Why Gender Equality Is So Bothersome

Back in the late ’90’s, a local man in my town had garnered some attention for what happened to his daughter. His daughter had fallen off her rope swing in her backyard and shattered her arm. Instead of rushing her to the local emergency room, he had decided he and his family would turn to prayer and beseech the Lord to heal their daughther.

He and his family were Christian Scientists. Christian Scientists believe that illness and disease are fictions and can be cured by divine intervention summoned by prayer. Pursuant to these beliefs, the family prayed for weeks to heal her arm. After many weeks, the man proclaimed his daughter’s arm to fully healed. He, his wife and the members of his church vigorously agreed.

It had not been healed. In the picture taken on the steps of the local denomination—with his family beaming at the flashing cameras—his daughter looked incredibly uncomfortable. She held her right arm with her left hand, partially masking the lies of her father. Her right arm was bent downward about 30 or so degrees, the skin was a garish pink-red and clearly left her in pain. It looked like she broke one of her fingers, as ring finger bent sharply to the left towards her pinky finger, leaving her right hand in some sort of twisted V shape.

While I felt a great deal of sympathy towards the poor young girl, what was most surprising—and unsettling—was the fact these people have completely convinced themselves they healed their daughter. She standing right in front of them, her face slightly contorted from the pain emanating from her distorted arm, and they were completely oblivious.They wanted to believe so badly that God himself swept into their house, set their daughter’s arm and nursed it to health.  They were being lied to, by themselves.

Safe Space

Running from reality and seeking refuge in ideas that lead to from the disquieting reality of life  is quite common. This man and his family’s preposterous belief system that rendered their daughter’s arm lame simply doubled down on the beliefs that lead to the harm in the first instance. This man and his family subconsciously decided that it would be best to ignore all the signs that their prayerful intervention did not work. To admit reality is to admit their beliefs resulted in the permanent crippling of a family member. This doubling down is common and is what fuels such anger towards “gender equality.”

Feminists—and progressives—love to hold up and publically cherish the growing “equality” between men and women in America. They babble incessantly about all the progress being made towards the day when men and women are perfectly equal. They talk about all the invidious evils that gender inequality creates (ever notice it seems to be everything they perceive as hurting women?), and that we just need more feminism and more equality so that all inequity in the world will dissipate in puff of post-patriarchal smoke.

Yet, that isn’t the reality of the situation. Men and women are more miserable than they have ever been in American history. Divorce rates still hover at absurdly high levels, boys and girls have to play the role of parent to their own parents more than ever and social media reflects this sex-based resentment that men and women feel towards one another. Progressive feminists who believed they would be leading men and women to the shining city on the hill of gender equality should find themselves lost and bewildered in the dark woods of gender-based recrimination between men and women.

Instead of realizing that it was the substance of their social policies that has lead to so much degradation, sloth and resentment, they pretend it is an issue of image for “gender equality.” No, it’s not that the heart of feminism isn’t rotten and laden with foul maggots and worms, it’s that people don’t perceive feminism in ways that they should. If only people would listen to how feminists see themselves, then people would understand that they are the gender revolutionaries, star-crossed warriors whose sole purpose to save the world from itself. The anxious fretting over people needing to accept feminism and the cathartic effects of hate-reading sites like ROK all signal that the doubling down on feminism and feminist theory is a defense against realizing the ugly, disgusting  truth about “gender equality:” it has done nothing but torment the souls of men and women.

corporate cogs

While equality between men and women may be nothing more than a social justice smokescreen so that government and corporations can grind us down into cheaper, replaceable worker cogs, it has serious implications outside the workplace. The hyper-focus on capitalism and consumerism has let the family fester and waste away in the wake of producing the perfect producer and consumer—which is a single mother, by the way. Don’t be fooled; discussions of gender roles in the home aren’t about family life, but about increasing women’s productive capacity at work so she can, in turn, use that money to buy more products branded by capitalism. Society is obsessed with women and their career decisions precisely because they are the perfect consumers. Being a wife and a mother gets in the way of their ability to exist to be a pure capitalist as a consumer.

In their push for “equality,” feminists fought tooth and nail for what has lead directly to the restless depression that clouds heterosexuality in America. The family, which once existed as a haven in a heartless world, now exists as a distraction, a meddling group of individuals we work at loving. Instead of being able to turn to each other as spouses, siblings and parents and children, we all have to spend so much of our time lying to ourselves about reality just to exist. Life has not become a pleasure to enjoy, but an incessant  battle to hold the fraying strings together. We haven’t been lead into a shining city on a hill, but in to a cruel social dungeon of desperate anxiety and self-doubt.

Just like the Christian Scientist man who lied to himself about the reality of his daughter’s injury, feminists have lied to themselves about the “equality” they have wrought. In both instances, to admit reality is to admit the decisions they have made in life have lead directly to pain and anguish.

Unable to admit this to themselves, they furiously double-down on the beliefs that lead to the problematic actions. The aforementioned man said his daughter’s healing lead him to a “renewed commitment to God and his faith;” when faced with the consequences of a sexual revolution and “independent women,” feminists double down on feminism to heal the harm. You don’t cure an alcoholic with a case of Schlitz beer. You don’t set a broken arm by faith, nor do you preserve the balance between men and women by saying “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle.”


“Gender equality” is so bothersome precisely because it is so plainly hypocritical. It causes so much rage because those who have anointed themselves saviors of relations between men and women are the same people who have presided over the devolution of said relations. Who else has had serious pull in the gender arena since JFK was President? Feminists have been presiding over a multi-generational erosion of male/female goodwill and they wonder why they catch so much hate? You don’t get decades of social influence and get to walk away when your approaches and theories have proven to be detrimental and have led to anguish and unhappiness.

But, just like that girl with a lame arm, the wages of “gender equality” will not be addressed by those who invested in the false consciousness. Instead of understanding how they failed men and women, feminists just double down on the failed approaches to life that lead to such pervasive sexual discontent.

Unable to admit the role they have played in the harm dealt to heterosexual relations, they pretend its all the fault of other people (Republicans, the patriarchy, and white men in general) instead of looking in the mirror and beginning the long and painful process of admitting their role in the psychological regression of American men and women.

Read More: American Masculinity Is Based On Female Approval

156 thoughts on “Why Gender Equality Is So Bothersome”

  1. I really liked this article, as I have talked about before, “Unable to admit this to themselves, they furiously double-down on the beliefs that lead to the problematic actions. The aforementioned man said his daughter’s healing lead him to a “renewed commitment to God and his faith;” when faced with the consequences of a sexual revolution and “independent women,” feminists double down on feminism to heal the harm. You don’t cure an alcoholic with a case of Schlitz beer. You don’t set a broken arm by faith, nor do you preserve the balance between men and women by saying “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle.”
    This is so true, feminism takes its thought-process from the most fundamentalist beliefs of many religions. Essentially why you’re life is miserable, is because you don’t believe in feminism enough(like religions that claim you don’t have enough faith). Rather than coming to terms with the reality that it is feminism that makes them unhappy, they do the double down. It’s quite funny that as the role of Christianity has diminished in the West, feminism and the new age claptrap has taken its place. Out with the old and in with the new, right? Wrong. Not saying the old ways were perfect, but they created a growing, healthy society. This post-modern bullshit will be gone within a generation or two, or we can only hope, due to demographic changes.

    1. The problem is that they think equality IS balance.
      For a leftist, equality is a dogmatic icon for everything that is good.
      Equality means love, it means kindness, fairness, decency, harmony, bounty, progress, and just about every nicety one could imagine. It’s a lot like the concept of God.

      1. Except they hate the idea of God, especially as an Heavenly Father, precisely because He is the great Inequality: infinitely superior. This is why they are all pantheists: that way “god” is me, my neighbour, the gum clinging to the sole of my shoe.

    2. also, it exposes the baby boomer women as frauds. They spent their whole lives building a house that turned out to have termites.
      I see the doubling down as the swan song of the 65 year old single cat ladies, holding onto their part time jobs teaching sociology at the community college.
      Before they die, they have to make sure the corrupt a few more young female minds, thus validating the fading ideologies of their life.

    3. It’s rather similar to the phenomenon of doomsday cults doubling down after the date their guru picks for the en of the world passes without incident.
      But it’s not just a religious thing. Casinos, bookies, and con-artists of all types have been taking advantage of this since forever.

  2. Men and women can’t be equal, it’s called biology.
    Christian scientists are nuts. Those parents oughta be arrested for abuse and neglect

    1. Leftists don’t believe in biology. Determinism is too mean. Everything is caused by environment – this gives them psychological space to believe that anyone can be anything.

      1. This really is the crux of the matter. The core difference between
        Left and Right has always been at base, whether the inequalities and limitations see observe in human behavior are chiefly internally or externally caused. If internal, human nature is fixed and the world must be structured to reflect that truth. We can restrain the worst aspects of human nature, and channel its best aspects in such a way as to be socially beneficial, but we can never change human nature itself. Over the centuries, societies have come up with different ways to do that using the tools at their disposal (law, culture, secular social institutions, religion, etc.). This accounts for the diversity of customs, attitudes, etc in the world. In essence, we all came up with different answers to the same problem. Some work better than others; all having advantages and disadvantages, but all understood that there were limitations to what could be achieved. E.g. Murder would still occur, however limited. If we sought ultimate redemption for our individual or collective failures, we would have to look beyond ourselves, to God.
        By contrast, the eternal promise of the Left has always been that we can become our own gods. If we suppose that the inequalities and limitations we observe in human behavior are NOT internal, but rather, external (that is, created by the very tools conservatives use to check human nature (law, culture, social institutions, religion)) then everything we see is ultimately within our power to change. Everything is a social construct. Human beings are a blank slate to be written upon, or if you will, a lump of clay to be shaped into whatever may be desired. Change the externalities of life, and you change human behavior. Therefore, any failure to change behavior in practice will never be seen as proving this basic assumption to be wrong (that human nature is fixed and often not in a good way). Instead the Left will merely double down on their efforts. Anything can be achieved, provided we have the will to do
        so. What’s more, our efforts can never fully fail, we simply haven’t
        found the right path, or we lacked proper funding (taxes), or we don’t go far enough, or someone/something is in the way, opposing the march of progress. That is why the Left doesn’t just think its opposition is simply in error. If you oppose them, you must either be a self-interested liar, a dullard, or bound by some irrationality (religion, a social phobia, etc.) That’s why they don’t debate. They just hate you, because you oppose a better world. You’re not a sober realist; you’re a nut.
        They believe this (and must believe it) because if we’re right, then their whole view of themselves and the world is wrong. Then human nature isn’t within our power to change. It must be accepted and dealt with. Then we cannot redeem ourselves by our own efforts. If we seek redemption, we must seek God.
        That is what we’re fighting.
        The whole movement has always been a revolt against nature; a rebellion against God.

        1. They are against finitude. Limits free and actualise a being. A being without limits is outside of natural law. In other words leftists are outcasts.

      2. Actually, you’ll find that they play both sides of the fence. The real rule of a leftist is “always choose the evil, but clothe it in priestly vestments.” Determinism is too mean for a leftist – when it means being prevented from choosing the evil in the matter of gender relations; but determinism is precisely the benevolent force they’ve been looking for, when it comes to browbeating you about homosexuality (they’re “born” that way!). The simple rule is, a leftist will always choose the more degenerate and unnatural course of action, and will use either the most authoritarian kind of determinism, or the most frenzied and hysterical kind of antinomianism, to reverse-justify their inevitable choice in favour of the evil.

      3. Leftist absolutely believe in biology, but only when it’s convenient for them. Note the Ray Rice outcry.

    2. Of course. Simply look at our bodies; men are designed to hunt and fight and build things; women are designed to give birth and nurture offspring. Even men’s face have evolved for different purposes than women’s:
      “Millions of years of fist fights have altered the human face to leave men’s
      jaws more robust than women’s, a study has found.”
      The only way women can truly achieve equality with men is to bring men down to their level, which seems to be happening with the emasculation of western society.
      The sad truth for women is that they will never achieve true equality, for being a man means not desiring equality with females; being a man means never having to say, “Geez, I wish I were a woman!” or “I wish I could do what women do!” No, I don’t want their fucking periods and PMS; no, I don’t want to fucking carry an fetus inside my body for 9 fucking months; no, I don’t want to breastfeed (which makes me wonder, what would women say if men demanded that newborn infants go straight to their arms instead of the mothers’ immediately after being born? Wouldn’t women be up in arms about that? Ha ha! Not that I’d want some screaming, messy newborn in my arms….been there done that, status quo is fine with me, not that I’ll ever do it again); etc., etc.
      Being a man means being the natural pinnacle of the world’s beasts. There is nothing else on earth we desire to be, nothing on earth we envy other than men superior to us.

