51% Of Time Magazine Readers Voted To Ban The Word “Feminist”

Late last year, Time Magazine was forced to apologize for including “feminist” in a poll of which word readers wanted to ban. Competing against such literary luminaries as “bae” (somehow a term of endearment for a significant other or “awesome” when applied to regular nouns), “kale” (an overhyped “superfood”), “literally” (literally the most regularly misapplied word after “like”) and “yaaasssss” (for humans who descend from snakes, probably), “feminist” won by a relative landslide, receiving 51% of the votes.

How often, aside from crooked West African or Uzbek elections, does one candidate amongst a field of 15 win a majority in the first round, especially in a nationwide, moderately leftwing publication?

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media failed to cover this story like other news about feminism, relegating Time editor Nancy Gibb’s mea culpa to a relative non-event. Although CNN and a few other major outlets did cover it, it wasn’t a major headline. Why? Because it exposes two things: a) eternal attempts at feminist cultural indoctrination have failed and b) the public, even those reading a mainstream, run-of-the-mill, leftist-focused publication, sense that feminism is about supremacy, not equality.

To boot, it is extensively appropriated by the highest female echelons of society to cloak themselves in victimhood, despite them usually being born into privileged families (Lena Dunham), marrying powerful men (Michelle Obama) or sexualizing themselves silly (Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, and Ariana Grande).

The silent majority

Say what you want about his role in Watergate, but here’s a man who realized that not all Americans believed in the self-aggrandizing fairytale of Kennedy, his wealth and Camelot.

The term “silent majority” has received constant criticism because of its association with Richard Nixon. Yet it describes a reality that continues to reverberate in both American and broader Western society. In this sense, whatever you have to say about Watergate, Nixon presciently addressed the relegation and vilification of a huge chunk of the American public.

Everyday people back then, like now, were harangued and looked down upon for questioning the turpitude of activists in the 1960s (replaced by SJWs in 2015), or simply denying that a phenomenally wealthy family like the Kennedys, or other rich Democratic do-gooders and celebrities, should be their moral and political beacon.

The Time voters who chose “feminist” are an exemplary example of this silent majority because they’re reading a leftist publication. As the editor’s backdown proves, the media is much more liberal than conservative, libertarian, or traditionalist. Bias from television, newspaper and online news need not only be about twisting a particular story, but rather also incorporates the range and sorts of stories that are covered in the first place.

Consequently, when you combine the media world with the universe of celebrities, huge swathes of the population are left to selectively pick enjoyment from the cultural status quo, whilst quietly repudiating many of the “causes” and “messages” shoved down their throats.

Feminist for fun (and profit)

Please clarify what male privilege I have that Lady Gaga doesn’t?

Nowadays, the mainstream media accosts us with quotidian stories about mega-wealthy female celebrities branding themselves as “feminists” and calling out the so-called male privilege of $50,000-a-year men wherever it lurks in the recesses of their (the celebrities’) minds.

The word feminist is not just overused; it is a caricature routinely employed by the privileged 1% themselves to garner attention and deflect any focus on their own inexplicable fortunes. It is a philosophy (if you can even call it that) perennially uprooted from reality and any semblance of proportionality.

Beyond celebrity feminism itself, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Co. earn $10-20 million per film, only to have the audacity to say that the system takes advantage of the poor. Instead of demanding behind the scenes (i.e. without glorifying themselves) that studio executives cut the pay checks of stars and significantly up the income of the assistants and stage workers, they take every opportunity to maintain their personal profile by calling for socialism.

The objective? To maximize their market value and attendant fame.

Is the cultural indoctrination working?

“I’m not always a socialist, but when I am, it’s usually in the context of me parading in front of a camera before my next film comes out.”

Time is a frequently informative publication, believe it or not. I acknowledge that many of the regular topics (including in recent years scribes lauding undesirable “personalities” such as Ellen Pao and Anita Sarkeesian) are slanted well to the left. But these are very often opinion pieces.

Though many opinion pieces masquerade as narrowly focused “news” stories, many other covers and columns do broaden your outlook, expand your knowledge base, and help you to link complex events and trends around the world. What’s more is that the publication exposes you to the sleight of hand tricks and other techniques employed by the left to stoke the emotions of many in the public.

The quagmire faced by the left and their recurring SJW allies is that liberal domination of the media, protected and reaffirmed by considerable “journalistic”, “activist” and other efforts, has not translated into the public constantly approving feminism. Run-of-the-mill folks may not be willing to stand up openly.

However, they can vote at the ballot box, use their computer mouse and, as the Tea Party and other (positively) reactionary groups show, rally with likeminded people when the right opportunities present themselves.

What scares liberals and SJWs more than the truth is the fear that the public isn’t buying their distortion of it.

Read More: 5 Uncomfortable Truths About Cracked Magazine

129 thoughts on “51% Of Time Magazine Readers Voted To Ban The Word “Feminist””

  1. Too bad that politically powerful folks and their corporate sponsors have such a supreme vested interest in continuing to push the transparently ludicrous feminist agenda and talking points, in order to sell products and garner votes from the largely braindead populace of women in particular. It is so ingrained in society’s institutions and in the mindset of Western elites and is too profitable for them to let it go, civilization be damned.

      1. It’ll never end. Even if women became the majority in every facet feminists desire, they’ll manufacture new forms of “oppression” to keep their never ending appetite for activism alive.
        Look at a current example: females are the majority on college campuses and doing far better than males in education. But magically it’s “never been so bad for women in education” according to feminists and “there’s still a lot more to be done.”

    1. its too profitable for them to let go until it becomes a liability and they start losing money on account of it. Sour the milk. Make sure any discomfort gets sent right back to them. Make sure they wake up in the middle of the night sweating profusely and reaching for the brandy

      1. You’ve got a point and let’s face it, at core it is always about the money. Big money rules behind the scenes and if appealing to the fantasy world of feminist “dogma”, female “empowerment”, etc. sells advertising and moves product and makes shareholders rich, why would they make waves and kill the proverbial golden goose, you know?

  2. Lady gaga needs to do something about those two caterpillars crawling across her brow line.

      1. Oh yeah, sure, why not cut out the middleman and just send all of us commenting here a nice money order in the low six figures. Actually, scratch that, just wire it to the following offshore account in the Caymans: ###-###-####-###

  3. Talk about a slanted media. They’ll have solidarity with the occupy movement and talk about the 1% but all these celebrities who they revere are the 1%. If you want to shut up and win a debate with clooney, affleck or their ilk just simply ask – how much are you worth? Oh couple hundred mil? So YOU are the 1%, okay george, lets see you give your fair share away. Oh, cat got your tongue…yeah thought so. Can just one person finally put that to these punk ass celebs.

    1. Like Hillary Clinton. She’s “deeply concerned” about the working poor and cost of education … but she won’t step foot on a college campus unless she’s compensated $250,000.00 for every 10 minutes. A university in KC wanted to give her an award and she wouldn’t show unless she received $750K.
      You’ve got to love the idiots who are “Ready for Hillary!” Feminists and Blacks who eat up her hollow words as they can’t see she simply says whatever these groups want to hear. A nice example is this past weekend. There was some conference she didn’t attend knowing the Black Lives Matter degenerates — like almost every far left activist group — would shout and silence those speaking. But the following day, from comfort of one of her multi-million $ homes, Hillary posted a Tweet saying just what they wanted to hear and Blacks ate it up.
      Useful Idiots.

      1. Hillary and pretty much all national politicians are bought and paid for corporate mouthpieces anymore. They care about nothing but their own careers as sock puppets lobbying on behalf of their owners and enriching themselves once they leave public “service” with cushy gigs on corporate boards and giving speeches like in the aforementioned comments imparting their “wisdom” regarding how they have screwed over their constituencies on behalf of powerful vested interests. From Bill Clinton to “Dubya” to Obama to Hillary, they are all the inevitable result of the same broken political system and the personalities of these puppets matters not compared to the structural flaws of the underlying rot in the American political process.

