “Fuck it” helps with the fear. Learning how to be alone, enjoying ones own company helps even more. The social game is a scam. It is overrated, overvalued and overdone. There are far more important things to life than social acceptance and inclusion; way better things to spend ones time on than climbing to the top of the hierarchy. Being a “loser” ain’t as bad as people claim it to be. Particularly so when being a social “loser” in a society whose current zeitgeist values, whims, whines and whinges goes contrary to that which it proposes to believe in ever-so-much; namely equal treatment and justice for all. So-called “positive discrimination” is not equal treatment. It is quite the opposite. Positive discrimination towards some is negative discrimination towards others. The others don’t matter, of course. And that’s how it is, was and ever shall be.
All the shame and ridicule; the social punishments and the labels and whatever else is flung like shit from the loving hands of monkeys just gotta be owned. The punches gotta be rolled with. Clearing a new path never was easy, and walking it at the same time requires hard work and sacrifice.
Good thing us guys are used to hard work and sacrifice, then.
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.
Obviously.
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.
Please like, share and subscribe
Moiret Allegiere, 01.02.2020
Some of the sources and resources that inspired this lengthy series of ramblings: Pastebin sources antifeminist: https://pastebin.com/XN2mj0N0
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.
Apparently.
Which is why, for example, it irks me something awful when people point to Islamic theocracies and state that “These countries need feminism!”
No.
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.
Ha.
Ha.
Ha.
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.
Auch.
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.
For decades – at least since the 70’s – the feminist hive-mind have attempted to make the private political and the political private. (As well as attempting to dictate what we may or may not do with our privates in our own homes). I am sorry to say that they have succeeded.
That is to say: as long as it is the private lives of women and the experiences of women, it has come to fruition. Granted and mind you, this only ever applies if the women and their experiences go with the fallopian flow of the feminist ideology.
Obviously.
For a woman to have experiences countering the feminist narrative is an obscenity, when seen through the myopic lenses of feminism, all strange and weird and twisted and so-and-such. Her experiences are merely her experiences, and does as such not reflect the experiences of women at large. The experience of a feminist woman, however, is the experience of every woman everywhere, since time immemorial… some strange and hitherto unknown ancestral memory… stored in the genes, probably. At some point, the scientists will discover a feminist gene. And all shall be made clear and all will be understood.
The feminist experience of womanhood applies even to those women that have not experienced it. Those that have not experienced what the feminist women have experienced are blind to this experience on account of internalized misogyny or patriarchal influence or some other divine intervention, some hypnosis forced down her throat from the grand patriarch… mind-rape and other obscenities, one more obscene than the next.
The slaves are very complacent and content, you see.
And patriarchy appears to be a kind and tolerant master.
Also, the slaves have no other choice.
Obviously.
And so, we must listen to the experiences of (feminist) women and believe whatever a (feminist) woman has to say.
Obviously.
Even if it makes no sense.
Which is even more obvious.
Obviously.
When success is reached, one must then demand more. For if there is one thing and one thing only to be said about feminism, with absolute certainty, it is this: the show must go on. In order for it to constantly perpetuate itself, it must have an enemy and a cause to fight. And so goalposts are moved and everything changes from one day to the next. So the results from the battles of yesterday which were won must now be turned on its head and fought against. The results of the victories of yesteryear must therefore become the battle of the current year.
Which amuses me something awful.
Doubting my words?
Take a look at the history of the birth-control pill. How that came to be. Then take a look at feminist women complaining about the birth-control pill in this absurd and ridiculous current year of ours.
It is almost as though these women are merely looking to complain about something for the sake of being able to complain about something. It is a very interesting observation, even if I do say so myself. Victimhood is currency. And has been so for quite some time, longer than the current oppression Olympics, that’s for damned sure.
Not that any of this matters, of course, for internal contradictions and moving goalposts within the movement don’t matter, of course. Because there are approximately seventeen billion different forms and guises of feminism, each more delicate and prone to error than the last.
Obviously.
