Feminism only has the State and shaming language

This is going to be long.  Some essential reading first from this lady on the matter.

Vox gets to the heart of the matter too in his quote and subsequent comments:

Feminism is already a dead woman walking. All feminism has is shaming language and the State (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.

Allow me to intervene here – the question of the shaming language.  A feminazi might use words such as this:

Have you ever considered that you might be the Anti Christ? Mad, full of hate, mysogynistic, just plain weird. Man, you tick all the boxes.  You are one insane son of a bitch.   Bitter.    And left as scrap.   All those women that you can’t stand tower over you.  You want to know why? Because you are a cretin.  You are a mad man, of limited intellect, with an axe to grind.  You come over as slightly unhinged.  That’s why you don’t get a huge outraged response to the tripe that you put out there.  Nobody takes you seriously.   Mostly we have a laugh.

Let’s look at the last bit first – nobody takes me seriously, mostly we have a laugh.  I’m going to state a case here.  Since 2003 and since 2006, I have been making the case that there is a Them, a global push roughly called the socialist establishment and between 2003 and 2006, almost no one took me seriously, mostly they had a laugh.

You know what I’m going to write next so I shan’t write it.  Let’s move on.

Just who are the people laughing?  Well, in the case of Them, all sides of politics have their “don’t do conspiracy theory”, low-info insta-commenters who dismiss out of hand without looking at the accumulating evidence on various issues.

Perfect example is Common Purpose which I first posted on in 2007, to the raised eyebrows and smiles of most.  Need I say more about the view of many today?

But on feminism, it’s very much along left/right lines and the feminists comprise not only the Harriet Harmans, Cressida Dicks, Julia Middletons, Betty Friedans and so on but two distinct sets of men – those weakminded men sucked in by this narrative without either seeing the consequences for male-female relations and somehow marrying this to the remnants of a twisted form of male chivalry … or men deliberately doing it, in other words – Them, the runners of society.

People like Benjamin, Foner, academics, thinktanks, Geoff Mulgan – people with the brainpower to know what they are spouting is guff but cynical enough and sociopathic enough to think that that’s all fine – because the end is this great Marxist dystopia.

Note that I’m NOT referring to the natural chivalry of any man, the sense of fairness he shares with women, the generally easy-going nature.  That’s not what I questioned two paragraphs ago. I am, on the other hand, referring to the Russell Brands.

Unfortunately, the pernicious ideology clouds the issue by deliberately employing the language of love, fairness and tolerance and of course, to oppose the ideology is now, in many eyes, tantamount to being “a hater”, “unfair” and “intolerant”.

And there is no way to get these people, essentially good people deep down, hence the immediate flocking to these buzzwords – no way to get them to see that these buzz phrases and words mask a quite evil agenda, most clearly laid out in the writings of the Frankfurt School – hence they are the most quoted.

And it is pernicious in that, like electricity, one sees the effects but can’t actually see the electricity itself.

Let’s now look at the “unhinged” part.  Read my prose, read that comment and tell me which is the more unhinged?  Again, it depends on your ideology whether or not you’d be fair on that question.

“Cretin.” Again, read the posts on on various matters and decide for yourselves my level of intellect.

So now we come down to what this person making such comments is doing.  She is attempting to shame me into backing off from criticism of an ideology which thank goodness, there are so many thousand pundits also doing and many of those today are women. And if I won’t back off, she hopes she’s taken you along with her in her conclusions.

Back to Vox:

But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn’t work. And men are disengaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don’t get married, you can’t be divorced, if you don’t co-habit you can’t have half your stuff appropriated, if you don’t have children, you can’t be on the hook for child support, if you don’t enter the corporate world you can’t be be accused of ‘harassment’ and if you don’t date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.

So men are doing what they have always done: survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.

As feminism reduces the value of women (in men’s eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining benefits modern women now bring to their lives.

But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, first born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as ’empowering’.

And yet, women’s self-reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, their happiness is also now lower than men’s.

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

For the truth is that men don’t want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about ‘winning’ battles that men never turned up for.

And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims – even now – men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.

That’s how deeply men do not want to fight women … It’s pretty simple, women. Either abandon feminism or abandon all hope of being wives and mothers. Because men will not abide feminism and you cannot force us to accept it.

Though he’s one of the more articulate, I could have dipped into any number of pundits’ offerings, ranging from the outraged non-wordsmith to the quite accomplished writer – and the feminism supporters know that fullwell.

The obvious reaction from the believers in feminism must be to do something such as the quote at the top on me.  Such things as Vox’s quote there must be marginalized straight away.  And yet, where he gets from about 80 to 200 comments normally, he got 447 comments on this matter last time I looked and this was sent to me by Chuckles.

So it’s a fair assumption, is it not that this is a matter felt quite strongly by many people, not all men. I know women who are sane and have seen through feminism as well. As women, obviously they wish to be treated equally and with respect within relations.  So do I, so does anyone.

And of course, as I’ve continually maintained, ask the women close to me how distasteful I am.  To point out the paucity and in fact highly destructive power of  a false ideology is not to hate its victims – that is insanity or at the least, a non sequitur to claim that.

One can love women and hate the ideology which has enslaved them since the mid 60s.  One can still hold them in the arms and treat them with respect, actually preferring their conversation at times. There are women right now who know I can go all day talking to them – is that the sign of a misogynist?