        1. …government of the connected, by the connected & for the connected. The Federal government has too long been a jobs program for the inbreds from the Ivy League puppy mills…I believe it will take a will I don’t see in the people to wrest it away.

        2. Well, maybe if more people were voting for Bernie Sanders… But of course his opponents is calling him a communist/socialist. I guess wanting big money out of politics is enough to get you flaged as “communist” in the US.

        3. Well, he admits to being a socialist so there’s that.
          All the US needs — period — is a return to Constitutionalism.

    2. I think this the very simple but potentially very effective tactic to adopt. Gradually people are seeing the connection between the fact that the elites who are pushing feminism and ‘social justice’ are taking it in either a) on the back of that effort or perhaps more importantly b) by using feminism, gay rights to preoccuppy / mesmerise people who might otherwise be asking searching questions about the fact that the world’s power and wealth is slowly being transferred to a tiny percentage of the population

    3. It’s laughable that multi-millionaire celebs act like everyone from upper-level professionals to modest small business owners are “the 1%” – because they don’t rely on welfare or support every liberal cause on Earth.
      Fabian progressives have always been insane, especially the rich ones

    4. I just loved watching the occupy hypocrites organizing on their macbooks with 8 dollar soy lattes in their hands, all the while comically overlooking their own hypocrisy.

      1. So true, I always chuckle when I see a tweet ranting about privilege with “sent via Twitter for iPhone” at the bottom.
        Zero self awareness.

        1. Hey shitlord! Don’t you know having an iPhone and a Twatter account is a right, not a privilege? /s
          … Yeah the Twatter joke isn’t original but I really love it.

        2. So sorry xir/zir/gfhjgckjdshfj etc
          I feel ashamed and will immediately hasten to check my privilege.
          Hmmm, I better give my money to some random women too, just in case…

        3. Wasn’t that one of those retarded hashtag? Giving your money to womyn or something like that…

        4. Sadly, yes it was.
          Again, a hashtag on twitter coming from extremely privileged feminists with iPhones.

    5. I’ll start taking these people seriously when they start sending in more than required (much more, not 100 bucks) to the IRS each year. NOT sending to their favorite cause. Sending it directly to the IRS so that the government can spend it as they see fit.
      See, here’s the thing. You can overpay the IRS all you want. George can take his 25M dollar pay from last year and send it 24M of it if he wants to. Nobody is going to stop him.
      Now, of course, their argument is “it’s not effective unless we all do it” or “I give 24M away to charities each year”. Neither is effective. Lead by example. And giving the charity is NOTHING like giving to the government. When you give to charity, you feel good about it, and, if you give them millions, you get to direct some of the spending (and likely get your name engraved somewhere). When you give to the IRS, you get dick. And they spend it as they see fit. Like jailing marijuana users. Things that really piss off liberals.
      So, to all those assholes out there who think we should be taxed more.. You first. Show me your 1040 for the last 5 years showing how you sent in 75%+ (they already take close to 50% at high income levels) and then I’ll be willing to hear your arguments. Until then, go fuck yourselves.
      Oh, and.. I really do feel that you should get a fucking “thank you” card from the government when you’re in the top 10% of taxpayers each year. That’s the least they can fucking do. Even better would be a “no-bullshit” card as a reward. Kind of like “concierge government”. Your “NBS” card would entitle you to set an appointment at a government office and not wait in line. Would allow you to rip up 2 bullshit traffic tickets a year and wipe your ass with them. Stuff like that. Reward those who pay the most, don’t just fuck us over.
      I know, crazy talk.

      1. I think that letter would piss people off far more. Here, sir, some salt for that wound! Thanks!

  4. 51% may want to ban the word “feminist” but only because that word now has a stigma. That same 51% probably still supports the agenda of feminism.

    1. Same thing as “women against feminism” – they still support the current anti-male law system. They just want this male bashing on the TV and other media to stop, because it’s about to kill the golden goose. Well, surprise! The goose is killed already.

      1. The Women Against Feminism thing is interesting. I suspect there’s 2 sides to them:
        1) The side where they saw fathers get completely F’ed in divorce by feminist centric legislation or have seen a violent mother attack father or child with object … only to see Dad — victim of DV — being hauled off in cuffs.
        2) Traditional feminine girls angered guys are no longer engaging in Chilvarly. But rather than attacking guys as being “pathetic now a days” they identify the true root which has destroyed this: feminism.

        1. Yeah both these are issues.
          Number 1 can go either way. Many will be horrified that their Dad was destroyed by the system and ended up drinking cheap whisky alone in a housing project.
          Some on the other hand will see how easy it is to beat men and apply the same methods.
          I suspect 2 is more encompassing. All the guys they know (even the nerds) are too risk adverse to commit. In part because they’ve seen number 1 above in action

        2. Number 1 seems very rare to me. From what I’ve seen, the children end up turned against their fathers after a divorce in most cases. The wives don’t just divorce the husbands at a whim, they prepare the children for that first. Even the male children end up hating their fathers. Perhaps the only exceptions are when the mother is an alcoholic and overtly abuses her child, or something like that.
          And number 2 – well, at least in that case women chose between having the cake and eating it. It appears that Red Pill women at Reddit are even more “anti-feminism”.
          But still none of these things guarantees that the woman won’t change her mind later on and take her husband through the divorce system. I haven’t heard of women fighting against the current divorce law system yet.

        3. No woman fights against divorce law because it potentially benefits them obviously, but they are also told that those laws have nothing to do with feminism. According to feminists I’ve spoken for, those laws are based on old sexist assumptions about women that were passed by men with traditional values.
          So yeh, either way they can make it seem like those laws are bad even when they benefit.

        4. The number 1 group I would say is more women who have a found a guy who they’re in love with but are sick of him being labelled a rapist or evil just for being born a man. The women I’ve met who claim to be anti feminist usually use their husband as an example to disprove feminist beliefs that men are evil.

        5. Very true. It is disturbing how a mother will slowly turn a child against it’s father. I have experienced it myself

        6. I suspect a big factor in Women Against Feminism is the fact there are a lot of women out there who genuinely want to be wives and mothers and don’t fantasize about getting lots of recognition for having a prestigious career. Also, about half of the women in the US are pro life. Liberal propagandists like to portray abortion as men trying to control women’s bodies vs. women, so it’s easy to assume that all women support baby killing. Couldn’t be further from the truth.

        7. I only see one side to the ‘women against feminism’ : They are a group that is scared that the extremist feminist are setting fire to the playground and they don’t want their free ride jeapordized.

        8. Moreso than that, I think women who have boys (and particularly just boys) are much more likely to be anti-feminist, because their maternal instincts wake them up to what really endangers their sons; restrictive feminist policies.
          I’ve seen a few women admit that since they had boys, their worldviews regarding feminism and the demonization of men changed completely.

        9. Anti-feminists are merely the more intelligent of the female sex. This is twofold:
          1. She has seen the increasing number of otherwise perfectly good beta bux ( and sometimes even genuinely desirable, tingle generating alpha males ) saying: fuck it because of anti-male laws, divorce, alimony, child support/custody etc etc etc and has ( rightly ) concluded that she can have these men for herself if she merely plays the feminine part in a sea of overly masculine bulldyke, short haired ubercunts.
          2. She realizes corporate slavery sucks, big time and that she’d rather stay at home doing chores for 2 hours a day while fucking around the remaining 8 until hubby comes home. This is pure self interest as this not only provides her with the optimal lifestyle while you’re around but also sets her up perfectly for when the divorce comes, after all unlike a feminist career bullbuster she doesn’t have a job so you’ll be paying $$$$$$$$$$$ to maintain dat lifestyle you allowed her to become accustomed to.
          Don’t be fooled.
          She’s not anti-feminist, she merely portrays herself as such because she realizes men want attractive, young, feminine women and in order to attract a high status, desirable man she will play the part.
          She’ll take your kids and house all the same when the divorce comes.

        10. It makes sense but I don’t see to many women change their feminist views because they have boys but strangely I have with women who find husbands.