      1. So you’ve moved on to slumlording it now, eh? When are you going to take the final step and go all out sasquatch on civilization with your very own genuine mancave (not some cheap lit and heated basement erzatz) somewhere up in the great white north? It’s in our blood, don’t cha know?
        P.S. If you’ll kindly invite me over I’ll gladly bring the beer and caribou bait 😀

        1. Actually I’ve been living in one of my own units since I gave the big old Victorian (labour intensive) house to my ex, who’s going to have a dandy of a time maintaining it (heh heh…when I first suggested moving there, as our comfy little home had grown “too small” according to her, I suggested we keep the two rental units on the bottom and live for free on the 2nd and 3rd floors, but no, she “didn’t want people hearing us below”…poor thing could have been living for free now…ha ha!)
          And yes, I’ve been contemplating turning the 20′ cargo trailer I own (from a previous business, wheels shown in the pic above) into my residence, ‘going Sasquatch’ if you will. I’m also contemplating setting up a little yurt campground behind my establishment. As I’m located on a main drag and my neighbors include McDonalds and Wendys, I’ve contemplated the food business as well, but that’s just too much regulation for me.
          I’m in between slumlording and regular apartments, and I love my niche!
          I don’t drink beer anymore (gluten intolerance), so bring me some Spanish organic red. Also, no caribou around here; just deer and black bear. Caribou are way up north, like Arctic circle. If you want moose you want to go to Newfoundland.
          Oh, and you don’t use “bait” for moose or caribou; they’re foragers with specific diets. For deer you can use apples as bait, but you have to start early in the season and deposit the apples regularly as they’re creatures of habit.

        2. Heh, so it looks like your ex will not think of subdividing the Victorian again and having tenants on the lower floors after all. Princess needs to keep the castle all to herself while that pesky little matter of paying for it should simply magically appear out of nowhere I suppose? I hear ya on that one!
          Thanks for correcting me on the caribou. I was actually thinking moose as well but the object and noun somehow temporarily crossed over in my head. An I do believe they have those moose calls to lure them in. Not bait really but similar idea.
          We men really are simple creatures at heart. And the wild really is our abode when you think about it. Civilization is actually a human zoo and, while we may temporarily enjoy the comforts and privileges, the need to escape invariably arises sooner or later (especially when we are badgered by the “weaker” sex). All part of the trials and tribulations of life I guess.

        3. I haven’t hunted since I was a teen. I used to take a shotgun to squirrels just the see them evaporate while I was hunting pheasants and hare. Then I had some problems with my uncles as they screwed over my father business-wise, and since I had heard my Pops say, “I’m going to Montreal to hire a hitman to kill my brothers!” I bought a $1000 Valmet Kalishnikov-based rifle to do his deed for him (it was prime ‘Commando’ and ‘Rambo’ time). Luckily common sense prevailed.
          I should never have sold that gun.

    3. This reminds me of a case where a state doctor was sued by a Mormon family for “soiling” their young son with the blood of another human being while giving him a critical transfusion following an accident. Was the blood in some way infected with a pathogen leading to an illness that could have been prevented? Not at all. The blood was perfectly clean and the transfusion critical to prevent death from blood loss. The problem was that the Mormons did not believe in transfusions, transplants, or any other such form of corporeal “contamination”, and would have rather seen their son “go to heaven” than receive a simple medical procedure intended to save his mortal life. Luckily, a state judge dismissed the lawsuit, citing the fact that, notwithstanding freedom of religion and the pursuit of happiness free from state interference, a state doctor cannot be punished for simply following his Hippocratic oath.
      While I see no problem with genuinely harmless religious beliefs or practices, it really gets my goat when one is faced with such blatant cases of outright religious darkness and superstition causing unnecessary and totally avoidable harm to an innocent life due to nothing more than a stubborn refusal to accept well-established and fully-documented medical knowledge and practices guaranteed to improve and prolong one’s earthly existence. As someone who is naturally suspicious of excessive government meddling and interference in peoples lives, this is one area where I am ready to make a notable exception. Genuine professional knowledge and rational decision-making simply trumps any and all self-imposed and cultivated ignorance and stubborn adherence to old customs and tradition – notwithstanding many of the other genuinely healthy aspects of life in those specific religious communities.

      1. Yes some religions have some wacky rules. Are you sure it was Mormon and not a Jehovas Witness?? The JW’s have a strict prohibition against receiving any blood product. It will damn their immortal soul . This is taken from an old testament passage. Otherwise JW’s will go to the doctor and are ok with modern medicine.
        Now Christian Scientists will not go to the doc at all ( usually). They believe that disease is a crisis or lack of faith so they can pray that meningitis or broken femur away (nuts). States will protect minors from nutty parents with nutty beliefs. Have been cases where CS have brought their kid to the doctor and refused treatment for a life threatening condition e.g meningitis. The doctor has the right to protect the child from the nutty parents and do what is necessary.

        1. It may have been the JW’s if my mind is correct. In any event, my point stands. While religion can bring genuine psychological and social benefits to people, it should not prevent one from also getting acquainted with the realities of modern science. They are not exclusive unless you happen to be a rigid nutcase, lunatic, or deranged megalomaniac obsessed with keeping power over his (or her) flock.

        2. You’re right, fluffybiskuts, it couldn’t have been Mormons. There is nothing against blood transfusions or physician assistance in their doctrine.

  3. If you are going to hold a sign saying “this is what a feminist looks like” you should at least take care to cover you sagging or nascent man-boobs. It only invites mockery.

  4. Feminism is just a giant collection of damaged women who want to take advantage of men and society while being unable accept their biological reality. Most feminists are miserable and spiteful bitches because they spend their entire lives spinning the rationalization wheel to bridge the giant space between their deranged philosophy and their true feminine nature.
    Case in point: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/im-a-feminist-who-enjoys-dominating-sex-help/article13304573/

    1. hey i am trying to figure out women who work at sandwich shops.Are they empowered feminists? I love telling them to make me a sandwich.

  5. Equalism is just the religion of the left, more pervasive and no less realistic, both in its concept and its realization.
    You ever notice how leftists seem like they’re always harboring a resentful, contemptuous defensiveness when in arguments? Not merely in the way a person would act towards somebody he hates, but as though they had been challenged on a belief that they themselves know is not well-grounded.
    The author is right. I suspect deep down inside the leftist mind, there is a seed of doubt, or at least an acknowledgement that equalism is a ridiculous fantasy.

    Most humans will always base their views on emotions and vague notions of moral niceness, that cannot be changed. It’s well and good to decry equality as a wishful social construct, or that moralism is seldom the primary concern in life, but this kind of sobriety does not capture the mind of the average person.
    What can be changed is what society determines as “nice”. The key to unraveling the left wing narrative is reframing. Rationalists need to make it understood that inequality is not the same as mistreatment, and that equality and fairness are completely different things.

    1. I do notice the resentful tone of the average leftist and I always assumed it was a result of defending an issue that echoes their insecurities. Almost all leftists are leftists because of an issue that they feel represents them. (Gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, welfare, etc.)
      Their lives seem to be ruled by guilt, fear, and anger, much like the religious. When a man takes responsibility for his own faults and shortcomings and begins to improve them, he realizes that his “enemies” have no power over him. The weak and powerless are angry and bitter. They are not actually powerless, but they have been brainwashed to believe they are by a shallow, depraved culture.
      Leftists have decided to forego self improvement and deflect their self-loathing onto anyone that opposes them. It is the political equivalent to Christianity: embrace poverty and mediocrity, while begging to a higher power to save them from the bad men that wish to do them harm.

      1. *tips fedora*
        Except Christians don’t do that, and Christian politics are right wing politics.

      2. Well, we’d have to understand some terms. For me, what you are describing is “spirituality,” where irrational emotions about supernatural things short-circuit the use of reason. People who say “I’m spiritual, but not religious” invariably mean “I have religious tingles, but I assiduously avoid involving myself in any logical thought processes about the supernatural.” “Religion,” as I use the term, is what happens when “spirituality” grows up. A “spiritual” maxim would be something like “live a lifestyle of natural wholeness and be kind.” But religion begins when you allow yourself to start asking the questions and sorting things out: might “being kind” sometimes involve employing violence (say, to protect the innocent)? Am I really living a lifestyle of “natural wholeness” if I shop at Whole Foods and avoid plastics, but devastate my natural hormone cycle with carcinogenic birth control, and insist that my boyfriend’s penis not touch me unless it is shielded from contact with me by a latex barrier? If I vacuum my children’s brains out and post videos of the process on Youtube? The “spiritual” person rejects this thought process as “religious” (and possibly judgmental!) and so avoids any kind of self-improvement. But the religious person seeks to arrive at a more definite certainty of his metaphysical principles through the use of reason.
        The fact that you belong to something generally recognized as a “religion,” does not mean you are religious, by my definition of the term. Do you profess a belief in “Bible only,” even though 1) the Bible nowhere teaches the doctrine; 2) Christians conducted regular business for four centuries without a Bible (including the Apostles!); 3) for centuries it was very difficult for people to read, let alone own a copy of the Bible? If so, then you have successfully avoided even the very first thoughts that would occur to a rational person about “Bible only” theology, and you belong to a “spirituality” and not a religion. Do you believe that that you should never pass judgment on others, understanding “pass judgment” to mean “have an opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of an act?” In other words, do you think it is wrong to ever think something is wrong? Congratulations! You have a spirituality, and not a religion.
        The point: leftism is indeed a spirituality; I suppose it may bear many similarities to other spiritualities. Most forms of Christianity, however, do not act in the way you describe. Even the forms of Christianity that are properly described as spiritualities, because their theological and metaphysical principles are absurd (as I described above), tend to have members that fare far better in non-explicitly religious questions, these latter comprising an isolated blind spot, as it were, rooted more in a spirit of resentment for spiritual authority being rooted in a partially earthly institution, than in any thorough-going rejection of God and morality altogether. They tend to embrace moral ideals that, far from causing them to “embrace poverty and mediocrity,” have in fact caused them to be the driving force behind the most wealth-generating, excellent society that ever existed. Western civilization was healthy and flourishing when it was religious. In science, culture and sports, the high achievers tend to be religious persons whose morality drove them to succeed. Amoral atheists have little to motivate them other than a sense of smug self-satisfaction, which obviously motivates one to do little more than pat himself on the back. Indeed, if you listed the accomplishments of atheists and religious persons, the religious people – and especially the Christians – would easily give the lie to your claim that they somehow are inherently poor, mediocre people. Even the religious persons who “embrace poverty” (i.e., vow never to personally own wealth or property) do so not in order to be poor simply for it’s own sake, but for an higher cause. And again, if we looked through the ages at all the saintly bishops, priests, monks and nuns, I think you’d find that they were not without accomplishments, either.

        1. You are analyzing religion from a philosophical perspective, and though I agree with most of what you said, my view on religion deals more with what the scripture and laws dictate rather than how its followers interpret the words. Religions like Christianity encourage a weak mindset in its followers by telling them to beg (pray) to a higher power for the things they want in life and to judge others by their level of “holiness”. It goes completely against nature with quotes like “the meek shall inherit the earth” because we all know the strong survive.
          Christianity is a religion for the poor and the weak because it tries to convince us that being poor is some kind of sacred trait. Jesus was poor, he spent alot of time helping the poor, and the church still asks 10% of the poor’s income every sunday. Nothing in the religion is about becoming a better person. You do something wrong, ask for forgiveness. You want something to happen, get on your knees and beg.
          This is why it is the sister ideology of liberalism. Fat acceptance, slut promotion, welfare, etc. all say to people ” dont improve yourself, blame someone else and remain average”

