The Forced futility of Male-only Spaces

Dreams of solitude A3 lowres

Illustration: «Dreams of Solitude», A3, Moiret Allegiere, 2019


At the moment of writing this, I am in the process of quitting cigarettes for the umpteenth time. I might admit to being a bit testy. Maybe even slightly grumpy. In particular since previous attempts at quitting cigarettes have only ever lasted until the sun comes out and I have a beer or a glass of wine outside in said sun. It seems such a futile task; a week of withdrawals and weird bodily sensations to be broken so easily by the weak and flimsy will of someone who really fucking enjoys his tobacco and his booze. Preferably at the same time.

Do not expect anything but pure, unflattering grump today.

The seeming futility of the thing is, obviously and clearly, a deep-seated longing within myself to keep smoking cigarettes, the clear fact of the matter being that I do not want to quit – I have to quit, for reasons of health and of economy.

Both of which can kindly go fuck themselves as my entire brain and body screams out for cigarettes in a longing and drawn-out howl. If anything, my subconscious is very talented at telling me exactly what I don’t need and is marvellously skilled at rationalizing exactly why I need what I don’t need. In this case it is cigarettes, which have been a steady friend since I was thirteen years old, broken only now and then by some lovingly implemented absence.

Don’t worry, cigs, I’ll come crawling back to worship at your feet and inhale your divine essence once again!

This is the sensation of futility at play; the mind-numbing and reality-twisting mental gymnastics skipping about within this rambling psyche and incoherent subconscious of mine.

Now, of course, this is a very defeatist attitude. Seeing as I am aware of it with all my nicotine-craving madness and silly pop-psycho-babbling nimble fingers, I think it is more a case of not wanting to admit to myself that I really do like cigarettes. Not need, as much as like.

So, why this ham-fisted introduction; this personal non-issue presenting itself as some cleverly forged introduction to the ramble at hand?

One word.


Well, two words, really.

Forced futility.

See, lately I have been thinking about male-only and female-only spaces, and the necessity of both. There should be nothing wrong with having a chosen space for only women and a chosen space for only men, where women are free to act as women amongst women and men are free to act as men amongst men. There is a need within all of us to be around like-minded people, and despite all being individuals, the common man will have more in common with a fellow common man than he will with a common woman, and vice versa.

Gender being the great state-sanctioned divider that it is, by the grace and whimsical will of feminism, men will almost always alter their behaviour in the presence of a woman. The great primal force of sexual competition at display; a biological drive and need to impress a prospective mate, whether or not one is already tied down with another mate. Male primacy at display; the hierarchy in full fucking force. There is nothing wrong with this. Nor is there anything good with this. It is what it is, and that is all that it is. Just as oestrogen and testosterone are neither good nor bad, it merely is what it is and that is all there is to this.

This behaviour, I am fairly certain, is something most people are not aware of. Not consciously. It just happens, laid down with pile-driving force after aeons of sexual selection.

Now, to be perfectly honest: I believe women to be more aware of this tender fact than men are. I also believe that they tend to use it to their advantage more often than not. Considering the fact that women are the gatekeepers of procreation and the ones who do the sexual selection, being more biologically important and far less disposable than the male of the species, it really is no wonder.

There is always this drive from the forces of feminist fury and frivolous freak-outs for male-only spaces to be shut down; to have their doors opened so that women shall, must and need enter.

The justification for this is, as it always fucking is, some pretence of horrid and foul sexism and discriminatory behaviour from men in the general direction of anyone with a pair of tits and ovaries. It is the most obnoxious ghost of patriarchy-present besmirching the hallowed name of gender-inclusivity!

On the other hand: female-only spaces are quite alright to the ruptured mind and not-all-there psyche of the feminist. Because women, being the frail and delicate flowers that they are, need their safe-spaces away from men where they are allowed to be women in the vicinity of other women and just do what women do around other women. This demand for a space free from men is driven by a word, fluctuating and wildly incoherent; “Equality”.

Under the preposterous pretence of equality between the sexes, one sex is not allowed a space for only that sex and one sex is allowed a space for only that sex. Because women must be safe from men. And men don’t need to be safe from women. Men pose a threat. Women are only sugar and spice and everything nice.

Well, then, if men pose this horrid and trite threat towards women, why is it then so important for women to enter male-only spaces?

One should, were there any semblance of logic in this vile pit of hate and misandry that is the feminist cauldron of nonsense and gibberish, believe that women would shy away from male-only spaces instead of forcing the doors wide open for women, under the shamelessly derivative word “discrimination”.

Women are so scared and terrified of men that they need a space for only women to be safe from men. At the same time, being so terrified of men, they need to be included into spaces where there is only men. One assumes, to combat their own ridiculous pathological anxiety.

Have you learned nothing, young apprentice? There must always be women present so as to make certain and make sure that men do not have too much fun. Men can not behave properly unless they are under the strict supervision of a woman. Preferably a feminist woman, to make sure that the joyous cavorting do not get too joyous or out of hand. There is, to be sure and to be certain, only a thin line separating male camaraderie from the re-implementation of patriarchy-past.

This is seen, time and again.

Over the course of the last decade or so, as “nerd-culture” has become mainstream and kinda hip and cool and oh so trendy; hobbies that tended to be largely tended to by men suddenly got an influx of women being interested in it. From the trendiness of it all. This is not an issue in and off itself, as these hobbies have never been men-only spaces.

They have, however, been predominantly male.

The issues arise when women enter these hobbies and expect to be catered to and expect the men therein to alter their behaviour so as not to offend her delicate sensibilities.

That is some grade-A level entitlement right there.

Imagine being so conceited, so entitled, as to enter a space and demand to be catered to by the ones being in that space from the very beginning.

Imagine being so far up ones own ass that one demands that ones mere presence in this space will alter that space to fit ones own needs, and then not considering this as pure, shameless and unfiltered egotistical selfishness!

There have always been women in these hobbies, for sure. After the main-streaming and hip-and-trendy image of nerd-culture laid upon the pimpled ass-cheeks of the world its highly constructed counter-culture convenience, however, these women seem to have been forgotten by the ones who came after, riding the tail of the trend and wanting inclusivity for the sake of inclusivity; demanding altered behaviour from those who tinkered with these hobbies for years and years. The women who were there for the sake of being there and dabbling in this hobby did just that – they dabbled in this hobby. Gender did not matter. What a whimsical thought, no? That gender don’t matter none, but ones interest in this hobby.

Now – the reason I am bringing this up, despite it never being a male-only space, merely primarily male, is for the similarities between the behaviours seen with the influx of women into nerd-culture as it became trendy and mainstream, and what happens when male-only spaces are deemed discriminatory and forced to open their doors to women. I could probably digress a bit here and point out that, even when a space is not male-only, but occupied by mostly males, it is painted as discriminatory towards women solely for being mostly male. Because men and women don’t have different interests, of course. And more men than women must necessarily mean discrimination from the horrid men therein, being pawns of the patriarchy and foot-soldiers of female oppression.

…Because admitting to different interests might just also be admitting that there are differences in the male and female brain leading to differences in both interests and in outcome. And we can’t have that, since all and one are tabula rasa and that is all they are. Therefore, it must be discrimination. And when it is discrimination, women are free to do whatever they wish within this space so as to end the discrimination, never-minding and no-mattering both the men and the women who co-inhabited that space from the beginning, paying no heed to the fact that it was predominantly male because the understanding is that it was the fucking interest in the god-damned hobbies that started the space in the first fucking place.

And so, in spaces designated to be, by choice and by design, male-only spaces, women will enter, men will alter their behaviour – or be forced to alter their behaviour – and the entire place will fall straight on its face as the woman expects to be catered to. Even if she is the sole woman there.

Her delicate sensibilities goes above all, and merely the whispered word “cunt” – not aimed at her, but being a part of the male-hazing-male-bonding ritual could have serious ramification as this delicate flower might take offence to it. Men acting like men do in the presence of other men, is frowned upon.

A woman might take offence, boys, so change this at once.

There is more to it than that, of course. The simple fact of the matter is that men open up to other men when men do things together.

Men also have this beautiful and remarkable ability to be together in silence, doing something, enjoying each others company, and finding solace in the fact that they are there together.

No words need to be spoken. There is just an understanding there, something that can only be shared and understood by men being men together.

Men tend to share their concerns, their lives, their fears, their trials and tribulations, when men do things together. That is when and how men open up to each-other, and it is through this we find solace in each-other. Men stand shoulder to shoulder with their friends, and eye-to-eye with their enemies, as the saying goes.

This is not to be understood as anything but men standing side by side, doing something together and, in standing shoulder to shoulder, not having to watch the other for fear of an attack. It is trust. And when there is this trust, men open up. Or they don’t, knowing that this trust is there, this mutual love, honour and protection, is there and is something to take solace in and be comforted by. Sometimes, there just is no need for words.

Something women, in particular feminist women, don’t seem to understand, painting this as a sign of toxic masculinity when it is quite the contrary – it is self-assured and mutually recognized safety; a bond that goes incredibly deep and a trust that goes beyond mere words.

If women are so determined to enter a male-only space, one should expect that she was interested in what goes on in there. One should think that she would be interested in partaking. She should not, then, expect altered behaviour and altered this-or-that to suit her needs and her temperament, surely? for instance, take a look at the men’s shed in Australia, which of course have their doors opened to women, and see what’s going down.

I would dare propose that it is up to men to not alter their behaviour; the onus is on men to act like men do in these spaces, and not fall for this demand for altered behaviour. It stands to reason that, if women want to enter male-only spaces, then they should submit to the rules therein, instead of demanding they be changed and altered for reasons of her being there.

Clearly; it is easierto just keep male-only spaces male-only and female-only spaces female-only. This would be the best for both. When the demands are there to open the doors for women, however, I see no reason why men should alter their behaviour to impress and protect the women entering. Of course, blue-pilled and stupid as we men tend to be, the woman has to be protected. And so her word has to be law, even if she is in a space meant to be a space where men can be men together with other men and not having to think about impressing some woman or other.

And, in thinking and in doing what we do, there is no room to share these weaknesses, these fears and flaws and trials and tribulations of ours with the other men in these spaces, because being seen as weak by a woman means that we are flawed, that our genetic material is not good enough for procreational fun and fancy. This biological need to prove ourselves is what makes the divisive drivel of feminism so powerful, so untouchable, I think: men must protect women, and time and again we must prove that we are able to protect women. And so we must cater to every whim and fancy of feminism. Otherwise, we are weak, we are not protectors.

Might it just be another feminist power-ploy, a demand for the eradication of everything masculine whilst demanding a celebration of all things feminine? Even when playing on the traditionally feminine and the traditionally masculine? Women are so strong and powerful and brave and heroic that they can not be in a room with men being men without shaking and trembling in horrified anxiety; without men having to stop being men for fear of ruffling her feathers!

Oh, see here, boys, this place could surely use a woman’s touch.

And there lies the beating heart of it all, this forced futility, this nonsense.

Feminist demand the dismantling of male-only spaces → the male-only spaces are dismantled, women are allowed in → feminist demands the men alter their behaviour as it is a scary place for a woman → men complain, are not heard, then start leaving → the space is now a feminist space, men complain, are told they can start their own space → men start their own space → feminist demand the dismantling of male-only spaces. Repeat ad infinitum.

That is the futility of it all; there is not only a call to dismantle male-only spaces and allow women to enter – the space must also conform to the feminist orthodoxy, or be labelled a toxic place for women in need of all manners of interventions and calls for men to check their privilege and think about how their behaviour impact the women in these spaces. Men are morally inferior to women, and so need moral guidance from the women when they are in a space that used to be their own.

Now, of course, the blatant double-standard of the thing is bad enough; the allowance of female-only spaces and the dis-allowance of male-only spaces. Discrimination based on sex is quite alright, as long as it is women doing it; saying that women need their own space because they are scared of men is quite alright, even when it paints all men in a negative light and all women in a positive light. And that is where it gets even worse than the fucking double-standards: a completely obvious, out-in-the-open hatred of, and shaming of, men for being men is quite alright. But don’t you dare say that men need a space where there are only men – because that is hating women, even when women are not mentioned.

Men just wanting to hang around other men without having to be shamed, hated and vilified for being men is deemed as discriminatory towards women. Because, for some strange and mystical reason understood only by the clinically insane holders of the esoteric and occult wisdom of feminism, everything has to be about women.

Even when it is about men and not women.

 – Please like, share and subscribe

 – Moiret Allegiere, 15.05.2019


Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):





Stating the Obvious and Finding God in my Coffee: a ramble on the double-speak of feminism.

You find god I fix coffee lowres A3

Illustration: «You go and find God, And I’ll make some Coffee», A3, Moiret Allegiere, 2019. 



There are those of us who, the day after one too many bottles of nefarious homebrew of dubious alcohol content, tend to find that the eternal quest for God begins and ends with the first cup of coffee in the morning. Of course, finding God in such a way also means that faith in humanity and in the world in general is restored as a sensation of pure, harmonious ecstasy courses through our veins with that first jolt of caffeine in the morning kick-starting the central nervous system.

The sensation of ecstasy and faith in humanity is short-lived, however, and tends to disappear quicker than a geriatric erection the moment one enters the realm of chaos and despair also known as Twitter.

Within this realm of eternal punishment, we find the banished souls, the lost souls, doomed to an eternity of anger and misinformed rage, perpetually tormented by their lack of cogent arguments and their ability to spout only barely coherent rhetoric which, when disproven and disassembled by the angels of salvation come to save their shattered souls from the realm of doom and gloom, either block, insult or carry on with their gooble-de-gook gibberish passed down from the top layers of the stinking pleghm-soup that is online feminist doctrine.