        11. Yeah. A lot of feminists that I’ve argued with say the same. They say that the laws are based on patriarchal ideologies, and we need even more feminism to fight the patriarchy, because in the long run, it will benefit men also.
          I often tell them, that yes, these laws are patriarchal, but that does not mean that we need more feminism for it, because feminists just don’t have the willingness to challenge or change those laws, are silent about it, and there have been many instances when certain groups have spoken out for a need to change these laws, but feminists always oppose when it comes to change these laws, because quite frankly, these laws benefit women.
          Feminists, for example, were very opposed to shared parenting. Feminists actually support and don’t want to change these laws, because these laws are the positive aspects of patriarchy for women. They just want to change the supposedly negative aspects of patriarchy, like the popularity of stay at home moms, which in reality is not negative to women, because studies, time and time again show, that most women, deep down inside want to be stay at home moms, and when they do it, they live, more fulfilled lives.
          Whenever I point out, these points, a lot of feminists just quit arguing, and disappear, while other respond with insults, proving that they’ve run out of argument.

        12. I’ve experienced it too. Only when I was about nineteen years old, did I begin to come to my senses, and began to see my father’s side of the story, and my mom’s manipulative nature.

        13. I am against feminism as a black woman. That movement was set up to protect spoiled and entitled white women.
          I am also against feminism as it led to the destruction of marriages and families.
          There are still chivalrous men but they only want feminine women who submit to them, which is completely reasonable given the type of women out there. I married a chivalrous man and he gives me the loving dominance I need.

        14. I was in the corporate world for years. I hated all the needless backstabbing and pettiness from other women. I also hated having to pretend to be more masculine in order to succeed.
          Now that my husband saved me from that miserable existence, I understand why our grandmothers said that a woman’s place is in the home. I am far less stressed and unhappy.

        15. Combining both comments above: Id say the laws were based on a partiarchal system. It was not sexist, nor an ideaology. It was practical.
          Forget feminism, just be very clear about what we are supporting. Essentially the divorce laws are pro-family. The only real need for a contract is to ensure the children have consistent care.
          There are many areas of life where the law is supposed to protect people from being ripped off but fail. You have to read contracts and change terms you dont like before you sign them. Employment, leases, marriage, its all the same.

        16. I think both points support the idea that the mature person is a pragmatic one.
          Bitching and blaming and calling groups of people evil is a failing of young idiots of no particular other category. We all blame the people not giving us what we think we deserve, without doing anything to earn it. Then we grow up.

        17. More Biblical wisdom about women not interfering with men in the workplace (or to that effect). My wife is no different. She realizes now she wants to be a stay at home mom, a victim of brainwashing during her younger years that caused her to pursue a high-value career and earn her Master’s.

        18. “According to feminists I’ve spoken for, those laws are based on old sexist assumptions about women that were passed by men with traditional values.”
          Did you ever bother to point out to them that those “traditional values” is the “Patriarchy” they keep screeching about? Or that if they had half the ovaries they claimed to have that *those laws* would be the very FIRST laws they would be rallying against? You know, the ones which form the heart and nucleus of the “Patriarchy”??
          Of course, I’m sure the irony left them speechless and thus unable to properly vocalize their opposition…

      2. “Same thing as “women against feminism” – they still support the current anti-male law system.”
        Exactly. The ‘women against feminism’ see more men giving the middle finger to marriage and having kids, and these bitches are getting scared.

    2. if a word is poisonous you can work to make what is associated with it undigestable.

    3. Yes but you have to ask why there is so much stigma attached to the word, Something about it has become boring, ugly, uninteresting, etc. Generally good news for anyone with a penis.

    4. Agreed. While most women would declare that they are not feminists, they would certainly spit out feminist bullshit, and back up the lunatic feminists when required. And a lot of white knights would do the same.
      A lot of people argue that feminism is on the retreat, but I disagree. Although the word “feminist” has been stigmatized, it’s ideology, still persists in the masses, is taught in school and colleges, is promoted by media, and put into effect by lawmakers. The thinking that feminism is declining is a farce. Feminism is advancing. Implementation of laws like “yes means yes”, is one hideous example.

      1. You are correct, but outside conditions will make all that all short lived outside of public institutions.
        There is always going to be a small minority of men who “get shit done” in order for the world to turn and they will be lambasted every step of the way while women will secretly pine for them and fem-men want to be them (and hate them for it).

  5. TIME is a megacorporation propaganda rag founded by Skull and Bonesman Henry Luce. It’s not about liberals versus conservatives. It’s about the corporations versus us. And if you think your vote counts
    for anything more than jack squat, then they still have you right where they want you: propagandized. In other words, brainwashed.

    1. I would say its “elites versus us”. If I establish a corporation that doesn’t suddenly set me against the common man.

      1. True. But i did mean the megacorporations, the multinationals, which are all headed up by the Elites.

  6. Hey TIME Magazine Editorial Group, Hey Liberals The People have Spoken, FEMINISM is a dirty word to them, Grow Up and LIVE WITH IT.
    I cancelled my TIME Magazine subscription Decades ago for its Blatant liberal leaning political slant and feel fully vindicated for dropping the liberal rag when reading this. Truth is the ruling Anti-Establishment Establishment they mouth for is too full of itself to see the ordinary joes and janes of this world or represent them which I am sorry to say the same can be said of the Republican RINO establishment as well in addition to democrats.

      1. Yeah, I remember. And thank you. I was hoping for some kind of concrete thing to brandish on Facebook but honestly it wasn’t handled very well. They didn’t even prevent people from voting repeatedly from the same IP.

  7. Speaking of feminist propaganda, has anyone seen Amy Schumer’s film Trainwreck?

    1. I saw the trailer for it and would sooner slam my dick in the door before I pay to see it.

    2. Maybe one of the writer’s here at Return of Kings can take one for the team and report on this feminist ode to the modern Western female’s whoredom.

      1. There’s enough in ‘trainwreck’ to report on. It’s a recurring term ‘wreck’ that is, in feminist writings. Feminist Adrienne Rich (1920-2012) is worth exposing. She wrote a book of radical feminist poems called ‘Driving Into the Wreck’. She was Jewish like Steinem and Frieden who both attended Smith college for women and guess who else attended Smith? Barbara Bush. Bush (maiden name Pierce) dropped out though in ’41 to elope with a pilot she met at a christmas dance. Meh.
        But this Adrienne Rich bitch. She marries this Harvard economics professor Howard Conrad and has three sons David, Pablo and Jacob in the late 50’s. She radicalizes in the late 60’s and deserts her family and turns lesbian. Her husband commits suicide shortly after she leaves in ’71.
        MY QUESTION IS what ever became of her abandoned sons. I run into a dead end searching on wiki. The fruits of a feminist are death but if anyone can find her sons and get a testimony of their wacked out mom, then it would be another indictment of the feminist insanity. Wiki only goes on about her wacked out feminist poetry awards but nothing about the fate of her three sons who were in grade school when she split.
        STEINEM never had kids, but a stepson who’s currently a UK actor and Frieden had three kids, two unknowns and one prodigy Daniel Frieden who’s a theoretical physicist married to an Icelandic physics teacher with three kids of their own. Abzug had two daughters. Still, Rich’s kids need to be looked into. Read some of Rich’s shit and you could pick her shit apart to the bone all day. Her (in)famous ‘Driving into the Wreck’ says it all. Jewish hamster on steroids.
        It would also be interesting to find Daniel Frieden’s take on his feminist mom, if he rejects or rebells against any of it. ‘American Athiest Society’ founder Madelyn Murray Ohaire had a son who turned into an evangelical Christian minister!!!!! Now that’s making a statement right there.