And really fucking convenient.
Were one so inclined, one would almost start believing that this claim is a mere smokescreen; a distraction from any and all form of criticism of the serpent-cult. “Well, my dude, that’s, like, not my feminism, my dude. So I’m not, like, answerable to that.”
Like, real convenient, my dudette, real convenient indeed.
One can not argue the point either, for her experience matters more than anything else. At the very least at this moment in time and for that experience and in that particular corner of insanity. Her experience of feminism is an experience of feminism as an ultimate good. And so it must be true, and all evidence to the contrary be damned. Up to and including calls to kill all men, which is from that part of the movement which is not real feminism… either that, or it is merely a joke – just as the “male tears” mugs, t-shirts and various and sundry is naught but a joke. Which would not bother me in the least, were it not for the blatant double standard of the thing. Men have lost their jobs for less than what a feminist spew from their face-orifice every two minutes or so.
And so, in that moment – at the moment of arguing a point – feminism becomes a staunch, hardcore, brutally individualistic movement. Until, that is, her experience is to be used as an example of the experience of all women everywhere. Then it becomes one of the most collectivist movements the world has ever seen. Collectivist when it suits them, individualist when it suits them. The experiences of women always matter and must always be believed. Excepting when they don’t matter and must be dismissed. Which is, as are all things, something feminism gets to decide.
This brings an interesting point to the whiplashed head-space of this humble wordsmith: what about the experiences of men?
To which the answer is as simple as it is stupid.
The experiences of men don’t matter.
For that is just the experience of that one man.
Also, he is probably full of lies and bullshit.
Obviously.
And so we do not need to listen to the experiences of men.
Obviously.
For men trade only in lies in order to enslave and subjugate women.
Obviously.
For even when men suffer and struggle, it is all about women.
Obviously.
For men think only about women, as is the natural order of things, given that everyone only ever think about women and everything is only ever about women and the experiences of women.
Obviously.
This, I suspect, is one of the reasons why every single discussion on men and the issues predominantly affecting men are hijacked by hordes of pissed-off women, feminist or not, proclaiming in loud and snarling voices that “what about the whamens?” For nothing can be discussed or said or stated or treated or seen or viewed or thought without including women. Even if it is as simple as celebrating fathers and the work that fathers do, women must be put first and always be included. The inverse does not apply.
Obviously.
When attempted, the feminist hordes screech that this is about women and that men always hijack every conversation. So get out of here with your man-spreaded man-splained man-terruptions and various other man-so-and-suches.
Projecting again, my dear?
Even when it has got fuck all to do with women, it has to be about women. That is exactly what the feminist stormtroopers do where the concerns of men are concerned; they hijack the conversation and derail it so that it has to do with women instead of men. And all and sundry support. For women receive empathy from both men and women, whereas men do not. To a ginormous extent. This, it has to be said, leaves no room and no space and no time and no place for any discussion about the personal experiences of men. Particularly not when the feminist hordes have lied and framed it in such a way that any discussion on the experiences of men and the issues men face are an attack on women overall.
This is quite bothersome.
Obviously.
See, I am a staunch believer in making people live by their own rules. The rules have to apply to everyone equally. That would be equality, you see.
Then, it goes without saying, if one is to listen to and believe the experiences of women without question, one must also listen to and believe the experiences of men. Without question.
Which no-one does, and which even less than no-one gives a flying fuck about. Those that do care are demonized for hating women… followed by attempts to shame them into silence and oblivion. For everything has to be about women. And men be damned, doubly-cursed and thrice-neglected for being so wicked as to believe that they matter just as much as women matter.
Unless, of course, it is from the experience of a feminist man and his struggles against his trademarked TOXIC MASCULINITY. Then he is to be hoisted to high heavens and celebrated in perpetuity for speaking truth to power and un-learning his maliciously misogynistic masculine matters.