        2. I am a deeply religious, deeply Catholic man. I can only say that your understanding of Christianity has nothing to do with the actual faith as it is taught and practiced. Virtue is central to Christianity; virtue is from the Latin virtus, which means “manly strength.” It is actually an heresy in the Catholic Church, to believe that simply asking forgiveness (without really meaning it, and without actually resolving to improve yourself with God’s help) would have any effect. The Church teaches that attrition (a loathing of sin and fear at its consequences with the resolve not to continue sinning) at the least is required for confession to be valid. It is the definite teaching of the Church that, though justification (the grounds of reconciliation with God) cannot be earned or merited, but comes only through God’s grace, the Christian is yet called upon to persist in fellowship with God and to grow in virtue and merit, uprooting the passions and putting imperfections to death by the Spirit. Not to engage in this battle, would be to reject Christ and fall from this state of fellowship and reconciliation which is accomplished by grace through faith. Asceticism and spiritual, moral striving are sine quibus non elements of the authentic, Christian faith. In fact, the Church teaches that a man who goes through the motions of asking forgiveness without striving for moral perfection, is actually guilty of sacrilege and presumption, which is an element of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost. So, Christianity does not teach the things you think it does, but in fact condemns them.
          The Church does not teach the faithful to “beg for what they want in life.” You begin to show signs of what Chesterton called the “any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with” mindset. On the one hand, you think Christianity promotes poverty, on the other hand, you think it encourages the faithful to beg for stuff they want. Which is it? Does the Church teach Christians to beg for things, or to give them away? In reality, the Church teaches the faithful to be detached from wealth, whether they have it or not (which surely is a manly and noble sentiment, not to be ruled by material things), and to pray for the things they need – primarily for virtue, for assistance in crushing the passions (i.e., the very self-improvement you seem to think the Church ignores) and not merely for the goodies they want.
          In fact, the Church discourages us from praying for things we want, and forbids it in the case of self-aggrandizing or self-pandering wants. As it happens, the Oratio ad Missam for this past Sunday deals with how we should pray: Pateant aures misericordiae tuae, Domine, precibus
          supplicantium: et ut petentibus desiderata concedas, fac eos, quae tibi
          sunt placita, postulare.
          “Let the ears of Thy loving-kindness, O Lord, be open to the prayers of suppliants: and that Thou mayest grant to petitioners their desires, cause them to request such things as are acceptable to Thee.”
          A common Catholic prayer before beginning any activity, is: “Actiones nostras, quaesumus Domine, et aspirando praeveni et adiuvando prosequere, ut cuncta nostra operatio et a Te incipiatur et per Te cepta finiatur, per Christum Dominum nostrum.” “We beseech Thee, O Lord, both to inspire our actions beforehand, and to see them through with Thy help, that our every act may be begun by Thee, and having been taken up by Thee, may also be brought to its conclusion, through Christ our Lord.”
          In other words, the faithful are not taught to pray for things they want, but are encouraged to maintain a spirit of reverent awe before God, seeking to honour His purposes (especially as regards our improvement) and to avoid so much as thinking of one’s own whimsies. Again, then, we see that doing the right, having the proper intention, and persevering in the path of virtue and self-improvement with God’s help, rather than begging for goodies and abandoning all personal responsibility for acting well and purposefully, is the actual faith that Christians hold and practice.
          I can see what you are driving at; certainly, Christianity is “foolishness” in the eyes of the world, as St. Paul said. But the fact is that Christianity does not encourage being weak for the sake of being weak, but because the path of self-renunciation and detachment from the world actually opens the door to an higher form of strength. Christ seemed weak on the outside, but He translated the cosmos from one state of existence to another and now has an undying and supreme name amongst men; He chased hucksters out of the temple with a whip, denounced religious hypocrites as “whited sepulchres” and “broods of vipers,” ate with sinners only to help them seek self-improvement, beginning with repentance, and promised to come back with blood-stained garments as a conqueror. St. Benedict seemed weak and “poor” on the outside, but his ascetic labors led to an ecstatic perception of all knowledge in a single ray of divine light, and he founded a form of monastic life that preserved wealth, art, literature, learning and culture for over a millennium. Lawrence of Brindisi seemed like a weak man, and poor, but so strong was he in the Spirit of God, that entire armies followed him into battle and saved the West from Islam. St. Genevieve seemed weak, but saved the city of Paris. The Church has always told tales and sung songs of mighty men and heroic deeds. Sir Gawain, for all his Christianity and piety, comes off as quite the man, sure of himself and brave. The point of this element of Christian morality (a certain embrace of meekness and detachment from earthly goods), arises from the recognition that the world and its goods are evanescent, and too many men trust in them as though they were the most direct means to power. But those who truly become detached from them acquire not weakness, but a strength that scorns worldly power as too weak in itself. All I can say is that the Christianity you describe, is certainly not the Christian Faith. It may be a mockery of the faith which you have accepted, or it may be a twisted version of the faith that you saw practiced by somebody else. But it certainly is not the actual Christian faith, which places self-improvement, ascetic effort, moral striving, manliness and virtue in places of primary importance. “Be ye perfect,” Christ said; many modern Christians explain this away, but the Church takes it quite literally. The Christian is called to be perfect, which obviously leaves no tolerance for mediocrity; if it scorns worldly goods, it is not because the Church has a fetish for weakness – that is the liberal heresy of apostate Christianity; rather, it is because worldly strength is itself too weak.

  6. There is nothing that a woman hates more than a romantic partner who is her equal.
    Hypergamy is the law of the jungle. Period.

    1. lol, if u showed a woman her true “equal” she would no doubt consider him unfuckable

  7. They won’t last 2wycked. Women have no place in the political arena, the battlefield, nor the emergency first responders, neither as lawyers or doctors either. If a woman has lost touch with her feminine side for the sake of embracing power or a manly body, then she (“it”) is not a woman, it is a frankenstein. A creature that is a reckless abomination put together by spare parts from random origin points of uncultivated rigor and the fevered dreams and machinations of fools and madwomen.
    There is no future for equality in the genders, just as there wasn’t any in the past, and this present refusal is akin to an organ donor transplant where the host body will refuse the organ and is being put on drugs to try and trick the body into accepting this foreign tissue. Unacceptable!

    1. I, nor any of my employees, hadn’t heard from an elderly tenant for a week or so. We had always joked that we’d find him dead some day. When the time came to open his door, the responsibility fell unto me. As soon as I unlocked and opened the door, I knew the poor fucker was dead, and dead for some time. I called 911 and she asked, “Are you sure he’s dead?”
      “By the smell, I’d say he’s been dead for a while,” I replied.
      “Did you touch him?” she asked.
      “No. Does that mean you want me to feel him?”
      “Yes,” she replied.
      He was a strange old man who never wore clothes inside his apartment, so
      his whole body was exposed.
      I should have told the 911 lady that his body had huge, fluid-filled blisters everywhere, and that his pale skin had a red/purple cobweb pattern on it.
      “He’s cold,” I told her.
      When the first responders came, the only person who would go in was an 50-something RCMP officer; the tit officers remained outside. He came out, red-faced and holding his mouth and confirmed that the old fucker was dead. A cocky 20-something male officer said, “If you’ve had enough, let me go in!” but the old officer refused, sensing a challenge. In the end, the men, both young and old, had to take care of things.

      1. This reminds me of a documentary I saw about a “cleanup” crew in Japan whose sole job involves disposing of the dead bodies of old forgotten people in Honshu’s many apartments and even residential houses. Alone, forgotten, no family, friends, nor even neighbours to care about them, they often go unnoticed for weeks if not months (sometimes even years) following death, and are only found at first if the initial putrid smell of their decaying corpse happens to catch someone’s nose nearby.
        Sometimes the crew are lucky and they come across a veritable mummy that has been naturally dried and preserved. In such cases, cleanup is quick and (relatively) clean and easy. In the worst of cases, however, they come across a veritable molasses soup of decomposing bones, organs, muscle tissue, and other bodily fluids. Mr. Hoover is the only solution then and the flooring usually needs to be ripped up as the smell is simply unwashable.
        And all this in the land of supposed strong familial ties, social care, and community cohesion. And we complain about loneliness and a lack of “belonging” here in NA FFS.

        1. It was a learning lesson actually, as when he moved in just a couple of weeks before he was jolly and happy and joking (though his skin was yellow as hell). I know now that we are not our bodies; whatever we are evaporates into the cosmos as our bodies die and rot.
          I had to pull out the blood-stained carpet (he had vomited blood as he died), but still the stench lingered; it had seeped into the concrete slab below. I had to roll the floor with some acrid sealer and let it set for months before the unit was ready to renovate.
          I was also the one who the RCMP asked to identify the body, and as he had been been lying face-down in his own bloody vomit for days, that was pretty fun. Ha ha!
          Oh well, as I have some elderly tenants I’m sure I’ll have to do it again.
          It’s a big world out there!

      2. what the hell is your problem? can you talk about anything besides yourself? you’re a fucking bore. go away.

  8. The female mind will always be clouded in self-doubt, self-reassurance, self-consolation and all other forms of self-denial. Feminism and the cry for gender equality is just the response of the female mind gone rogue and unchecked. Our ancient forefathers knew of this illogical nature of their other half and promptly kept them in check. Proper gender roles provided balance and brought order to chaos. The reason why we have so many things out there related to gender confusion and trannies who are fucking lady boys and all other sorts of distasteful un-biological fuck shit is because we as a species have simply failed. Men are to blame. By allowing the true nature of the female gender to run unchecked under the disguise of “freedom” we have mutated this society into the paradise of a lost child. The ancient ones knew the importance of the gender roles and that men should be the drivers, but somewhere along the way we thought “Hey! why don’t you bitches take the wheel for awhile? What could go wrong?” Ladies and gentlemen I give you modern society:

  9. The female mind will always be clouded in self-doubt, self-reassurance, self-consolation and all other forms of self-denial. Feminism and the cry for gender equality is just the response of the female mind gone rogue and unchecked. Our ancient forefathers knew of this illogical nature of their other half and promptly kept them in check. Proper gender roles provided balance and brought order to chaos. The reason why we have so many things out there related to gender confusion and trannies who are fucking lady boys and all other sorts of distasteful un-biological fuck shit is because we as a species have simply failed. Men are to blame. By allowing the true nature of the female gender to run unchecked under the disguise of “freedom” we have mutated this society into the paradise of a lost child. The ancient ones knew the importance of the gender roles and that men should be the drivers, but somewhere along the way we thought “Hey! why don’t you bitches take the wheel for awhile? What could go wrong?” Ladies and gentlemen I give you modern society.

    1. why don’t you try posting this a fourth time?
      “hey! why don’t you assholes take the wheel for a while? what could go wrong?”

  10. The female mind will always be clouded in self-doubt, self-reassurance, self-consolation and all other forms of self-denial. Feminism and the cry for gender equality is just the response of the female mind gone rogue and unchecked. Our ancient forefathers knew of this illogical nature of their other half and promptly kept them in check. Proper gender roles provided balance and brought order to chaos. The reason why we have so many things out there related to gender confusion and trannies who are fucking lady boys and all other sorts of distasteful un-biological fuck shit is because we as a species have simply failed. Men are to blame. By allowing the true nature of the female gender to run unchecked under the disguise of “freedom” we have mutated this society into the paradise of a lost child. The ancient ones knew the importance of the gender roles and that men should be the drivers, but somewhere along the way we thought “Hey! why don’t you bitches take the wheel for awhile? What could go wrong?” Ladies and gentlemen I give you modern society:

  11. We humans are a dimorphic species with the males being stronger, faster and having a more diverse distribution even of mental faculties (65% of Mensa-level IQ, 90% of top 5% Mensa-levels, more creativity, but also 65% of male low-IQ-specimens and unstable miscreants). Our mind is even different with men evolved to take greater risks, be more creative, be more rebellious, be more interested in technology and more infatuated with one topic of interest.
    Women thus should be on average more stable mentally, have less low-IQ females among them, be more careful in life and have a higher probability of long-term survival and likelihood of having children.
    That is how humans have evolved and survived.
    Equality will never come and this is good so. No reason for a cat try to behave like a dog!
    Good documentary with many points: http://vimeo.com/19707588

  12. You can’t reason with religious nut cases. The feminists and the priests of equality, will never acknowledge the ENTIRELY of human history that proves that men are biologically evolved to build, protect, and lead. of all the structures built by humans going back to clay huts to the sky scrapers of today, how much of that was built by women? would that number be closer to 1% or 0%

    1. You can’t reason with religious nut cases.

      Europe has “anti-sect” laws for precisely this reason. While imperfect and susceptible to abuse, they are at least a step in the right direction. You cannot clam that somebody who has been thoroughly indoctrinated and has effectively had their brain turn to mush is making genuinely informed and rational lifestyle choices. This whole nonsense about respecting people’s faith, beliefs and actions, only on account of some religious or spiritual authority, is complete BS I say. If your guru told you to sell all your worldly possessions (and incidentally remit the proceeds to his foundation) followed by “conveniently” committing suicide in brand-new sneakers in order to be mystically transported to a waiting spaceship in orbit ready to take you to Alpha Centauri, I’m sorry but I’m just gonna slap you right on down to reality right then and there, before duly denouncing this criminal fraudster to Interpol. Sheesh.

  13. I recognize Marxism when I see it. Translated from progressive newspeak back into the plain language of the Communist Manifesto, “Gender Equality” is a cliché propagated to abolish the last vestiges of the bourgeoisie culture [patriarchy, gender roles, religious dogma and so forth] in favor of the proletarian Feminist/LBGT/Atheist “in-group”
    The progressive system of ideas consists of standard dialectical clichés, which progressive believers assert as “objective truth” Believers cite these clichés as evidence of this truth. It’s a notably ignorant variation of “begging the question,” which is also known as circular logic. Women have unintentionally but quite effectively, done Karl’s dirty work.
    Lastly, the male feminists (and I use the term male very loosely) pictured above are no more than amateur conformists. Their compliance with political correctness remain the wellspring of their utility and value. Ironically, by embracing these warped concepts of egalitarianism and “Gender Equality,” these men are complicit in the dissolution of their own cultures.

    1. “….Feminist/LBGT/NAMBLA “in-group”….” are also ‘…useful idiots…’ for the true Marxist agenda: White race-replacement.

  14. Quite a messy article with great classic points.
    However, I want to point out that religions are for weaklings who can’t accept the objective reality we live in.

    1. You’re referring to the objective reality where religion was a buffer for female deviancy, right?

      1. No, I am referring to the objective reality where God doesn’t exist. Religions are useless inefficient codes of morale, women are equal to men in front of the law, but in any other case men are the leaders due to our natural characteristics of leadership.

        1. Ironically, you said that as if the two realities were separate.
          In the reality I reference, religion was the only thing that limited female behavior; Regulating them to the authority of men and enabling the paterfamilias.
          In your reality women are “equal” to men in front of the law but have absolutely no limitations, whilst male agency has been legislated into oblivion.
          Try explaining how religions are “useless inefficient codes of morale,” to Muslims, who are still able to exercise authority in their own households or to Mormons fundamentalists who still raise polygamous families unobstructed and frequently marry significantly younger women via daughter swapping; The exact same thing most men here advocate. I’m sure they will enjoy what you have to say.