        1. Madalyn O’Hair’s younger son, the atheist activist Jon Garth Murray, never moved away from home and apparently never had a girlfriend. Around 1990 I talked to two guys who knew Madalyn and her family, and they both told me their suspicions about Jon’s adult virginity.
          Ironically Madalyn in her Playboy interview back in the 1960’s says that girls should have the freedom to become sexually active as early as 13, and boys at 15. What a cool, sex-positive mom, you might think, until you realize that one of her sons lived like a sexually abstinent Christian through the time of his murder in 1995.
          Which goes to show why I have lost respect for these atheist sexual utopians, including the current crop like Hemant Mehta and Richard Carrier. They simply DO NOT want to talk about the current crisis where women evict more and more men from ever having sexual relationships with them, because that derives from secular feminism, not religion.
          The male virginity crisis in Japan deserves watching because I would like to see how high the percentage of adult male virgins in a society can go before the society collapses. Japan has a funny way of living “20 minutes into the future,” after all, and I suspect it shows what could happen in the U.S. in another generation or two.

        2. It is ironic John Garth Murray lived like a christian. An old joke: how do you know Jesus was Jewish? He lived at home ’till he was 30, then he went into business with his old man, his mother thought he was a god, he thought he was a god, so forth. With John Garth Murray, he lived at home ’till he was 40, went into business with his mom, same story. John was a big guy with a severe lisp, not too social, ‘mommywhipped’. Madelyn kept him as home boy, gave him an office in her organization and a celebratory title as director, but Madelyn controlled the place.
          They withdrew all the funds before they disappeared and were suspected of preparing to flee the US in anticipation of IRS audit. Supposedly their remains were identified but I wouldn’t believe any official story. Not even with fudged DNA evidence. They were CIA assets like the big fem gurus for sure, but I suspect Ohair wouldn’t play ball to their liking. She’d go after any and ALL religion but still the neighborhood mega churches despised her. Her family’s disappearance smokes like a Kennedy or Clinton/Vince Foster job.
          Ever seen their family photo? The three (exiled or slain?) in 95 were Madelyn, her son Jon and step grand daughter Robin. Jon looks oddly like ‘Gomez’, the patriarch from the Addam’s Family with his thick black moustache and Robin could pass for Morticia with some goth make up.
          ‘Mommywhipped’ is something I’ve noticed with the sons of powerful women, pariahs, politicos. One of the most damaged and broken guys I ever met was the son of a big Magistrate. A supreme witch in a robe.

        3. Hemant Mehta, the allegedly Friendly Atheist, keeps publishing nonsensical stories about women who grow up in strict churches where they receive the predictable abstinence and purity indoctrination about sex, and how liberating they find it when they disregard those teachings and become sluts.
          For some reason he doesn’t publish similar accounts about guys who grow up in those kinds of churches and discover the wonders of sex when they become apostates. It just doesn’t necessarily work that way for a lot of guys, not these days.
          I have a conjecture about why atheists might think otherwise, however. In the old days it took an unusually bold guy, a natural alpha, to come out as an atheist, for example, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. The pioneering atheists probably attracted women any way, only abandoning belief in god just made it marginally easier to get sex without worrying about religious sanctions. These atheists wrongly assumed that their trick would work for all the other guys who became atheists, without understanding the natural mating dynamic in humans. They didn’t foresee that instead atheism would result in mass male sexual eviction, and how more and more men with normal desires would have to live like sexually abstinent Christians because secular or atheist women didn’t find them bangable.

        4. Boys that grow up ‘in the church’ can be neutered as badly as ones who grow up with a feminist or powerful mom. A son of a ‘bitch senator’ in other words. God cannot be found in church or government, only forces can be found there, and rebellious forces at that. Some find god in nature but nearly every male can find masculinity in nature. The plight of the Japanese men I believe lies in the educational system and in neo natal circumcision.
          LET THY SCHLONG HANG LONG. The almighty dick! Nature’s eternal religion! Japanese men, like other neutered groups, suffer from ‘dick shame’. If I were a Japanese man living within the jurisdiction of their gyno facist groupthink pussy police state, I don’t think I could take it anymore. I’d have a mind to climb to the roof of the nearest government building, college or Buddhist temple and WHIP MY DICK OUT for all the fine fair virgins to behold. I’d unfurl that dag dog and wave it around like the American flag and point it towards the heavens and FIRE IT OFF like the 4th of July and I’d scream at the top of my lungs ”DICK POWER” . . ”DICK POWWAAAH” . . ”DIIICK POOWWAAAAAAH!!!”
          . . I know some Japanese dudes out there can feel my buzz . .heh

  8. Lady Gaga is another entertainer who benefits greatly from feminism. Only in a world of declining standards for female attractiveness could a woman like her be considered remotely hot.
    In the 80’s a performer like her would have been considered maybe a bangable oddity like Kate Bush or Cyndi Lauper at best, not a bonafide sex symbol.

    1. “Lady Gaga is another entertainer who benefits greatly from feminism. Only in a world of declining standards for female attractiveness could a woman like her be considered remotely hot.”
      Yup. She also benefits from the related demographic of transexuals and homos.
      “In the 80’s a performer like her would have been considered maybe a bangable oddity like Kate Bush or Cyndi Lauper at best, not a bonafide sex symbol”
      You know that’s a good point. At least in 80s when that other famous singer became mainstream (that italian from michigan) she had maintained certain feminine qualities that made her attractive.
      The recent celebrity requires a fuck load of make up and proper lighting to take a decent photo. And just last year she bloated, though she has sense lost the weight.

  9. Instead of “banning” the word feminist (which sounds like PC BS as well) i’d much rather prefer to ban feminism itself. Make it the US equivalent of Germany’s banning of the NAZI salute, in that anyone wearing a “i need feminism” article of clothing would be fined or arrested. They are trying to ban the confederate flag, so why not? At least the confederate flag never did a damn thing to me, but the persecutions excused under this philosophy have led to my figurative brothers (and myself) having no legal say so over their own seed and Men being fucked over in academia, the workplace, and society in general. Back when i was a less informed beta i used to White Knight for the low IQ attractive XX’rs, nowadays the red pill makes me want to Red Knight for my brothers here and elsewhere. If we don’t stick up for each other, who else will?
    Let’s ban the philosophy, but not references to it in history. Let their corrosive philosophy and all its defined personal and impersonal failures stand as a decaying monument in the halls of recorded history to the failure of gyno-progressivism and all its futile attempts to legislate gender equality by marginalizing masculine superiority. How else can we learn not to repeat it if we don’t record its blight for posterity?
    Just to be clear, the failure lies in their attempts to make the sexes equal, not in the endeavors to impress upon society the indoctrination of gynocentic pablum (they have succeeded in that regard)
    Give me a statue of Gloria Steinem, made from the cheapest materials money can buy. Make it easily accessible to debris and bodily fluids thrown from cars and keep it unprotected so that vandals and the homeless can mark it as it so deserves. Let the daily bird shit dripping off this caricature of her remind everyone that came before and everyone that will come after just how futile it is to try and attempt to reinvent the wheel of gender roles and just how much contempt and ridicule those who “champion” it deserve.
    Let the words “egentissimos defectum” (in abject failure) be graffitied over her likeness; let the bards sing to the failures of her philosophy using every epithet imaginable and new ones inspired by satan himself; let a throng of enlightened masses a thousand years from now come and marvel at how obscenely stupid it was to try and dismantle the Patriarchal Menitocracy that helped build and maintain civilization to begin with. Let them tar and feather it as the final exclamation point to a pussyllanimous philosophy that has only brought ruin and hostility between people thanks to the satisfying of a childish, gender based jealousy.
    Let everything i spoke of in regards to this statue also happen to the statue of the anorchous obama, just a few short feet to the left of her.
    Let my words come true even if the flesh that wrote them has long since expired.
    Let your thumbs raise in agreement with my words, and join me in a virtual toast to the indispensable nature of Man and how we are as gods when compared to the XX misandrist imbeciles who would still be living in grass huts were it not for the existence, perseverance and indomitable strength of those of us who came before.
    Upon awakening, he sees…upon seeing, he understands…upon understanding, he speaks…

    1. I’m gonna remember what you wrote here dude, this was fucking sick! I plan on starting a functional community someday and i forgot that part of a functional community means demonizing shit that DOESN’T work i.e believing in equality.
      Fuck this progressive “let the kids form their own opinions”( AKA I have no confidence in what i believe so i hope they figure life out by themselves.) shit. If you realize what works and realize what doesn’t work, you should teach your kids to think the same way.
      I’m going to be making sure the kids know that striving for equality is horrible and creates resentment between the sexes and striving to be a proper man/woman is beautiful and creates harmony and admiration. You make me wanna write a bunch of boogey-feminist stories for the kids to read in the future.
      Oh and that last line was sick brah. Was that from the bible?