Which is to say that he bends the knee and presents his balls, shaft, neck and mind to the feminist hive-mind and their undisputed ruler, ms Queen Bee Supreme. He is still not to be trusted, of course. But at the very least he is a better man than that man over there who has, as of yet, not disavowed his masculinity, his maleness and his supreme patriarchal power.
…Supreme patriarchal power and privilege which he supposedly has, even after being divorce-raped, after losing custody of his children to a vindictive ex, after three failed suicide attempts for reasons of homelessness on account of losing his job for failing to show up after a severe depression following family-court proceedings that will put him in jail soon enough for failing to pay both alimony and child-support for children he is not allowed to see any more on account of a vindictive ex. Not that his struggles matter either, for the feminist hive-mind have done their best in convincing the world that fathers do not matter in the lives of children; only mothers do. And the rest of the “village”. Everyone, in fact, except fathers, are important in the lives of children, according to the hive-mind.
That he can not pay for reasons of losing his job is irrelevant. When he goes to jail for failure to pay, it is even more difficult to get a job.
But this does not matter, for we do not need to listen to the experiences of men, nor do we need to show any understanding for their plight. All he has to do is pay up and shut up. He is not a living, breathing human being.
He is a dead-beat dad.
Reduced to ashes.
Obviously.
Though, admittedly, he is still needed for financial support.
For he has to take responsibility.
He’s just not allowed equal responsibility in raising his children.
But this don’t matter none.
Now, for those of us who have spent some time pondering and wondering issues such as the aforementioned, we have been told that it does not happen. Women are never vindictive or wicked. When men have no contact with their children, it is only ever because they are vindictive and wicked, not the other way around. Only men have the capacity for arseholery. Women do not. They are angelic and sacred creatures, and no woman would ever refuse the father of her children to see his children. It is only ever a father who would refuse to see his children. For fathers are deadbeats. All of them. Besides, women are better caretakers and so obviously they are the ones who should have full custody of the children, and her word should be law.
Obviously.
This line of thought implies that women are not human beings. It implies that women are some morally superior entity, one step above men on the evolutionary ladder. At least in the morality department.
And this is bullshit.
Just as men can be flawed, women can be flawed. And women using their children as a shield in divorce-court is not unheard of. Far from it.
But: we do not listen to the experiences of men, nor do we believe in the experiences of men. So when stories like these are told, they are either not heard or not believed. Speaking about it brings the feminist whip-crackers out in full force, ready to whip anyone into submission by claiming that pointing this out and speaking about it implies that this is something every woman does, and that this is something men say to subjugate, enslave and abuse women. Also: it is an attack on all women everywhere, and that is the worst one could possibly do. Women are a protected class, you’ve got to understand.
If a man fights for custody of his children, it must be because he is an abuser of women. He just wants to hurt the mother. It is never the other way around.
Divorce courts are heavily biased towards the mother, towards the woman. Much for reasons of feminist lobbying. Big and powerful feminist organizations fight against equal shared child-custody, on the basis that it hurts the mother and the child for mothers are the better caretakers. And other such nonsense.
Then the same feminists will claim that it is misogynistic of the courts to assume the mother to be the better caretaker, and so it really is the fault of men – that is the patriarchy – that fathers do not get equal custody rights.
Which is very interesting, and the best case I have ever seen of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As well as dubiously implemented hypocrisy. Though, of course, it does not matter. For that is one feminism, not the true feminism.
Obviously.
And the herp did derp.
As it is known to do.
And here I sat, thinking that the best course of action would be a default 50/50 shared parenting. That would be the most equal outcome. And to get rid of alimony, of course. For that is the most preposterous stupidity; the most bass ackwards thing to still be a thing in this tainted and fragmented current year of ours. Though, as one should well be aware of by now, equality – when spoken by feminism – does not equal equality.
I doubt any changes will be made or seen, unless the experiences of men are listened to and taken seriously. This is difficult to do. Because the experiences of men are so often shooed away and neglected as being of no importance when they are not pissed away as lies, fibs and bullshit designed only to hurt women. Because everything is only ever about women. Feminism has had decades of social engineering in which they have tricked our societies into believing that all men everywhere are extraordinary privileged. This makes it even more difficult. When this has been taught in schools – taught to children – it is not easy to unlearn. It becomes a baseline belief; a foundation for their worldview.
