Where is the women’s movement against feminazism?

This is paraphrasing Mark in Mayenne, who actually wrote:

The Uberclass is done for, but the perversion of feminism had been growing from day one. Where are the women who have been cheated of the promise, with their counter action?

This is a most complicated one to even begin to provide any comprehensive answer for, especially for man.

1.  There are women speaking out, mainly Christians such as Phyllis Schlafly, Suzanne Venker and Christie O but also those of the “promise unfulfilled” feminist type such as Christina Hoff-Sommers.

There are quite a few bloggers also speaking out but the sum total of voluble women on this topic, as distinct from those just sympathetic against feminism and pro-men as beasts to be in the arms of, is fairly small.

November 13, 2014

As a woman although I would not go so far as to say a lady, I have always and will always detest the ball breaking Feminazis who alleged to speak in my name, because they DON’T, not on any level or by any stretch of the imagination could these ball breakers be speaking for me.

I had a dreadful marriage but that is NOT every man on the planets fault and NOT all men are like that.

Anyway it was just as much my fault I picked a faulty one and stuck with it in a vain attempt that one day it would wake up and work right, and in all honesty I can’t even say it was his fault he was malfunctioning, that had a vast amount to do with his family (a more dysfunctional lot you could never meet).

I am sick to death of these butch dyke types telling me I can’t be a woman I have to be a man I don’t want to do a man’s job or wear a suit and tie to work, I don’t care if I get less as long as I can cover my bills.

I don’t want to mix concrete on building sites or be a car mechanic, and I have no desire to show my support for the sisterhood by having my labia pierced thanks.

I find modern feminism insulting to me as a woman it undermined my right to “just” be a mother, like I was never good enough. Feminism today is not about equal rights for women it’s about destroying the ego of as many men as possible, and emasculating them into the bargain, it’s a vicious pay back campaign for every perceived wrong these feminazis feel has been done to them I suspect many were abandoned by fathers as babies that or dropped on their heads as adults. Mostly these days they are butch looking women of middle age with moustaches who once had a bad relationship with a man named Barry in the late 70’s.

They DON’T speak for me as a woman and they never will.

Were you to broaden it to anti-socialism, there are far more women willing to put their names to that but considerably less willing to subscribe to the notion that all of it – all those movements from communism to social justice, are furthering the same ends – the ends of the UN, the EU, in other words – Them.

them's agenda

In terms of total numbers, the following diagram has its issues but is roughly OK with the caveat:

feminism venn

The caveat is that a hard-circumference venn diagram does not portray most men who sympathize with, say, equal suffrage, but not with other aspects. So, had I the blogtools, I’d make the circumference chord Men fade out slowly towards Women and Women fade the same way across men.

Which is a commentary on the complexity of defining this thing. What the diagram does show reasonably accurately is that the numbers of women affected by what they see as some aspect of feminism and the numbers of men who are moved the same way is different.

This is logical, as feminism is concerned with women gaining more power, or rather the women who are radical gaining more power for themselves and if that spins off onto other women in society, then that bolsters the argument about altruism.

2.  What feminism actually means is critical here – it means something radically different to a Dworkin or a Christie O:

… to a Fathers’ Rights group to a Higham, to many women.

So many women have different ideas of what feminist means … plus anti-feminist.

Here are what various other women think – don’t rely on the links, many which have now gone the way of all things:

Dale O’Leary, in The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, p. 24, defines that which men and women should TOGETHER be protecting instead:

The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.

It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.

Two men, F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, in The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p.75), state:

Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics”, since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed.

This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.

Alison Jagger, in Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy(Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) made the need for the destruction of the family clear:

“The end of the biological family will also eliminate the need for sexual repression. Male homosexuality, lesbianism, and extramarital sexual intercourse will no longer be viewed in the liberal way as alternative options… the very ‘institution of sexual intercourse’ where male and female each play a well-defined role will disappear. Humanity could finally revert to its natural polymorphously perverse sexuality”.

The oft-quoted Marilyn French:

All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.

… or her own desire to dominate men is explained here:

Men’s need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness; we do not know its root, and men are making no effort to discover it.

Minette Marrin stated in her article on rape that it could only lead to misandry. And that harms women themselves.  It also destroys the family.

Melissa Scowcroft asks the question – who is responsible for the breakdown of society:

So, who or what is culpable? Well, feminism, of course – specifically ideological feminists, who, with their “relentless hostility towards men as a class of enemy aliens,” have brainwashed the populace into the belief that “the only good man is either a corpse or a woman.” The result, Nathanson and Young contend, is a level of anti-male sentiment that justifies comparison to Jewish persecution.