The lost souls are truly lost. The cage within which they live is a cage they built around themselves; a cage whose bars and lock-and-key keep them safely and securely trapped in the fantastically woven web of pesudo-knowledge that tells them that they are not responsible in the slightest for anything wrong in their lives, as they have no control over their lives because they are, in one way or other, oppressed, shackled and chained by the might of the all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent Godhead patriarchy; crushed and smashed and destroyed beneath its thumb and glaring cock-and-balls. A set of ideas telling them constantly two definite truths: you are powerless, and in being powerless, you can do no wrong. To such an extent that any opposition they meet can be countered with the single, simple and conversation-destroying phrase “Blah!”.

One would believe, of course, that any movement designed – as they claim – to eradicate injustice and inequalities would be pleased – immensely so – by clear and concise evidence that their inequalities ain’t there, that they ain’t all they are cracked up to be. One would be inclined to believe that this would mean that they had won, and that their brave warriors of virtue and grace and morality, their knights and sacrificial storm-troopers, would be pleased to know that they have one less battle to fight.

This is not the case.

Of course it is not.


Feminism is a self-fulfilling prophecy, prophetizing oppression then manufacturing it in order to keep itself going, in order to be necessary and in order to make both a profit and a prophet. Because feminism is big fucking business, big fucking busyness, big fucking busybodies poking their noses and claw-like fingernails into every facet of life, the universe and everything and dedicating their time and sole purpose to dictate, manipulate and govern the lives of others. Or attempt to do so. Often in minute detail. Forget personal freedom, personal responsibility and personal choice. These disappear when faced with the might of the feminist machine, all greased cogs and microswitches. Wanna be a housewife? You are betraying the sisterhood. Wanna be a stripper? You are betraying the sisterhood. Wanna do something that goes against the holy tenets of feminism? You are betraying the sisterhood. And as such, are a gender traitor, a female uncle Tom and – obviously – brainwashed by the flimsy structural integrity of the Patriarchy. Because women thinking for themselves instead of having feminism think for them are clearly in the wrong, and must bow down to and submit to their superiors who wish them nothing but the best, as long as what is their best falls in line with the orthodoxy of feminism.

There is enormous amounts of social control, power and coercion in presenting oneself as a weak and powerless victim of circumstance; a poor and pitiful damsel in distress much in need of being saved. The virgin, as it were, being saved from the dragons den by a knight in shining and shimmering armour whose sense of self and sense of value lies only in his willingness and his ability to sacrifice himself so she shall be saved; whose only value to society lies in his willingness to risk his life and his limbs and his livelihood and thus meet the criteria needed to be rewarded the social bribes and goodies that comes from his supposed privileged position.

Please, men, save us from the other men.”, they whisper, with trembling lips and quivering hips, “you, sir knight, are surely slightly less trash than other men. Please take this token as a reward for your somewhat goodliness and slightly kind-heartedness. Would the mere and slight possibility of a whiff of my panties be a fitting reward, perhaps and perchance?”

Now, from what I have gathered, men are hard-wired to prove themselves worthy. Men want to be seen as capable, strong, brave, heroic, able and willing to sacrifice themselves and their lives – if need be – for the betterment of the tribe. If my understanding is correct – and I admit absolutely to not having delved into this completely; it is a relatively new topic of research for me – this is biologically hard-wired. The provide-and-protect role rises up from the murky past of protoplasmic ooze and the hazy mist of history, flowing elegantly and fantastically through aeons and stemming from times and places of far more harshness and difficulty of life than here-and-now; shades of history which can not be viewed or understood through the lenses of our very safe, secure lives of abundance and – comparatively – wealth. Things that, quite simply, were done out of necessity back in the beginning of our ascent to the status of domesticated primates, can not be viewed through a modern lens of morality, equality or justice. It was a whole other state of being, a whole other state of life, a whole other pleghm-soup in which to swim, or to sink and drown.

It is this hard-wired desire to provide and to protect which the feminist hive-mind manipulate so efficiently and wonderfully. A role of provider and protector which, in times past, at least may have granted men some respect and gratitude, but which now grant men nothing but scorn, ridicule, shame and abuse. Even when called upon to still fulfil this role by the same powers that shame men for fulfilling this role. Double-bind and gobble-de-gook from feminists, elegantly and brilliantly swinging from the vines of their jungle of manufactured outrage and perpetually self-fulfilling prophecy.

My writings are part of this self-fulfilling prophecy, in their circular reasoning as to why feminism is still needed; any objection to this hateful ideology of bile and stupidity is all the proof they need as to why feminism is still needed.

Strange, however, that this line of reasoning do not extend to the men’s rights movement. One would believe that, as much ridicule, shame and vile abuse that the men’s rights movement get handed from all of society, this is – by their logic – evidence that we surely need a movement for men and the human rights of men. Alas, it is not.

The pendulum of equality must ever and always swing only one way. And that way is towards the greater good for women, which is to say the greater good for feminism. Because, as stated time and again: feminism does not equal women. Women do not equal feminism. Feminism is an ideology. Women are not. Though women may, on a surface level, benefit from feminism, it should be clear to anyone that women do not benefit from feminism, if one but scratches the surface of the thing.

I would not accept any ideology purporting to speak on behalf of me who did nothing but paint me as a weak, powerless and helpless victim unable to speak on behalf of myself, and thus in need of this ideology to speak on behalf of me. I could not, for many years, fathom why so many women put up with this absurd ideology claiming to speak on behalf of them and their best interests.

Then it dawned on me: there is immense social power for women to be portrayed, or to portray themselves as weak, helpless, powerless, oppressed. Because there is no lack of men jumping into the fray to help them, to save them, to be their knight in shining armour and to bend the knee for the slightest possibility to be granted a chance to procreate. There is no lack of men wanting to prove that they are, in fact, not like other men. That is to say: not like what she perceives or projects other men to be like.

In all our intelligence, in all our wit and all our wonder and our splendour, humanity has forgotten one basic fact: we are mere animals. We, just as any other animal, are driven in no small way by instincts and by biology. And one of the greatest drives we have in common with all animals is the drive, the need, the urge to procreate, to carry the species onwards into the wild and weird and wacky wonder of the future!

For as much as feminism claims to eradicate the traditional gender-roles, they sure as all hell like to play and prey upon them. The eradication of gender-roles only goes so far, it seems. At a certain point, the light is bent and the light twists and turns and reaches peak enlightenment; returning, oddly enough, to the beginning of time and of life, where women are in need of protection and where men need to protect. Where women are strong and beautiful, gracious and the pinnacle of morality, and men are frail and weak and fragile, toxic and primitive, barely cogent in their guttural roars and driven solely by their desire for sex when they are not busy oppressing the very ones who call upon them to save them from men and from society et all! Feminism is maddening in its constant double-speak. In its lack of values when claiming to hold all the values. In its hate and bile and arrogance, in its totalitarianism.

And it is totalitarian.

It is incredibly totalitarian, in fact.

Any ideology demanding to be the only ideology to speak on behalf of this or of that is totalitarian. You are either with feminism, or you are opposed to equality. You are either with feminism, or you hate women. You are either a catholic, or you are a bad person. You are either part of the communist party, or you are an enemy of the state. There is no in-between, no other view and no other voice capable of speaking on gender and the issues of gender. Only feminism, and nothing more. Quoth the hive-mind: “misogyny”. And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor…

Some years back, prior to me awakening to all this gobble-de-gook and snoot-wafflery that is feminist dogma, I had a discussion with a feminist. Now, I love music and so the discussion was on music. I mentioned some of my – at that time – favourite musicians, who all happened to be male. Her response was, of course and as one would expect: “What, don’t you have any female favourites?” To which I replied, listing quite a few of my favourite female musicians; Patti Smith, Janis Joplin, Nina Hagen, Joni Mitchell, and more. Now disarmed, seemingly unable to attack my horrid misogyny based on the simple fact that I had quite a few female musicians on repeated rotation in my listening sessions, but apparently still longing to claim female victimhood, she replied with “any normal female favourites?” My favourites were not normal women, apparently, and as such not good enough to be included in the list of female musicians deemed appropriate listening for such a foul male as myself. Evidently, the longing for victim-points for a feminist overshadows and over-rules any evidence to the contrary. If there is no evidence of wilful refusal to listen to music made by women, evidence must be created that I wilfully chose to not listen to music by women. By painting said women as being not normal women, whatever the hell that means. And, of course, does this not make the position of the feminist worse than what she perceived my trespasses on equality to be?

Then there is this claim by the feminist orthodoxy that gender does not matter. Why then, prey tell, does it matter the gender of my favourite musicians? Had I only listened to male musicians it should matter or not matter just as much as if I had only listened to female musicians. Of course, what the feminist hive-mind say and what the feminist hive-mind do are on opposing poles; as bipolar as the fluctuating Norwegian spring.

Picture now, a man, asking a woman listening solely to female musicians if she listens to any male musicians at all. If the answer is no, she is empowered and she is empowering other women. If you get an answer at all. The probable, and, to be honest, only reply worth anything to such absurd and downright stupid questions should always be: “Does it even fucking matter, you twit?” I can not for the life of me picture the reasoning behind making gender a factor in what art or culture one enjoys. If one enjoys it, one should enjoy it, despite such obvious arbitrary factors as the gender of the artist! And other people would do well to not try and shame someone for what music or art they enjoy or do not enjoy based on the same. Just keep your fucking, snivelling busy-body snoots out of other peoples hobbies and interests and lives. Why, in the name of all that is holy, is this so incredibly difficult to comprehend? Why is it so incredibly important to seek control over the doings and goings and hobbies of others? Let be, and let others let you be.

Gender does not matter”, they scream and roar and screech and rage. “Except when it does. And when it does, it is when we decide that it does.” And they decide that it does whenever they spot an opportunity to win powerful victim-points, and thereby be granted protection and provision by portraying themselves as weak, frail, powerless yet strong, brave, powerful all at the same time, in the infinitesimal and infinite loop of feminist gobble-de-gook.

It is, in all honesty, incredibly clever. Very cunning, very sly and very – very – manipulative. If gender does not matter, they should cease harping on and on about the wickedness of men and the saintliness of women. If they should start thinking the way someone who actually considers the genders to be equal, and as such treats them equally does, they would come to the realisation that victim does not have a gender just as victimizer does not have a gender. They would come to the realisation that shitty people do shitty things, and that this should be treated as shitty people doing shitty things, not as a gender doing this and the other gender doing that. They would come to the stark realisation that humanity is composed of individuals, each one as complex as the next, and that any shitty behaviour should – first and foremost – be treated as the shitty behaviour of that individual, disregarding gender in both the judgement of and subsequent punishment of said shitty person exhibiting said shitty behaviour.

This is not, of course, to say that one should not look to statistics and consider groups more at risk for this or for that, or more at risk for doing this or for doing that.

This is of course a helpful tool. The problem arises when the simplistic black-and-white thinking of feminism points to these statistics, see more men than women doing bad and then pointing to this as proof that there is something wrong with men, disregarding, in the process of assaulting masculinity, other factors and variables contributing to this. Such as parental alienation, childhood neglect, childhood abuse, culture and so forth and so on, as well as disregarding the inherent biological differences in the male and female brain, making us very different creatures in how we cope with difficulties, in how we cope with trauma and in how we cope with life.

Now, we could probably get into skewed statistics, into ideologically driven and, as such, biased research. We could get into the fact that there are more options and more empathy available to women who fall outside of society, or the very gendered approach to therapy and on and on. I think, however, that this would cause this ramble to be longer than anyone would be willing to listen, or to read, so I’ll leave that topic for another time and another place. Suffice it to say that feminism crafts the world in very simplistic ways, seeing only black and only white, with no room for nuance and no room for opinions or facts that go contrary to their holy dogma. And that they package their dogma and their doctrine in language designed to sound intelligent, to sound complex and nuanced, but that it boils down, at the end of the day, to: men bad, women good, presented in the dissonant and convoluted monochromatic language of the feminist jungle where madness and gibberish intersect.

I have found it very interesting, over the course of the past two years or so, to view the difference in reaction to violence perpetrated by women and violence perpetrated by men. In particular domestic violence in heterosexual relationships. All I can say to this is quite simple; for all their talk that gender does not matter… for all their talk that there are no differences between the genders… the feminist hive-mind are sure as all hell willing to let a woman abusing her partner get off scot-free by claiming differences in strength and in size. By stating, quite emphatically, that gender matters. Of course, this goes for all of society. Considering, however, that feminism is supposed to be the force fighting for equality, I find it more than fitting to drag them out of the shadows and to put them front and centre in this travesty. Where are your calls for equal treatment of the genders when women are perpetrators of domestic violence? A hushed silence envelopes the room. A strange cobweb floats from the ceiling. The silence becomes profound, then broken by a whispered voice vibrating, as if scared, trembling and childlike: “it is different when it is a man being violent.”, the voice, barely a whisper, continues: “She probably defended herself against him, violent brute that he is by virtue of being male. See how innocent and frail she looks. Do you not wish to protect her?”

If gender does not matter, in the frail and fragile philosophy of feminism, surely it should not matter in all areas of life? Because it looks to me as though it sure as all hell matters when women are perpetrators of violence, and men are the victims.