The apex-fallacy called. It wants its straw-man back. And its logical fallacy.
The above must necessarily lead to the experiences of men not being told. Who, in their right mind, would wish to share their experiences – their deeply personal, troubling and difficult experiences – when they are either waved away as lies and bullshit, or simply ignored by just about everyone? This is often the experience of men when trying to share their experience. Dismissed out of hand and outright waved away as lies. Or, of course, painted as an attack on women.
If you have not done so already, I would recommend grabbing a copy of the wonderful book “Sons of Feminism” (https://www.amazon.com/Sons-Feminism-Men-Have-Their/dp/1775081303), edited by the equally wonderful Janice Fiamengo. This is a collection of the personal experiences of men. It is a difficult book. As well as being a very good book. It is even inspiring and uplifting in ways which I can not properly explain. It is more of a felt sensation than a tangible and easily definable sensation. At least it was for me when I first read it. It is phenomenal, and it was a brilliant idea.
That book is one of the main reasons for me doing what I do, though there are quite a few reasons more – as there always is. This one kicked me over the edge, right out of my hibernation, one could say.
I believe that, if men’s rights are ever to be taken seriously, there is a need to talk about our experiences as men. The feminist hordes wanted to make the political private and the private political.
Which is a god-damned bother, in all honesty.
I have been in opposition to this nonsense for quite some time. Yet, it is what they did. And so maybe we ought to take them on their word and turn it about – to make them live by their own rules and their own wishes. To properly show that equality means exactly that: equality in all. That is to say: equal treatment. Equal treatment would then mean that the personal experiences of men is to be granted the same treatment that the personal experiences of women is granted. If not, feminism proves itself – yet again – to be a force for anything but equality.
Men need to talk about their feelings more, they say.
Then they attack, ridicule, smear and shame when we do.
I bathe in male tears, I drink male tears.
And other such misandrist piss-pottery.
#killallmen.
Men must talk about their emotions!
I oppose the killing of all men, on the grounds that it is a disturbing thing to say and to do.
No, not like that.
#fragilemasculinity.
Can’t even take a joke, lol, masculinity so fragile that I bathe in male tears.
Well, then, ignoring for a moment or two that men do, in fact, talk about their feelings and experiences (and would do so even more, were it not for feminism dismantling any and all male-only spaces on grounds of muh discrimination), albeit in a way and in a light not accepted by the feminist brigades and their mighty state of hysteria, I propose that men do.
That we speak openly and unashamed about our experiences in the feminist culture we inhabit; in the misandrist mass-media-manipulated moronic culture of ours, where equality only ever means whatever the feminist forces of frail and fragile femininity propose that it means.
Mind you: I am not proposing that men, in general, take part in the current climate of victim-culture; the woe-is-me fuckery that all and one are so engulfed and devoured by.
Far from it.
There is more than enough of that stupidity going around. If one has been a victim of something, the best thing one can do is to get over it and stop being a victim of it. One can never overcome something if one perpetually makes oneself a victim of it. Granted; for some people, I can see where the temptation lies.
It is far easier to live a life devoid of responsibility for anything, up to and including the course ones life has taken, by merely pointing to some victimhood and stating that this – and this alone – is the core reason for them fucking up at every turn. It is, at the very least, much easier, or, well, safer, than overcoming trauma and trials and tribulations. Overcoming trauma, trials and tribulations is excruciatingly hard work. Believe you me, I know. I have a handful – or more – of traumas myself, which I have spent quite some time overcoming. Some of which I have not yet gotten over.
I refuse, however, the cape of victimhood and the dunce-hat of the victim mentality. This does not mean that my story shall never be told, my experience never shared. For there is a difference in presenting a story and painting oneself as a perpetual victim.