But what clouds the issue, of course, is that the main vanguard of feminism are clad in female form [in the Harman type – well OK, it’s line ball] and it is all too easy to jump to the conclusion that these are fully functioning women, when they’re demonstrably not.  I point to Penny Red and Charlotte Church.  They are malfunctioning units [female].

Let’s look at one line again:

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

There are two types who have not walked away though.  One is the pundit such as myself who has taken it onboard as one of the many idiocies to rail against.

The other type who has not taken it onboard is the predator outside clubs late at night preying on single women, the domestic violence men and boys [and let’s not even start on the level of female domestic violence, a much higher figure], and the really mongrel type of man who exists in the same way a really mongrel type of woman exists in society.

But in a far more subtle way, even the ordinary man, not prone to violence, not prone to anything much, no longer has any deeply felt need to love and to cherish and sees no mystique in women any more.  Where once he saw a gazelle, a nymph, a hard to catch beauty, he now sees a hoofer, squat, picking her nose and farting.

Feminism has removed all mystique from all women and that is a tragedy because so many women were quite happy with sane relations such as used to exist and with the natural level of protection they once enjoyed in society, on a one-to-one, not on a State to citizen basis.

“Modern” women are under this feminist/State spell which says they can find fulfilment alone, without a proper man – she can bring in a wimp who will not argue back, she can be financially almost independent at the same cost in fatigue as the man, she can have the knowledge that this will go on forever and forever.

Her morality is such that she can bring in lovers to service her and then get rid of them and that in itself gives her a jaundiced view of how human relations should be.

But mostly she has produced men who know better than to say anything provocative because she’ll have the State down on them, so they just go their own way, disgusted with what feminism has done to women. Men increasingly don’t give any more.

And who are the real victims here?  Apart from the offspring, it is the men and women who wish for normal relations, unskewed by ideology but based on natural, mutual love and respect.  As it once was.  It was no accident that the image of the marriage proposal was the man voluntarily going down on one knee to propose and hoping to be accepted.

She had it all. Now she’s in great danger of having thrown it all away.

13 comments for “Feminism only has the State and shaming language

  1. May 14, 2015 at 8:44 am

    Funny you chose this subject today I have also opted for a feminazi disgrace. You no my feelings on this subject, now our universities are re education all rugger teams, going so far as banning rugby teams if they refuse re education .
    *sigh* what next?

  2. May 14, 2015 at 8:44 am

    My comments are disappearing James :S

  3. May 14, 2015 at 8:47 am

    I too chose this subject today, as our universities are now embarking on retaining all rugby teams, even going so far as to ban rugby if they fail to comply, with re-education.

  4. May 14, 2015 at 9:09 am

    Shall look at this one too and perhaps link here.

  5. Hereward unbowed.
    May 14, 2015 at 9:43 am

    But then “equality” was never about real equality was it?

    Nope, for in wiminz eyes, equality means “empowerment”.

    Now that, they have gained power, have emasculated the western male is de-gendered [gelded]. Naturally now, there is nowhere else to go other than a pursuit of ultimate, maximum or, to the Nth degree and it follows, to megalomania.
    So that, men will be forced to watch womens’ football [happening now] and such male games [RU] will be banned and – wimin wiv cocks is what you get.

    Feminazism 2015, when finally, it commenced turning in on itself and to its eventual implosion and much desired disapperance up its own fundament.

  6. May 14, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Tank you for the link James 🙂
    I am having some keyboard issues , so the missing comment maybe operator error rather than the site.
    Whilst 2 comments appeared 2 disappeared. So chalk it up to my stupidity, as I probably hit the wrong thing at the wrong time, it seems to be my day for it 😀

  7. john in cheshire
    May 14, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    James, isn’t feminism part of the marxist plan to destroy the family? All feminists are therefore, knowingly or otherwise, marxists in some way; either one of the useful idiots or a true believer.

  8. Voice of Reason
    May 14, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    It wasn’t so great for women in the ‘good old days’, was it?

    Domestic violence was very common, likely more so than today.

    Up to about 1900, women and children were legally chattel in the US.

    Around that period, an awful lot of women were hooked on laudanum to keep weight off.

    By the 1950’s, this had improved to using amphetamines.

    • May 14, 2015 at 3:01 pm

      VofR, rather than contradicting one another, let’s have a few days and then we can debate it properly as its own post? Things are frenetic just now.

      • Voice of Reason
        May 15, 2015 at 2:24 pm

        No problem. I don’t regard it as contradiction. I like to actually solve problems. To do so with social constructs means that one first has to compare to see if the changes already made are improving things, or making them worse.

    • May 14, 2015 at 7:06 pm

      I have made this point to James myself VofR and he does agree, we are not talking about Suffrage here, we are talking Feminazi…BIG difference.
      As a Domestic violence survivor I would in no way undermine the work real feminists did, but today’s feminist are just out to get men in any way they can. That is not what Suffrage was all about and most reasonable women know this. It’s the hard line left who have taken feminism and turned it into a nasty bastardisation of it’s true meaning.

  9. Furor Teutonicus
    May 15, 2015 at 9:08 am

    Whatever their fetish may be, there is nothing that takes the wind out of the sails of some arse with a chip on their shoulder, whether it be Michael O’Bummer (And yes, Buttfuck had refered to “her” as that at LEAST once in public)complaining that the white students at a University were all the decendents of save owners, or if the chip be that some dykes do not like wearing bras,than quoting a famous film line;

    “Frankly my dear, I could not GIVE a fuck!”

Comments are closed.