Ex-blogger Kelly Mac [and I admit she was vehemently anti-feminist] reflected on the early years of feminism:

Namely, where were all the “good” women when feminism started? Why didn’t the women who knew they were not being abused do something to stop the misinformation that spread like wildfire? Aren’t these women just as deserving of men’s contempt as the hardcore feminists who started it all?

Ruth Malhotra got down to specifics:

The notion of victimhood, that “women are oppressed and exploited,” evokes strong anti-male sentiment.

Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution.

In Feminism: An Agenda, radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin declared that the home was a dangerous place stating, “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.”

The feminist agenda is offensive to women. With Eve Ensler and her contemporary cheerleaders in the feminist movement, initiatives such as the “Vagina Monologues” have become a central part of Women’s Awareness Month programming on campuses around the country.

The “Vagina Monologues,” often promoted as a wonderfully inspiring event to empower women, is, in reality, nothing more than an atrociously written anti-male tirade, portraying women as pathetic sexual objects who will forever be victims. Such programs are not only blatantly offensive towards women but are vile and vulgar.

Elizabeth Fox-Genovese saw it this way:

It has not been easy to acknowledge that feminism has promoted the unraveling of the most binding and important social bonds. Not easy, but unavoidable. Like countless other women who cherish improvement in the situation of women in the United States and throughout the world, I was initially quick to embrace feminism as the best way to secure our “rights” and our dignity as persons. Like countless others, I was seriously misled.

In practice, the sexual liberation of women has realized men’s most predatory sexual fantasies. As women shook themselves free from the norms and conventions of sexual conduct, men did the same.

There can be no doubt that women’s situation has demanded improvement — and continues to do so throughout much of the world. But the emphasis upon individual rights at the expense of mutual responsibility and service is not the way to secure it.

Worse, it is destroying the fabric of our society as a whole because it is severing the most fundamental social bonds. Binding ties constrain women, but they constrain men as well. A Danielle Crittenden has noted, the family “has never been about the promotion of rights but the surrender of them — by both the man and the woman”.

Kelly Mac agreed:

It’s about the fact that dating today has become nothing but a series of pick-ups and one-night-stands (thank you sexual revolution).

The overall lack of agreement on the specifics of what feminism encompasses and how good or bad it is is not dissimilar to commenter Chrysalis on domestic violence:

May I also just say, any of us could go dig up some obscure article or statistic that appears to support what we already believe about men or women or relationships. On some of them, I see James’ point; other times, like this one, I honest-to-God have never met virtually any women that are being described in this post nor the comments. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, it means I just haven’t met them.

On the other side of the coin, I’ve also only known about 6 women who I felt legitimately were in domestic abuse situations, but the press would have you believe it goes on in like 4/10 relationships.

That of course, is judging either by one’s own experience, from one’s own world with all its failsafes … or by some obscure article or statistic that appears to support what we already believe. In other words, doing one’s research.

This, by Julia M at OoL, adds another perspective:

At this point, I think we’ve gone well beyond the ‘clutching at straws’ stage. Even the Guardian writer seems to think that this is not helping the cause…

One of the challenges feminists face is having to constantly reiterate that, no, feminism has nothing to do with hating or belittling men. Feminism is about equal rights. And while this experiment was based on the valid and very important premise that male privilege manifests itself in even the most basic tenets of everyday life, it doesn’t follow that all the many microaggressions of city life are a direct result of that privilege.

Or even any of them.

Call me cynical, but manslamming seems to be more about a headline-friendly “trend” than a legitimate problem, and the latest iteration of a trend towards“experimental feminism” . It is a social media science whose results are not measured in an increase in women’s rights, but in click-throughs, video views, and – the holy grail – being accepted into the Oxford English Dictionary.

Yup, that’s modern feminism to a ‘T’.

Somewhere, in an urban newsroom filled with millennials, someone is trying to come up with the next great feminist experiment. Here’s one for free: manstraining; the act of having to squint your eyes really hard to find an affront to your daily experience as a woman, despite so many bigger ones to battle.

Heh! Well done, modern feminists – you’re starting to lose the ‘Guardian’…

There are other women’s persepctives too. This is typical:

Hilary
December 11, 2015

Back in the 1970s and 1980s feminism focussed on liberation – for both men and women – so we didn’t have to be totally constrained by the status quo and so evils could be turned around. Evils such as paying women less than men for the same job.

Evils such as a woman being owned by her husband – up until the 70s in New Zealand a man could rape his wife whenever he wanted, it was called marital rights backed up by the courts and police. And if he walked out on his wife she had no income, nor any rights to unemployment pensions until she could get into work, nor access to credit cards or mortgages.

Somewhere along the way feminism got hijacked by the socialist/communist/big government social control dynamic. Now SJWs with their lying and agenda dominates so much public discourse. One of my sisters will no longer talk with me, nor have me as a Facebook friend as I don’t support this crap.