What I propose is not the victim-culture shenanigans, but an honest, decent, rational and not least of all truthful sharing of our experiences within the feminist culture, within the misandrist male-bashing, male-hating culture.
The truth, such as the truth is. And nothing but that.
The more stories that are told and that are shared, the more it will have to be heard, until it can no longer be ignored. Until it has to be heard. Until it has to be shared and understood that not all is milk and honey in the land of men.
That it is, in fact, quite the contrary.
That, maybe, it is about damned time to give some due consideration to the plight of men; some understanding about what men go through and some empathy to boys and to men. That is not bloody god-damned fucking painted and presented in the tainted twat-light of feminism, wherein the biggest problem men have are their masculinity – their core nature, in fact.
I tell my own experiences on occasion, though I admit to often chickening out of it. For reasons of it being dismissed and waved away so easily. That is, however, what happens every time one goes against the feminist narrative. It is dismissed. For feminism is the word of the day, the dominant ideology and the most magnificent and most malicious church there ever was; great and terrible. And it helps both men and women, despite not being about helping men, except when it is about helping men as well, which is not now, but then, or there or not now, but after, and trickling down and much mulchy.
At some point, the truth will come out and reality will present itself. One can only hope that this will happen sooner rather than later; before it is considered illegal to speak such as we in this loosely knit movement do.
Considering that “misogyny” is proposed to become illegal in Great Britain – whatever the hell that means – and considering the rise of the hate speech laws, I am frightened that it will soon be considered misogyny to merely oppose feminism; that non-feminist writings, anti-feminist activities will be considered hate-speech and so become subject to penalties. Which would not surprise me. Those that can not win through honesty will win through suppression. Suppressing the freedom of people to speak their mind – as hate-speech laws do – is exactly that. Turning “misogyny” illegal could only ever mean deeming it illegal to oppose feminism. For misogyny, as we all well know, means whatever a feminist says that it means. And this includes attacks on feminism. For feminism has turned feminism into a term that means “women”, not the ideology of feminism. Just as equality means whatever the hell a feminist says that it does in the heat of the moment, misogyny means whatever the hell a feminist says that it does in the heat of the moment.
And misandry, on the other hand, does not real and is not hateful. For if that was to be made illegal – which I do not for one second propose that it should be, except if misogyny is made illegal – feminists would not be allowed their platform of speech. For they do think about and talk about men all the bloody time, even when they claim that they don’t.
And that is that for this particular radical and rebellious ramble. I hope you enjoyed it. Join me next week, if you so please, for more of why I am an anti-feminist. It is closing in on the end for this particular series, I believe. What the future holds will be interesting, I hope.
Didn’t find the time for a drawing for this one. Please Enjoy a photo of my beard enjoying a cup of coffee.
One of the things that most confound me in this ever-lasting current year of confusing culture-wars and social justice nonsense is this willingness from women in general, whether feminist or not, to be considered victims and to consider themselves as victims.
Whatever can be held forth as an example of victimhood will be grabbed, smeared in their faces like blood and warpaint, then held forth as a supreme example of the perpetually victimized woman.
The best example of this, I believe, is the wage-gap. The feminist lie about this has been debunked over and over again.
Time and time again.
Again and again and again.
And still it is being used to justify their infantile victimhood-complex, used as proof of overt discrimination; used as an example of why feminism is still ever so sorely needed in this age of the mighty hysteria.
The truth is out there for everyone to see. The wage-gap, as feminism prefers to present it, is long since debunked. And then it is debunked again. And a third time, just for good measure.
It is, in fact, an earnings-gap.
Meaning: men work more than women, men take on more overtime, men are better negotiators than women, men take less sick-leave, men work more dangerous jobs… and so forth and so on.
There is also this pesky little factoid to contend with: it is illegal to pay someone less or more depending on their sex.
Illegal.
Which makes me wonder where all the lawsuits are. Where are all the companies going bankrupt from having to pay legal fees, being sued into oblivion, being assaulted day and night by police-forces, besieged by law and order from clearly breaking the law?