Just your standard double-speak, your virulent serpent tongue, your fantastical notions of equality standardized to mean protection of women, privileges to women, provisions and pampering to women at the behest of men, even when men are victims and women are perpetrators. Because when men are victims at the hands of women, they must have done something. Victim-blaming to hell and high heavens; normalizing and trivializing the suffering of men to shine a spotlight on the suffering of women and only women, even when that suffering is only suffering as perceived by feminism in the choice of a woman to be a stay-at-home-mom or a housewife, or any other choice which the feminist gobble-de-gook decides is not a proper choice for a woman. Because women should be free to choose. But if they choose something feminism disapproves of, they have no choice in the matter and must therefore be shamed and forced to submit to the feminist army, gathering under a banner that tells women that they may choose as they wish, as long as they choose what feminism decided is their choice. And don’t any of you silly, stupid, uneducated women dare protest the choices made for you. Because feminism knows what is best for you. Surely, this is a deity under whose loving embrace we shall all be smothered to death in the name of love and of compassion and of justice for all!

And I can ramble and we can object and we can protest and we can wish as much as we wish to wish to see a change or see actual equal treatment come shining through the broken remnants of our societies; we can hope for this or for that and we can write angry letters to empty-headed politicians more interested in their own careers than they are in the people they are supposed to represent.

We can, and we must.

But what is more important, I think, I believe, I honestly feel with all my heart and gut and balls, is for men and women alike to reject this perplexing victim-hood narrative, to not be suckered in by the preying upon our very natures so eloquently utilized as a weapon by the feminist machine; to consider women as human beings just as we would consider men to be, to hold both to equal standards of responsibility and individuality, to stop the either-or thinking the feminist claptrap have suckered us into, to respect the personal choices and personal autonomy of both men and women and protect – or not protect – both equally. To consider the very simple fact that if the feminist bullshittery considers it proper conduct to label all men as trash, then they should also consider it proper conduct to label all women as trash. After all, that would be treating the genders equally. Hold these pestilent bastards to their own standards, and watch their paper-castles crumble as they realise that their mental gymnastics can only go so far when more and more people wake up to the fact that what we have been presented with for decades as the one true voice of equality is nothing more than yet another totalitarian ideology seeking supremacy for one segment and one segment only of the population, and then only if this one segment of the population falls in line with the orthodoxy of the party.

Just as I tend to find God in my morning-coffee, I tend to find hope in the fact that more and more people are waking up to the hogwash of feminism. More people are rejecting it, even if it doesn’t seem that way in my darkest moments and in my darkest dreams. The very simple fact of the matter, I think, is that feminism is our greatest ally when it comes to making people wake up to its double-plus-good doublespeak. Because the more these horrid harpies squeak and squawk on prime-time television, or in newspapers or on the wide whimsical wondrous world of the internet, the more people will see that their actions and the dictionary definition, to which they always point when faced with backlash, do not align. That, for all their squawk and squeak of “muh equality”, their actions and their vitriolic, unhampered, uncontrolled and unchecked rage and pure, radiant hatred of men as a group and masculinity as a whole, shine through their garbled word-salad masquerading as a quest for equality. People can only be fooled for so long, before they say – to borrow a legendary phrase from an equally legendary song from a legendary band: “We won’t get fooled again!”

Please Share, Like and Subscribe.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 30.03.2019



Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):





Circumnavigating Circumcision (Or: How I learned to not trust the government or shut my mouth):

unpretentious study tree A4 lowres

Ill: «An unpretentious study of a tree I found as a stock footage somewhere on the internet», A4, Moiret Allegiere, 2019.


We, in our eternal quest for the fabled land of equality or equity or both; in our lost mirror-maze of confused altruism, have forgotten to thread the middle-path and consider all as individual beings of equal worth and as such deserving of equal protection under the law. We are lost in the dead-pan idea that a society should be judged on how it treats its girls and women, disregarding how it treats its men and how it treats its boys.

The mythology of the ever-expanding and all-devouring patriarchy defiling Gaia in her beautiful state of true balanced neutrality and compassion is all-encompassing and drowns the discourse in a septic pool of stagnant rot. It does not matter how boys and men are treated, because boys and men are privileged by default and oppressive by nature and so all our focus and all our altruism ought to be focused on the well-being of girls and women, as they are the ones who are struggling to get by in this glorious and nurturing world we would have inhabited were it not ravaged, raped and defiled by the patriarchy.

It is world-and-mythology building on a scale rivalling the fantastic world-building of Tolkien; both a world and a view of the world built from the ground up by ideologues with an axe to grind and a chocolate-chip-cookie on their shoulders; ideologues with fingers deeply embedded in every pie there is. Ideologues of such cleverness and such clarity of vision that they have succeeded in painting the world in vibrant and stunningly nuanced black and white, making it so easy to understand as men bad, women good.

This, of course, leads us onwards on the left-hand path, straying from the middle-path, easily turning the whole shebang on the head. Of course, men also struggle. But women struggle more. And men struggle because of men and women struggle because of men. And more men benefit even if men struggle and no women benefit, even the women that benefit do not benefit, and so, really, since men struggle less and women struggle more, we ought to focus our attention on how women are doing. An incredible quest and unbelievable mission guiding us towards equality by considering women and women first and foremost in the dilapidated duplexes of equal rights.

And here come the loud wailing of the air-raid sirens. Here come the death and the destruction, here come the shades of shame from time immemorial, the shaming of men daring to consider the human rights of boys and of men as being of equal worth to the human rights of girls and of women. What do you mean, the human rights of men and boys? Human rights are human rights and are not gendered, you filthy misogynistic jack-hammer-rapist you, you foul basement-dwelling sexual assault co-ordinator, you! You are scum. And you better believe it.

Strange and odd then, is it not, that male babies do not have the right to bodily autonomy and genital integrity, whereas female babies do? Strange that the feminist insanity consider an adult woman’s choice to cosmetically alter her genitals for appearance and nothing but appearance a sign of female subjugation to men, whereas a baby boy being genitally mutilated by the wish of his parents is not a sign of male subjugation. Strange that the right to have ownership over ones own body do not extend to boys but only extend to girls. “My body, my choice” is the sentence and the rhetoric of choice. For women and for women only. Excepting, yet again, if women chose to do with their bodies and lives what the feminist orthodoxy does not approve of. His body, his choice does not exist. For religious freedom. For the glory of suppression of sexuality – of male sexuality, the beast of the revelation, the foul harbinger of doom and of the end of the world.

One would be inclined to believe that any-and-all should be protected from being forcibly mutilated. One would be inclined to believe that the quest for bodily autonomy – the my-body-my-choice rhetoric of ages upon ages – should also extend to the bodies of boys and of men. Alas; this is not so. The realm of chaos which we inhabit has deemed it not so. The lawful protection of female bodies do not extend to male bodies. Female genital mutilation is bad. Male genital mutilation… well, that is just religious freedom, dont’cha know. And here we go and there it goes, our notions of equal treatment going down the drain again in silver-tongued and lopsided madness posing as egalitarian concerns for the religious rights of the parents of the child, not of the child itself. Strange that the religious freedom of someone should override the bodily autonomy of someone else entirely. A child is its own being, not merely an extension of its parents. As such, one would not be amiss to believe that the religious freedom of the parents end where the body of the child begins; that the religious freedom of the child begins where his body begins. This is very much the case in regard to girls. But not in regards to boys.

So strange and so curious, so weird and unheard of in this age of supposed equal treatment. Of course; I am aware that the madness of male genital mutilation in the USA is not only a product of religion. That it is an issue in-and-off itself. I choose to focus on the religious aspects in this ramble, as that is the reason given for the legal mutilation of boys in my own country.

Last year, I contacted the Norwegian department of equality (yeah, that does sound slightly Orwellian, does it not? Who decides the meaning of equality? Feminist ideologues.), inquiring amongst other things as to why in the world genital mutilation of boys were still allowed, when it is illegal – and has been since 1995, with a maximum prison sentence of 8 years for anyone caught doing so – to mutilate the genitals of girls. Now, I consider 1995 to be far too late in regards to making it illegal to mutilate girls. In my opinion, mutilating children should not be allowed at all. It is odd, then, that this reasonable approach to things – that is: don’t fucking mutilate the genitals of children, you worm-licking ass-hats – should still be subject to debate where boys are concerned, but not where girls are concerned. It is incredibly strange to me that we allow the mutilation of one gender at birth, but not the other, under the pretence of religious freedom. It is incredibly strange to me that parents of baby girls do not have the right to ritually mutilate their daughters, whereas the parents of baby boys have the right to ritually mutilate their sons. One would almost be inclined to believe that the well-being of girls is considered far more important than the well-being of boys. But that can’t be it, can it? Not in this land of supposed equality, where all are just as equal as the other and the other is sometimes more equal than the all, but we don’t mention that. That surely can not be it, in this land of equality where men and boys apparently have it far better than girls and women?

Well, the department of equality, after I sent two follow-up emails requesting a reply because they took their sweet time in replying, sent me an email linking to a governmental hearing on the issue from 2011. ( ) That is, seven years prior to the year my email was sent. Seven years. Let that sink in a bit.

After reading the hearing they supplied me with I sent them another email wherein I uttered my dissatisfaction with their reply, their conclusion and the entire god-damned hearing. In short; legalizing genital mutilation of baby-boys and not baby-girls is not considered gendered discrimination. It is a question of religious freedom. Which, to my rupturing ears, fracturing mind and gobble-smacked eyes, sounds an awful lot like rhetorical bullshit to justify gendered discrimination. They replied to my follow-up email with another email in which they told me that they did not wish to hear from, or speak with, me any more.

In short; I got dumped and subsequently ghosted by a governmental department whose funding is very much dependent on my taxes. They stuck their fingers in their ears and sang la-la-la-la-la, pretending that I did not exist and that they could not hear me. I wish I was making this shit up. But I am not.

Now, what first struck me about this hearing is the fact that every single argument they made for still allowing the mutilation of baby boys could just as easily be used to justify the mutilation of baby girls.

I will go through a few points in the hearing. Translated from Norwegian, to the best of my abilities. I will not translate the entire thing, but that which sticks out the most to me.

Today, the expenses of circumcision is funded by the public, but there are few possibilities of getting it done at a hospital because the procedure is not prioritised. Some procedures are done at private hospitals, paid for by the parents themselves (3500-9500 NOK).”

Now, this alone is frightening. Paid for by the public of course means paid for by by our taxes. Why anyone’s taxes should be spent paying for unnecessary ritual mutilation is beyond me. In particular since it is a fairly uncommon practice over here in the frozen wastes of Norway. I would much rather see it completely abolished than just uncommon practice, but that does not matter much. What matters here is that I am paying for boys to be mutilated. My money is spent mutilating boys. And I am not OK with this.

The department expresses concern that this situation causes many parents to chose ‘non-professional help’. Both model A and B therefore contain a plan for full financing of circumcision from the public – as it, in principle, also is today.”

How horrible this is, that the current model is so much of a travesty that it causes the parents to seek unprofessional help to get the circumcision done. Instead of just, you know, not mutilating the penises of little boys, we make the public pay for it so that the mutilation at the very least is done professionally. And free of charge. Ha-ha! What a fantastic idea. Strange, however, that mutilating girls is not funded by the public, even though one would be inclined to believe – should this logic be followed through with – that keeping it illegal only leads to the girls being mutilated unprofessionally, as opposed to being mutilated by a professional. But, you know, better to be professionally mutilated than unprofessionally mutilated when one is a boy. Very compassionate this. Very humanitarian.

The ombudsman is of the opinion that it is important that boys who are circumcised get qualified treatment and is followed up by qualified health-care professionals.”

Instead of, you know, just not mutilating them to begin with. Instead of just, you know, not allowing religious beliefs to be of more importance than bodily autonomy and genital integrity. Again, where boys are concerned. Parents of girls are not allowed to practice their religion faithfully. Parents of boys are. Lucky them!

Circumcision of boys can not, after the view of the ombudsman, be considered a medically necessary operation, but a ritual act. Circumcision of boys are accepted as part of the religious freedom of our society. If the government should take responsibility to finance this practice, because demands that the parents pay for it themselves might lead to unprofessional circumcision, is a difficult question. Basically, religious practice such as circumcision should be paid for by the ones who wish to get it done. It is difficult to imagine that parents wish to gamble with the health of their children to save money. With the right to religious practice one could argue that it also follows an obligation in regards to society and in regards to the rights of others – for example the rights of children to not be inflicted pain or trauma upon. It may seem stigmatizing and prejudiced to suspect parents who practice ritual circumcision of not maintaining the health of their children, without documenting that this is the case today.”

Oh boy, where to begin? Firstly – it is not considered medically necessary. It is a ritual act, accepted as part of the religious freedom of our society. OK. Why is it only upon boys this grand and glorious freedom of religion is inflicted so viciously and brutally? Why does not this religious freedom extend to the parents of girls who wish to “ritually circumcise” their daughters? After all – thinking that this would harm their daughters would be both stigmatizing and prejudiced. How in the festering cesspit of filth and double-think is this not clear and obvious gendered double standards? Everything quoted above could just as easily be used to justify the public financing of female genital mutilation. But, nope, that would be foul misogyny; that would be mutilation, not circumcision. That would be hatred of, and attempted control and coercion of, girls and women.