      1. I hope you do remember it…maybe someday some of it will sink in and penetrate that layer of obvious sarcasm you chose to share here.
        If you really knew what you were talking about, you’d realize that progs don’t teach kids how to think, they teach kids WHAT to think, because they regard children as properties of the State to be programmed as needed. Google Melissa Harris-Pery’s remarks regarding “children” and see for yourself, if you can be bothered to think independently for one single moment.
        Your idea of “equality” is a foolish vision that can only come about if Men are sabotated through weaponized government. You are too much of a mangina to realize just how much of a mangina you are, so i suppose you can’t be completely blamed for your ignorance. You can be blamed for how you address your ignorance, so we will just see if you learn anything from what i’m saying or you just blow it off like the anorchous simp that you have presented yourself here.
        And no, that last sentence wasn’t from the bible…it was from a mind far greater than the pedestrian one existing inside the limits of your skull.

        1. And this is the problem with typing behind a keyboard. I was being dead serious about what i said. I don’t know if you’re not used to getting complimented online but i was 100% serious about everything i wrote.
          I actually think it’s a bad thing to “let the kids form their own opinions” by progressive logic. Because by progressive logic that means condemning your kids to the public school system of social justice faggotry. I say if you KNOW something about life that rings true i.e equality is horse shit and men being in charge works, you SHOULD teach your child WHAT to think in terms of gender relations.
          I was also serious about the boogey-feminist children stories. You know how leftists do that thing in movies where the unlike-able, aggressive and vulgar drunk guy is the guy walking around saying “women talk too much.” or “you need to keep your bitches in check”? Basically trying to scare naive men into thinking “if you think like this, this is how society views you.” AKA covert hipster shaming. I plan to do this same type of shaming with feminists.
          What the hell made you think i was being sarcastic?

        2. Well you used strong words in a context that could be taken as sarcasm. Not many people on our side use the words “faggotry” for instance, if they want to be taken seriously.
          What the left does is try and infiltrate conservative circles in order to discredit them. It’s part of their saul alinsky insurrection motives. They pretend to be us in order to discredit us. It’s why they wear confederate flags when they show up at tea party rallies (to try and paint people as racists) and so forth.
          Anyway if i mistook what you said then i apologize. I’ve been hit with similar type of “pretend” agreements in the past, using words similar to yours.

    2. “Instead of “banning” the word feminist (which sounds like PC BS as well) i’d much rather prefer to ban feminism itself.”
      I’d be okay with it.

  10. Interesting read but I wouldn’t get overly excited, many women still believe in all the feminist propaganda and talking points they just believe that’s seperate from the man hating type feminist.

  11. Social ranking and importance in western countries:
    7-Amoeba and bacteries
    N- heterosexual man

  12. If 51% want to see the word gone
    30% want to see its most annoying manifestations gone
    10% want to see all of its manifestations gone
    4% are willing to do something about it
    It’s a good start. What we should really want is to continue this trajectory without arousing suspicion in the enemy until it is too late.

  13. That 51% isn’t Rightists. It’s mostly Leftists trying to rebrand themselves as they’ve always done. Nothing new here. If you look at all the labels Leftists have adopted (and later scrubbed), you’ll notice that they’re derived from words that have positive connotations:
    Socialism >> “Social!”
    Communism >> “Commune!”
    Progressive >> “Progress!”
    Liberal >> “Liberty!”
    Feminism >> “Feminine!”
    But when the public catches on to their act and witnesses all the negative effects of their policies, they try to rebrand themselves so they can start all over again like a fugitive who changes his identity to escape punishment. If any Rightists support a banning of the word, “Feminism”, they’re sorely mistaken. Don’t let Leftists distance themselves from their record. Make them own it.

    1. On a side note, I can’t help but wonder whether the ban rhetoric (“Ban Bossy”, “ban Feminism”, etc.) is an orchestrated trial balloon for doing away with the First Amendment. Americans are still beholden (at least superficially) to the concept of free speech. You have to gradually warm them up to the idea of abolishing it, and these polls are a means for testing the waters.

      1. Next they’ll introduce a poll to ban ‘masculine’. It’s a trick. They’re trying to erase gender from language thus sterilizing speech, meld the sexes and end gender identity completely for our species. Warcraft in the 21st century has reached epoch levels with our reproductive programme being hi jacked. The rules of engagement are limitless now and unless we identify and get a handle on the scourge facing us, the end game we face as a species is extermination.

    2. “But when the public catches on to their act and witnesses all the negative effects of their policies, they try to rebrand themselves so they can start all over again ”
      Exactly. You stated this better than I did.

    3. “…..they try to rebrand themselves so they can start all over again ”
      Exactly. You stated this better than I did.

    4. The process has already begun to turn “libertarian” into “socialist”.

    5. Who are They? Is there some conspiratorial group who have been doing this over numerous generations?

  14. Anti-feminists are merely the more intelligent of the female sex. This is twofold:
    1. She has seen the increasing number of otherwise perfectly good beta bux ( and sometimes even genuinely desirable, tingle generating alpha males ) saying: fuck it because of anti-male laws, divorce, alimony, child support/custody etc etc etc and has ( rightly ) concluded that she can have these men for herself if she merely plays the feminine part in a sea of overly masculine bulldyke, short haired ubercunts.
    2. She realizes corporate slavery sucks, big time and that she’d rather stay at home doing chores for 2 hours a day while fucking around the remaining 8 until hubby comes home. This is pure self interest as this not only provides her with the optimal lifestyle while you’re around but also sets her up perfectly for when the divorce comes, after all unlike a feminist career bullbuster she doesn’t have a job so you’ll be paying $$$$$$$$$$$ to maintain dat lifestyle you allowed her to become accustomed to.
    Don’t be fooled.
    She’s not anti-feminist, she merely portrays herself as such because she realizes men want attractive, young, feminine women and in order to attract a high status, desirable man she will play the part.
    She’ll take your kids and house all the same when the divorce comes.

    1. “2. She realizes corporate slavery sucks, big time and that she’d rather stay at home doing chores for 2 hours a day while fucking around the remaining 8 until hubby comes home. This is pure self interest as this not only provides her with the optimal lifestyle while you’re around but also sets her up perfectly for when the divorce comes, after all unlike a feminist career bullbuster she doesn’t have a job so you’ll be paying $$$$$$$$$$$ to maintain dat lifestyle you allowed her to become accustomed to.”
      How some bulldykes convinced all women that they “wanted to work” is fucking beyond me. Just goes to show you that you can convince most women of any-fucking thing in the world. The only thing I can equate it to is somehow convincing men that they really should chop their own dicks off. And, 50 years later, men walking around without dicks talking about how “free” they are now and how it’s so much better! WTF?
      Let’s see. 2 options here. You can go to work and slave away like a man at a job that you’ll most likely hate from 25-65 years old. If you have kids, they will be raised by other people. You’ll probably get fat and have a husband who has to look away when you undress so that he has a possibility of getting hard. You’ll be beat down by your job endlessly and find little/no satisfaction in it. On the positive side, you’ll have “your own money”. On the negative side, you’ll probably spend all that you make and more on bullshit that brings you fleeting or no happiness at all (shoes, purses, etc).
      Or… You can marry a good man at 18-23. He can provide for you and you stay home. You get to have children and you get to raise them yourself. You never have to enter the corporate world. Never have to miss dinner with your kids because of some bullshit meeting. Never have to spend weeks at a time on the road. Never really have to worry about money. Plenty of time to work out/make good meals, so you won’t get fat. Negatives; you don’t have your own money and your husband probably won’t be happy with you buying 300 pairs of shoes and 3000 dollar handbags.
      Someone remind me again, how the fuck did the bulldykes convince most women that the first option was better? I mean.. I might be a bit dense here, but, before “feminism” wasn’t being born a woman really just like being retired your entire life? And having plenty of time to play with and raise your kids? With no worries about money?
      It boggles the mind that women were somehow convinced that corporate slavery was, in fact, better than retiring with your kids at 25 years old. Sure, there were some downsides; you had to listen to your husband and do what he said. And you didn’t buy 300 pairs of shoes because your husband wouldn’t let you. And nobody had 3000 dollar handbags because; well, that’s just fucking ridiculous and no man would ever let his wife buy some bullshit like that.
      So, basically, women traded a life of total ease and bliss for a bunch of shoes and handbags. How fucking ridiculous is that? Oh, yeah, they also get to ride the CC now; something that feminists also managed to convince them that they want. However most women find riding the CC a very damaging experience that’s not nearly as much “fuuuunnnn” as they thought it was going to be. Great for those of us who are taking advantage of it; but, remind me again, how does this benefit women?
      To do my own little part, I’m going to start a campaign to convince women that anal sex is far more empowering for them than vaginal sex. It’s my personal contribution to the PUA/MGTOW community. Next thing you know; we’ll have women shoving iPhones up their ass for enjoyment because; well, it’s the “in thing”.
      Follow the herd right off a fucking cliff. That’s what modern woman seems to be destined to anymore.

      1. “To do my own little part, I’m going to start a campaign to convince women that anal sex is far more empowering for them than vaginal sex. It’s my personal contribution to the PUA/MGTOW community. Next thing you know; we’ll have women shoving iPhones up their ass for enjoyment because; well, it’s the “in thing””
        The more I think about it the more I realize being a ( male ) feminist is the ultimate expression of misogyny. No other movement or group has done as much damage to the happiness and quality of life of the average woman than feminism.

        1. That’s not new. My mates were doing that 10 years ago. Why do you think the women these days are so damaged already?

  15. Avoid the word “liberal” it is a corrupted word absent any definable meaning. It’s purpose is to take the positive connonations that this word had in the 19th century (when properly applied it referred to responsible and limited government – Jefferson was a liberal) and transfer these to a negative word which cannot hide its meaning: socialism.

    1. I could not agree more. I’m pretty socially liberal (drugs/prostitution are A-OK in my book, no victim, no crime). I’m also (not popular here, but I’ll include it) for things like gay marriage and other “socially liberal” causes. In my opinion, if people want to do it and there’s no victim, who am I to get in the way.
      However, that’s not what the “liberal” party is anymore. I think the literal meaning is “liberal spending with your money”. And that’s a cause that I just can’t get behind. I’m so
      Honestly, I’d support higher taxes IF it meant more personal freedoms. However, that’s not at all what it means; it’s higher taxes and LESS freedom; pretty much the opposite of “liberal” in my book.

      1. The problem with higher taxes is that by definition they reduce your freedom.

        1. “The problem with higher taxes is that by definition they reduce your freedom.”
          I’ve said this a few times about some of your short statements but….words of wisdom right here folks.

        2. Thanks man. It can be a challenge to distill wisdom down to a single statement so I appreciate your words.

        3. Well not necessarily. It depends how things are done. A good childcare system well organized and efficient paid by tax money would indeed increase the freedom of many people (same goes for healthcare). You can argue that it will not change anything for very wealthy people which is true, but paying a bit more taxes will not decrease their freedom either. Utilitarianism you see…
          The problem is when tax money is used to finance BS policies with the sole aim of getting someone reelected. It looks all nice and shiny from the outside but look a bit closer and you’ll see it’s just an inefficient piece of trash.

        4. A good childcare system well organized and efficient paid by tax money…

          Never happens. You cannot make a good system with bad money.

        5. Hahaha! We have a French saying: “Money doesn’t have a smell”. Doesn’t matter where the money is from, you can still do the exact same things with it.
          So far I think the childcare system in Sweden works quite well: first year is basically spent at home with one parent, then the other, then off to a kindergarten of the choice of the parents. Much better than having young kids sitting at home being babysitted by the TV.
          Now, their healthcare system is working too, even though I find it much less efficient than the French one, but the problem with French healthcare is that it’s extremely costly (probably too much).

        6. If you’re stealing that money from me it does matter where the money comes from. Only a thief thinks otherwise.
          A system based on theft is not a workable system.

        7. It’s far from stealing. You can benefit from this money. It’s more like if someone was asking you to chip in for a project… Except that if you don’t want to chip in you may end up in jail, true.
          You don’t want to pay? Fine. I’m sure many countries with less taxes would be happy to get a new citizen.
          And if you really don’t want to pay taxes: enjoy a country with total chaos: no police, no fire department, schools/prison/hospitals ran and build only for profits and basically a state run by the biggest corporations… Oh wait… Doesn’t that sound pretty much like the US (except for the FD… and I wish there was no police there seen how they are just a bunch of thugs with badges)? Does it work? Yeah for 10% of the richest maybe (and most of those are born in wealthy families anyway, the meritocracy in the US is a huge lie that only a population maintained in ignorance keeps on buying. It ain’t rosy here in the EU either, but that’s already much better than the US, pretty much any country is).

        8. If someone takes my money without my consent or by force it is stealing. I work in banking btw, and trust me the source of funds is very important to us. We are required by law to “care” where the money comes from.
          Police? Police provide me with no benefit. They have just announced that in the UK they will no longer be investigating burglary. But they are happen to aggravate me at night by flying noisy helicopters over my home at 4 in the morning. I have never been mugged but the police have taken thousands off me.
          I have no problem with taxes as long as they are voluntary. Then it is not stealing.

        9. Yeah I know at least this about banking . Some people in my family are working in risk assessment in banking… So indeed, knowing where the money comes from is extremely important.
          But from a more theoretical point of view, it doesn’t matter if a State gets money via taxes or via outright stealing/plundering their neighbours: they can use this money for the exact same things.
          “They have just announced that in the UK they will no longer be investigating burglary”
          Oh? I wonder why? Maybe because someone decided to cut down on their budget?
          That reminds me of the Swedes wanting less and less of their tax money going to the army… And then when forests are catching fire and the fire department is not enough, people are wondering where the army is.
          I agree with you, there are a lot of waste of tax payers money in some countries and it’s not tolerable. However the answer is not paying less taxes, that will not decrease the waste of money one bit. The answer is more transparency and more accountability.
          Now about paying whatever taxes you want. Let’s face it: the more money you have, the less you’ll pay taxes. It’s not the average joe that is hiding money from the state in tax heavens, it’s the rich. Just like you can’t just expect charities to do all the social work, you can’t expect people to willingly pay whatever they feel like and have a country running. You at least need to give them incentives to do so and explain to them why you need this money and what for. I wouldn’t mind people living in a country and not paying taxes… But that would mean a) you can’t vote b) you have access to zero social service c) the police and fire department will not help you. If you are not contributing financially to the community/country, I don’t see why the community/country would help you whatsoever. If you feel more free that way, good for you. Personnally, I’ve always been more of a team player.

        10. Again, it matters to me if you are taking my money without consent. Do it long enough and you will get shot in the face. Then it will matter to you too.
          The “community” does not exist. It is a loose and poorly defined concept.
          The police don’t help anyone so quite happy to do without their “services”. I have never needed the fire brigade in my life but on the off chance I do, happy to pay them a call out fee.
          The police budget is fine. It was never their remit to help the population. They are just making that clear now.
          Keep your useless vote and social services. I’m a grown man and can look after myself.
          What team do you play for?

        11. Wow, I didn’t know the police situation was that bad in the UK.
          The community can have several definition. But it’s rather based on which group you feel you belong to. Someone don’t really belong to any group and that’s ok, I understand that.
          I play for team Science in academia… and that ain’t an easy game when half of the people in the field aren’t exactly thinking “team” but “me myself and I” and have huge egos.
          I’ve been playing handball as a kid too. But I was mostly goal keeper.

        12. The police situation is becoming pretty awful here. They kill innocent people with relative impunity (oops sorry about your relative) and have little interest in investigating crime. Their main focus seems to be harassment, whether it is stop and searching you as you mind your own business, or pulling you over, after they change the speed limit and giving you a heavy fine (read: highwaymen).
          If you count on the police to save your life you will die. If you defend yourself, you will be arrested.
          As for community, there is none. It only seems to exist in the papers when they blather vaguely about the “community”. Nobody knows who they are talking about.

        13. So basically getting more and more like in the US and their thugs with badges. I don’t envy you.
          Being an amateur of knives and carrying one most of the time (not for defense purpose as knives are pretty awful weapons unless they are 30 cm long with double edge… and then it’s a dagger, not a knife anymore), I would have troubles living in the UK anyway. At least in France and Sweden they don’t frisk you arbitrarily unless they have reasons to (and carrying a knife for work in Sweden is ok).
          It seems that the anglo way of seeing communities is mostly based on race and religion identity. Therefore you don’t necessarily have a strong national identity or at least a fragmented one. France partially failed at having a strong national identity because we housed immigrants from the same countries in shitty areas and let them do whatever without giving them incentives to really be part of the nation. However the strong secular identity of France (forged in blood at the beginning of the XXth century when the Church and the State were separated) help us opposing religious fanatism and most of French citizens aren’t fond of letting muslims (or catholics) dictating them how to behave. Religion is like a dick: you don’t put it on display for everyone to see and you don’t push it on kids. It ain’t the same in Sweden and UK unfortunately.

  16. I think the fact they consider banning words is also pretty telling. Don’t ban the word “feminism” – it’s nice and ugly.

  17. I seem to remember some websites dogpiling on the Time poll in order to mass-vote banning “feminist”. So while it’s great to hear that it won the poll, it may not actually reflect the silent majority of Americans, but rather anti-establishment internet users like ourselves. I think most of the silent majority never even heard of the poll.
    Also, as others here are saying, it’s not a sign that people are actually turning against feminism. It’s just the leftists acknowledging that the word is getting a bad rap and so they need to re-brand. The concepts won’t change. Leftists are highly skilled in verbal virtuosity.

  18. Not totally on topic but just wanted other’s opinions regarding Ben Shapiro

    1. Liberal and Conservative muck rakers in this day and age are usually as bad as the scum that they spend their time antagonizing…

  19. Nowadays, there is no commonly accepted definition for feminism. Who is a feminist? Anyone who just calls herself a feminist, or a “real”, militant one…? Nowadays, very few people are actually involved in any kind of ideological activism. Most people are very eclectic, they take all sorts of ideas from different sources and mix them in a way that they find convenient for themselves. Many ideas that used to be very feminist in the past decades, are now part of the mainstream culture: contraception, civil rights, even such everyday things as the driver’s license (I’m a mother of four and I don’t drive, which is really strange nowadays, even for people who consider themselves as conservative) or women’s sports (most young men that follow ROK are attracted by skinny, athletic women… this was something very feminist a few decades ago, lmao…)

    1. The way there are numerous definitions of feminism all increasingly rediculous mirrors the same definitions of communism. It comes from those that feel threatened by it. They make out to be a problem, so those with more realistic ideals rebrand themselves to avoid being catgorised as militant, for example.
      Both are quite idealistic systems that will never work in practicality, purely because we all have differing opinions on how things should be. I’ve no problem with the straightforward idea that women can be capable of achieving what they put their minds to, just as men are. The practical reality is different and mistakes will be made by overzealous youngsters on both sides as they seek more power for themselves at the expense of others.
      I agree the word is pointless. Anyone involving themselves in it, pro or anti, are missing the point and should be focussed on solving the real problems pragmatically. I have very little respect for my my fellow men who blame feminists, liberals, and the next group designated to take the shit, for all the worlds ills. To my mind they are losers who, if they had more power over their lives, would be running for office or joining the military, and doing that badly also. Instead they whine on message boards and stir up hatred. They cant get to grips with the idea that most people do not natrually fit into their simple categories because they feel safe having changed themselves in order to fit into what they think is a select group.
      They are now in the red pill club, a group of people who claim they do their own thing, but are all singing from the same song book written by someone they nominate as an alpha. Excellent principles, idiot congregation. Its embarrasing to read these days, only about one in 10 commenters are able to speak their own truth with intelligence.

  20. 51% of Time’s readers voted to end the word Feminist. The other 49% stuck up for the word hoping to get laid.

  21. I hate to break it to you guys but at soon as this poll was released, 4chan’s decided to raid it.

    1. “Raid” isn’t really an appropriate word for things like this. It implies an unfair or disallowed method of forcing a certain outcome by flooding the area with your ingroup. However, polls like this are a democracy. They display and tabulate the aggregated opinion of all participants. Just because people you don’t like voted in it doesn’t delegitimatize the vote.

  22. AmeriKwa seems pretty far gone- short of total societal collapse/civil war- I see no possible restoration of a normal social order. It’s a freak show. Spent several hours detoxing by watching Greek TV- no “minorities”, gender/class wars—just Greeks singing beautiful folk songs. If they only knew how normal they are.

  23. Women don’t trust or believe that other women can be capable of anything. They’re constantly tearing each other down. So the idea of a movement like “feminism,” or anything female owned and run is ridiculous to them. They reject feminism by default and opt to use the old-fashioned way to get what they want. Which is basically prostitution disguised as marriage. Of course, women who’re in the workplace or trying to build a career will always use what they can, and that means taking advantage of affirmative action laws and false harrassment accusations.
    Consider Union Shops where all workers are protected by a union. Women will be union members and can get fair treatment and opportunities just by paying their dues. Well, in most union shops women still go behind other employee’s backs and connive with management, sleep around, and rat out fellow employees, if it’ll get them the hours and pay they want. They’ll join the union because it’s expected. Pack mentality. But their default position is to rely on manipulation and deception.

    1. If there were no women in the world, men would be giving each other blow jobs.
      The ones who were best at it would have a larger share of the advantages and promotions.
      I would still be me. I would not get promoted while a characterless twat in a flash car who wormed his way into the bosses pack of sycophants got the breaks.
      I would get the work done, and get the overtime because I know how to do my job and I dont help out guys who need to treat me like a beta. Nothing would change.

      1. I disagree with that. Cases where men did that when no women were available were in situations where psychological degredation takes place. Like prison, stranded on deserted islands, and such. They were removed from normal society and received a trauma to their personalities.
        I just quit a job where a manager was pressuring me to fuck his wife while he watched. Which is homosexual as far as I’m concerned. I could have done it and saved a great job, but fuck that.
        My 401K is big enough to live on for almost two years. So I’m going to take a month off, then just work here and there enough to not have to draw off of it too much. Because of the deal I got, when I sell my house I’ll have enough to fuck off to South America and live on the beach. A couple of freinds and I have been planning to start a tourist service down there anyway. When your home is paid for down there (Ecuador) you can live just fine selling shrimp and giving boat rides to tourists.

        1. Most people here do have traumas to their personalities.
          But, your comment fits your plan. Its a good plan.

        2. Dude, you make a really good point. And I think it would be a great topic of conversation or articles on Men’s Rights sites. A lot of what we talk about is just changing your view of yourself and seeing reality. Then you can get out of the Blue Pill social engineering has put you into. But average people with traumas have difficulty doing that.
          I’ll admit that I got PTSD when I lost my virginity. I was 17 (legal age) and she was 16 1/2. She used sex to lure me into her plans to do a bunch of crap that I didn’t even know was happening, and I ended up in jail of for statuatory and other reasons. And yeah, years later I ended up in therapy. I had other issues too, but only after resolving them was I able to UNDERSTAND a lot of stuff that we know talk about in the MRM about changing yourself for the better in light of our society as it stands.
          They slam homosexuality here. I follow suit because some things the say make sense TO ME. But I could be completely wrong in my understanding of a lot of things. And I accept that I’m no expert on a lot of stuff.
          The movement for men improving themselves is still young. There’s still a lot of discussion that needs to go on.
          Thanks for the postings.

        3. I was also thinking of Americans in general. The discussion tends to be that the US is suffering and a bad place to be. I think the people collectively are constantly shell shocked by their own government.
          This is clearer in a historical perspective during the vietnam war when many people showed signs of paranoia and schizophrenia, mostly as a result of being completely lied to by the govt.
          I think we all get PSTD growing up as we learn that life is not what we were taught it was.
          That as kids we are supposed to have manners and kindness and do what the authoritors told us, only to grow up to find the authoritors are control freaks and other people are selfish.
          The PSTD is like the effect of coming out of the blue pill lies. I think it goes away when you realise the people who hurt you are the braindead ones who are still working under the lies because it happens to work for them. They dont even understand it. Theyre just blind fools copying the next guy who wins.
          It is possible even your first girlfriend was smart enough to grow up and realise she was a stupid c**t in her youth. Or had her own trauma in realising how terrible she was, or she repressed all of it and chose to remain stupid and hateworthy and plays her own victim games.
          The part I worry about with the self improvement is this. Outside in blue pill world where there are brainless advantaged bullies they will talk about not being a victim and fixing yourself as if the whole thing was your own fault, which adds shame and guilt and continues the drama.
          This situation was not your fault, you were simply foolish or weak the way all of us are when young. You know this though.
          The self improvement in the red pill world is about learning how you fell into that trap, how to recognise and avoid it it future, and about staying strong so that you dont become victimised again. No one will take advantage of you a second time, you will not allow it.
          Above that its about being a man who knows how to get things done, my personal belief is that how involves more balance and less abuse. Looking after your friends and family and maintaining a functional society even when the politicians don’t.
          I have been pushing tough love for a while here because it seems like a lot of the young lads are just playing victim and being hateful rather than making their own future, these hate the women and the gays and the blacks and other religions and have no clue about the system that created their hatred. They will never be successful until they have personal responsibility.
          I never thought you were one of them though. Youre on a good path.
          The homophobia is a strange topic here. I dont see how what two other men do to each other has any effect on my life. If they want rights to marry it means when they get divorced the adopted kids will go to the best parent. This is good for straight men’s rights.
          My confidence means I never have to worry about being raped by a man or divorced by my wife so I dont get angry at them.
          I just worry about the haters, there are so many of them if we dont pick ourselves up soon there will be carnage. I also think the women who reject feminism also know this. Its not that men win and women have given up, but that we need more strong men and true women.

        4. Yeah, bingo! We get set into a path of thinking/beliefs that end up conflicting with reality when we have to deal with it. Example: Something a lot of people aren’t equipped to confront is the fantasy of Family Life that is pushed by T.V. and the media. No one came from a “perfect home” and when they’re raised in the typical disfunctional home, they have no coping skills and end up adults with problems. Same thing across the board with our society. Women are painted as such and such, men are men, and you “feel like you’re taking crazy pills” (Zoolander reference). In the end there’s no growth or development as a human, and the innate gifts you have are stolen from society. And yourself.
          Hatred for women, I think, has no place in the MRM. Because it comes from the person having issues/problems. Introspection and self improvement means you become more rational. If women act the way they do, as we discuss here, then that’s just the way it is. Improving yourself has nothing to do with them, except that in the future they might also work on improving themselves by escaping the same societal constructs that we’re now complaining about. Learning “Game” and how to “Train Your Girlfriend” are necessary because they’re essentially men not acting Blue Pill, and when relationships are formed with women on these basis, they’re healthier. Just drop the angery names from both and you’ve got “Men Relating Rationally with their Counterparts.” [Note: Game and Training work because many women are “types” with predictable and manipulatable behavior. The same with us. . .We need to escape constructs that WE impose on ourselves too.]
          We’re still evolving as a species. We don’t know where we’re going, and the modern crisis is that we still don’t know who or what we are. While we need society and living in groups, at this time in history we’ve corrupted the relationship between the individual and society. This can’t continue. Maybe I’m too romantic a person, but I see men regaining their masculinity as just one step in reversing this course. This is what Nietzche meant with “God is Dead” and “Twilight of the Gods.”
          From the end of WWII till now, money has become the standard to Americans. It’s our God. Nietche predicted these day, if you know how to interpret him. It was a gradual cancer that took us by surprise, and we don’t even know we’re sick.
          Our economy took care of us like children for generations. We didn’t have to think; Corporations controlling the government structured your life path from birth to death. Now that the money is all at the top, and Americans are required to think creatively and “out of the box” they can’t. All they have are the constructs created by the media and legal system. “Blue Pill” all the way. We talk about Blue Pill here as Men vs. Women,, but it’s way, way more than that. Blue Pill is our society/economy/politics as a whole.
          So overgrown children become your boss, they screw you and lie like 5 year olds, and you have no recourse. In philosophy is called the “Tyranny of Capitalism.” No creativity is allowed if it conflicts with set ways corporation have of predicting income. Devolving down from this is the “Tyranny of Statistics” where just PERCIEVED conflict with social and economic norms becomes the enemy. How do we get out of all this, when mankinds essential Being rests in creativity, individuality, and charity. There’s no room for these, as average people scramble for their God of money, with no psychological base to fall back on, and any efforts aren’t only scorned, but punished.
          After WWII poor people started companies, they learned skills to build lives. Decades later people don’t even understand the concepts.
          Martin Heidegger said “The most though provoking thing, is these most thought provoking times, is that we’re not thinking.” If we, like the people of the Renaissance, go back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and studied Stoicism in it’s true form, it can teach us about thinking and regaining our place in the world and universe. This has to happen at the individual level, and then move on to some kind of movement.
          I take it you’re not in America. Do you know how hard it is to find someone to talk about these things with? Thank you for the opportunity to share this conversation.

        5. Brother! I see a quiet revolution on the way. I’ve had a number of amazing conversations this weekend on disqus with people looking for something more, but you have brought them together and named some concepts I have been trying to define for years.
          I recognise the Tyranny of Capitalism in the workplace. It was a real shock in my youth that people I assumed were smart and capable would work so hard to silence an independent thought, especially when one believes he is working to advance technology and improves lives. It still shocks me that employers want to keep their staff stupid for gains on a yearly budget.
          It took so long to realise that I was different for being a thinker, sadly I have fallen half asleep while also failing to find people willing to talk about the bigger picture and avoid the crazy makers.
          With the internet that difficulty is reduced nowadays and ideas can not only be developed faster but do not disappear in the morning after finding a wise old man in the pub after 4 pints!
          I think this generation of 20somethings have a great chance to rebuild. We just have to keep passing the ideas on so they have a head start on us and achieve a little more before becoming worn out.
          Thankyou for the philosophy tips, Stoicism was mentioned to me recently and I am well on board there. I should switch off the television and get to reading everything I never finished at university.

  24. I’ll leave this right here.
    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

    Girl DESTROYS feminism in 3 minutes!Posted by Only For Men on Monday, July 20, 2015

  25. Isn’t it hilarious they have to apologise for using democracy? Also, how deluded are they to think leftists are in any way a majority?

  26. Doesn’t matter if the word “feminist” is banned as long as delusional chicks and manginas still strive for equality.
    And i’ve realized it’s not actual equality in theory that’s bad(it’s not even possible anyway), it’s the things delusional men and women do in their never-ending quest to achieve the equalist pipe-dream.(cut men’s feet and give them to women).
    If any word getting bad stigma should be celebrated, it should be the word “equalist” as feminist laws are really just a symptom of delusional men and women entertaining the idea they’re equal in nature.

  27. Women throw other women under the bus. They’ll take what advantages they can from feminism because it gets them what they want. But then they also want to be liked and accepted by those around them. So they might take, say food stamps. But around other people they’ll complain about people who use food stamps. It’s all about manipulation. They know feminism has a bad reputation and most people don’t like women who say they’re feminist. So they’ll attack the term and side with people that they think will like them for rejecting their fellow sisters-in-arms. That’s all this article proves.

Comments are closed.