Not that this matters much, of course. For lately I have seen the feminist hordes move the goalposts ever so slightly, and apparently unseen and unnoticed, cloaked by the nights veiled satin madness. This time around, being unable to still keep the wage-gap lie going as they used to, they claim it instead to be proof that typical female professions are considered of less worth than typical male professions… further keeping the wage-gap myth going, despite it being debunked. And no evidence needed, of course. Believe women. Even when they make no sense and present no evidence but their own assumed assertions. For women have got to be victims. Otherwise, what is the bloody point of feminism?
The feminist hive-mind are well aware that the pay-gap is false. They just don’t give a fuck. Or they choose not to believe it, as victimhood just taste so damned sweet in their mouths and scatter-brained infantilism. A feminist will roar in your face, spittle and drool flying everywhere, that “Did you know that women are paid less than men? And – no – this has nothing to do with the aforementioned reasons. We are discriminated against, I promise! Fuck-face!”.
Reason!?
This!
Is!
Feminism!
Followed by a kick to the chest to send one plummeting down the morally decayed and emotionally bankrupt bottomless pit of dread feminist despair; victimizing and infantilizing the poor whamens one second of free-fall at a time.
This I can not grasp. They are well aware of the debunking. They just don’t care. They want to be discriminated against. They want to be victims.
So strong. So tough. So resilient. Nevertheless, she persisted. And all other pathetic platitudes and select sentences that say little, but sure as hell help in boosting some frail and frantic feminist egos. It sure must feel good to be constantly validated and celebrated, no matter what you do. Or don’t do. Even when just doing things you’re supposed to do. Or not supposed to do.
When this so-called discrimination has been disproved and debunked, one should believe that the feminist platoons would be well pleased with themselves. That they would pat themselves on their chubby back-fat in self-congratulatory, self-celebratory glee (as is, of course, their greatest talent) and be pleased with this lack of discrimination.
It is, however, the other way around.
They celebrate perceived discrimination.
Not lack of discrimination.
For their core reason for existing is to perpetuate feminism. If discrimination is disproven, they weep and carry on as though the discrimination is there. Can not let pesky facts get in the way of the narrative. If the narrative is disrupted, they have no reason to exist. If they have no reason to exist, they can not carry on. Then they would have to actually cultivate a personality instead of merely being a feminist.
That would be a difficult task indeed, for someone whose main goal, focus, career, belief and reason for fucking living, existing, breathing and feeling has been centred around the spiralling drain of feminism all their live-long life. It is a dangerous thing, to make an ideology such a big part of ones identity that one is adrift in the void without it.
They want to be victims. They want to be seen as both weak and helpless – in need of provision and protection – and as strong and independent – a woman needs a man as a fish needs a bicycle, after all.
And a strong, independent fish can not be expected to live long on land. They need to live in water. Take a fish out of water, and it will die. Take a feminist out of feminism; that is to say: victimhood, and she will die.
Though it is true that they don’t need a man.
They need government intervention instead of a man. Implement this law and that law and all those other laws for positive discrimination. You know: actual, written in law for all the world to see discrimination. Blanket discrimination that favours one sex over the other sex.
Then pretend and feign discrimination over this and that and all the other this’s and that’s. Roaring and screaming, snarling and gnarling and snivelling and weeping that they are ever so discriminated against for being women, despite all these laws in their favour and their favour only, so please, daddy, give us some more. For they are the meekest and the most oppressed and the strongest and the most independent all rolled into one neat sausage roll.
In the windblown wastes of Norway, we have a “law of equality”. The wording of the law says that it favours women and minorities. An odd phrasing for a law supposedly in place to guarantee equal treatment, as it clearly favours women… and minorities. Quite contrary to equality. It was proposed that the wording of the law should be altered so as to actually be equal.
You know; gender-neutral.
The feminist hive-mind protested, and so the law remains; gendered discrimination written into the law of equality that is there to work against gendered discrimination. Favouring the sex that is – for some reason – considered the oppressed and helpless sex. And so the law of equality is held forth as proof that women are oppressed… otherwise, we would not need that law to be gender-specific, now would we? Check mate, misogynists.