Also – gamble with the health of their children? Is that difficult to imagine, when they willingly allow their children to be mutilated? Is that not gambling with the health of their children by default; mutilating them for no reason other than muh religion? And children do have the right to not be inflicted pain and trauma upon. Excepting boys, whose pain and trauma may be inflicted as long as there are religious reasons to do so. Remember: religion supersedes the rights of baby boys to genital integrity, bodily autonomy and an infancy without pain and trauma. But the genital integrity and bodily autonomy of girls supersedes any-and-all religious freedom. Girls are precious and must be protected, boys are not precious and do not deserve protection. And if anyone interjects with the old argument of FGM and MGM being different, I will only say this: mutilating the genitals of children for religious reasons are bad, M’kay? Cutting peoples genitals without their permission is bad, M’kay?. Mutilating children are bad. Why in the salty, sub-standard gates of hell does this need to be spelled out? Why in the world is it so difficult to understand that boys and girls both ought to have the right to keep their genitals intact and their bodies unspoiled, religion or no?

The ombudsman enforces the laws in regards to discrimination, and keeps watch that, amongst other things, public officials work determined, methodically and actively to promote the purpose of the laws. In order for such discrimination to occur, there are terms that for example a practice treats some one worse than others based on one or more reasons for discrimination, for example gender and/or ethnicity, without there being a legitimate reason for the discrimination.”

I would dare say that a lawful practice that allows for the mutilation of the genitals of one gender for nothing but ritual reasons, but at the same time disallows the mutilation of the genitals of the other gender for ritual reasons are very clearly treating one gender worse than the other under law. I would dare make the claim that this is gendered discrimination of boys written into law. I would dare to make the radical claim that both boys and girls should have the right to genital integrity and bodily autonomy, and that granting that right to only one gender is institutionalized sexism, telling us nothing but this: Girls are more important than boys. End of story.

The practice of ritual circumcision of boys are debated, and some hold the opinion that the practice should be forbidden, amongst other things because it raises questions as to whether or not this practice discriminate against boys on the basis of sex. The ombudsman for children wish for a lower age limit in regards to circumcision, which protect the children. Today, only circumcision of girls and women are illegal.”

Well, yes. It does discriminate based on gender. Don’t believe me? Flip the genders. Make it illegal to genitally mutilate boys, but legal to genitally mutilate girls. Does that seem discriminatory to you? Does that seem as though it is unfair, as though it protects one gender but not the other gender? If yes, why is it impossible to see this when the genders are flipped back to their original position in the flip-flop experiment; in the old switch-a-roo? Could it be the empathy-gap once again? Could it possibly be – like stated before – that we quite simply do not care for boys and men as we care for girls and women, that boys and men are treated as lesser human beings? To me, this is evident, considering there even is a debate on whether or not baby penises should be cut, considering there even is a debate on whether or not this is gendered discrimination. Were it flipped, the answers would be clear, bright as the confounded face of God himself and self-evident. Since it is boys, however, we need to consider the religious rights of the parents before the rights of the boy. I know. I am repeating myself. Clearly, I have to. There is no way for the boy to comprehend religion, no way for him to chose his own religion – or lack thereof this early in life. It is forced upon him through bodily trauma. Here’s your religion, boy – snip, snip. Stop crying, and be grateful! Welcome to your life; first we hurt you physically, then we dehumanize you socially. Hope you’ll have a good run. Just remember to not complain about it, foul rapist-in-waiting that you are.

The ombudsman do not know of any European states that forbid ritual circumcision of boys today, or that the practice is considered as a possible violation of human rights.”

Yes. An “Everyone else is doing it” argument from the government. Need I say more? I also find it very peculiar that it is not considered a possible violation of human rights. From what I have understood, it is a very basic human right to not get needlessly mutilated. I assume this only goes for girls, then. Human rights are human rights, but some humans are more human than others and boys? Nah – they don’t need to keep the most sensitive part of their penis.

Not to mention that the foreskin is fused to the glans until early puberty, which means that the foreskin needs to be torn lose from the glans before the actual cutting is done. Want to lose sleep for a good few nights? Go watch a video of the penis of an infant boy being mutilated. Absolutely astonishing, this lack of basic empathy. Absolutely mindbogglingly absurd that we do not extend the same rights to genital integrity to boys that we do to girls, whilst claiming equal rights for all! Mutilating girls bad, mutilating boys good. Because religious freedom trumps all, even the right to an unmutilated body. As long as the victim is a boy. Because the vulva is holy, and the penis is unholy. Because we care for girls and not for boys. I wonder – were someone to drag a fifteen year old boy kicking and screaming into the doctors office, strap him to the table and then proceed to brutally and savagely remove his foreskin with no anaesthetic, against his wishes, would that be considered abuse?

In both these proposals for a solution, the department proposes a law that the regional health-services shall conduct ritual circumcision as a health-service.”

Our public health-service shall perform unnecessary religious rituals. All paid for by the taxpayers. There’s nothing wrong with mutilating baby boys. The public shall pay for mutilation. When will the public be forced to pay for the mutilation of baby girls, then, I wonder? Or may we maybe perchance and perhaps just stop fucking mutilating the genitals of babies, whose consent to the procedure or to the religion can not be given? May we maybe perhaps and perchance treat girls and boys equally, giving them equal rights to bodily autonomy and genital integrity, or is that simply to much to ask from the department of equality? Is it also to much to ask that this religious freedom be granted to the baby boys in question, so that they may chose their own religion – or lack thereof – when they are old enough to understand both religion and the procedure of circumcision, thereby granting them the possibility to make their own choice in regards to the intactness of their genitals? The foreskin is supposed to be there, right where it is, protecting the glans. The glans is supposed to be internal. You twatwaffle.

The ombudsman is positive to the proposal if a public health-service reduces the real risk for damage and trauma for the boys.”

There is a real damage and a real trauma done already. Removing the foreskin is damaging. It damages the body. It amputates part of the body. It removes a part of the penis. This is damaging to the body. This is damaging to the boys. There is trauma to the body. There is the ripping of the foreskin, the cutting of a penis attached to a boy who is attached to a table, often without an anaesthetic. Why do I need to spell this obvious fact out? Are our politicians of a special breed? Are they insane? Have they no grasp of words, reality and of the male body? Do they exist in a different sphere of reality? Are they the Anunnaki; grand reptilian overlords with no empathetic understanding of human beings, be that human being a boy and thus less biologically important for the continued production of human drones? Are they blind and deaf? Clearly, they are not mute. Something resembling coherent words and sentences seem to slip from their mouths and serpent-tongues ever so often. But blind and deaf? Perhaps and perchance. At least they are blind and deaf when their subjects are of a male persuasion; wielders of the horrid attack-cocks and swingers of the giant, pendulous, testosterone-poisoning ballistic assault balls.

On the other hand, we can not see that there are any documentation that the risk is less when the boys are circumcised at the health-services than if they are circumcised through private solutions”.

No, no, the risk probably stays the same. You know; the risk of bleeding to death. Or the risk of severely damaging the penis, removing more than planned. Or the risk of infections. See; why in the world would one deem it safe, proper and quite alright to have an open wound in a diaper, in close proximity to urine and faeces? Why should it not be considered more or less risky to have a penis with an open wound nesting comfortably atop a bed of piss and shit? These risks, and more, are not considered a problem for the powers that be. Boys don’t need safety. Hell, just mutilate them at birth. That’ll teach them humility. That’ll teach them to know both God and the Government; the biggest G’s in the life of boys and men outside of the G-spot, in front of whose hallowed and sacred countenance you shall learn your place and bend the knee in subdued submission.

The ombudsman sees that model A, which proposes that people who are not medical doctors should be able to perform the procedure are in line with the religious practice such as it is today. Such a practice should be carried on if there does not exist any documentation that says otherwise. The ombudsman also agrees that there should be demands in regards to competence when people other than medical doctors perform the procedure”.

Ah, yes, religious people who are not medical doctors can mutilate their baby boys because religious people who are not medical doctors have done so in the past. At the very least, they agree that there should be some demand in regards to competence. How very humanitarian and compassionate of them. See; you may be mutilated by a non-professional, as long as the non-professional mutilator has some competency in regards to mutilating babies. We can’t just let any riff-raff of the streets mutilate babies. They need competency in regards to mutilation, god-damnit. Bring on the professional mutilators! Personally, I have dubbed the professional mutilator “Mutila-Thor – wielder of the sword of the desert-sands!”

The department further proposes that the access for other people than medical doctors to perform ritual circumcision should only be allowed when the child is below two months of age, because the risk for complications are then reduced. The practice, such as it is today, varies somewhat.”

I can’t be reading this right. This can’t be right. Surely, I am stuck in some comatose state, or lost in perpetual limbo, doomed to wade through shit until the rapture, so that I can pay for my multitude of sins, as well as the sins of my ancestors. Surely, this is me forced to do penance. This is the government telling us, if I read this correctly, that children under two months of age should be mutilated by non-professionals. Because that is very considerate. Remember; boys don’t have feelings and don’t really matter much in the grand scheme of things. First we hurt them, then we hurt them some more when they grow up so they learn their place in the world. The rights of boys to a whole and unmolested body is of less importance than the religion of their parents, which may or may not be the religion of the boys later in life. The government agrees with this, of course. Boys are subject to cruelty authorised by the state. Girls are free from this cruelty.

This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with gendered discrimination, of course. There is, after all, only one gender to consider when it comes to discrimination. And that gender is female. Once again: reverse the genders in this, and see if you do not come to the conclusion that this is gendered discrimination through and through. If you do reach that conclusion after flipping the genders, why is this only visible after flipping the genders? Could it be that we do not offer the same level of empathy to boys that we do to girls, and later that we do not offer the same level of empathy towards men as we do towards women? Nah, no, nope, of course not. Because something-something patriarchy-theory and muh severe oppression that allows me my genital integrity. At least men don’t have to worry about the air conditioning, you sexist scumbag, you. I know. The air-conditioning one is a pet-peeve of mine. It just really boggles my mind and shows the astonishing level of first world problems evident in feminist orthodoxy.

This question should therefore be discussed closer with those belief-systems that practice circumcision later than the proposed age-limit”.

Why, yes, of course it should. Instead of, you know, not considering it a violation of human rights. My body, my choice only matters when it is a female body. A male has no choice over his own body. We must consider the feelings of the mutilators before the feelings of the boy.

The question of anaesthetic in regards to the procedure is a controversial topic. Research on the importance of anaesthetic is not unambiguous. Therefore, it is important here as well that the department invite the religions affected by this to a consulting dialogue in regards to the question.”

Yeah, no, you know, pain is only pain and it toughens you up. Should I happen to go into surgery in the near future, for whatever reason, I will demand them not use any anaesthetic. I will also demand a Buddhist monk perform the procedure instead of a licensed professional. Hell; I’ll just ask them to remove my spleen and one of my kidneys while they are at it. Don’t need them, I believe. Just take one of my lungs as well. As long as it is an unprofessional doing it, it should be quite alright. And I’ll fucking demand that the public pay for it. Fuck, come to think of it, perhaps I should demand the public pay for my various, and completely unnecessary, facial piercings as well as my tattoos. Why the hell not? We’re all mad here, after all, and my religion of choice dictate I pierce and decorate myself with sharp metal objects and sew vibrant colours into my skin for the fun of it. What religion is that, you ask? Well, I don’t know yet. But I’m sure I’ll come up with something convincing before long. My religious freedom, and all that. Why should not my self-imposed mutilation be covered by the public? Where is my free religious freedom?

The departments proposal touches upon a legal practice in Norway today. When the department in this way interferes with, and tries to change the ritual practices and traditions of minorities that basically are considered as legitimate, there is a major chance that the groups in question will consider it as being hostile to religion and minorities. The risk in this case is particularly severe because the proposal don’t affect the vast majority of boys and men in Norway today”.

It is not that long ago that female genital mutilation was deemed illegal in Norway. I am fairly certain that only a minority of girls in Norway were affected by that as well. Changing the ritual practices and traditions of minority religions is quite alright, as long as it interferes with the genital integrity and bodily autonomy of girls. We don’t need to worry about minorities getting pissed off then, you know. It only stands to reason. Obviously. Not in the least bit hostile to religious minorities when girls are saved. Only hostile to religious minorities when boys are saved. Got it. Also; mutilating baby boys is considered legitimate. Unnecessary surgery is legitimate where boys are concerned. Save the girls, use the rod on the boys. Chop chop, babies, snip, snip. Hope you will enjoy your further endeavours in this vast and beautiful world we have crafted for you.

Thirdly, there is a consequentialist dilemma in the case, in that using the law as a means to an end only has a point if it leads to changed behaviour. The dangers of reactions from the affected groups, as mentioned above is, besides the obvious, that it contributes to a poorer climate for cooperation and community, that the proposed change in law won’t have any effect on the problem that is to be solved. In Sweden, which practices something akin to proposal A, an evaluation done in 2005, showed that there were reason to believe that ritual circumcision still took place outside of the health-services, done by people who had no permission to do so. The ombudsman therefore urges the department in the work onwards to make sure to clarify the knowledge that is at the root of the concern, and that groups at the root of the concern is invited to participate in possible improvements that might contribute to reduce the real risk associated with circumcision of boys”.

Everything written above could just as well be used in regards to female genital mutilation. Every single argument in this gibbering stream of nonsense could just as well be turned on its head and used as an argument for the continued mutilation of female genitals. There is no reason to believe that ritual circumcision of girls have ended. It is just done with people with no permission to do so. It does not matter, of course, as girls need to be protected and boys need not be protected. Is this not clear fucking evidence that the government consider boys as lesser human beings than girls? Mutilation of boys is paid for by the public, done under the diamond-coated hammer of the government, whose fear of hurting the minorities is so grand and so virtuous that they see no qualms in hurting minorities when they save girls from mutilation.