        2. The objective reality is that there is a word for “God” in every language. From a Jungian perspective, God certainly does exist as a human concept to that extent at least. Even an atheist has a concept of God, although I suggest that atheists have an unrealistic imagination of God in that it does not comport with reality. Rather than thinking about “God” or “religion” in ways that don’t make sense to you, try thinking of them in ways that do. Just as suggestion, although to each his own.
          Having said that, traditional conservative societies tend to be religious societies, at least to the extent of going through the motions. Whatever philosophical concepts you hold in your own mind is up to you, of course.

        3. Religion is indeed for weaklings.
          The fact that women need it to have moral standards, just confirm this truth.
          Ancient greeks controlled their women very well too, and they were not a fundamentalist religious society such as Qatar or your Mormons.

        4. Not really. Unless you go to the extreme of the agnostic reasonment which leads you to think that you don’t know if Unicorns and Dragons exist or not.
          Obviously they don’t. The same with all the imaginary friends of grown men and women.

        5. You’re kidding right? The Ancient Greeks were deeply religious and built monolithic temples for an entire pantheon of gods.
          You must also be referring to the pseudo-reality @disqus_vyIFhQXplb:disqus had also referenced. History is a great enemy of the Marxists, so it was revised to fit their narrative. I hate to say it but it sounds like you’ve been a victim of progressive conditioning.

        6. Of course there was a religious presence at the time, but you’re referring to societies where religion is the law, like sunnite countries and mormons. That’s why I said “fundamentalist religious societies”.
          The moral codes of the Greeks didn’t come from their religions but from their philosophers. The Greek goddesses did not tell women not to go in the agora or to stay in the gynecee.
          In fact, if you research about the Greeks and the Romans, contrary to the popular / progressivist beliefs, they also had very strict moral rules regarding to behavior of the sexes, not very different from the christian ones. And none of them found their roots in religion, but in philosophy.
          If you take a look at the work of St Augustine or St Thomas of Aquinas, the two big christian philosophers, and compare with the Roman-Greek philosophy, you’ll find some striking similarities and realize that most of the christian ethic has been inspired by the Greek one.
          And please, stop overusing the word “Marxist” like the leftists overuse the word “Fascist”.
          The world is much more complicated than that.
          You’ll be indeed very surprised to find the ultra-capitalistic origins of the western world feminism, with financers such as the american tobbacco companies (Lucky Strike and the torch of freedoms) and the major banks like Rockfeller and Rothschild.

        7. Religion is indeed for weaklings.

          Why were you comfortable making such a bold statement and referencing Greece as a model to substantiate your point, when Greece was Christianized violently? Wouldn’t you consider that Circular reasoning?

          but you’re referring to societies where religion is the law, like sunnite countries and mormons. That’s why I said “fundamentalist religious societies”.

          No, I was referring to simply having religious beliefs. There are a number of Muslims [and Mormon] who do not live in theocracies, yet exercise a strict adherence. On average, these groups tend to be patriarchic.

          The moral codes of the Greeks didn’t come from their religions but from their philosophers. The Greek goddesses did not tell women not to go in the agora or to stay in the gynecee.

          You’re making the assumption that since religion and morality weren’t closely intertwined, mythology didn’t have inform morality or day-to-day life via allegory and personification. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, mythology paved the way for Pre-Socratic philosophy.

          And please, stop overusing the word “Marxist” like the leftists overuse the word “Fascist”.

          Only if you promise to stop rephrasing my posts into something you can refute 😉
          I’ve used the word Marxist exactly twice total; Once within the context of this thread and again in response to the post, because it was relevant. Given your unique interpretation of history, it would be intellectually irresponsible to ignore Culture Marxism’s influence on the aforementioned.
          As you said, the world is much more complicated than that.

          You’ll be indeed very surprised to find the ultra-capitalistic origins of the western world feminism, with financers such as the american tobbacco companies (Lucky Strike and the torch of freedoms) and the major banks like Rockfeller and Rothschild.

          Rothschild sponsored Communism and Fascism to control both halves of the dialectic. Remind me how this is relevant again?

        8. Well, now that you developped your points, I must admit that I think we’re actually not that in disaccord.
          However I don’t really see how the violent christianization of the greece goes against “my bold statement” – religion is for weaklings-.
          First of all, bold, provocative and short statements are kind of the norm on the internet ( not that it is a good thing),
          so I’m going to develop what I think exactly about religions :
          I think that religions are for weaklings, (women, poor, desperate or uneducated people) meaning by that it has been proven through history as to be an excellent way to controll them, especially with the monotheists ones.
          I should remind you that my bold statement came in reaction to yours : the religions as “buffer” to the female deviancy.
          I desagree on that point. I think the exact term would be a “curtain” to hide the female deviancy.
          If we are talking about the sexual behaviors, I really think that the modern woman is doing what she’s alway been doing, but now out in the open.
          We’re actually witnessing for the first time in western history, what a woman looks like when she’s on her own, with less and less of her decency façade that religion created.
          And it’s not pretty.
          This religious facade never was anything more than fairy dust, in my opinion, because if you look at any really religious society such as Qatar, Iran… and even USA (I don’t know if you live there, but compaired to us in France, you’re a religious state) there is always been

        9. I’m not a believer, but I’ll take a religious society over chaos. Most people can’t handle “objective reality.” They need to fear some kind of consequence from a higher being.

        10. We do agree on a few points and you’re right, good debate. Though, I’m still sensing a strong confirmation bias in your replies. I’ll address each.

          However I don’t really see how the violent christianization of the greece goes against “my bold statement” – religion is for weaklings.

          You’re correct. It doesn’t negate your statement because you’re arguing semantics. By definition, a weakling is an ineffectual person. You cast a much wider net by assuming ‘weakling’ is also synonymous for women, poor, desperate, uneducated, et cetera; Which leaves room for a much broader interpretation.
          By definition, The Greeks would be the ineffectual party in the example referenced.

          I think that religions are for weaklings, (women, poor, desperate or uneducated people) meaning by that it has been proven through history as to be a good way to influence them, especially with the monotheists ones.

          The statement ‘religions are for weaklings’ is as fallacious as it reads. Even Freemasons have to believe in a god to sign up. Do you honestly regard religion as the exclusive domain of the downtrodden?
          ex. Do you honestly believe the acquisition and establishment of Israel, as a Jewish state, had absolutely no religious basis for the powerful men who acquired it?
          I do agree with your last statement but with one caveat: Is a scenario where it was advantageous for a populous to abandon a specific religion, or religion in general, beyond the realm of possibility? History is also replete with powerful men who have desired at least one of the two.

          I should remind you that my bold statement came in reaction to yours : the religions as “buffer” to the female deviancy.
          I desagree on that point. I think the exact term would be a “curtain” to hide the female deviancy.

          You’re arguing semantics again. Was religion a buffer for female deviancy? Absolutely. Could curtain also be utilized as a euphemism for buffer? In this case yes, if we assume men had been perpetually ignorant but the true nature of women was always laid bare in the Abrahamic religions. So the curtain only existed if you were without religion. Which was my initial and only point.

          You can’t compare the way the greek philosophers inspired themselves of the myths with the precise set of rules of the Bible and Coran that the theologians had to compose with. There was no religious dogma and no religious pressure equivalent to the christian or muslim societies, and yet women were not out of control as there are today.

          I didn’t put words in your mouth. You just repeated what I accused you of verbatim. Read what I said again:
          “You’re making the assumption that since religion and morality weren’t closely intertwined [i.e. Dogma], mythology didn’t inform morality or day-to-day life via allegory and personification.”
          The Ancient Greek world view was largely based on the idea that the Greek male and only the Greek male, was capable of reason and understanding and their mythology confirms this. Again, mythology paved the way for Pre-Socratic philosophy but you disregard this fact.
          Further, you’ve been arguing whether or not the Ancient Greek were fundamentalist which assumes they viewed events from the same perspective as us with the same information as us. This is also fallacious.

          I believe that it is a global attack from the big cosmopolite elite against the national structures in order to create a global totalitarian consumerist society, full of weak and lonely people without any kind of culture. It’s not really “marxism” anymore. It’s more “Brave new world” than “1984” for us.

          I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that you are still arguing semantics. You’re referring to Marxism-Leninism, a system of political economics developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. I’ve [always] been referring to Cultural Marxism; The methods of the Marxist dialectic and critical analysis adapted to the cultural sphere.

          It is not because Rothschild financed communism that you can say that he was himself following these ideals.

          You’re putting words in my mouth again. I said Rothschild sponsored Communism and Fascism to control both halves of the dialectic.” Although, from what I understand, the Rothschilds are devoutly jewish.

          It was the good old “divide and conquere” to weaken europeans nations. And if you look at the history of feminism, you can easily see that it is not a “proletarian movement” like you said in one of your posts, and if it beneficiated to some one, that would be the bored and frustrated upper class white women.

          I agree. Feminists and the ‘Proletariat’ are literally just charging dummies. Their conformity and compliance remain the wellspring of their utility and value.

          If the marxist tools are still in use today, it’s not to build the “socialist international” anymore, but the society described above, which is in my opinion the totalitarian achievement of non-regulated capitalism.

          I disagreed when you mentioned it above. The world isn’t becoming more Capitalist. I didn’t acknowledge it because it isn’t even debatable.

          And I think we can agree on the fact that it is the same rich people, mostly coming from a certain tribe, that financed Marxism and are financing the new totalitarism today, feminism being part of the “divide and conquer” strategy.


          Also when you wrote “my unique interpretations of History”, that was unnecessarily condescending.

          This could also be interpreted as unnecessarily condescending:
          “Well, now that you developped your points, I must admit that I think we’re actually not that in disaccord.”
          Consider us even 😉

        11. I’m a bit buisy but I’ll take my time to answer you, if you don’t mind. Do you have an e mail ?
          This conversation is interesting.

        12. I have an email but it may not be a good idea to post it here. Let me think of a work around and get back to you. Good sparring practice. Of a side note, earlier you implied you were from France. How did you learn English, if you don’t mind my asking?

        13. Not at all. I learned it mostly at school, and also through reading english books and watching movies on the side.
          I’m gifted at learning languages in general, which is sadly counterbalanced by the fact that I’m awfully bad at maths…
          Here’s one of my email addresses [email protected], you can write me I will answer you from an other one.

        14. MY moral standards are not very original.
          The difference being that I don’t need the fear of hell to follow them, and I must be careful respecting them, because I don’t have the luxury to fuck things up and get forgiveness from my imaginary friend, contrary to the Christians.

        15. and women aren’t strong enough to respect their moral standards without an imaginary friend standing by ready to forgive them? somehow this is not making any sense. like everything i read on this site.

        16. what kind of moral code consigns half the human race to an inferior status to be used by the other half based soley on their gender?

  15. The conclusion assumes that some feminists at least aren’t proud of the worsening relations between the sexes that result from their influence. The worse things become, the more exaggerated becomes the symptoms of such poor relations, which they can misidentify as sexism / misogyny / backlash etc. That misidentification is the only way they can generate the fuel they need to run their movement. Feminism needs sexism / misogyny (or rather evidence of) far more than the patriarchy

  16. Looking at the picture of these “male” feminists. . . I cannot help but notice that they both look like they have gigantic nips. The things are holding their damned shirts up. Jesus! turn those nips down! These are supposed to be “men.” I don’t get it.

  17. The doubling down we are starting to see has been triggered by one thing; the evils of feminism are now starting to hurt women.
    For the last 50 years or so, the toxicity of feminism has been obscured by charging the cost on to men. But now that ‘goodwill’ has all been burnt through. The feminists have consumed the seed-corn built up by the countless generations of women who came before.
    Expect to see more legislation written in ‘gender neutral’ language but in application is only used to punish men. Expect to see more natural male behaviors criminalized. Expect to see more instances of objective truth being twisted to somehow, anyhow, blame men for female self inflicted pain, discomfort or failure.
    And expect to see more and more men disengaging from women.
    The true cost of feminism is coming due and it will primarily be today’s young women who will have to pay – in money, misery and motherhood lost.

    1. The Left has always been good at tearing down an existing society. It’s been very bad (not surprisingly) at building up the envisioned new society. The former has always been one hell of a fun time. The later has always been soaked in blood.

      1. Agreed – to some degree the destruction the Left has wrought has typically been mitigated by some-one coming along periodically and rebuilding (at least in part) what they have destroyed. That some-one has always been men, driven by a desire to provide for and protect women.
        This is why I believe that there is special place in Hell for feminists. For they target not just society but the very engine that powers the rebuilding – the complementary relationship between men and women.
        I fear that this time, when they finally realise there is nothing more to destroy, when they start demanding men to come and rebuild what they have torn down…..they will be met with silence and indifference.