It is a strange patriarchy to live in, in which women are so favoured that they have special protection under law; in which their voices are heard so clear and taken so seriously that a law that is there to guarantee their privilege remain as-is. Odd as well, considering the feminist screech that everything must be gender-neutral.
Except that which favour women, of course. Which is peculiar and odd. In a society in which women are eternally oppressed and downtrodden, where men are eternally privileged and protected, it is incredibly strange to me…
Of course, the feminist hive-mind will screech and jabber that men don’t need those laws for they are written in the very foundations of our society and our culture. Unseen, but still there. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
When boys and men suffer disadvantages, we don’t need to care about that. Because girls and women suffer more. Why else would there be laws in place especially for girls and women and none for men, if girls and women did not suffer more? Check mate, foul misogynist.
Truly, we live in a society.
We exist within a world in which we have been told that all men everywhere oppress women; in which all men everywhere benefit from the oppression of women.
Now; I have had more than enough feminists scream in my face; either through the internet or in real life to really and truly wonder how – if I were so terrible an oppressor – these women would dare scream in my face as they do. Surely, if women are so scared of men as feminism claims, no woman would dare behave in that manner when facing the terrible and terrifying enemy of their mythology and legend.
When a feminist woman feels so emboldened as to personally attack me for me doing nothing but give my wife a compliment on her appearance… or chew me out for daring to be born on the 8th of March and so celebrate my birthday on the international day of the master-sex… or for referring to my girlfriend at the time as “my girlfriend” instead of using her name, I have to wonder how real that oppression is… and how deep the victimhood goes.
I can not be the only one who consider it weird that women are so terrified of men, and still feel so safe and fancy-free in our proximity that they attempt to control our speech, our behaviour and how we should not celebrate our birthday when it happens to fall on the same day as the international day of the Aryan sex… because celebrating my birthday on the day of my birth distracts from the celebration of women, when those two days just so happen to be the same. Because of course it does.
Alas, for women, there is currency in victimhood. Because people in power will listen to women in distress. As will everyone else, for that matter. There is a need – deeply rooted – within all of humanity to protect women. Now, this protection will be different depending on culture and time and place and whatever. It is still there, however. Women are to be sheltered and saved from this and from that, from tit and from tat and from arse and legs. Biologically, women are more important than men. And men are not as important as women. Women and children first; and to hell with the men… and the boys.
On the Titanic, boys over the age of eight was considered to be men, and so, potentially, left behind to die. (Dr. Charles Pellegrino, “Her Name, Titanic” McGraw-Hills Publishing Company, 1988) So that adult women should survive. How terribly oppressed; how very much treated like chattel when their right to live is greater than that of 8 year old boys!
I would consider being allowed to live where others are expected to die – in fact, to sacrifice their lives for me – a severe privilege. But what the hell do I know, here I sit close-to-weeping after reading an account of a ten year old boy left behind on the Titanic to die; basking in the glow of his eternal male privilege and all the accumulated wealth of his life-time of oppression.
All ten years of it.
Muh patriarchy hurts men too. Because of course it bloody does. Everything must be blamed on men.
I see precious few feminists complaining about “women and children first”, and other very clear female privileges… unless they are able to paint that as women being victimized, of course. Which they will. Though, they will still be reluctant to change it.
One can not take anything away from women, you know. You can only give to women, of course and as expected.
Particularly so when that which is given is taken from men. For men deserve nothing, but to give.
I may sound hyperbolic. But I struggle to see anything but that in situations where men – and young boys – are expected to give their lives so that women shall survive.
That is an extreme example, of course, and I will freely admit to that. It still holds true, however.
We must have so-and-such percentage of women in leadership, and we must have this-and-that percentage of women in this field of study or in that field of study. And on. And on. Talent and merit matters not; only sex. And skin-colour. And other such superficial things. But mainly sex. Because women matter more than anything else.