Double standards and hypocrisy is the words of the day when dealing with this supposed gender-equality, whose department cares only for women and minorities and does not give two flying kerfluffled monkey-butts about boys and men. Also worth noting is that the paper from which I have quoted is written and signed by two women. Usually, this would not matter to me. The reason I care now is that the feminists have been shouting and roaring and raging, demanding men don’t have a say in anything regarding abortion. But women sure as hell feel entitled to talk about, and decide, whether or not the genitals of a boy should be mutilated at birth or not. No uterus, no opinion?

OK – live by your own rules.

No penis, no opinion.

Or is that a sexist statement?

OK – live by your own rules, then.

I suppose it is OK, as long as no minorities are hurt. The baby boys whose genitals are mutilated are sure as hell hurt, but that does not matter in the grand scheme and schism of things, as the feelings, the well being, the pain of boys and men are unreal, unseen, unheard and unspoken. And no wonder that it is unspoken, when there even is a debate as to whether or not boys should be allowed to keep their genitals intact. No wonder that it is unspoken, when concerns raised in regards to the well-being of boys and men are met by a department who sees no qualms in telling me that they are not interested in hearing from me any more; the very same department that is put in place to make sure we have equality. Equality as long as it benefits anyone but boys and men of a majority persuasion.

How strange and peculiar, this magicians word “equality” is; how mystifying and metaphysical it is, being able to change shape and form at will to suit the pointy hats and curly toes of those whose job it is to decide what is or what is not equal, and who is and who is not granted equal rights to their body and to their choices.

The department of equality proves that it is a department of feminism, not egalitarianism. Made evident by the lack of concern for baby boys, whose genitals may be mutilated by professionals and non-professionals alike, as long as it is a minority religion and a minority of the population, it is alright and it ain’t no thing.

Made evident by the concern for baby girls, whose genitals may not be mutilated by neither professionals or non-professionals, as that would be trespassing on their goddess-given rights to a whole body and to intact genitals.

Welcome, yet again, to the enlightened age of equality, where all are supposedly equal under the law, though some are exempt from the law and some are not. Leave your enthusiasm at the door and stab yourself in the groin with this pair of gardening-shears, please. It’ll save us the trouble later on. Welcome to the wonders of religious freedom, whose grasping god-hands surpass the freedom of choice where boys are concerned, but whose grasping god-hands may not touch the frail bodies of girls, for they are protected by law even from the face and hands of God himself.


What is to be done, then? Well – make it illegal to mutilate baby genitals, period. It really should be as easy as that. When the boys and girls both are grown up and old enough, they may chose or they may not chose to have the procedure done. Consider this proof of their commitment to their religion of choice. I don’t give two flying blabber-mouthed politicians asses what adults chose to do with their own bodies, on their own money and in their own time. I do care, however, about babies who are completely unable to give consent to such a procedure and to religion at all, being mutilated for the benefit of their parents and their parents only. I do care about the blatant god-damned double standards.

They are so obvious that one has to be wilfully blind to not see them. Or, one has to admit to having less empathy for baby boys in order to defend the position that it should be illegal to perform on girls, but legal to perform on boys.

I don’t care whether or not there are differences in the procedures. I don’t care about the differences of a vagina and a penis. I don’t give a rats ass. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. And completely unnecessary surgical procedures done without consent are completely unnecessary surgical procedures done without consent, no matter the gender of the victim or the reasons for the mutilation. One can not claim equal treatment under law when one has written unequal treatment into law. One can not claim gender-neutrality in the laws of the land when the laws of the land are not gender-neutral.

This, of course, does not matter. The arguments are there. It is different, they say. No, it is not, I say. It is mutilating someone with no reason but ritual, but religion, but belief. It is removing parts of someone for no good reason. It is abuse of a child.

Since January 1, 2015, the hospitals in Norway are demanded to perform the procedure if asked. Boys don’t matter. And no one cares about this. I wonder what the outrage would be, were the hospitals demanded to mutilate girls, should the parents wish this? I wonder how many articles we would see then, about this rampant misogyny, this proof that we live in a culture that hates women – just hates them so much that they are mutilated by governmental permission? Since it is boys, however, we are scared to anger the minorities and hurt their feelings. And so we do not only allow this, we fund this. Because the well-being of the boy falls second to the well-being of the group which he belongs to. Because the boy, just as the man, is measured only by the sacrifices he makes for his community, not for his inherent humanity. The community is more important than the male. Whereas the female is more important than the community. It is, truly, a tale old as time. It is the disposable – and despicable – male prototype rearing its head again from the vacuum of a society whose values progress only where it benefits women and minorities; whose gender-roles only change for women and women only, whose lawful protection of body and of soul may be twisted and contorted as long as boys and men fall victim to the twists and turns.

And we don’t care about the sensitivity of the foreskin; that there is a significant loss of delicate and pleasurable sensation in the penis when the foreskin is removed:

( ) We don’t care that it protects the glans, that it is an essential part of the male body. We don’t care that it contributes to lubrication during sex, or that the glans hardens and sensitivity in the penis in lost after a circumcision. We don’t care about the scar-tissue. Or the very simple fact that the foreskin is supposed to be there. We don’t care that male infant foreskin is used in the production of cosmetics for women, as this horrifyingly misandrist article tells us: ( ).

I wonder what the reactions would be, were there to exist shaving cream made for men from parts of the mutilated genitals of girls – do you think the article linked would have the same wording then? Do you even think it would be legal?

Not even the link found to sudden infant death syndrome seems to matter ( ). Because it is only boys and boys only, and in this world in which boys and men are so privileged and so catered to, it does not matter that we mutilate them, that there is risks for infections and bleeding out, that their sexual pleasure is lessened, that we put them at risk for dying at a very young age.

I could go on and on about circumcision, pointing out that John Harvey Kellogg proposed circumcision of boys to combat masturbation, thereby giving full credence to the thought that it is a concept created to attack the sexuality of men and make them suffer for it; much the same, in fact, as the author of the article on the foreskin-cosmetics lays down as a reason to not compare male genital mutilation with female genital mutilation. Of course, with the genders reversed. Controlling male sexuality is not a problem, because male sexuality is monstrous and primal and needs to be controlled, by any means necessary. Controlling female sexuality, however, is a problem as female sexuality is holy, saint-like, angelic, a chalice of healing passed with much reverence to the lips of those who have proved themselves worthy.

There is, quite simply, as stated time and again, a severe lack of empathy and understanding when it comes to boys and men. A lack of empathy so infused and engrained in our societies that we do not see it, even as it stares us straight in the eyes, challenging us to attack its established dominance. The mere fact that mutilating boys is legal where mutilating girls is illegal should be evidence enough that we do not consider the pain and the body of boys and of men to be of as much importance as that of girls and women.

It is sickening.

It genuinely makes me feel sick to my stomach and has, more than anything else, contributed immensely to my insomnia.

Lying awake at night pondering these things and trying to figure out how to put it into words coherent, meaningful and beautiful takes a good and solid chunk out of my sleep and out of my rest and of my emotional well-being.

This piece is, by far, the most difficult and challenging piece I have written. I find it very difficult to detach from these issues, so prevalent and dominant as they are in the social madness of our societal psychosis.

And, try as I might – try as we might – the message does not reach far enough, the lack of empathy unseen, unsung, unheard, does not reach any levels of social awareness. Because the church of feminist orthodoxy has decided that the only ones allowed to speak on behalf of gendered issues are a)feminism and b)women. Even when the issues affect boys and men, they are the ones supposed to speak about it.

A movement for women and women only are thus the only ones allowed in our collective psychosis to speak on issues affecting gender, even when they are not the gender affected by it.

It is their insistence, coupled with the gynocentrism of our cultures, that they are the ones seeking equality, that they are the voice of God in regards to gender equality, that stifles the discourse, that makes the raising of issues regarding boys and men so incredibly difficult and so incredibly important at the same time.

In order for the men’s movement to be heard and seen, the noose tied around the neck and balls of society by feminism needs to be removed. We can no longer exist in this state of perplexed confusion; saying that women have it worse so we must focus on women and on what the feminist cult say about gender, and disregard all other voices daring to speak on gender, labelling them as naught but backwards thinking conservative misogynists with a wish to chain women to the home so the men may be free to pillage, rape and ruin what is left of our societies with no repercussions.

As a society, we need to remove the blindfolds placed upon us by the might of the feminist movement and its ideologues and prophets, and view gender and gendered issues from a position not tainted by this cult-like frenzied ideology, claiming equality for all and seeking only supremacy through phoney victim-tears-and-points. Boys being mutilated at birth does not matter, because something-something women-worsting. I can not for the life of me understand how we can view the concept of equality between the genders through a lens focusing solely on women, and claim that this is what will make us equal.

We are lost in an alcohol-induced delirium; hallucinating wildly and rambling incoherently that the path towards equal treatment of all is to put the issues of woman top front and centre, disregarding anyone else in the process, or if not disregarding them, then trying to help them through a view of the world that sees men as the problem by virtue of nothing but being born with a penis that is to be mutilated as quickly as possible for no reason other than ritual, tradition and religion.

To oppose feminism is not to oppose the concept of equality. To oppose feminism is to oppose a lack of empathy for boys and for men; a lack of empathy that sees men being sacrificed, or expected to sacrifice, so that women and children shall benefit from it. Women and children first, and the men be damned.

To oppose feminism is not to oppose women. This should not be so difficult a concept to grasp. But there you have it. Opposing an ideology claiming to speak on behalf of all, when only speaking on behalf of a few representatives of half the population, sharing nothing but genitalia in common, is not opposing women. It is opposing a set of ideas built around men as oppressors and women as oppressed throughout eternity. It is opposing a set of ideas that has vengeance, retribution and a thirst for power, dominance and supremacy as the core of their values; a set of ideas that have managed to worm its way into the collective consciousness as the light of salvation, the only path able to lead us towards the exalted state of equality. That is: paradise regained through men doing penance for the perceived sins of their ancestors which taint their own DNA and their own behaviour, because feminism has said that it is so, and because of this it was so.

Claiming allegiance to feminism, however, is opposing the very basic human rights of boys and men for no other reason than them being boys and men. I would argue that feminism is in opposition to women as well, as feminism constantly and chronically paint women as helpless infants unable to navigate the world on their own, constantly in need of help, demanding others drop whatever they are currently holding or doing in order to rush, all heroically and brave and stoic in shimmering armour, to the aid of women whose frailty and weakness is such that they can not even handle air-conditioning or paying for dates or taking the first step in a relationship; whose soft and frail nature is such that they can not handle criticism without labelling it harassment. These are not my views, to be perfectly clear. These are the views spouted by feminist dogma, claiming strength and independence and showing naught but weakness and dependency. Women are so weak and so frail, in the eyes of feminist dogma, that they need the benevolent and all-seeing church of feminism to guide them on the path, to speak on their behalf and to tell them what to do or not to do.

My own views, obviously simplified for convenience, are that women and men are complimentary. My views are that women are completely capable of navigating the world and all its pitfalls just as men are, that men and women both have their own strengths and their own weaknesses, and that it is through cooperation and mutual respect – that is respect earned, not given – we will be able to grow, to overcome difficulties and function together in a shared space. Cooperation should be the unifier, not enmity and constant warfare.

This, however, will not come to pass as long as the voices trying to bring sense into the discourse by stating the obvious, for example that laws and rules and rights should be equal for all, and that with rights also come responsibilities, are shouted down as foul misogynists hating women by the same voices that, unashamedly, have nothing but contempt and hatred for men and for boys, future rapists that they all of course are. And the stranglehold this cult has on the governments of our ailing societies is self-evident to anyone, even the feminists, who are fully aware of their power and are utilizing it cynically; who are utilizing it in manipulative ways by claiming women to be victims of everything and men to be victims of nothing, claiming women to be victims and men to be victimizers, even when it is illegal to mutilate the genitals of girls – as it fucking should be – and legal to mutilate the genitals of boys – as it fucking should not be – in a society where we are supposed to be treated equally, regardless of gender and regardless of status. And as long as this unequal treatment is written into law, there is no equality between the genders.

Because one is protected, and one is not. This is pure fucking common sense slapping you in the face with a rotting fish. The stench ought to fill your nostrils. Instead it is poo-pooed away as a non-issue, because the communities practising this genital mutilation could have their feelings hurt by the obvious. That is: mutilating the genitals of babies just to mutilate the genitals of babies is wrong regardless of gender, oddly enough. And that their religious convictions do not trump the rights of their babies to not have their bodies mutilated, no matter the gender of the baby.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 02.03.2019


Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):





Open up to be shut down

fatherhood 1 a3 lowres

Ill: «Fatherhood», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere


Open up, man. See the bright light of salvation. Open up and speak and talk, man. There is no judgement. If only all you men supressed your masculinity and opened up about how you are feeling, everything would be smooth as silk and satin laced with arsenic and cyanide. If only, if only, you stopped acting manly and opened up, all your woes would leave you. All that tension would just float out of your muscles in a phlegmatic cough rising from your cancer-ridden lungs.

All day, everyday. Open up and talk. And you shall see and sense the bright light of salvation and you shall be cleansed and bathed in the tears of God. Supress your natural side. Deny who you are. And become what the feminists want you to be. And all shall be well and good.

The assumption, of course, is that men are not by nature masculine but are masculine by their own design. That behaving like a man is nothing but a act to cover up weakness. That one is not being a man, but merely pretending to be a man.

That men act as men because we are, in fact, men, is a thought that does not even strike these social constructivist nonsense-makers babble-mouthed brainstems. Men are not men. We are a blank slate tortured and malformed by societal expectations of how men should behave. In order to rectify this, we must change how we behave to please the feminists and become the shining light of salvation ourselves. If we only acted more like women, we shall be free. Because that is the golden standard that all shall follow: the proclaimed social construct of femininity. Because all is a construct and all constructs are bad. Except for the construct of femininity, which is the true nature of all human beings.