My daughter cannot understand where I’m coming from as she struggles as a divorced mum of two working full time while undertaking a uni degree.

Where are the women who have been cheated of the promise, with their counter action?

1.  This was Mark’s original question at the top. Problem is, many women feel feminism, which claims victory for any advance for women and gives none at all to the men who themselves let go of power, they feel it has done at least something for them. It’s common to refer to First Wave as somehow benign.

And why did those men cede power? Well many of them were the vanguard of the new communism, the seeds of today’s global socialist hegemony, so of course they were going to cede nominal power.

Even today, the three-card-trick is cleverly applied – the core of men called Them retain all power they ever had but the bunnies doing their will are now women of the type I blog on so often, not men.

And as for men, plebs were always plebs, cannon fodder and so they are now, only now it’s all been relabelled, repackaged. Now men are officially the underclass, all the better to start a backlash. Women, poor sods, thinking they’ve gained something, will sooner or later discover the truth, as Flint and Harman did with Brown – the actual power was never going to be ceded, just made more opaque and their own lives are hellishly harder, even with labour-saving devices. Most working women are exhausted much of the time.

Just coming back to the men who lost power in Edwardian and Georgian times, they were only ever upper middle-class at highest, with aspirations of an Englishman’s home is his castle – it was always a fiction. The real power holders – the Warburgs, Houses and the Freemasons – were still as they always were.

This is the crucial point – nothing substantive has actually changed in the balance. One set of plebs replaces another.

2.  Women can never combine unless directed by the ideologues who identify a grievance and then provide the whole package, replete with lexicon, placards, attack strategies and so on, the whole Common Purpose deal.

Woman, by definition, is internalized, she cares primarily for herself, as men do but then for her immediate family, which replaces herself as her primary concern.  If she does march with her sisters, she’s either childless or she perceives her family threatened.

Words like patriotism and sovereignty trip off men’s tongues but you don’t see all that many women speaking of these things first up,unless tea-party types.

And always there is this vague suspicion that, despite how feminism has been shown to be highly destructive – see the women’s comments above – most women harbour at least a tiny, miniscule vestige of feeling that “early feminism” did them some good. This is so hard to prise from their minds, as it’s entered their souls.

So, if you call for demonstrations against feminism, with so many women now in the workplace and occupying increasingly high positions – though you see they come a cropper when reaching above the glass ceiling – they are not all that inclined to get radical against what they perceive as a movement which got them there.

Plus overall, women are more passive. Not when they have a cause, no – then they become shrill like Penny Red and Charlotte Church and that other woman Russell Brand.  But overall, most women do it more quietly. In an office, they’ll tend to go around quietly, speaking to this person or that who would further her interests.

So do men, yes, yes, but men as a whole are less passive overall. The reason is in men’s genes and in their jeans. Look at the tone of women’s blogposts and look at the Devils Kitchen and similar.  Look at my blogposts – quite belligerent at times. Mike’s at OoL. Look at Julia’s above.

All of these things combined are the reason women will not speak out in unison and organize. They feel they have to spend their time more wisely- there are meals to prepare, kids to pick up from school, they’re exhausted with the demands of work, travel and home, their man if they have one, they are ill more often, more things go wrong with the plumbing.  They have enough on their plate.

It’s always been women’s lot to quietly suffer, while men will moan at the drop of a hat at manflu etc.

They truly are a different species to men.

Say to women; “Come on, girls, ra ra ra, let’s combine and fight this thing,” most women I know will smile passively, knowing I like them but it’s not really on their primary agenda. However, they like having these little talks with you, the man. And if you’re a gentleman, they like it better and become even more passive.

However, they have so many things they have to do today, mustn’t hang about, they have to get here by this time, pick up this and that on the way … and so on and so on. But let’s talk in the evening.

The ladies truly are a different species to men and I, for one, welcome our lizard mistresses say vive la difference.

3 comments for “Where is the women’s movement against feminazism?

  1. Hilary
    March 13, 2016 at 2:14 am

    You are right in that women do appreciate the positive things that have come from some parts of feminist campaigns.

    But you are very wrong about: “Plus overall, women are more passive.” “Men are less passive over all”. ” most women I know will smile passively,” I don’t know what you mean by passive. If the women have their primary agenda and are working towards that – being financially responsible for them and their family, gaining additional qualifications, looking after their homes and families – then they are far from passive. Their primary agenda is theirs, not yours. They don’t have to go along with your agenda and their making their own choices doesn’t mean they are passive. They have to pick and choose their battles very carefully as there is only so much time and energy and they cannot do everything.

    • March 13, 2016 at 6:20 am

      Yes, that’s another way of saying it.

  2. March 13, 2016 at 6:33 am

    We’re all too busy working for a living to worry about what this lot fret about!

Comments are closed.