Women, first and foremost, must be protected from their own choices. But only if they identify as feminist.
I remember the Las Vegas Shooting of 2017, which prompted discussions from feminism on Toxic Masculinity and male violence and all that other stuff which one has come to expect from those who celebrate every single tragedy of this nature for reasons of being able to push their narrative… standing on the corpses of the victims to propagate their political platitudes and say, in voices loud as thunder, that there is something wrong with men.
Remember: it is only a mental health issue when women do something wrong.
Though, of course, considering that masculinity for bullshit-reasons is considered a pathology, one could make the claim that discussions on how terrible men are is a discussion on mental health. This assumes, of course, that one agrees with “traditional masculinity” being presented as a pathology. Which one has to suffer the psychopathology of feminism to agree with.
I remember reading about one young man – a Jonathan Smith, age 30 – who saved about 30 people during the Las Vegas shooting, through his bravery. As a reward for his courage, he got shot in the neck and will, with all likelihood, live with the bullet lodged in his neck for the rest of his life. If that is not enough of a reward for his self-sacrifice, he will also have to live with hearing people blame masculinity, blame men and – by extension himself – for what happened that night. Sweeping generalizations about men and the wickedness of men are par for the course; part and parcel of living in the end-days of western civilization.
Honk, Honk.
There are no sweeping generalizations about the kindness of men; the capacity men have for self-sacrifice, the protective nature of men, and so forth and so on. People have attempted.
Yet, oddly enough, every time someone brings forth the kindness and goodness of men in general, they are attacked for neglecting women… for discriminating against women, for not mentioning the achievements of women. And men are attacked for being violent, being rapists, being this and being that. For one can not say a single word of good about men. Men are obsolete, remember. There is only one sex, and that sex is female.
If anything good is said about men in general, women – whether blatantly feminist or not – will scream victimhood and demand women be included in what is said. For women are victims of someone saying something good about men. Women are victims by not being catered to all the time, by not being celebrated constantly.
It is rage-inducing.
It strikes me as weird, wacky, self-indulgent and incredibly egotistical.
There is no room in our societies to celebrate men. There is only room to celebrate women. There is no room in our societies to harbour empathy for men; all empathy must go to women, all celebration, all everything.
Otherwise; the feminist hordes will screech and writhe in agony.
For anything positive said about men is like kryptonite to a feminist; a most potent allergen. She will break out in hives and in anxious sweat; she will break out in asthmatic fits of rage and wrath and ruin. Then she will cry and weep and demand that women be celebrated and men be neglected. For men have had it all for all time.
And that is true.
Men have had all the ridicule, all the shame, all the self-sacrifice, all the deaths, all the violence, all the neglect, all the abuse our societies could ever willingly lay on the shoulders of an identity group for decades.
And not a damned thing is done about this. For trying to do anything about it further cements, in the minds and eyes and claws and teeth of feminism, the oppression and neglect of women and the so-called constant celebration of men.
Even when men are vilified and made to look like some parody of a James Bond villain… over-the-top and ridiculous. Even when masculinity itself is smeared as something destructive and dark and dangerous, something pathological that must be un-learned and done away with. Men can not be victims. Even when we are victims. For even then, men shall be vilified. For pointing this out means we hate women; that we suffer and struggle from both fragile masculinity and toxic masculinity. And all is wrong with men, and in the world of men there is nothing correct, nothing right, nothing good and proper and true.
And this is also true.
Because feminism has seen to it that nothing shall be good, proper and true in the world of men through refusing men to speak on men’s behalf, through refusing the world to celebrate men and masculinity.
And that is that for this ramble; it was a good vacation and a very good Christmas. And now I struggle to get back into the habit of writing every day since I allowed myself to be a bit of a lazy bastard for two weeks. Oh well; I shall regain my composure and my insane and nimble fingers to wag my tongue at insanity once again. Join me next week, if you please, for more rants, ravings, writings and ramblings.
Moiret Allegiere 