So we are told to open up and talk about our emotions. And so we talk about them. Only to be met with ridicule, to be told that male tears are a delicious beverage to drink and to bathe in via shirts and mugs, and to see that our pain is a source of amusement and ridicule. Our conferences on mens issues are protested, shouted down and shut down. And we are labelled as crybabies with no real issues. Mens emotional pain is not taken seriously, even by the same forces that would have us open up and talk about our emotional pain. It is, of course, only a way for feminists to proclaim that they care ever so much about men, if only men were the way they wanted them to be; if only men succumbed to their will. That is to say: do not talk about issues regarding men that are not preapproved by feminists, and above all do not talk about them in a way not preapproved by feminists. In other words: shut up and listen.

In this world where we are told one thing only to experience that the opposite is true, what`s a man to do? Damned if you do, and damned if you don`t. Men act instead of talk. As a general rule. And women talk instead of act. As a general rule. And when the powers that be tell us to open up and speak, only to make us realise when we finally do that we are told to shut up and listen, we grow confused. And confusion brings inner turmoil when there is no release. And there is no release, because we are told that our way of handling our emotions is wrong and we are shown that attempting to talk about our emotions is wrong. Both are wrong, in the minds and eyes of feminists. Men can not do anything right. And our societies see no issues with telling us this, constantly bombarding us with conflicting messages and commands to do this, do that, do all the things even when the things contradict the other things and the actions of feminists show quite the opposite of what they say. If you object to this, you are showing how toxic masculinity is. And are thusly nothing but a neckbearded, basement dwelling, incel virgin loser who can`t find a woman. Should you wish to find a woman, you are acting as though you are entitled to sex. Should you not wish to find a woman, you are a misogynist who hates women.

Freeze. In the headlights of this foul year of our lord. Freeze. And do nothing. And wait for the inevitable barrage of articles asking: where have all the good men gone? Where did chivalry go? It`s time for men to shape up and step up and be gentlemen again. Even when that is deemed as sexism. It doesn`t matter. Everything is sexist, no matter what and how and where and when. So here we stand, frozen in the headlights, waiting for the truck to hit. And when it hits, and images of our mangled, broken bodies start floating about atop the riproaring tide of our engines of mass-manipulation; our sanctified massmedia newsoutlets, the conclusion remains the same: there is something wrong with men, and men need to change.

Asking men to talk more about their emotions presupposes that someone is willing to listen. And that is seldom, if ever, the case. As made evident by the aforementioned «male tears» mugs and shirts. It`s wrong when we don`t talk about our issues. And when we do, it is either goddamned hilarious or dangerous. Hilarious to feminists and dangerous to women. Men talking about issues affecting men is taking away from issues affecting women. Even when the claim is that men need to talk more about their issues. This is what we are told and this is what we are shown. And this lays down a fertile breeding ground to spawn broken men; our societies beckoning us to come closer with the same hand that pushes us away and holds our heads under water.

It is not a secret that men experience far less empathy than women, be that politically, intimately, socially. This begins already at birth, with boys being left to cry longer than girls before they are picked up by their parents. It is not a secret, that is, to those who do not cling to the nonsensical belief that women are disenfranchised and oppressed; not being shown empathy in any way, shape or form. Whils`t being shown all the empathy our careworn societies have to offer; all serpent-tongue and smoother than hissing silk.

A broken man is useless to society, since he has nothing to give, no value in and of himself. Better for him to off himself than find value in and of himself. Women, on the other hand, have always had value in and of themselves. And feminists know this. A broken women must be mended, fixed and repaired by any means necessary, given all the help there is. All the time. And she will experience this.

A broken man may be told that there are empathetic ears. He may be told that people will help. He is, however, shown time and again, that noone wishes to have anything to do with him. That there is no help for him, no ears to listen and no hands to help. He is pushed away and hidden away, being told to open up and then being told to shut up and let women speak when he finally caves in and opens up.

It is not the case that men are emotionally stunted. Or that men are not in touch with their emotions. It just so happen that men process their emotions differently than women – as a general rule. There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is being told that the way men process emotion is wrong. That we need to do it differently, that we need to be socially engineered to do it differently. Only to experience, when we do it differently, that noone is willing to listen. That it is wrong for us to talk about our fears and pains. That leaves no room to maneuver. No way to do anything about our emotions, no path to thread. The beaten path is wrong, the new path is wrong, all paths are wrong, and there is no place for us to go at the end of the day when yet another sleepless night is crawling in on us and the whispering voices from our minds keep us from sleeping and keep us from being emotionally fulfilled.

The silence in those long, yearning nights is a silence profound and deafening; a dangerous silence wherein all that is wrong with ones life and oneself floats around inside the inner sanctum of the mind; giant asteroids colliding with enormous planets in the vast vacuum of space, exploding over and over again. Pieces of order and stability being chipped away in grand galactic explosions until there is nothing left but a gnawing, biting, burning, shrivelled up and dying sun anxiously awaiting the imminent implosion of the fruitless void of the inner world.

The unbridled and unhinged celebration of the feminine path to healing being the one true path to healing strikes me as nothing but arrogance. That there are more ways than one to process and deal with emotions, be they good or bad, is a concept dying in our streets from malnourishment. And it is malnourished by the constant insistence from feminism – and as a result from society at large – that there is something fundamentally wrong with men, and that if only men could change and behave differently, all would be good in the world of men and the world at large. The notion that society should, perhaps, change the way it views and treats men is as foreign to these people and their views as introspection is. That mayhaps and maybe the best path to take to make men heal and make men whole is to not bombard men constantly with a barrage of hostility and enmity; to not continually tell us that we do everything wrong, no matter what and how we do it.

Remove the hostility and the constant attacks, and maybe, just maybe, let men speak and deal with our issues in a way deemed suitable by us instead of the feminist hivemind. Remove the blatant lies and constant protesting and shutting down of our conferences. Let men have their own spaces in which to air their issues and seek healing, instead of shutting them down for being foul misogynist hellholes if there are no women present.

This may come as a shock to the feminst armies, but I`ll take my chances and say it. Prepare your sniffingsalts and fainting coaches if you need them: men do not need women around in order to behave properly. We are quite capable of behaving properly under our own supervision. We are not children in need of constant parental guidance. There is not anything wrong with men. There is something wrong with a society which constantly tells us there are something wrong with men. Being constantly told that there is something wrong with men creates men there is something wrong with. Especially when there is no place to go for healing, no destination to reach and all ears and all eyes are deaf and blind by wilful design trickling down from the beginning of time; madness masquerading as reason burns the core. Society has gone insane, and the ones who still dance are considered insane by the ones who do not hear the music.

Moiret Allegiere, 09.01.2019

Intersecting bodies at the intersection of madness and gibberish: a rant

happyslapped by the godhead a3 lowres

Ill: «Happyslapped by the Godhead», A3, Moiret Allegiere, 2019


Feminism dictates. The world bends its knees. Then it tumbles, then it rolls. Lost in the vast vacuum of space for a while, beat down by the weight of heavy-handed assumptions, assertions and mandates dictated by bodypositive nonsense caught in the throes of orgasmatronic ecstasy. Woe unto the world, lest feminists have spoken. And so they spake, and so they shrieked.

It is a peculiar arrangement we have gotten ourselves into, is it not? We listen and we believe. And we bend at the middle until we break. Words of wisdom from the mouths of feminists dictate the course of society, deliberately dedicating dictatorial decisions on womens lives and bodies: women should be free to do what they want to do with their lives and their bodies, with no questions asked and no judgements passed. Hark; the choir offended sings – falsettoes rise with trembling vibratos. Or was that vibrators? I can`t remember.

Vibrato or vibrator – it doesn`t matter much, in the long run. It`s just silly illusions of literary talent coursing through my neural pathways, gathered from whatever strange force of inspiration I am currently channeling. Or challenging. The tides are rising again, the fever peaking again, the choir of offense touching upon the pinnacle of control. Tremble before the falsettoes and the feminist siren song of women being victims of their own choices! Again.

For uncounted years, the feminists have been telling us that womens bodies are womens bodies and that womens choices regarding womens bodies are their own to make. And no judgement should be passed, be that legally or socially. They seem to have forgotten, in the heat of the moment, or by their own design, that everyone is judged on their actions, be they male or female. They are astray within their solipsistic worldview in which only their own binocular projection of the world around them matters. Logic is only logical when viewed from within their current framework; the prismatic lens of the only gender that matters in the quest for equality between the genders.

And so they tell us, with forked tongue and eyes sewn shut, that their bodies are their choice. And we bend. And they rise. And they dare us, they doubledare us, to pass judgement on a womans choice to do what she wants to do. And so we don`t pass judgement, lest we be judged ourselves, lest we be thrown to the wolves and passed through the meatgrinder of feminist destruction of anyone who`s opinion is deemed by them unworthy to be held in the maniac limelight of the current year, whichever current that may be. Ok we say, we cleanse, we rinse, we repeat the mantra: her body her choice. And we pass judgement upon what men do, but not upon what women do. Because that is peak equality!

Then come the crossroads; the intersection where madness meets gibberish and is, somehow, considered sanity.

And I have forgotten, due to cosmic vibrations and solar storms, what the current year is. Have I been struck blind by the beast of interchangeable restorations? Have we gone full circle? Are we not in the current year anymore? Did the world end and noone remembered to tell me? I mean, I wouldn`t blame them if they did. I would just like a heads-up. That`s all.


I`ll just try and remember that it is always the current year somewhere; that the currents of time will lay down the foundations for the current year, so that we can pick it apart at a later year to make it, once again, the current year. Because, after all, it is the current year and that should tell you all you need to know about our current year and the societies which dwell both within and without the current of the current year.

Did they not tell us that a womans body is her own to do with as she pleases? Why, then, pray tell, do the feminists tell women what to do with their bodies? A womans body is her own to do with as she pleases. As long as that woman does with her body what the feminists would have her do with her body. If you are a stripper, you are not allowed to do what you want to do with your body. Or if you are a gridgirl, or find yourself in any profession where you make your living of your looks in a way that would make the victorian-era enlightened feminist sniff and swoon, crying «poor me! Fetch me my sniffing salts, boy!» Or was that Bathsalts? Meh, never mind, no matter. The difference between the two are probably insignificant.

I should like some sniffing salts. Or some bathsalts, in order to understand this doublethink. Maybe that would put me in the frame of mind that these feminists exhibit when this topic comes up; make it possible for me to talk out of both corners of my mouth with my tongue gently licking and caressing the cavernous emptiness of my cranium.

Understanding this strange phenomenon is, to my eyes, impossible if one has a mind that is firmly put in its place and functioning on more than a baselevel of consciousness and conscience both. But, as stated before, all is possible in the feminist world of illogical logic and unreasonable reason.

It is not men that dictate what women do with their bodies. It is feminists. Under the guise that certain womens actions are actions that no woman in her right mind would take, were she not forced by men to do so. And so the feminists force her to not do so. And they label it equality. And they label it fairness. And they take away these womens jobs and incomes and consider it progress for womens rights. All the while chanting «My body, my choice!», all the while disregarding what these women whom they have deemed as being in professions unworthy of women have to say about the matter. Womens voices don`t matter much to feminism. Only feminist voices matter to feminism. It is almost as though one would be inclined to believe that feminists believe that all women are one and the same and that all women have the same goals and aspirations in life; namely – feminisms goals and aspirations. Which is… well, who the hell knows anymore? Everything is a feminist issue. Even the things which contradict the other things. All things are true. Even false things are true.

You need only listen to how feminists speak to, or about, these women whom they deem unworthy to see how quickly they pass judgement on what a woman choses to do with her body and her life. Tear the veil from your eyes and your ears and look and listen. Don`t repeat the mantra that it is only about equality. Don`t resort to pointing to the dictionary definition. Look, and listen, and all shall become clear.

It is a hodgepodge of moronic diatribes and astoundingly rude and disrespectful behaviour towards women. This coming from the same set of ideas that tell us that we should respect women by virtue of nothing but vagina. Of course, it is quite clear that they don`t mean we should respect women, but that we should respect feminist women. Or merely the concept of feminism itself, totalitarian ideology that it is. Respect women, or perish. Meaning: respect feminism, or perish.

Why is it that feminists can tell women what is proper conduct for women, and yet lambast anyone other than feminists who dare critique a woman? And that is not even women as a group, but one single woman. Here come the cries of harassment, here come the cries of misogyny and violence against women. Because women are so weak and frail, according to feminists, that they can not handle criticism. Unless that criticism is coming from feminists towards women who are not – in their eyes and goblin-minds – real women. «Don`t sexualize yourself. Go find real work instead.», they say. And so remove their jobs so they are forced to find some other area of employment. It does not matter what women want. It matters what feminism wants.

Over here, in the frozen wastes of Norway, one of our prominent radfem-groups are protesting BDSM. Because they, in their allembracing benevolence, consider it domestic violence. And so, they try and infiltrate our bedrooms. All the while claiming it a move for equality and liberation of women. It is astounding. This group protested the cinematic screening of 50 Shades of Grey; a series of books and movies mainly enjoyed by women. And written by a woman. For its supposed promotion of domestic violence. Do they not know what fiction is? Do they really believe that everyone apart from them are so simpleminded that they are incapable of separating fiction from reality? Or is it that psychological projection again; that they can not separate fiction from reality so noone else is able to either?