        1. Here’s the difficulty. We see the project as the tearing down of the one and the attempted construction of an another. I don’t think they don’t see it that way. In their minds, people are good and they’re equal by nature, but because human nature is fluid, a bad society can make people appear to be/act unequal or bad. The project of the Left then, is to remove the bad influences that create inequality and make people act badly, not in their own minds to create new people, as we see it. There’s no rebuilding, merely removing.
          The point is that they never thought society was in need of rebuilding. Rather, the continued difficulties were only signs of previous distortions that have yet to be rooted out. They take for granted the benefits of the past and present as the normal state of nature that will always be with us as we progress. They see the difficulties of the past and present as the product of cancers to be removed.
          For example, rapes occurred in the past not because people are selfish (sinful), and will do evil things to one another in pursuance of selfish ends, but because society sanctioned/drove men to rape, i.e. “rape culture.” If rapes go down, it’s because rape culture is dying. If rape continues, it’s because rape culture persists quietly in our society. If rapes increase, it’s because of an increase in rape culture due to revived misogyny.
          We see them as part wild eyed demolition expert, part amateur architect. They see themselves as expert surgeons.

    2. Watch the ensuing catfights as the young women fully realize what is going on and by whom, and viciously turn on the old hags responsible for bringing this state of affairs about. They say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, do they not? I say we unleash the new batch of freshly-minted female panthers onto society fully-armed with this knowledge while we sit back, relax, and bask in the fiery glow as Rome burns anew. Mmmrrroooowwwrrr!

  18. Through all the relationships I’ve been in, all the girls I’ve fucked or even went out with, not one has been a polite, feminine women who knows her place.
    This was fault on my end, too, for being a delusional young boy.
    When I swallowed the red pill, that all changed. I treat women like women, like little puppy dogs who need to be trained.
    My woman wants to cook for me, to clean for me, to be my little helper bee. In return, I provide for her.
    I’m still training my little puppy and letting her know what is and isn’t acceptable.
    Knowing that I have other options available keeps me emotionally balanced and not too attached – this is important.
    I’ve written about women before on my site and she’s read the posts. Although irritated with some of it, she agrees knowing that it’s the hard truth of the modern dating world.
    She isn’t ashamed of showing her feminine side, of letting it out and treating me like a man.
    She’s not ‘the one’, she’s not a ‘unicorn’, she’s just a woman who knows she’s a woman. She’s gonna love this article, 2Wycked.
    I’m selfish and controlling and she couldn’t be happier.
    When this one is finished, it’s back to the pound to adopt a new little puppy.
    But for now, I’m just enjoying my pet.
    Your man,

    Author of MrVeins.com, a popular Men’s Lifestyle blog.
    Weight lifting addict.

  19. All extremism is bad. Feminism is authoritarian left-wing garbage that will absolutely destroy society. Same with right-wing extremism, with them you get Waco, Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik and other terrorists. With the left you can get commie savages and liberal college educated (see: money wasters) degenerates.
    The greatest countries in the world are reasonably progressive centrist nations dedicated to peace. America is mostly extremism and idiocy; the liberals are a disgrace to left-wing politics and the republicans to the right wing.
    Now I’m not calling for women being beaten up, mutilated and forced into wearing those robes that cover all their skin like they do in Papa New Guinea or the middle east.
    All I want is for them to treat men with respect and to not be hypocritical degenerate money wasting idiots. There are a few real women out there.. Budd Dwyer’s wife, the Liberian Monkey Island researcher wife, a few.
    You know what makes them real women? Intelligence, loyalty, determination. Most american women? Brain-dead, immature, cheating, lazy, fat, mentally damaged.
    It is obvious to anyone that this country has failed. My grand father served in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.. all just for his children’s generation to fuck everything up, and for their kid’s generation to finish the job.

    1. I feel that most white women are being led around by a rather small minority of progressive radicals (mostly white themselves), using a system of social stigma and overemphasis on being nice/equal/compassionate and similar feelings.
      Instead of bashing the average woman, it would be better to drive the spear directly into the heart of the elite ideologues. It is one thing for the average person to dumbly buy into moralisms like equality, but quite another for an intelligent academic to do the same. In the case of the latter, belief in equality is always a case of wishful thinking, resentment towards the dominant groups, and even genuine mental pathology.

  20. there will never ever be gender equality. if for no other reason than when a woman who wants equality, actually gets treated like a man and sees just how difficult life as a man is, she still falls back on the “but she’s a woman” safety net. they just want power, not equality, and a fool will give it to them.
    to all male feminists…don’t be stupid. stop that shit.

  21. It is biology that there are differences between the traditional roles of the sexes. It has nothing to do with a social construct or misogyny. In fact I would say the misogyny comes from the feminists themselves who put hate on females who don’t deny their natural instincts and let a man do what he is suppose to do. Men don’t hate women though, in fact quite the opposite they want to look after their women, it is a natural instinct.

    1. really. that’s why they’re referred to as cum dumps around here. and more time is wasted on posting about fucking and running than anything else..

        1. how observant you are. i’m sure your alert is appreciated by those who didn’t notice. and it’s a VAgina, btw.

    2. To be fair, imposing group social taboos is a sort of natural female instinct itself. It’s sort of an outgrowth of female oversocialization.

  22. Ha! The boy in the photo has one of the most classic “Righteous sign hero faces” that I’ve ever seen. Someone should do a collage. I love that intentionally grave expression and the deep burning heroism in the eyes. It cracks me up every time. “Pseudo hero holding a sign face” It’s so easy to be a hero these days.

  23. Good article. May I make a small suggestion to make it even better? Use the word “sex”, not gender. The former refers to biological reality, the latter is a leftist/feminist term for whatever the Left wants it to mean. Even feminists have a hard time arguing that there aren’t sex differences; that’s why they use the word “gender.”

  24. There are already cracks showing on the equality front on the female
    side I believe. Women at some point will realize they have been fed this
    equality stuff in order to get them to produce more work, not less, I
    already see this in the workplace.
    There are real pressures
    being placed on women as they enter the workplace in larger numbers,
    they can’t just sit there and be pretty. Couple that with children they
    may have and the need to as a women keep a social circle it’s pretty
    damm hard, the smarter ones are starting to realize this and cutting
    back on children or not having them at all. The corporate world is much
    more harsher and draining than most husbands, you are simply to be used
    and discarded without much thought.
    A sister who just graduated
    from college and started work is starting to realize this as she
    inevitably compares herself to my housewife and the more comfortable
    life my wife lives as a stay at home. Women think they are just going to
    get the power but they are being conned they will be ground up and used
    up by the machine/nature just as men have been for ages.
    deal, I have a job that most women want, a high income cubicle job, that
    takes a toll on my health and mind, if I could work an outdoors job and
    provide for my family I would do that in a minute, this pot at the end
    of the rainbow that is being dangled in front of women is a con. Sure
    they may now be independent of their husbands and can leave them at any
    minute, however upon doing this they are now dependent on corporate
    america/economy so in the end they aren’t all that free as they believe.
    If they think corporate america/economy is going to give them a pass
    they better think again it’s produce or die in the real positions
    outside of HR/Marketing which women claim they want. They want the
    stress go ahead and take it.

    1. We’ve know about this for quite some time. The purpose of pushing women into the workforce was to increase the labor pool while simultaneously dropping wages and raising prices. She was made to feel “important” and receiving her very own paycheck in hand effectively allowed her to tell hubby to f__k off whenever he disliked her spending habits instead of having to “beg” him for an allowance (apparently the fact that her boss was now the new “sugar daddy” was somehow lost on her). But it all comes at a price, as this newest crop of empowered females is just now (?) discovering all by itself.

    2. I still see men picking up their slack, at least where it counts.
      Any business or critical process that relies on female productivity will fail, fast.

  25. Gender Equality is a anti-nature and anti-reality idea and will result in miserly and self destruction when ever tried.

  26. The Feminist Nation is just another pirate sub-culture, not unlike the LGBTQ Nation, within the overall grievance industry.
    “…I make the wheel squeak, I get grease….”
    Plain and simple.
    Just ask the czarina of Cultural Marxism, Sheryl Scamberg.

  27. As someone who has fully embraced the reality of reality, I believe you don’t get something for nothing and because of that one must work, which means one has to compete against all the other people doing the same thing, and as follows, strive for excellence to have a chance. With that established: I don’t want to be “equal” to anyone. Therefore, I detest those people who insist on “equalizing” me, and for that matter others, because to arbitrarily numb my strive for excellence is a violation of the first order…its akin to rape in the abstract.

  28. this website is the perfect mix of male self-help group and conspiracy theories. so entertaining. i love it!

    1. Group therapy, yes? Here goes – fuck you so what if I don’t want to be equal to a woman. I don’t want to be equal to anyone…this is called surviva

    2. Comments like this reaffirm why sites like ROK exist.
      You lump in male self-help groups with conspiracy theorists? Are you fucking retarded? Does our anguish amuse you? Does our confliction and efforts at establishing self-identity and personal values make you laugh? Do you ever fucking wonder why so many men are not feminists or liberals?
      As far as conspiracy is concerned, feminism is a reactionary movement. If it wasn’t, it would not get steam after the family and love get devalued in a society. Feminism is the ideological justification of corporations and governments exploiting women for profit – there is no $$$ in a housewife who takes care of her family and tends to a local park in her spare time.
      The fact you love this site says a lot about you. If you are reading it, it is for you. What do you see when you look in the mirror? You should see a miserable asshole who desperately needs to feel superior to men you claim to hate.
      You are what you hate

  29. I do not believe that doubling-down is the case with the majority of feminists. I think that they genuinely believe equality is an ideal worth striving for, simply because it appeals to the emotions. In instances wherein they are emotional, women (who comprise the majority of feminists) are not capable of rational debate, and hence there is no rationalising or doubling-down which takes place, for it is only the emotions at play.

    1. I disagree with you, sir.
      There are two types of mainstream feminists: “Nice” feminists who claim to be for equality and “strive” towards that end and… nasty double-dipper types who rationalize goodies for women and claim men are “privileged”.
      Most seemingly “nice” feminists, if you scratch the surface, turn out to be the nasty types once you start asking them for real concessions. Most find ways to demand men continue to pay for them on dates and make empty promises that they’ll live up to gender equality but after you expose their self-serving rationalizations, rather than being thankful for you helping to make them more “equal” by giving stuff to men, will turn on you.
      What remains are what I call the apologists. The women who, like leftist men, are irrational and clinging to the hope that if the goverment can be big and perfect enough, women will be FORCED to live up to equality. But really, if women spend so much energy to be… women and to have men as breadwinners and protectors and starve away from the state or men, then how can it work?
      Apologist feminist women are often helpers for Mens Rights such as Cathy Young but in the end, their agenda is to do damage control/PR spin by claiming that THEY aren’t nasty man haters or entitlement seekers so hopefully, someday, all women will. But that’s about as useful as someone saying that the Patriarchy had many rich women who lived well and many women liked it, so why not force THAT upon ALL women? Heck, the Patriarchy did a much better job at making women happy than feminism ever has done.

      1. Quite frankly, I see there to be a third distinction, which comprises the majority. I am not that cynical of feminists like these, and I will explain why.
        If you consider the context for their abstraction of reality, which is patriarchy theory, they believe that in their mind, women are still oppressed (to varying extents). So, these concessions you try and force from they are ones which they see as unequal to women. In other words, their hearts are pure (not nasty), yet they have the incorrect context in which to work from. This, I would argue, is where the majority of feminists argue from, and in my experience, I honestly do not think that are sinister in mind, at least not more so than the average man.
        As for your objections in these feminists demanding that dates be paid for, I think this is the fault of the weak beta male, which allows such behaviour to continue. Women, as we know, respond to strong, alpha men positively, and thus would not feel that manipulation is possible with such a man, and therefore would desist in such demands once this shit-test has been passed.
        As for feminists not keeping promises, all women are guilty of this. There is nothing more important to a woman than how she feels, which is strongly correlated with how her friends or other women feel about her. Abstractions, such as honour and honesty, will be whisked away in the flood of a woman’s emotions. I believe this to be a given, seeing as I am posting on ROK.
        The second type, the Apologists as you call them, seemed to have been accurately described by yourself, so I will not touch upon that, other than to agree.
        As for the truly nasty ones (the first type), the Rebecca Watsons and Anita Sarkeesians, exploitation of all kinds occur, yet these are the minority, at least in my experience. This distinction is “Nice Feminists”, in which you were referring to, such that upon scratching the surface, a bubbling cesspit of rage boils.

        1. I have had many people start out in a discussion claiming ignorance was a factor, including myself, rather than maliciousness or selfishness. It’s a useful distinction.
          When someone sees the world in terms of “unfair” towards them and that they are entitled to special treatment, that is the root core of maliciousness. They don’t appear to be that way and in their minds, they believe they aren’t malicious, but the effect is the same both internal and external: When you see others as existing to please you because they owe you, how can you not treat them with effective malice?
          So after you thoughtfully educate them that they aren’t _really_ oppressed, do they celebrate that it turns out all is well after all, or are they disappointed that they aren’t entitled to more?
          I’m reminded of times when I’ve gone to stores thinking they ripped me off and didn’t give me a discount and… it turns out they did. My reaction? Shame and apologetic as I feel that I have misjudged them AND happiness that the issue has been resolved. That’s because I wasn’t out to find a way to rip them off.
          Keep in mind that feminism was NEVER based upon actual oppression of women. It was a movement by entitled, privileged women in a chivalrous society who had a lot of free time being supported by men to find ways to complain about things. Watch the Real Housewives series on Bravo. Do those women EVER seem happy and grateful?
          Finally, keep in mind that on this forum as most, American women have a reputation for treating men badly. Most foreign women are not like that because feminism, as we know it, largely hasn’t taken root there. If most American women are nastier because of feminism, that has to mean that feminism isn’t “nice”.

        2. Our disagreement revolves around a semantic issue.
          Malicious is, by definition, “intending or intended to do harm” (https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=malicious). If a person genuinely believes that he/she is entitled to special treatment, that this is is only fair, then the person is not intending to do harm. The effect is not the entirety of maliciousness, as it requires intentional malice.
          Despite their good intentions, the effect of these feminists is negative.

        3. Balderdash.
          Let’s try this definition of a sociopath on for size: “The sense of entitlement that comes with sociopathy is astonishing to
          those who abide by the social laws and conventions of our culture. Where
          does the entitlement come from? It stems from an underlying sense of rage.
          Sociopaths feel deeply angry and resentful underneath their
          often-charming exterior, and this rage fuels their sense that they have
          the right to act out in whichever way they happen to choose at the time.
          Everything is up for grabs with sociopaths and nothing is off limits.”
          The notion of feminine victimhood and/or superiority requires, by logic (even in a woman’s mind), to project blame onto the man.
          My wife and I were just having a conversation about a friend of hers who was seething with resentment that my wife doesn’t exploit me. My wife doesn’t make lavish purchases without asking me while the friend buys whatever she pleases and the man gives her what she is “entitled” to. They just had a big fight about it. This is no more than a half hour ago.
          Where did that rage come from? My wife did _nothing_ to this woman. She didn’t even challenge her. She simply treats me differently than this woman treats her (soon to be ex) husband (that she’s divorcing but trying to get more money out of.)
          So sure, if you want to claim that a person who views men as meal tickets and inferior and to blame is not “malicious”, sure. And I guess a lion at the zoo that would chew my head off in a second is just acting according to instinct too. But then, this shows in the end women are not equal to men. That given freedom, they’ll bite the hand that feeds them.

        4. Ignorance is not a kind of pathology. Pathology brings about a different kind of responsibility gauging, one of which is shrouded in a grey area (e.g. should people plagued by pathologies be held accountable for their crimes? How much can they be held responsible?).
          Ignorance is much more grounded in the known. A brief glance at history shows that women did not have the vote, and that men did. It also shows that women were confined to the households, where men were able to get jobs. It is only upon deeper analysis does one find issue with information derived from these glances. Do you honestly believe that the majority of feminists have studied into these things, outside of their Liberal Arts degrees?
          Again, these notions of entitlement extend from ignorance, not sociopathy or anything necessarily malicious — there is not intention for harm. It is, in the feminist’s mind, righting a wrong. They genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing, and the bitterness extends from feeling that this wrong is not being righted.
          I have made the case for dealing with the much more known (ignorance), whereas with sociopathy, it is much less to clear. Therefore, to conflate the two would be to commit a kind of false continuum fallacy.
          In your examples, I’m not sure if it is reasonable to assume that this bitter woman is a feminist. It could, for example, be a case of a sugar daddy upbringing. Whilst it is possible that feminist ideology has incited her actions, I am not convinced that:
          1) She is a feminist
          2) That feminism is largely responsible for her outlook
          3) Untrained (as far as I know) psychoanalysis is remotely accurate
          In any case, a sample-size of 1 does not refute my claims, as I did concede this by saying “the majority of feminists”.

        5. I didn’t say ignorance was a pathology but rather many people put on the appearance of ignorance to mask what is a selfish worldview or denial and ultimately, malevolence. My contention is that most bad people do not wake up in the morning thinking “I’m a bad person.” They rationalize their worldview and project their selfishness onto others. I’ve sadly known a lot of such people and fortunately, now find them pretty easy to spot since because they engage in self-delusion, this undermines their ability to fully trick others looking for the tell tale signs of malignant narcissism.
          Consider that much of feminism’s claims can easily be refuted and has been. As I said, it’s easy to cure ignorance but NOT malevolence, denial, or dishonesty. When a feminist is confronted with the obvious fact that women earn less than men because they marry up in income and then take lower paying jobs, for example, the feminists change the subject, blame the men (it’s his fault for putting up with sexism, but not the golddigger’s fault for engaging in it), etc.
          The quick responses of most feminists to these debate points illustrates that they knew all along that their logic was fatally flawed revealing that their claims were dishonest. They know they’re dishonest in other ways such as when they say they’re “traditional” and want men to pay for dates BUT they want men to do 1/2 of the housekeeping, for example. These complex, contorted rationalizations reveal selfishness and utlimately contempt for men since the men are either suckers for buying into it, or jerks for confronting them.
          And this is why American women have a reputation for being the most man hating creatures on the planet because until recently, the economy of the USA was unmatched in presenting women with opportunities for high paying jobs but simultaneously, an increasingly lack of men to marry up to and men questioning women’s chivalrous perks. It is the failure of women’s ability to enjoy traditional perks that drive mainstream American feminists hatred of men, not a denial of ‘equality’ in that there’s some boogyman preventing women from becoming doctors. A 60% female:male ratio in college means that there is nothing left for “nice feminists” to do. All such women are in three categories: Selfish mild-man haters, outright man haters, and idiots with ignorant idiots comprising the minority of such women. Most healthy women simply reject feminism altogether or ignore it.
          Finally, keep in mind that most healthy, heterosexual women want “traditional” men therefore feminism is incompatible with what most women want. What good is a so-called feminist agenda when females themselves don’t want it?

        6. I didn’t say that you said ignorance is a pathology. However, you implied, with your analogy, that ignorance has identical qualitative attributes to sociopathy, in regards to the parellel being drawn, which is simply not true. I started my counter-response by affirming an integral premise, which is precisely the sentence in question.
          Even if the viewpoint is selfish, my point is that it is not done with malicious intent. Feminists only think that they are entitled to all these double-standards because they genuinely believe that they are oppressed. I think that your suggestion that the majority of feminists are malevolent/malicious is far too cynical. As you even implicitly conceded, people rationalise their worldview, and so would be justifying their actions by what they see as right. Also, regardless of the actual consequences on their actions, if they are not acting with the intent to harm, then they are not malicious. Even if they outright don’t care if their actions are harmful, then this is not malicious.
          And for whatever it’s worth, my anecdotal evidence suggests that they are non-malicious: most feminists I meet say that “you’ll thank me when we live in an equal world”, when I begin disagreeing with them heavily. But this really highlights the limitations of this discussion, that there isn’t any concrete evidence being provided for either side of the contention.
          Also, I see that you did not elaborate upon your wife’s friend, which I think might highlight a problem. Your continuous attribution of all these nasty/selfish things that women do, aren’t necessarily actions of feminists, nor necessarily inspired by feminists ideology. You have the burden of proof to show these things, otherwise your argument is too weak to pose as a rebuttal.

        7. What we’re getting into here is a high level philosophical discussion of what is malevolence. If someone truly believes that they are entitled to something or just wants it and doesn’t “mean” harm then are they not truly malevolent. It’s something that one’s Creator might be asked to consider on judgement day.
          This can get rather long, of course, but I think it’s possible to make a compelling argument that the answer is yes, but VERY unlikely. You claim the burden of proof is upon me and I’m willing to accept that burden because I am judging these (particular) women’s character.
          I’ll restate that it’s trivial to establish whether someone is acting badly due to ignorance and even misguided intentions compared to maliciousness: Educate them. You educate them that women truly aren’t being oppressed in some way with baby steps. Women LIKE and PREFER to quit their high paying careers and this is why they earn less and this isn’t due to male sexism, for example. It’s not a very long sentence for me to write even now. It’s not terribly complicated to comprehend. Yet, present that to a feminist and they’ll blow it off. When someone denies basic, obvious, evidence that part of their goal (equality and removing oppression) has been achieved in leau of something else (selfishness at someone else’s expense), then we are halfway on the path to maliciousness.
          Now that we’ve established that ignorance isn’t truly a factor, let’s ask whether their selfishness is simply hunger let’s say like a bank robber shooting up a bank and killing people, and planning to kill the people, but he didn’t “mean” harm. He was just trying to get the money out. That’s what I meant by the pathology of sociopathy. They KNOW that people getting shot in the head is “harm” to them. They certainly wouldn’t want this done to themselves. They may not feel any remorse about it because it serves their interests, but they are aware of the harm. I suppose we can view sociopathy as a kind of mental disorder, but the problem is that this can probably let nearly all people off the hook for maliciousness. Even if you torture them in your basement, if you’re serving a need for YOU to feel better, or because you think they did something wrong to you, or just for the fun of it, then you didn’t really mean harm because you had SOME kind of reason. Selfishness and even cruelty becomes a ABSOLUTION for bad behavior in addition to driving it. How can anyone TRULY be malicious then? If they’re on an Ambien trip and sleepwalking and kill someone without reason, then they have no excuse of “good or selfish intentions” but without ANY intention, they still walk. Open the gates of hell and admit EVERYONE to heaven!
          Now now, before you try to counter by saying “they aren’t really being cruel for the sake of being cruel”, I would pre-counter that feminists MEASURE the success of their movement by how loudly men “whine” about how oppressed they are, or how men lose their “privileges”, etc. They not only whip men in their dungeon basements, they have scream-o-meters to measure how effectively they’re making things “equal.” When a feminist says “you’ll thank me later when we live in an equal world”, she KNOWS and even CELEBRATES that the evil men will be suffering in her own brand of hell. SATAN is a nicer guy than victim feminists!
          Bottom line: People often, heck, hell, let’s not mince words, usually do bad and naughty things because we’re selfish bastards good at rationalizing our behavior. We often even enjoy making other people suffer because it helps us feel more important. Selfish people who do bad things to other people to feel good then don’t want to get caught so they demonize the other person. (This is a classic defense by women who kill boyfriends/husbands such as Jodi Arias.) In demonizing the other person, they seek to do harm to them. They find they like it. After being in that state of a mind for a while, they often forget their own rationalizations that got them there to begin with. Ironically, they’re pretty much creatures ENTIRELY of malice at that point with a pretty, sugary rationalization coating. Yet, you’re now implying (as I see it) that the sugary coating absolves them of malice.
          Your final defense for them is the classic “You can’t define feminism when attacking it” defense that feminists commonly use. Yet, when womenagainstfeminists went viral, feminists bashed them as enjoying “feminist” benefits such as the right to vote or equal sized paychecks, yes? I would even go further to say that feminist notion of entitlement is now effectively feminism (as you’ve just said yourself how they think.)
          All that said, it’s useful just as we examine how they got to their monstrous state how society got to making them that way: Feminism is an atypical response to hyper chivalrous patronage by men. If you tell women that they’re pretty and special and everyone wants to make them happy and won’t judge them harshly, then you’ll make a kid into an pet torturing monster. My wife didn’t grow up spoiled. A lot of women here in the states do and are surrounded by a culture of chivalrous patronage entitlement and feminist entitlement which are highly similar except that chivalrous patronage teaches women to regard men as disposable exploitable objects and feminist entitlement teaches them to regard men as loathsome exploitable objects. BOTH philosophies generate contempt and ultimately, maliciousness.
          I rest my case.

        8. Yes, if these women truly believe that what they are doing is not wrong, then they are not malicious, by definition. This is the premise that we will work from.
          Deontology vs. Consequentialism
          In regards to consequences, it is conceivable that the means to those ends are not relevant. However, since context is vital to this argument, that malicious or good/bad actions extends from intent, I think that your overlooking of this context is fatal. For example, if someone were to push someone harshly, then it could easily be argued that it is the wrong thing to do. Now consider the context: a bus is heading towards this person. The pusher has noticed this, and has pushed the other person out of the way, which is arguably the right
          thing to do.
          Similarly, a feminist sees only a limited context, as we know. A feminist sees that women have been oppressed by men for thousands of centuries, and therefore anything done to thwart men in the favour of women, is ideal. The feminist thinks that he/she is pushing women away from the bus, despite perhaps punching men in the face by doing so (so that they cannot stop the feminist from saving women). But this is justified, again, because men are the oppressors.
          This is why we see comments such as “wow, just wow…” and an array of misandric insults: because these feminists genuinely can’t believe that they are wrong, in this regard. They think that it is a given, like how murder
          is wrong, or paedophiles should not be allowed to have sex with women. Given the context, given that these feminists genuinely think that they are being oppressed, it could be argued that this is the right thing to do: to stand up to the tyranny of patriarchy.
          Do you honestly believe that context is of no relevance?
          Education and Ignorance
          Yes, these women should be educated. However, merely stating the sentence “women LIKE and PREFER to quit their high paying careers and this is why they earn less and this isn’t due to sexism”, is not a compelling argument. It is a bare assertion, which requires proof, evidence and solid formal logic to become compelling. I doubt that the majority of feminists have not extensively studied red-pill philosophy, but at the very least, I have no reason to think that they have.
          Furthermore, the fact that you admit feminists “blow if off”,
          could indicate one of three things:
          1) That they legitimately did not understand
          2) That they feel pressured, by society and their friends, to think otherwise (as women often think with their emotions, as I’m sure you’ll concede)
          3) They genuinely understand and are malicious
          It does not necessarily follow that these women are malicious, due to there being more than one explanation. Again, like with your wife’s friend, this inductive logic is plausible, but not proven.
          Since you have not proven that ignorance is not a factor, we cannot continue to follow your argument.

        9. Caploxion, we both provided examples to prove or support our contentions but I am addressing yours while you have not addressed mine. Let’s compare shoving someone out of the way of a bus versus robbing a bank and shooting innocent people to get rid of witnesses. Which is more applicable to the way feminists behave? Feminists don’t shove people out of the way of a bus, they shove men UNDER it. Heck, they unapologetically shove other women too. Of course, I know that you mean by the analogy that they have a bigger cause in mind much like a religious fanatic: They’re looking at the big picture of the future feminist equality utopia. But even a religious fanatic will be willing to make personal sacrifices in the name of ideology. Feminists are always driven by raw selfishness/gender supremecy.
          Listen, I’ve debated feminists for years and I have caught them smirking when they chuckle at how they achieve their feminist supremecy agenda and privileges by exploiting the patriarchy they claim are oppressing them and retaining privileges that they tongue-in-cheek deny they have. Remember: Feminism is a mere extension of Western Patriarchal chivalrous patronage (whew! What a mouthful!) NO feminist really believes that they are oppressed by men since they rely so heavily upon white male patriarchal politicians to prop up their notion of fake equality. And among other women, they even chuckle as they double dip and gripe about how men aren’t “real” anymore and living up to Patriarchal standards.
          You really are fooled by them and think they are sincere? Really?
          And even in the rare cases where they have engaged in such duplicity and rationalizations to the point of fooling themselves, their core motives remain. They didn’t start out becoming feminists to make the world into an equalist utopia. They almost all started out thinking it was Christmas. Your use of rationalizations to absolve feminists of guilt effectively allows largely anyone to wiggle out of responsibility for their hateful behavior and beliefs. One thing feminists like to do is shove the burden of proof onto their opponents and then make proving ANYTHING impossible via abstraction. Does ANYTHING really exist? Only God knows. Discussion over. They win by default. But really, if this were court of law and they were on trial, their guilt is pretty clear.
          Regarding their “wow wow wow” surprise at being confronted. I agree. It’s like a child whose been allowed to run with scissors all their lives and smear feces on the wall suddenly having Nanny 911 tell them to go to their room and get dressed for supper. But that’s just it don’t you see? A person who truly believed they were oppressed wouldn’t be so shocked at a member of the evil patriarchy giving them some kickback. Yes? That’s the paradox of spoiled people: They are often surprised when they get called on their outrageous behavior even as they have mastered the art of getting away with such behavior by accusing others of being unreasonable. But they didn’t become masters of such behavior by being STUPID. They aren’t innocent because the art of subterfuge requires some level of understanding. Nobody is as well versed in lies as a liar.
          The answer to your question: “Do you honestly believe that context is of no relevan ce?” I don’t recall saying it wasn’t. On the contrary, I am showing that the context isn’t really there since feminists undermine their own positions for equality both in literal terms (doublespeak) as well as throw it out the window when it suits them (revert to patriarchal privileges.) Yes, there are a few diehard feminist hippy types who marry weak men and have them as househusbands, etc. but let’s look at the big picture and majority of real women. “equality” context is a cop-out excuse as I just said in the last comment and before that. It’s amazing that you asked me if I was sincere yet you choose to believe women who have acted so selfishly and dishonestly.
          Let’s try this: I’m reminded of someone who suggested a way to test if a girl was a “rules girl” who read the dating book The Rules. Rules girls are told to reject a date for Friday if the guy asks on Thursday. So the guy suggested calling her on Thursday and saying he had backstage tickets to a Madonna concert for Friday. If she says no, you got her. She’s a Rules girl. If she says yes, then her Rules are broken.
          Feminists break the “context” of their rules all the time. Let’s go back to your bus. If the feminist saw a child about to be hit by a bus AND at the same time, a big sale on diamonds next door sold by an evil Patriarch going out of business… hypothetically, they’d shove the kid under the bus to get the diamonds. Dude, they’re EVIL! I’m not 100% blaming them for how they got there. I assert that patriarchal chivarly spoiled them. But that’s just what they are.
          Finally, with your multiple explanations that you claim prove, simply by their multitude, that ignorance is not a factor. This is what defense attorneys do and if we allow it, then everyone is innocent (again) Woo hoo! But coming back down to earth, the three points you make are somewhat redundant. 1 and 2 are basically the same thing: They’re pressured by friends and society (which I’ve gone into before) and are ignorant due to living in that bubble. This is where number 3 comes into play: The ones CURRENTLY being motivated by malice reject feminism and the ones not, find ways to contort and deny or just walk away and go on seeing themselves as victims of the patriarchy while making more demands of it.
          Regarding my wife’s friend: I agree that her malice isn’t due to feminism, precisely, but my contention is that her malicious entitlement is derived from a HIGHLY similar factor: She thinks, as a woman, she’s entitled to mo’ stuff from men. When men in her life, or women aligned with men, reject her notion, she reacts harshly. This is because she’s selfish and selfish people challenged often become malicious and then rationalize away their maliciousness by specious claims of seeking justice. Feminists also claim to be seeking justice (which they phrase as equality but as we’ve agreed, they’ve doublespoke it to the point that the term justice, as they see it, is more apt.) So essentially, there is very little difference in my wife’s nasty friend and feminists other than a few quibbles on dogma. In addition, feminists themselves claim that if a woman supports having the right to vote and own property, etc. then she’s a feminist. So by THEIR own standards, she’s a feminist.
          Closing up, you seem to be hung up on two things: context and ignorance. These are not as difficult to resolve as you make them out to be. I’ve dealt with a lot of selfish jerks in my life, I’m sad to say, and I am an expert at ferreting out whether they are merely ignorant or having a bad day or being extremely selfish and dishonest and trying to pull a fast one (BSing me and themselves.) BSing oneself is something a lot of people do. We all do it sometimes. I’m surprised you seem to find it so hard to see something that most people deal with on a daily basis.

        10. I have not addressed your newest examples because they extend from premise(s) which you have yet to affirm.
          For example, my bus analogy was designed to highlight intent, which is a requirement of maliciousness, which you claim that feminists are. In your critique of my analogy, you beg the question, in that you assume feminists understand the reality (that they are harming men, when I have argued that they do not necessarily understand as much as that). You need to affirm that the majority of feminists are malicious, in that they understand the effects of their actions in real terms. Again, you have given me little reason in your premise to suggest that the *majority* of feminists are not:
          1) Ignorant of the consequences of their actions
          2) Not strangled by their emotions or perceived limitations of their friends/family, which warp their reality
          Yes, it’s possible that [most] feminists are driven by raw selfishness/ gender supremacy, but you cannot assume that when you’re trying to prove it. Otherwise, you beg the question (which is a logical fallacy).
          In your second paragraph, you state anecdotal evidence as if it were irrefutable, and as if it encompassed every mindset of every feminist. Then you make the claim that “no feminist really believes that they are oppressed”. There really is not much more to say; we cannot go anywhere if you make such bare assertions to support your premises/arguments. You seem incapable of separating what you see to be the truth, and how you’ve arrived at said truth. Yes, the feminist’s line of reasoning, in this circumstance, appears faulty, but that does not preclude him/her from believing it. The key question would be this:
          Do you think it is impossible for people to believe false logic to be valid?
          I read further, and you continue to beg the question. You say that: “You really are fooled by them and think they are sincere?” This is classic question begging, in that you assume I am fooled before you have proven that these feminists are insincere. You have, again, inserted the conclusion of your argument in your line of argument.
          I cannot further engage in constructive dialogue with you, if you continue to question beg. You must support your premises before you continue with your arguments. As they stand, they are plausible, rather than being affirmed.

        11. Complaxion, You make a number of arguments and even ask questions and then run off. I honestly don’t know if you’re a feminist apologist because that’s precisely how feminists behave: They make their claims doing good (which means goodies for them) , they get shot down (repeatedly), and then they say that constructive dialogue isn’t possible because they are reasonable and I am not (and I’m closed minded) and run off.
          I’ve seen this a million times before. When dealing with guilt ridden people who’ve mastered denial or people who are holding onto cherished beliefs due to ego (not out of the sense they cherish the beliefs to help people and do good, but to be cool, right, and not wrong), I know I’ll never get a confession out of them. I _DO_ expect to touch them though so their denial becomes more painful. (Note: I don’t inflict this on this on them. They are the ones who can’t simply live with the truth.) If a feminist simply said: “I am selfish and view men as objects to give me what I want and I like to hate them to make that easier” then the discussion WOULD be finished and we could move on. Like adults.
          You just acted like a girl. Congratulations.
          Now the question is why the BS from you. For feminist women, it’s more goodies and harm men out of spite. Got it. But defending women, even feminist women, is classical Patriarchal chivalrous behavior that caused this mess to begin with (“You’re stabbing me with a knife? You might get hurt. Try using this one with a scabbard so you don’t hurt yourself!”)
          OK, enjoy being a sacrificial cow but I choose not to be.

        12. For begging the question, see:
          Basically, you cannot use the conclusion to make arguments for the premise. Again, you cannot assume that feminists understand the problems with their argument, and then use that assumption to make the argument that they do understand the problems with their argument. If you continue to commit this fallacy, then all I can say is that you’re premise is faulty (which you say is “me running away”).
          You have also introduced personal insults, and while they not fallacious (they are not Ad Hominem, yet they still tie into your begging the question fallacy), they serve little purpose, as they are essentially the conclusions of your arguments, rather than actual argument.
          As for the accusation of feminist apologist, as I have explained, **I am not excusing their actions**, rather I am considering whether they are malicious or not (a distinction you have repeatedly failed to identify, hence your accusation of “defending [feminists]”. As you conceded previously, it takes negative intent to be malicious. To this point, you have still not shown that the *majority* of feminists are malicious, and not simply ignorant or coerced by less sinister means. Yes, there are feminists who are probably malicious, as some of your anecdotes have suggested. But these anecdotes do not supplement sufficiency to prove that the majority of feminists are malicious.
          It is imperative that you discontinue begging the question, and start supporting your premises with things other than the conclusion they are meant to generate.

        13. 1) The burden of proof is upon me. This burden is extremely high and requires your approval.
          2) Your arguments are supported while mine are not because you reject them.
          3) Anything I say is therefore question begging and unreasonable.
          Fine. This is like Jodi Arias defense being that only a reasonable jury made up of, well, her can judge her.
          Declare whatever you please, man. You’re right: Constructive dialogue is over. If it pleases you to make a declaration of victory, go ahead. Enjoy. I’m man enough to walk away.

        14. 1) Yes, it is on you, and no, it doesn’t require my approval. The burden spawns from your positive claim, which exists independently of my approval.
          2) For the few arguments I have made, I think I have supported them. Remember that I am not affirming a positive, so the majority of my arguments were made to draw question to weaker parts of your arguments. I did this not for “victory”, but to further my understanding of this topic.
          Your arguments are supported, it’s just that they are supported by the conclusion of your arguments, and hence they beg he question. This is a problem, because it is fallacious. I have highlighted several instances of this occurrence, in my previous posts. Please refer to them.
          3) It is not “anything [you] say is question begging”. Again, I have explained several instances of question begging. Certainly, the entirety of what you wrote was not question begging, and nor did I accuse the entirety of question begging. If you feel that I have unjustly accused you of question begging in certain areas, please refer to them.
          I have declared not “whatever [I] please”, but my conclusion from my counter-arguments. I did not engage in this conversation to achieve victory, instead, I yearned to test your understanding of your claims, in the hope that I would learn something. It is plausible that you are correct, yet you do not have the arguments to prove your claims. I suspect this is because your evidence is largely experienced based, which in fairness, makes convincing arguments tricky to gather.
          Nevertheless, your arguments will not convince anyone with a sound mind. When you have compiled worthwhile arguments which are not solely based on question begging, (a few) insults, bare assertions and anecdotal evidence, please return to express your ideas.

        15. Listen, you two exchanges back, and I quote (Note, I am not making this up but gotten this from the forum in case you want to claim that this is imaginary, more on that later) “I cannot further engage in constructive dialogue with you, if you continue to question beg.”
          I said fine, so be it. Discussion over.
          Then you came back, again.
          Then again.
          Then you write stuff like this, again, I am not making this up: “Nevertheless, your arguments will not convince anyone with a sound mind. ”
          Therefore, definition of a “sound mind” in your view are people who disagree with me. Everyone. That those who might believe me are nuts. According to you.
          And I’m the one making grandiose claims?
          This reminds me of the feminist position which rails against the evil, sexist patriarchy that oppresses them and denies them equality while demanding nothing but goodies for themselves and engaging in seething man bashing. No possibility that they are projecting their own sexist selfishness and hatred onto men and the patriarchy. None.
          Yeah, ok. Fine. You win. You should only argue with people on your terms and that they are unreasonable. And appealing only to nuts. Hehehehe.
          Oh, and again, you said you cannot engage in constructive dialogue with me. Yet… here you are. It’s something I do disagree with you on. I had at first sought to expose the seething hatred of men that is at the core of nearly all feminists to you, but now I’ve uncovered your own dime-store BS philosophical game you play as a last ditch defense. You wanted to help me realize that in addition to you being right and me being wrong on this issue, that I’m also nuts and you have “cured” me. But instead, perhaps this therapy can help you too realize what a BS artist you are and God knows what other BS you’ve been spouting over the years with this as a defense.
          Sleep on that. Good night. And I’m sure I’ll hear from you again. You can’t help yourself. Really.

        16. This is not constructive dialogue. This is meta-discussion, which does little to further either of understandings, because it has devolved more into semantics and persona attacks (largely from your end). So, as I continue, I maintain my stance that this is no longer constructive dialogue, and thus, we have not continued it. My return does not negate this fact, as I returned to discuss non-constructive dialogue. Therefore, I have not been hypocritical, as your argument implies.
          I wrote lengthily as to why this would not convince anyone with a “sound mind”. Your central premise begs the question, as I have shown numerous times. This is one of the reasons why your arguments will not convince anyone with a sound mind, contrary simply to the single qualifier of “anyone who disagrees with me”. Such accusation is a result of your committal to the association-causation fallacy, wherein you assume that because you are disagreeing with me, our disagreement is the cause of the accusation. As already explained, the cause of my accusation is your embracing of begging the question, among other problems (i.e. bare assertions, anecdotal evidence ect.).
          You continue to speak as if this discussion is a competition. Again, I have argued in hope of furthering my understanding. This is evidenced by my questioning. You will find no claims of victory or the like within my writing, as that is not my goal.
          Later in your writing, you claim that I said “I cannot engage in constructive dialogue with you”. This is a quote-mine, another logical fallacy, as the quote is taken out of context. In the very next clause I wrote, I made the concession “if you continue to beg the question”. We are capable of constructive dialogue, but not when there is question begging. Since this whole conversation is meta-discussion, which extends from question begging, it is not constructive, as the issue lies within the fallacy, rather than things which result from the fallacy.
          Finally, can you please prove that God exists, if you would like to continue talking as if he exists? Thank you.

        17. No need for me to prove that God exists. You claim to be mentally connected to ever sane person on the planet and in touch with what they would believe. I am speaking with Him now. 🙂
          I didn’t insist upon making this into a meta-discussion but I acknowledged and observed, from the beginning I might add, that the very nature of attempting to understand what someone’s intentions are and judging them gets philosophical. When two people try to argue about what a third person thinks, or a even what a group of people thinks, it’s highly political and likely to become hypercharged and personal. In the end, someone can insist upon believing whatever they please and that’s that. They can argue that they can deny the nose on their face, that “reasonable” people would agree with them, and how can I disprove them? But… I think it is possible that the person making such a bold denial will walk away with some nagging sense of guilt about the level of denial they need to engage in due to cognitive dissonance. That’s the height of my ambition in such a discussion and now. More on this next.
          Note at this point, the very thing we were arguing about is irrelevant and that’s often the point of the abstract defense (something I warned about originally). Someone in denial wants it to get personal so they win by default. So when someone assigns the burden of proof upon me, and then changes the subject, I see that as them copping out. They may like to think they have won, but when I point out that they seem to be looking to walk away… I have ’em by their own authority. After all, if they didn’t have some nagging doubts why would they be talking to me? Women do this a lot: “I don’t care what you think!!!” they scream which is a joke. You don’t scream at someone and not care what they think.
          So in some ways, you are right in that our discussion has degenerated beyond the original point and that makes it unconstructive but on the other hand, it is constructive in that we both are probing our own motivations. We are both saying the same thing: Accusing each other of intellectual dishonesty, making unsupported declarations, etc. You have done something I haven’t though: Insisted that I somehow write in a manner you require in order to prove my points. It’s a game feminists also use (to bring the topic back on track a little.) “You can’t criticize feminism because you don’t know what it is!” they’ll say. So any criticism doesn’t apply to THEIR feminism. On the other hand, everything GOOD is feminism. It is kind of like God, isn’t it? God exists and is perfect because everything that describes the person’s belief in their God is defined according to them and any criticism is therefore invalid.
          Note, you insisted upon taking it to that point. I stated from the beginning that there is a precedent for how to judge women’s motivations and guilt: The criminal justice system. I put them on trial and expected you to be a gentleman and reasonable in leau of a jury. As a juror, would you find them guilty? Even then, we can disagree but one would hope that in a reasonable, civilized discussion that agreement would be possible.
          You have declared that the world agrees with you and simultaneously, that I’m making specious, unsupported claims. I didn’t quote that out of context, it’s been your theme for a few exchanges now. You can believe what you like, but in reality, you can’t because you’re here as am I. In the end, we do live under gentlemen (and ladies’) arrangements. You and I know if we’re guilty even if, and ESPECIALLY, because we become masters of rationalization. That’s how lie detectors work: All those mental gyrations kick off brain activity that the detector indirectly picks up. Saying you went to the store and bought a loaf of bread instead of robbing a bank requires calculations about all the lies you need to support that lie (the alibis, what you bought at the store, what the store looked like, etc.) So I remain confident both of us can be honest about this, despite ourselves.
          So on that heartwarming note, I bid adeau and await your response, if you care to make one. A true cheers.

        18. “No need for me to prove that God exists.”
          Incorrect. You must prove that he exists in order to type as ifhe exists, or else your implicit assumption is unsupported. Therefore, unless you aim to be illogical, there is a need to prove that God exists.
          On meta-discussion
          Your accusation was that I was hypocritical in returning, as per your understanding, I would not return to constructive dialogue, unless you ceased to beg the question. As I said previously, this has devolved into
          semantics and persona attacks (the latter of which seems to subside in this post of yours). However, I still maintain that this discussion on discussion has become muddied with semantics, wherein “reasonable” is being discussed. “Reasonable”, in alignment with feminists, is not a concrete term, because as I have argued, motivations and levels of understandings, can differ greatly. The “cognitive dissonance” you ascribe to the ‘nose on face’ analogy, has two problems:
          1) Feminists do not necessarily understand the impact/unfairness of their actions (a recurring issue in your arguments)
          2) Something as blatantly obvious as a nose on the face may not be as obvious as the feminist rhetoric being wrong
          Having said this, I think that it is fair to say that when
          meta-discussion arises, that a person is prone to hypercharging and personal trait examinations. Although, as the original intent of this conversation was to determine whether feminists were malicious, no such hypercharging or examinations were required, as meta-discussion was, at that time, not taking place. Thus, personal attacks of a kind were not necessary or needed before meta-discussion, and therefore you had no rational reason to engage within them.
          “Note at this point, the very thing we were arguing about is irrelevant and that’s often the point of the abstract defence (something I warned about originally).”
          We argued about many things. Which were you referring to? The intent debate? The meta-discussion?
          “So in some ways, you are right in that our discussion has
          degenerated beyond the original point and that makes it unconstructive but on the other hand, it is constructive in that we both are probing our own motivations.”
          I already know my own motivations, and I do not care for yours. I wanted to discuss the intent behind feminists, and this conversation has devolved into semantics, begging the question and some personal attacks. For the large part, this conversation has become non-constructive.
          “You have done something I haven’t though: Insisted that I somehow write in a manner you require in order to prove my points. It’s a game feminists also use (to bring the topic back on track a little.) “You can’t criticize feminism because you don’t know what it is!” they’ll say. So any
          criticism doesn’t apply to THEIR feminism.”
          Firstly, you commit the association fallacy, in that you say my arguments are akin to feminists-type logic, given that you continue to argue that feminists are all kinds of negative things. Even if my form looked like feminist’s line of reasoning, it does not mean that my logic is on par with
          Secondly, I insisted that you wrote in a logical manner, rather than continuing to beg the question. You made the claim that all feminists are malicious (or at least the majority), to which I asked why, and then you explained by begging the question. There is no semantic issue involved, seeing as you conceded that maliciousness required intent to harm. My criticism applies to you having your conclusion as part of your argument for your
          conclusion, which does not parallel with saying that your accusations don’t apply to real feminists (which was your example given: “So any criticism doesn’t apply to THEIR feminism”).
          “You have declared that the world agrees with you and
          simultaneously, that I’m making specious, unsupported claims.”
          This is partially correct. I said that “anyone with a sound mind could not agree with your arguments”, or words to that affect. No declaration of worldly agreement was made.
          As for specious and unsupported, I think that your claims could be true, and I think that you have provided support for your claims, yet they are not at the level required to fulfil your burden of proof.
          “You can believe what you like, but in reality, you can’t
          because you’re here as am I.”
          Begging the question
          Again, you have given me little reason in your premise to suggest that the *majority* of feminists are not:
          1) Ignorant of the consequences of their actions
          2) Not strangled by their emotions or perceived limitations of their friends/family, which warp their reality
          This has not been addressed, outside of anecdotal evidence and question begging. You must show that the majority of feminists do not fall into either category, or else your argument that: the majority of feminists are
          malicious, does not hold.

  30. I’ve always had a weary aversion to Christian Science which was founded by Mary Baker (hyphenated?) Eddy. A priestess? I judge a church by the amount of women I see in the congregation wearing long dresses and a baby under each arm. The CS reading rooms I’ve personally seen were attended mostly by post wall women who look like librarians and a few men. I didn’t see many children there, but the 30 plus looking folks looked like clean livers. They weren’t lost and found sheep. No ex hookers or ex cons. They look like they live cleaner than the pierced teens at the adjacent arcade. But I’ll pass on joining them. I’m too loaded with man-speak.
    The biology of the sexes – OUR HETEROGENETY – is set in stone. It can’t be debated away, or lied away or coerced or even forced by law. Men and women are what they are. We will never be ‘equal’. The term EQUAL means ‘exactly the same’ and in fact what men and women are is not ‘equal’ but rather ‘COMPLEMENTARY’. The male qualities and physiology COMPLEMENT those of the female. A penis is not EQUAL to a vagina, but I’m sure there is a dictionary somewhere with a picture of the two defining the word ‘COMPLEMENTARY’.
    The natural roles of women and men were never meant to be competitive but COMPLEMENTARY. Women shouldn’t compete with men on the job, in school, in sports or in bed. Women cheer lead and men play the ball. Women cook, men eat. Women buck, men ride it, mostly. A woman who doesn’t compete with men but is complementary to her man and knows it – THAT’S FEMININE.

  31. My discussions with feminists have revealed that a majority of them are simply proclaiming gender equality as a pretty label to cover up their selfish agenda (more goodies for women, themselves) and seeing men as serfs. Even feminists who make a strong effort to avoid being man bashers and even support many noble men’s rights initiatives support various measures that transfer wealth women from men such as government daycare, 2 year paid maternity leave, etc
    When I finally trap them and reveal that their rationalizations are a scam, nearly all of them simply walk away “Ok, you got me, so now I’ll just lie to someone else!” or they get hyper angry and defensive. A few of them realize that they’ve been duped and genuinely repent but none of them continue with the ideal of equality afterwards. Because few of them really are in it for that to begin with.
    Feminism is a good grab that in inevitably requires dehumanizing men because how else to rationalize women getting treated like princesses at men’s expense?
    High end feminists don’t mind seeing normal women miserable and society divorce rates high. They want lots of confused, single women to become slaves to the government or lesbians. They hate the 2 parent family because they hate men and want to see men transformed into serfs at all costs.
    For most women, the Christian Science insanity they are holding onto is the notion that women can have equal voting rights and workplace rights and still marry breadwinning men. This is economically impossible.

  32. While equality between men and women may be nothing more than a social
    justice smokescreen so that government and corporations can grind us
    down into cheaper, replaceable worker cogs, it has serious implications
    outside the workplace.

    This needs to be repeated as often as possible to make people aware of horrific globalist agenda. This is exactly why government is supporting feminism. The economical benefit of employing women is enormous.

  33. This article doesn’t seem to say anything concrete about how feminism has produced the gender issues and dissatisfaction with our roles that we see today. First of all, lots of people throw around the word “feminist” with lots of different meanings. Lots of people, myself included, use it just to mean that they don’t want either femaleness or maleness to be considered a bad or undesirable thing. They want people to be respected and mutually respectful, to be able to pursue their goals, and to have mutually fulfilling sexual relationships with each other. If you’d ever read any of the actual original feminist works such as Feminine Mystique or more recently Female Chauvinist Pigs, I don’t think you’d say the problem is all because of feminism. There are certainly some who in the name of feminism have lashed out at guys or said stupid or hurtful things in discussions about gender roles, but there are always those people. And this article seems similarly to lash out without substantiating its claims, and without showing an understanding of what feminism has been.

  34. What? Are you saying women made all up?? They do have lower salaries. They are victims of abuse, sexual assault, etc

Comments are closed.