One of these feminists, when asked what they thought about women stripping for their partner, answered something along the lines of «Well, we don`t want to tell people what they may or may not do in their bedrooms. But it is a shame to see that the pornculture has seeped into our private lives like this.» Women are victims of their own choices. And a woman must never, ever, do anything to please her partner. If that partner is male. A male pleasing his partner is a good thing. A woman pleasing her partner is misogyny. Well, in all fairness: a male pleasing his partner is probably misogyny as well, according to the corrupted minds ruling the church of feminism.

Meanwhile, us sane and reasonable individuals consider it a good thing for a man to please his partner and a women to please her partner in a fair and functional relationship built upon cooperation and trust instead of enmity and competition. Bugger it. Millenium hand and shrimp. There is no reason to be found here, within feminisms fractured walls and ravaged halls.

Sexual liberation is a great thing! As long as women fuck in a way deemed suitable by feminists; under the covers, with the lights off and a copy of the Scum Manifesto clutched firmly in one hand, and the Communist Manifesto in the other. Or celebrate their sexuality in a way that is not offensive to the eternally offense-seeking minds of feminists. And there`s sex-negativity and sex-positivity and doublethink and doublespeak and doublestandards and not one semblance of reason amongst them.

The great feminist revolution claimed to be about liberation, but tears away our liberties and dictates our lives, making the private political and the political private, attempting to dictate what we do with our privates in the privacy of our own homes. Noone is free from the allseeing eye of feminism. A great eye, enveloped in flame, gazing ever hither and dither, eternally seeking more power, more might, more influence, more control! One ideology to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.

Moiret Allegiere, 05.01.2019

Don`t apologize, don`t back down.

Mine your mind A3 lowres

Ill: «Mine your mind/mind your mine», A3, 2018, Moiret Allegiere


I am not now, nor have I ever been, in the habit of apologizing for something which I have never done or taken any part of. I have no intentions of apologizing for the random chances of my birth. And I will not check my privilege, as the nonsensical drone of inoculated safe-space inhabitants would have me do. Conversely, I have never been in the habit of taking pride in the circumstances of my birth. I take pride in what I do, what I accomplish, what I create. Not random chance.

The mere notion that anyone should have to apologize for the way they are born is beyond ignorance. It reaches far and deep into complete and utter madness; a madness which would make the inhabitants of H.P. Lovecrafts literary world tremble and shake in their boots. The call of intersectionalism. Do you hear it; a soft murmur and a thunderous crash both? Ia, Ia, Intersectionalism Fhtagn!

And yet, here we are, caught in a vortex and going down, down, deeper and deeper down into the madness of foul gibberish vomited from stomachs rotting, enveloped within a horrifying stench of decadent decay. Have you checked your white male privilege today? Confessed your sins of masculinity? Thrown yourself at the feet of your betters to lick their toes and jackboot stillettoes clean of cobwebs and insecure self-aggrandizement, or sought repentance by paying tribute or reparations to those whom, the claim is, you have hurt deeply and gravely through no fault of your own; through nothing but the shitstain of original sin?

Collectivizing blame is as simplistic as it is evil; a nonsensical thought conjured forth from the deepest recesses of a fevermad collectivist dream. You are this. And thus you have done this. A thousand years in the past, you have done this. And you must repent. And you must change. And you must meet our demands. Then, and maybe then, you shall be considered human. Or atleast partly above utter scorn, humiliation and hate. And yet, the original sin will remain with you; a constant barrage of blame and shame and ridicule to beat you down, deeper down into the mud and blood and dust. The mark of the Devil upon your brow and tainted soul. And you will try and you will apologize and you will bend the knee and still the blame will come, more and more, more and more, the more you apologize and the more you let the hive have their way. Apologizing means admitting that they are correct in their mindfuck assertions of inherited privilege. And then they win the right to keep going. They win the right by admittance of guilt where no guilt exist. The more our societies grovel at the feet of this intersectional nonsense, the more powerful the background murmur becomes. The more powerful it becomes, the grander and more absurd the demands become. There is no pleasing it. There is no stopping a train that does nothing but gain momentum; who`s mere existence is designed to keep going, keep going, keep going with no end in sight. Do not apologize to these people. Do not back down. Do not give them an inch. And watch them grumble, mumble, crumble and waste away, driven back across the borders and back into the padded cells of their safe-space asylum.

To hear these whiny, petulant and spoiled children of overabundance preach and tell me that I am at fault for being male and for being white is as insulting as it is bigoted, as stupid as it is hateful. The idea that I, on the basis of naught but my gender and the colour of my skin, have led a life of unbridled privilege is racism without doubt, and clear-as-the-fucking-day sexism. And that is all it is. They may hide it behind carefully crafted narratives of power + privilege as much as they want. It still does not make it any less of what it, in actual fact, is. The notion that people who do not know me should dare to pass judgement on me and my life based solely on my arbitrary characteristics is sickening. Here I sat, believing that people should not be judged on the colour of their skin or the genitalia betwixt their legs, but on the content of their character. Each as an individual, a person in and of themselves, a fellow human being worthy of all that a fellow human being is worthy of. Of course, and by Joe: I near forgot: men are not human beings but human doings. And do, do, do, young boy, please do. Interesting, is it not, that the word «boy» used to mean servant? To serve and to please and to disappear into the corner, to become one with the wallpaper when not needed; to shut up and be quiet until called out to serve and to please. Do, do, do, if`n you please, please do, please please.

And yet, here we go, feeding the buzz and the drone with stupid assertions and unfounded accusations of genetical privilege, or lack thereof. All based solely on superficial attributes. And the fingers and the quivering lips point and ridicule and label ME a bigot for not being so bigoted as to judge and deem someone worthy or not worthy of consideration, empathy and understanding based on their genitalia or the colour of their skin. The virtuous are now the bigots. The bigoted are now the virtuous; tearing down bigotry and hatred, one racist or sexist statement at a time.

Should they try to think further than the tips of their powdered, upturned noses, their very world would tremble and their very minds would melt and become one with the chasm opening underneath their feet to swallow them whole, as their entire world dips and turns and disappears into the ether and into the flames and fires of hell. There are no foundations beyond their bigotry and ignorance. Locked stocked and smoking barrels filled with pre-approved and well rehearsed diatribes; noise and bellowing, smoke and fire, brimstone and death, signifying nothing at all. Depths of intellect need not apply. Deep, slow and methodical thinking need not apply. There is nothing beyond the immediate gratification of having their hatred and bigotry justified and sanctified. By pointing fingers and laying blame and accusing others of the very sins they are engaged in themselves. And we are all bigots for pointing out their hateful bigotry, their nonbinary pseudointellectual wordsalad-gibberish posing as intelligent philosophy. Cry wolf enough times, however…

Scratch but a tiny layer of the surface and you shall see it all tremble and crumble to dust and dirt. And you shall see them deny their incompetence and lack of reason; hiding it behind hideous anger posing as the right of the oppressed to hate the oppressor. Should you get angry in return – as well you fucking should – this will then be brought forth as one example amongst many of mens inherent hatred of, and violence towards, women. The circle is complete. Men being angry is violent and dangerous. Women being angry… now, that is just empowering! Go girl, go. No matter how insane and dribbling with unreasonable quackery!

And we are indoctrinated to believe this lie, and thousands other to follow, across years and years, vast oceans of time, hardwired to protect and listen and do for the hive as they point and blame and shame and weep crocodile tears and whisper in our ears how evil, wicked, tricksy, false we are.

I am a man. And as such I am less human, less capable of humanity than they are. My greatest sin is being born into sin. And for this, I must apologize and flagellate myself before them as they point and judge and babbel on and on. And it is never good enough, never grovelling enough, for them to not point, not mock, not ridicule, not demand more and more and more, ever more. Driving us to the point of utter destruction. And we cave, we, as a society, cave in and we grovel and we say that, yes, we are so privileged and oh, we are so oppressive and, oh, we are benefitting from hundreds of thousands of years of evil incarnate in the shape of testicles and swinging cocks and oh and oh oh oh, how wicked and how evil we are, is, always have been.

One mans transgressions is every mans burden to fix. And so is one womans transgressions the fault of every man. In their minds and in their eyes, all the faults and flaws of the world are the fault and flaws of men, and men must step down and apologize and let women rule. But men must also fix it, even if we are not supposed to rule and fix and govern. Let women hold the reigns, they say. And let men do the work, they say. And by women, they mean feminism. And by men, they mean men.

And am I, by virtue of being male, to take the fault of every man upon my shoulders and let it burden me to the point of despair and selfdestruction? Well, yes, I am, and I have to admit to my privilege as the jackboot-stillettoes of our victimized tyrants poke me in the eye and are driven deep into my central nervous-system – I`m sorry I`m male, I`m sorry I`m white, I can feel my privilege and my oppressive nature coursing through my veins. Let it flow, then, let it flow, outwards, and then seep into the ground so that I can repay the sins I have commited – albeit by the hands of others, and a thousand years before my birth, let it flow still, until all is driven out of me and I am left as nothing but a empty husk, a shell in which to foster the true and caring nature of intersectional collectivism; the state of nature true and through; a protoplasmic ooze in which all love reigns supreme, where all is grey and shattered and scattered and driven together by travesties and tragedies both. A state of nurture, through and true where naught exist but mangled limbs and strangled words, a whisper fading on the lips of a dying son smothered in his crib by caretakers claiming it an act of love and compassion.

There is no hate beyond the world of men, they claim. The only bigots are the filthy white men. They should all be killed. That`ll teach them that to hate someone based on their gender and the colour of the skin is bad! All I want for christmas is a white genocide. Kill all men. See, there is no hate in that. We normalize and accept hatred of men and hatred of whites by painting men and whites as evil incarnate; as privileged haters of all but themselves. The ridiculousness is astounding. As are the doublethink, the doublespeak, the doublestandards galore. One rule for thee, another for me. So it is, has, and always will be. They would have had no standards where it not for their double standards. Yet, they stay oblivious to their own obvious psychological projection. And our societies stand in gobsmacked attention, refusing to point out that the empress has no clothes, that the reason they think that men as a group think like this about them is because they, as a group, think like this about men. They think that men would do to them what they wish to do to men. And all the fencesitters and all the babysitters sit and nod their heads and refuse to listen, claiming that it is the work of a radical few, this hatred and shaming and wishes of death and destruction and curtailing of our freedoms. It is but a radical few. A vocal minority. With enough power and control and dominance to dominate the discourse and the state of affairs and change all and one to suit their needs, hiding their battle for supremacy behind the skullsplitting mantra of equality; equality for all, which of course has come to mean equality for women, which has come to mean equality for feminism.

I ain`t apologizing for something I have had no part in.

I ain`t taking blame for something I have never done.

Nor should you. Nor should anyone.

But I shall follow the flawed fragmented-psyche logic of these ill constructed, fermented brainstems. If I am to take on the burden of the responsibility of every bad act perpetrated by every man that has ever done a bad act, I will also take on the responsibility of all the good ever done by every good man – from every single kitten saved that was trapped in a tree, to every single war fought and won for the benefit of all; from every single tender fathers kiss upon his childs brow, to every scientific innovation which bettered or saved the lives of millions. I shall follow their logic and I shall take it upon myself and put it upon my own shoulders the collectivist nonsense they spout, and demand their gratitude and demand their admiration for every kindly deed done by every man who has ever lived. And lo, and behold – the good far outweighs the bad. And lo, and behold, I am good. And so is every man.

Men did not start this war; this endless nonsensical cycle of blame and retribution. But we can sure as hell end it. In one swift strike, we can end it.

Do not apologize.

Do not fall for their tricks and crocodile tears. Do not internalize blame and do not internalize hatred and do not give them an inch.

Don`t apologize.

Don`t back down.

Stand your ground.

Don`t apologize.


A rant about violence.

schools lost A3 Lowres

Ill: «Schools Lost», A3, Moiret Allegiere, 2018


Buckle up, Buckaroos! Grab a drink. Have a few. We`re going on a wild ride, a mystical journey to the center of the mind. Or at the very least to the center of certain insanity. Destination unknown, trajectory wonky, wobbly, uncertain. See the writing on the wall. Fasten your seatbelts. Down we go.

Have you ever heard the saying «End violence against women»? Thought so. Did you shake your head and mutter something along the lines of «those poor women, disproportionately suffering violence at the hands of evil men?» Thought so. Sounds fairly typical. Yet another episode wherein visceral gutinstincts overtake the usual rational response. Because we sure as hell need to end this terrible wave of violence washing over the poor defenseless women. Why should they suffer so? And at the hands of men at that! Poor girls. Time to don that armour and fight for their honour. Just as we have always done, time and again. It is chivalry returning for the umpteenth time. Protect women. Always. Even at the expense of men.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of victims of violence are men don`t matter much to us. We need to worry about the minority of victims of violence instead. And this minority just so happen to be women. The reasoning seems to be that men are the perpetrators of violence more often than not. And as such it does not matter much that far more men than women suffer violence. The gender of the perpetrator makes the violence acceptable when swung in the general vicinity of the disposable male; evil mercenary of the patriarchy that he undoubtedly is.

Nevermind that this tells us that the small percentage of men who are likely to be violent would rather assault another man than he would assault a woman. We do not have a call to end violence. Not as such, no. Just a call to end violence against women. Framed in such a way that it is mens violence against women. And only mens violence against women. Of course: women are seldom, if ever, violent against men is what we are told. And when they are, it is brushed of or even given excuses, explanations and mental gymnastics galore to make the female perpetrator out to be the real victim of her violence against the male victim. Deny and reverse victim order yet again. He must have done something to deserve it. Because of course he must have. Victimblaming, superb and absolute, is quite alright as long as it is a man, tainted by original snakelike sin, being blamed for the actions of a clean, angelic and innocent woman.

Now, I will admit that I absolutely think it is a good idea to end violence against women. I just so happen to believe that ending violence against men is just as important. And considering, yet again, that the vast majority of victims of violence are men one would not have to be particularly imaginative to imagine that more resources ought to be directed towards the group most affected. At the very least one would expect more resources. Some resources, even. Yet, that is not the way the swings are swung. Violence against men is commonplace, and mens pain and humiliation – both emotional and physical – is a source of amusement and humour in the zoological paradise of the domesticated primates.

Who can forget Sharon Osbourne laughing, at starspangled daytime television no less, at the very real story of a very real man who got his very real penis chopped off by a very real furious harpy fuelled by bloodlust extreme, and then thrown into the very real waste disposal bin? Snip, snop, chop-chop, blood and pain and humour eternal. Considering that male genital mutilation is legal and not considered mutilation, it is not a far stretch to say that this indifference to the wellbeing of boys and men begins early in a boys life.

Laugh at the mans pain and dismemberment, audience. Add to his humiliation and add to his pain. Laugh, I tell you, laugh! And an army of trained seals applaud and laugh, as the magic is absolved by the zeitgeist, a magic that makes us immune to empathy whereever men are concerned.

The wonders of aerial telepathy told them not only that they were allowed to laugh, but that they had to. The victim in this instance singled out for ridicule. Not only dismembered and victimized, but shamed and furhter victimized for being so! The mutilation of his penis, his physical and psychological pain turned into a joke through dreary daytime television horrors. With little-to-no serious repercussions for Sharon Osbourne, I might add, who made a half-assed apology later on which she snickered and sniggered and giggled her way through; a mean girl lost in the adolescent haze of high school still.

She still has a career.

A man doing the same, were the genders reversed, would without a shadow of a doubt have no career after the inevitability of a nuclear winter following his jokes at the expense of a mutilated woman. He would have been subject to the ferocity of mob law and mob rule. He would have been lynched, his name tarred and feathered, then driven out into the desert to wither and die. Considering that men can not even make a private joke amongst themselves in the presence of a woman without suffering backlash, this is not something I just pulled out of my ass. Look to «Donglegate» for one example amongst many.

Since the victim was a man, he must have done something to deserve his fate. If not directly, he must have done something indirectly. Due to vagueties of patriarchal hierarchies and explain-it-all-away-please.

And so we are blind to his pain and humiliation. Societally, we have no empathy for him. A mans pain is either taboo, or it is a source of amusement. A womans pain, however, is something that we need to band together to end. No matter how small and insignificant that pain may be. Feelings trump facts in this regard, and feeling as though a man looked at her wrong means the man commited sexual violence in some shape or form. «He done eye-raped me, y`all!» And then it`s all «Girl power! Go Girl Go! Show them evil men-folk who you are, how strong you are!» And other such slogans; one-upping the patriarchy, one severed penis at a time. If his right eye offends you, then you must pluck it out.

Is it then any wonder that few men report being victims of domestic violence? No wonder that the statistics previously have shown few men as victims of domestic violence, even though Erin Pizzey have said since the 70`s that women are just as likely as men to engage in domestic violence; that most domestic violence is bilateral. Not only are men not believed nor taken seriously, they are ridiculed if they dare to step forward and tell their story of violence at the hands of women. As a natural effect, it is underreported. There is also the Duluth-model to take into consideration, of course. I will not go into that one here and now. This is long enough as it is!

Many factors conspire and work together, so that we believe that it is mostly women who are victims. Of course, the feminists would tell you that this is the fault of the omnipresent patriarchy, which views women as weak and incapable. Which sounds an awful lot like «The Devil made me do it». Odd, then, that the very same feminists are the ones who scoff at the idea that men can suffer domestic violence at all.

Katherine Spillar saying that «Domestic violence is just a clean-up word for wifebeating» in Cassie Jayes fantastic documentary, the red pill, should tell one everyting one needs to know. There is no domestic violence. Only wifebeating. What a trip, eh? See how they try to change words around and how they manage to shift the definition to suit their agenda. Luckily, it seems that the tides are turning and that men have finally started reporting domestic violence. Mayhaps we will see a change in the general cultural norms come time. I wouldn`t count on it any time soon, though. Changes such as these do take time. We are fighting a long battle. And the siege has only just begun. We need to be patient.

Oh, goodness gracious me – I almost forgot – men are stronger than women by far, dontcha know! So they would have no problem defending themselves. And here I sat years ago, believing the feminists when they told me that women can do anything men can do. And do it better. Anything but violence, apparently. Strange, this, that biological differences suddenly pop to the forefront of our cultural knowledge and the blank slate social constructivist nonsense suddenly gets spirited away whenever it suits a certain worldview and a certain agenda. Gone in a puff of smoke and leaving nothing behind but a lingering aroma of rotten eggs and synthetic hairdye. It is not either-or. Stick to your scripts. Men as the perpetrators, women as victims. For all time, for ever and ever. Hail Bindel, Praise Dworkin, Amen. Nevermind women using weapons. Nevermind emotional abuse. There is a reason that the caricature of the henpecked husband have been around for aeons.

Oh, my bad, that caricature of the henpecked husband is of course an attack on womanhood and as such evidence of rampant misogyny throughout the ages. Even if it is the henpecked husband being made fun of! Nevermind, nevermind, wipe it under the rug, dust gone, all settled, now we are clean and good to go. Just as long as we know where we have to stand on these issues, dontcha know?

Going back to my teens, I remember the school, as well as the youth club I attended every friday offering classes in selfdefense for girls. Nothing for boys, of course. And at this point, I had been assaulted twice. Not talking about scuffles amongst friends – those happen with teenaged boys, full of piss and vinegar and more pride than sense. It is to be expected. A small scuffle, a quick fight, done with it, nothing major, friends again now. Nah, I`m talking about proper, out of the blue, assaults by relative strangers. People whom I knew by name, and nothing more. And I was thinking back then the same as I think now: why would only the girls be allowed to learn how to defend themselves, and why would the boys be expected to know how? It seems to me that we were, and are, expected to experience violence and as such are expected to be able to defend ourselves. Violence enacted upon men are so commonplace that we don`t register it. It just happens. It is a fact of life. Deal with it. Brush it off and man up! Don`t complain and don`t ask why you are not allowed a free selfdefense class or two, lest we label you a hater of women and scoff in your general direction, you son of a silly person!

Violence against women is so rare and happens so seldom, relative to that against men, that we notice when it happens. We are wound up tight by the wheels and cogs of gynocentrism and a philosophy of protect-the-women, that we feel a absolute and most definite need to end it. Socially, societally, globally. We notice and we weep for the poor defenseless women who needs all the help they can get their poor hands on. Bring back our girls. Boko Haram. Thousands of boys kidnapped, tortured or killed over the years. Forced into becoming child-soldiers. Merely a flicker of a fly buzzing through our collective consciousness. Kidnap some 200 girls, however, and everyone is all up in arms. Women and girls must never experience violence. Men and boys, on the other hand… not so much. It`s different, we are told and led to believe by aerial telepathy and the clicking of the presses, the machines at work. Why is it different? Well – it just is. The apathy disgusts me. The inability to see boys and men as victims, only perpetrators ought to make our foundations shake and tremble with rage.

And I have to wonder if male victims of violence which may leave them crippled physically or psychologically worry or even care about the gender of their perpetrator, or if they would rather see justice served and be done with it? The gender of the perpetrator should not matter. Only the violence enacted should matter. The act. And justice. Not justice legionaire, but justice at all. Justice for one and all. Ideally, we should all be equal under and in front of the law. In reality, though, this is not the case.

If we are to be so stupid as to look at violence through the mindnumbing glasses of partly or completely blinded gender-ideologues, where the gender of both the victim and the perpetrator matter, how does this work in actual reality?

If one follows the cracked and poisonous eggshell-logic of these modern-day victorians, should it not also be the case that a woman assaulting a man is evidence that this woman hates all men? Should it be considered a hatecrime? Is it not evidence of womens violence against, and hatred of, men? What are the rules exactly?

Of course, we know that it is not viewed as such. Were the rules evenly applies across the board, though, it should be viewed as such. Because that would make the woman attacking the man attacking him solely for being a man, if we are to believe that a man attacking a woman does it solely because she is a woman. But the rules are, of course, not applied evenly in the feminist claptrap utopia of doublethink, mental gymnastics and bigotry.

Because of something-something-mumbo-jumbo-woo-woo invisible power structures and patriarchy reigns supreme, it is something completely different.

But what if a woman assaults a woman? Who would be the main victim there? Would the assaulted have done something to the assaulter that warranted the attack? How many factors do we take into consideration when measuring the harmful effects of an assault? Gender? Age? How about sexuality? Skincolour? Mental state? Intelligence? Should we delve even deeper into the vacuos rabbithole of identitypolitics and superficial qualities? What should we factor in? Depends, it would seem, on the time of day, the phase of the moon, wether or not there was a full or partial eclipse of the sun sometime prior and so forth and so on. A butterfly flaps its wings. Women are most affected.

The feminist narrative changes according to the whims and wonders of the universe. Sometimes, there are biological differences between men and women that make things different when women do it, or when men do it. Other times, there are none and gender is a social construct, so why-oh-why are there not more women in STEM fields? Oh, fiddle my bump and call me names – I forgot once again – Feminism is not a monolith, and as such views and opinions may vary. Yeah. It`s great to have excuses and explanations at the ready, floating around in the ether to be picked out of the air and presented when needed. A entire list of made-to-order excuses and pre-recorded arguments to pull out of a tricksters hat in order to justify a clear and cut case of double standards and discriminatory practices.

There is also this to consider: this same non-monolithic ideology view men as a monolithic entity. #yesallmen, anyone? #menaretrash? #killallmen? I find it incredibly strange that subscribing to a ideology by ones own choice; that labelling oneself a feminist, grants one the freedom to not be held accountable for the evils done in the name of said ideology. Actions do speak louder than words, and the actions of feminists do not reflect their claims of working for equality. Quite the contrary.

Being born, through no fault of ones own, as a man makes one part of the evil force of masculinity. By random chances of birth, by simply sharing genitals with the few men who commit to evil acts and deeds, one is guilty and need to take on the responsibility of the evils of a few men. Yet, labelling oneself a feminist does not make one responsible for the evils done by feminists. Feminism, I stress, is a choice. A selfinflicted identity whose wounds run deep and whose noose is firmly tightened criss-cross around the neck of the world.

In short: By virtue of my dingaling, I am directly or indirectly participating in the violence against women. And so I must, directly, contribute to end it.

Shame on me otherwise.

The fact that I wish to take a egalitarian approach to these things matter none. Wanting to view violence as violence, no matter the genetic makeup and chromosomal haphazardness of the victim as well as the perpetrator makes me, somehow, diminish the seriousness of violence against women. The fact that I suffered a violent and out-of-the-blue assault by a random stranger at the age of sixteen which dramatically altered the trajectory of my life don`t matter none. Working towards ending violence against all is stupid and bigoted. Ending violence against women on the other hand – well, that is just downright virtuous and something that all and one should aim at. I can`t comprehend the mindset that taking a non-gendered approach to violence takes something away from women. But that is what happens when one views the sexes as being at war. That is what happens when one projects unto others that which one does oneself: by looking at one, we necessarily need to take something from the other. The feminists would do well to remember what they themselves have been saying: when you are used to privilege, equality looks a hell of a lot like discrimination.

Pointing out the fact that men are the victims of violence more often than not, not only the perpetrators, turns us into evil mansplainers wanting to take away from women. So they bathe in, and drink, male tears instead of extending, or taking, a hand so that cooperation to end violence in all shapes and forms brings us closer to a common goal. The feminists would rather ridicule and shame boys and men than they would acknowledge the fact that boys and men are the vast majority of victims of violence. They would rather humiliate than cooperate, shame than emphatize. No fraternizing with the enemy, you know. The discussion has to be onesided, for some reason or other.

According to the feminists, talking about both genders and their issues somehow detracts from the conversation about women. It is a supremacy movement; a push to give women all the advantages they can, at the expense of the wellbeing of boys and men. Giving equal consideration to both genders is impossible, in the eternal quest for victimpoints and woe-is-me; in the neverending quest to put women atop the pedestal. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. If you don`t agree, you sure as hell hate some animals more than others. And hating some animals instead of the other animals is the worst crime imaginable.

And now we are stuck in a climate in which boys in elementary schools are made to stand in front of their class and pledge to never be violent against girls and women. Girls are not made to do the same. What message does this send to boys? And what message does it send to girls?

Nothing much. Merely that the life and wellbeing of girls matter far, far more than the life and wellbeing of boys. Not a big deal, you know. Boys have been told never to hit girls, no matter what. Girls are never told not to hit boys. To believe that this would not lead girls to abuse this obvious power is absurd. Women and girls are human beings, and as such are capable of both good and evil, just as men and boys are capable of good and evil. People who actually believe that the genders should be treated equally and held to the same standards would know this.

People who do not believe that the genders should be treated equally, however, would not know this. And there we see the cobwebbed lies spun by feminism; a move for supremacy and increased privilege and pampered protection for girls and women. In the guise of equality. A move for beating down and shaming boys and men for being boys and becoming men. Hidden behind the flowing, glowing and fantastically laced panties of equality.


Some Links which may be of interest: