A Radical Feminist (s) eeeeemmm Speaks!

 

I don’t usually bother reading, much less commenting on the avalanche of written diarrhoea that spews from the keyboards of numerous feminists. Because to be honest, the level of both the writing and the content of such screeds is so abysmally low it is tiresome, a bit like having a fly buzzing about one’s head.

This little gem though came to me via:

End Misandry and Toxic Feminism Now. https://www.facebook.com/groups/394293634027074/

It is the product of this delightful little coven of intellectually challenged feminist(s) (are there any other kind I wonder?) I digress.

http://feministwaves.com/why-women-make-better-leaders-than-men/

Sigh.  To save you the bother of having to click on the link, here it is in its entirety.  It is a short but fairly typical example of the sheer lack of cognitive ability of many feminists.

“Let’s be honest for a moment here. If socially-constructed colonialist gender roles were reversed and women had historically joined the workforce and men stayed at home in the kitchen the world would be a much better place.

 For starters you wouldn’t have bankers pillaging the global economy to benefit their own self-interest – research indicates that women, unlike men who only think about themselves, think about how their actions affect others. No woman would take a multi-million dollar bonus while her fellow citizens were left drowning in poverty.

 Think about it. What is twenty-first century capitalism missing? Why are all these giant corporations exploiting the environment and the weak? It’s because corporate America is still an old boys club. Imagine a corporate world dominated by feminine energy. Imagine a world where corporations had compassion and empathy for their employees, a world where the collective interest is always held in higher regard than self-interest. Imagine a world where female leaders worked together to solve their disputes collaboratively as opposed to resorting to patriarchal expressions of masculine domination like war.

 Many of these age-old problems such as hunger, poverty, war and abuse would disappear, virtually overnight, if women were in charge of the world.

Have you read it? Excellent, shall we continue so?

The essence of this toxic little diatribe is – men suck, women don’t, men bad, women good.

But this is not why I’ve chosen this particular piece of drivel to comment on. It is these two little gems; the first is the blog owners About Us. (note the “Us”)

“Lisa Cox is a 34 year old graduate student in women’s studies at the University of California Berkeley. Miss Cox is an icon in radical feminist circles across the globe – actively promoting the progress of women in societies throughout the world.

 Feminist Waves aims to promote an end to the oppressive male patriarchy that continues to exploit, belittle and domineer women. We will actively fight for the dignity and respect that women deserve as equals in the modern 21st century.”

I admit it, this did make me laugh, it amused me, and was I of a mind to be indulgent of MISS Cox, which I am not, I might have just have taken a microsecond to laugh, move on and never have this inane rabid little person enter my consciousness again.

The “graduate of women’s studies” certainly explains the limited intellectual ability displayed by MISS Cox, though several things stand out, she/they (does MISS Cox suffer from multiple personality syndrome I find myself wondering, as she/they have named this section “About US”) describes herself/themselves as “an icon in radical feminist circles across the globe” seriously? An ICON! In “radical feminist circles” no less.  Pardon me while I go suppress an uncontrollable urge to fall around the place laughing.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, back.

The use of the word MISS is intriguing, tut tut MISS Cox, Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem et al would be sooooooooo disappointed in you.

It is in this next section called “What is Feminism?” That bears rancid fruit.

“According to Webster’s dictionary, feminism is defined as the belief that men and women should have equal rights. Powerful women like those pictured above never stopped at simply being “equal,” and neither should any other woman. Feminism is NOT the the desire to be equal, our movement has never been about equality, it transcends that. Our movement is about pushing the limits of equality, past where men stand and onto new frontiers. We women should not have equal rights, but a new set of rights specific to us. This set of rights should clearly possess all of those that men possess, but also more. My version of feminism casts aside the boundaries placed upon us by the patriarchy and asserts itself ahead of the pack, above the cocks who try to control us.

 So what is feminism, then? Feminism is the uncanny and pervasive feeling that the rights of women are never sufficient, no matter the case.”

Above this paragraph MISS Cox has posted some photos of “powerful women” such as, (well the ones I recognise), Oprah Winfrey, Ellen De Generes, Queen Elizabeth II, Michelle Obama, Christine Legarde. I have no idea who the remaining four women are, and nope, didn’t click on the photos to find out.

Before we move onto these “powerful women” let’s just take a closer look at MISS Cox’s “definition” of feminism, we can of course immediately discard the Webster’s dictionary version.

Her/their own unique “definition” is much more revealing, such as for example this:

“……..Feminism is NOT the the desire to be equal, our movement has never been about equality, it transcends that. Our movement is about pushing the limits of equality, past where men stand and onto new frontiers. We women should not have equal rights, but a new set of rights specific to us. This set of rights should clearly possess all of those that men possess, but also more.”

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth, or ass, whichever you prefer; feminism is about female supremacy, in fact in black and white, MISS Cox proudly declares that feminism has “never been about equality”

Gotcha!

It is obvious that not only is MISS Cox utterly off her/their trolly, but she/they are so convinced of the rightness of her/their belief that she/they have put it into the public domain.

So, her/their “powerful women” that she/they used as examples? Where shall we being? Well, as MISS Cox’s contention is that if women were in charge, it would be rainbows and lollipops all round, so let us take a closer look at Ms. Christine Legarde, the head of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), in May of this year Ms. Legarde narrowly escaped being charged with fraud and forced to resign as head of the IMF. Oops!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/imf-managing-director-christine-lagarde-evades-fraud-accusation-8631884.html

Michelle Obama is MARRIED to the most powerful man in the world, or so received wisdom would have it, in and of herself she holds no legitimate ELECTED power, though of course her influence on the President of the United States is unknown. For what it’s worth she appears to be quite fond of him.

Queen Elizabeth II is the hereditary head of state of a parliamentary democracy, her “power” is symbolic and she also wields no statutory or legislative “power”

Oprah Winfrey is just rich, stinking rich to be sure, and she does have enormous influence, but “power”? I’m not really familiar with Ellen De Generes, but isn’t she a talk show host?  Wasn’t she a comedian? What “power” does she wield? Other than an ability to make people laugh, a bit like yourself MISS Cox.

 

Edit: I took a closer look around MISS Cox’s blog and there are two possible conclusions, one she/they are in need of some serious “intervention” and a decade or two of heavy duty therapy, or alternatively she/they are taking the piss. Either way, it is a cesspool of stupidity, inanity and mindless witterings.

© Anja Eriud 2013

 

What’s in a Name?

We like to give things names, labels that we assign to objects, ideas, ways of thinking so that we have a handy reference word that allows us to recognise some “thing” without having to go into huge detail. Like a game of charades, where the object is to bring to the mind of the players a certain “thing” without naming that “thing” if you have ever played charades, it is not as easy as it sounds.

Because giving a “thing” a name vests multiple layers of meaning, complex and interconnected shades of meaning to that “named thing”

If I said the word “Tree” for example, the innumerable mental pictures this would conjure up is due to the complexity of meanings that this word implies. I might immediately think of a mighty oak, standing tall and immovable over centuries, it might then evoke images of ancient battles fought under its shade, or perhaps the signing of The Magna Carta.  Another might think “cherry blossom in a Japanese Garden”, this might evoke visions of perhaps the movie The Last Samurai, and yet another might think “Christmas” and the memories of childhood excitement and anticipation.  Words don’t just describe, they trigger, they evoke, the take us on an inner journey down many paths.

There is a word that has been carefully crafted, assiduously imbued with certain meanings, meanings that vest this word with positive socially and culturally accepted meanings to such an extent that very few go beyond or beneath this carefully cultivated meaning and explore under this shiny surface.

That word is feminism.

Just like I don’t have to search my mind for a word to describe such diverse “things” as Christmas tree, cherry blossom or mighty oak, for many phrases such as,  “women’s rights” “equality” “male oppression” “rape” and “male privilege”  will evoke one word – feminism.

The question though is this, the label “feminism” has gathered to itself all sorts of meanings, all kinds of complex and multilayered connotations, and has done so deliberately, carefully, and with feverish intent to invest “feminism” with qualities it does not possess, and never has. These carefully cultivated ancillary meanings have been coupled with this word to mask its true meaning, its true purpose.  For beneath these complex issues made simple, made part of the underlying well of meanings that lie beneath the word “feminism” is a cold calculated and malign purpose.

To make hatred of men “normal” to immediately evoke a negative and disapproving feeling, state of mind, stance, or attitude of distrust, wariness, contempt or disdain towards all men, in varying degrees.

Because words in and of themselves provoke not just meanings, but an emotional, intellectual and psychological response, we take our cue from the emotional, intellectual and psychological triggers that a word evokes in us. In other words (no pun intended) how we conduct our conversations, how we position ourselves along a spectrum of possible stances, and how we respond either consciously or unconsciously to “opinions” or “points of view” is determined by the meaning we vest in certain words. But, also we react and respond not just to the individual “word” the label attached to name something, but to all the “words” all the other “labels” all the other multi layered “meanings” that this “word” implies.

Over some 50 years or so, feminism has consumed, has subsumed, has like a giant verbal and linguistic vacuum drawn into itself many many words, with many many meanings, has commandeered and claimed as its own, the right to assign meanings to words, to “things” has positioned itself as the arbiter and court of final appeal on all conversations, all discussions, all exchanges between, about, or on, men and women.

Because of all the words to describe some “thing” these two words; MEN and WOMEN are the jewels in the crown of feminism’s campaign to own the language, to own the meanings, to own the words we use.

Without thinking too hard about it, if I said “MEN” what would spring to your mind?

Would it be, great painters, scientific genius’s, loving fathers, rambunctious and happy go lucky boys, honour, loyalty, sacrifice, love, kindness, fun, civilisation?

Would these be some of the words that immediately leapt to YOUR mind, or would other darker, nastier, cruel words tumble into your consciousness.

Words like, rape, violence, oppression, dominance, war, death, pain?

Now, ask yourselves. Do THESE words spring to your mind when you think of your fathers, brothers, sons, nephews and friends?

What if I said the word WOMEN.

Let me guess, you might have thought, victim, poor, discrimination, battered, helpless, rights, abuse, divorce, poverty.

Do THESE words really apply to you, to ALL the women you know, your mothers, daughters, sisters, friends and co-workers.  ALL these words? To ALL the women you know?

It is indeed true that in this world there are many cruel and awful people, that we are a world in turmoil, millions are in poverty, millions are abused, are hurt, and are in pain.  Many people lack even the barest shred of humanity.  What is equally true is that some of those people are male and some of those people are female.

Cruelty, callousness, lack of compassion, lack of humanity is NOT “gendered” is NOT a manifestation of one’s biological sex, all these things know no “gender” boundaries. There have ever been examples throughout history, and at this present time of those who have abandoned all semblance of humanity.

But, feminism, in its dishonesty, its foetid campaign of hatred, lies and deception has sought to mask the cruelty, the inhumanity that some female human beings have displayed, and magnify out of all proportion the cruelties and inhumanities of some male human beings, to such an extent, and with such success that even those who do not take upon themselves the label “feminist” believe that ALL cruelty, ALL inhumanity IN THIS WORLD emanates from and only from MEN.

It is a lie.

It is a lie built on a foundation of lies, and fed upon a diet of lies. The word “lie” in the context I am using it here has ONLY one essential meaning. NOT true.

 

 

 

 

 

Can You?

This poem resonates, it captures the pain, the sorrow that men carry within but struggle to hide, and when that struggle becomes an overwhelming burden they lash out in anger. But it is an anger fed by betrayal, by hurt, by sorrow.

On The Shelf

 

Ah yes, this used to be the fate that every woman feared, if not openly, then in the long dark watches of lonely nights. Being left on the shelf implied that one had been examined, a careful eye had been cast over one and that eye, and many more, had passed on to select another.

Just as children feel the sting of rejection, the pain of “not being picked” this is the fate of many women who if they were honest with themselves are beginning to feel.

Pair bonding, mate selection, these are the behaviours common to all species, including Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  It is deeply embedded into our hardwiring to find, bond and reproduce with a mate. For all our technological sophistication, all our amazing intellectual and cultural achievements this is what keeps some of us awake at night.

It is what is keeping many many women awake at night, though they would deny it. It is what haunts their secret dreams and lies like a shadow across their minds, even as they present themselves to the world as carefree, glittering butterflies, as devil may care hedonistic bon vivants, as “strong independent women” taking on the world and winning.

Hmmm.

I wonder, I ponder and I reflect as I observe the behaviour, the corrupted mating behaviour of young and not so young females, and it is mating behaviour that drives this behaviour and actions of so many women. Why are you bothering?  Why are you making such a display, exhibiting yourselves in such a manner, dressing, speaking and unconsciously demanding  – look at me, pick me, when it is clearly a ploy, a false display, when it is clearly just an exhibition, clearly just a demand for attention, clearly just a corrupted form of mating behaviour with no obvious purpose.

I hear the excuses, I hear the justifications, “I dress to please myselforI make myself available for sex with random strangers to prove how free I am” or just because I display myself in a manner that leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination, doesn’t make me a sex object

Really? You dress to please yourself? You adorn yourself, paint yourself, primp and preen so that you can gaze upon your reflection and have “yourself” gaze back in admiration?

Really? You have multiple sexual encounters, multiple sexual partners because this proves how free you are?  Free to be what?  Free to do what? Have “yourself” viewed as a mere object of sexual gratification?  Free to couple with near strangers, and then, to take the long walk home alone? (I wonder why I’ve heard it described as “the walk of shame”)

So dressing in a manner that displays and enhances your “sex appeal” that emphasis the very parts of yourself that evinces a sexual response in the male of the species doesn’t make you a sex object? Exhibiting exaggerated mating behaviour does not scream “available for sex”?

Who are you kidding?

Ah, yes of course, yourselves. This is who you all seek to convince, all this mating behaviour, all these exaggerated displays of mating behaviour, are what YOU say they are, what YOU have been fooled into believing.

Let us go back, to the beginning, to the purpose of mating behaviour, to the reason why unconsciously or consciously almost all species engage in mating behaviour, shall we?

To bond, to find a mate, to reproduce.

Human beings are no different, yes indeed Homo Sapiens Sapiens have evolved, have become the premier species on the planet, but still, human beings ARE mammals, are driven at a subliminal level to do what almost all mammals do, to bond, to find a mate and to reproduce.

Yeah? So? I hear you say, what’s the big deal?

Good question, what is the big deal? The big deal my dears is biology. The big deal is that human beings, in particular female human beings are tied to their biology, bound to a timetable, limited to a relatively small window of opportunity. Reproductive opportunity. Tick tock.

Ppppft, you say, we have all this technology, all this amazing science, and I can just avail myself of all this scientific magic and voila – fulfil my reproductive destiny. Snap my beautifully manicured fingers, turn on the “mating behaviour” that served me so well in my twenties and………………………

Yeeeeeeeeees? And what? Have hordes of virile eager mates lining up? Have at your command a mate that will comply, that will bond with you, that is willing to reproduce with you?

Tsk tsk, you silly overindulged hedonistic females, such arrogance, such self regard, such self delusion. You forget my dears, while you do indeed have a biological urge deeply embedded in your psyche to reproduce, so too do the males of this species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  They also have a need to bond, to mate, to reproduce, and it is with the young, the fertile, the loyal and true. For a man, the woman who bears his children must actually BE bearing HIS children.  She must BE someone he can be sure of, know that she is faithful, she is healthy, she is a person of value, of worth. How does this man know this?

Well, he will look to her previous mating behaviour of course, he will look to her character, he will look upon her and he WILL evaluate HER potential as a mate, as a companion, as a person whom he can trust, he can feel secure with.

So, now, my dears, adorn yourselves, primp and preen, display your wares, indulge yourselves in redundant mating behaviour and waste away your most fertile and short years in mating with all and sundry, then ask yourselves this.

If I was a man, would I MARRY her? Would I bind myself to this shallow creature? Would I allow this slut to bear and raise MY children? Will I, as a man, given the choice between a young fertile and loyal companion, who keeps herself only for me and I for her, and a used up, approaching infertility, selfish hedonistic shrew choose the shrew, the slut, the one who wasted her fertility.

What do YOU think?

Which now leads us on to the rituals, the ceremonies, the external “rules” that human society has enacted to provide a framework within which human beings bond, mate and reproduce. The laws, which human society has developed to manage, to regulate the pair bonding of human beings.

For men, marriage has become a Venus Flytrap, on the surface, alluring, superficially appealing, but beneath, hidden behind the superficial appeal and allure? Designed to entrap and to devour. But who would do such a thing? Who would take this most natural, this most positive, and this most fulfilling of human relationships and corrupt it in such a manner?

Who indeed? Ladies, I invite you once more to gaze upon yourselves in your mirror, to stand and look upon the architects of this corruption. YOU did, you all did, your mothers and in some cases your grandmothers took this socially and culturally positive act of human relationships and dismantled it, remade it into something else. Something corrupt, something dangerous, something that was to only benefit the female of the species.

Yet, once again, in your selfishness, your vanity, your self-indulgence you forgot that men also are free to enter or not into pair bonds, men must voluntarily bind themselves into these “bonds” with females.

Have you looked at the figures ladies? Have you seen the downward spiral of marriage rates, of birth rates?  All over the world, human beings are NOT finding mates, not binding themselves into this most fundamental of human relationships. Is it women who are driving this trend?

Partly, it is women who are delaying having children, and when they do it is one, possibly two.  But it is men who are driving the declining marriage rates, men who are saying NO.

Why else would there now be such a wailing, such a cacophony of voices raised in a chorus of

Where have all the good men gone?” andWhy won’t he marry me

The answer ladies lie in your mirror.  All the good men are engaged in a futile search for a good woman, and he won’t marry YOU because………………………….look in the mirror my dear.

I suggest that you make that shelf as comfortable as possible; you will be there for a long long long time.

Mommy Dearest

 

There is a mythology surrounding motherhood, it is deeply embedded into our cultural psyche, it affects every aspect of our society from law to politics to entertainment and it anchors nearly all conversations, both public and private regarding women and women’s rights, because almost automatically, particularly in public discourse about women it is always “women and children” as two inseparable and interwoven entities, almost one entity.

And this dual entity is spoken of with reverence, with indulgence, with almost religious zeal.  Strangely feminists have a conflicted history with motherhood, they claim to be the voice of women and for women, yet motherhood is an intrinsic part of being female, they claim to be for a woman’s right “to choose” anything,  yet have vilified and sought to dismantle both marriage and family as the building blocks of stable societies. They idealise single mothers as brave heroines overcoming all obstacles to emerge as the epitome of “good parenting” in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Underpinning all this overt and covert social engineering to remake society into the image of a feminist utopia lies a raging virulent hatred of all things male. The radical feminist founders of modern feminism were determined to wipe men off the face of the planet, if not totally then in sufficient numbers to allow these hapless remaining male souls to service this feminist utopia.

Which brings me to this:

Arizona couple ‘held three daughters captive’ in home; 28 November 2013.

Police in Arizona say three sisters were held captive in filthy conditions for up to two years by their mother and stepfather in the city of Tucson.

Investigators say two of the girls, aged 12 and 13, escaped and alerted a neighbour after their stepfather tried to attack them with a knife.

Officers then found a 17-year-old locked in her bedroom.

The girls were malnourished and dirty and told the police they had not taken a bath in up to six months.

“They were kept in filthy living conditions separately and told patrol officers that they had not seen each other in almost two years,” Tucson police captain Mike Gilooly told reporters.

This is becoming depressingly commonplace, reports of children being abused, neglected and in some cases murdered by their mothers, sometimes in conjunction with live-in boyfriends and sometimes with the fathers of their children.  What all these cases of child abuse and neglect tend to have in common is a single mother.

From: The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children; Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau Rosenberg, Jeffrey., Wilcox, W. Bradford. Year Published: 2006

 “Federal data derived from CPS reports in 2003 indicate that in 18.8 percent of the substantiated cases, fathers were the sole perpetrators of maltreatment; in 16.9 percent of the cases, the fathers and the mothers were perpetrators; and in 1.1 percent of the cases, the father acted with someone else to abuse or neglect his child. Mothers were the sole perpetrators in 40.8 percent of the cases and acted with someone besides the father in 6.3 percent of the cases.31 This means that fathers were involved in 36.8 percent of child maltreatment cases and that mothers were involved in 64 percent of child maltreatment cases….

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers. Mothers are more likely to abuse or neglect their children than fathers because they bear a larger share of parenting responsibilities in two-parent families and because a large percentage of families today are headed by mothers. In some communities, they are the majority.33 Perpetrator patterns differ, however, by type of maltreatment. Mothers are not more likely to be the perpetrator when it comes to sexual abuse; fathers are more likely to be reported for this crime.34”

I left out a part between these two paragraphs, because it illustrates something pertinent, the almost kneejerk reaction to excuse, explain or justify the maltreatment of children by their mothers, here it is now:

Additionally, more than one-half of the male perpetrators were biological fathers, and, although recidivism rates were low, biological fathers were more likely to be perpetrators of maltreatment again than were most other male perpetrators. This may be due in part to the lack of permanence between a mother and her boyfriend or that the perpetrator may be excluded from the household before recidivism can occur.32

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers. Mothers are more likely to abuse or neglect their children than fathers because they bear a larger share of parenting responsibilities in two-parent families and because a large percentage of families today are headed by mothers. In some communities, they are the majority.33 Perpetrator patterns differ, however, by type of maltreatment.

I find it slightly nauseating to see the words “parental responsibility” and “more likely to abuse or neglect their children” in the same sentence. In fact it is this attitude, this unwillingness to call a spade a spade and say in black and white – single mothers make lousy parents.

Single mothers make lousy choices in “boyfriends” single mothers are the single greatest danger to the welfare of children bar none. The fact that they ARE single mothers is invariably down to their own CHOICES.

Alright, before all sorts of wailing and self righteous indignation starts coming my way, are ALL single mothers lousy parents? Not necessarily, are ALL single mothers the greatest danger to the welfare of their children, again, not necessarily. But, statistically the overwhelming majority of those women who “choose” to bear and parent children alone are selfish, self-serving social parasites.

The feminist utopia that those original nutjobs of feminism 20th century style dreamed of? The mission to destroy marriage, destroy families and impose this feminist ideal upon the world has come to pass. Except for one little detail.  This utopia is a society in chaos, a society in disarray, a society that has seen the rise of suicide in young men, the rise of children being abused and neglected, the rise of dysfunctional “families” headed by dysfunctional single mothers.

The question I asked myself some time ago was why? Why would these bitter twisted harpies have set in motion the events that led to this chaos?  The answer rather strangely came from an unusual source, not one I would have normally given much credence to.

One path which leads to Radical Feminism begins with the grandmother. The grandmother of a radical feminist is frequently married to a man who is an inadequate father. The grandmother may have had a positive relationship with her father and tolerate a certain level of misbehavior from her husband. She fails, however, to see the effect her example has on her daughter…….

……This daughter of a damaged daughter has been betrayed by both parents. Her father, who might — had he had a strong wife who had been able to motivate him and draw out his potential virtue — been an adequate father, betrays the daughter through abuse, but the mother also betrays the daughter by not protecting her and by fueling her resentment toward her father.

As the daughter of a damaged daughter grows up, at some point she rejects her mother as a model and mother’s passive/aggressive behavior, and decides to become aggressive, but she holds on to the deep seated bitterness and resentment. Voila! We have a Radical Feminist.

 From: Radical feminism as a psychological disorder…by Dale O’Leary

 Now I did check out Dale O’Leary and she is decidedly odd, a fervent catholic and most definitely with some strange views, but has some interesting things to say about feminism.

Her contention that radical feminists are the products of dysfunctional families resonates, when one considers the histories of some of the leading radical voices that shaped and informed the direction of modern feminism.

Take Robin Morgan for example, the product of an affair between her mother and a married man, who when she finally learns the truth and seeks him out, rejects her.  Or Shulamith Firestone, another product of a family headed by an overbearing father, Kate Millet, Betty Friedan, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich and so many more, all have something in common. They are products of some dysfunctional families, but more importantly had hostile and perhaps adversarial relationships with their fathers and in some cases their mothers.

All of them are bound together by one overriding theme, hatred of and for men, even when it appears they had some positive experiences with men. Regardless of whatever political and cultural issues they allegedly sought to address, their actions were all fuelled by barely disguised hatred.  No other “political” movement(s) other than nazism, communism and fascism has as a core belief, a hatred of “the other” in the case of feminism “the other” is men. All men.

  What these women did was harness their rage, fine tune their own personal issues and reframe them into a poisonous ideology that they disseminated and presented as insights into the human condition. They gave a platform for other dysfunctional wretches to hijack the cultural and sociological narrative and impose their vindictive worldview into the zeitgeist.  Petty spiteful resentments became “issues” traditional family values became “oppressive” unintentional but well meaning protective behaviours became “patriarchy” and feminism 20th century was born, or rather was created from the fevered and over active imaginations of some seriously disturbed and dysfunctional harpies.

We now have reached the point where like a grain of sand in an oyster acquiring layers and layers of covering, feminism has acquired layers and layers of pseudo scholarship, academic gobbledegook and a positive forest of “writings” “studies” and feminist “research” designed to obscure the original poisonous seed planted into the consciousness of the western world like a grain of sand invades an oyster.  But unlike an oyster, the end result is not a pearl, not a precious and valuable jewel, it is a carbuncle, a festering boil comprised of hatred, vindictiveness, spite, lies, calumny and poison. It needs to be lanced.

What has all this to do with motherhood? Everything and nothing, the news story I linked to is but one example of the product of 50 years of feminist poison, the goal of feminism has been to infect women with this poison, and women are the ones who not only give birth to the next generation but invariably act as the major primary influence on young children. The counterbalancing of fathers, the steadying and valuable influence of fathers in the lives of their children has been rejected, has been deliberately removed over the last 50 years by the toxic influence of feminism on governments, in education, in every area of our culture.

Because rather than getting some bloody therapy for their “issues” those original founding harpies of modern feminism decided to spew their poison out into the world. The saddest and most heartbreaking aspect of all this? The world listened, men listened, women listened, politicians listened to this crap, and now here we are.  Look around you, look at the legacy of feminism.  It stinks.

I will leave you with an article written by the daughter of an “iconic” feminist Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple. Her daughter Rebecca Walker had this to say:

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them – as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters – a happy family.

From: How my mother’s fanatical views tore us apart By Rebecca Walker.

Count Me Out!

Of International Women’s Day, women’s decade, and every other feminist backed, feminist inspired overhyped, overinflated, fraudulent, numbers, statistics and “studies” peddled by feminists and fed to us through international organisations like the UN.

Enough!

Take my name, the fact that I exist and happen to be female OFF your lists, out of your calculations and get this message one and for all:

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

You do not represent me, you do not get to use me without my permission to sell this shit to the world, you do not get to lie about the circumstances of my life, lie about what may or may not happen to me as a woman living on this planet, or stand in front of the world and presume to tell the world who I am.

SHUT UP!

You do get to smear and defame my father, grandfather and great-grandfather, my brothers, my nephews, my male friends.

I saw the post Reyeko put up on his blog about International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, 25 November and it irritated me, not his post, the idea of it, so I went looking on the UN website, and there it was, pages and pages of lies, half-truths, misrepresented situations, ethnic conflicts used as exemplars to peddle a false picture of what happens in other non-conflict territories. Repetition of false and fraudulent statistics.

It was all there, all the feminist bullshit, all the feminist lies gathered together in one place, then using an international platform, spewed out into the world. It made me angry, all sorts of thoughts ran through my head as I clicked through their “information”

But the over-riding one was, WHERE ARE THE MALE VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE, OF RAPE, where are the men and boys who are used as viciously, as callously as women and girls?

I went to bed and do you know what my first thought was when I woke up? Count me out, enough! Enough of this bullshit, and;

 YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!

I thought it was bad enough last week when I typed “men’s issues” into the Directory of UN Resources on Gender and Women’s Issues, search box and got a blank page, but looking at the UN page for this International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 25 November, page last night, they’re not even pretending that gender means women AND men anymore – how stupid do these unelected, unrepresentative ideologues think people really are? How dumb do you have to be to say “women and gender” and imply that you give a shit about men and boys when women and gender means women and WOMENS issues?

One half of humanity erased, written out of the script, disappeared and ignored, one half of humanity treated as non-existent, one half of humanity’s suffering pain and anguish waved away, trivialised, dismissed and now not even worthy of a footnote, an aside, a mention.

No organisation gets to call themselves a HUMANANITARIAN one if ignores one half of humanity. The depth of the fraud, the sheer level of the sham perpetrated by this vile propaganda exercise is  breathtaking.

So, let’s just take them one by one and expose the lies, the frauds, the misrepresentations.

The “Brochurethat the UN has helpfully supplied on the website lists these “Fast Facts” with an obvious lack of competence to distinguish facts from fiction and to differentiate between facts that are provable, and therefore cited and “facts” described as “estimated” or “approximately” or using phrases as “some countries” to indicate a “worldwide”   phenonomen and claim outrageously large figures that “were calculated” in “some countries

Let’s just look at these “Fast Facts” in more detail.

1. Women and girls make up 80% of the estimated 800,000 people trafficked across national borders annually, with 79% of them trafficked for sexual exploitation.

 “Anne Gallagher, Advisor on Trafficking at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned the Australian Parliamentary Inquiry that the use of poor quality data was widespread in policy-making on trafficking. She argues that, ‘Rather than acknowledging or confronting these inadequacies, much contemporary trafficking research unquestioningly accepts and promulgates unverified data’ (APJC Submission 23, 2003).

The unfortunate result of the ambiguity surrounding human trafficking data is most often the perpetuation of poorly researched, unrepresentative, or misleading statistics that fill the void left by researchers who are unwilling to make estimates or predictions based on research that is unreliable. Policy is then informed by flimsy estimates, drawn from unsubstantiated newspaper claims, or research that does not carefully articulate the definitions and methodology that inform the study.”

From: Exaggerated statistics used in Human Trafficking research by Erin O’Brien Posted on October 28, 2012, See here.

2. Approximately 100 TO 140 MILLION girls and women in the world have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting.

 This is one of the more emotive subjects that feminists use to, and use cynically to propel their agenda forward.  It has been carefully scripted as an issue that allegedly comprehensively illustrates the global perpetuation of violence against women and girls. In fact it is such an emotive issue that it is guaranteed to shut down debate and leave those who would question the feminist agenda stumped to respond.

 Well, I am going to respond, and say this, first female circumcision was hijacked by feminism in a cynical manner to give credence to their underlying contention that women and only women suffer, using something as highly emotive as genital cutting. It strikes at some deep inner core of personal revulsion buried within any compassionate person against brutalising another human being.

 Is female circumcision something that happens? And when it happens it is an assault on that person? Yes it does and yes it is.

 It happens within very specific cultures and for various reasons, ethnic, cultural and religious.

“The procedures are generally done by other female members of a family or social group. All are damaging to a woman’s sexual and reproductive function. They are justified on the basis of tradition and superstition that contact with an intact clitoris would harm a baby during childbirth, or that a woman’s “purity” and cleanliness demand it.”

 Is there any evidence of a worldwide epidemic of female circumcision due to increased migration FROM cultures that practice this?

Well no, actually there isn’t.

“As no example of this practice has ever been proven it could hardly be justified to introduce such a law and it seems that the Danish national campaign against FGC has been successful (21). However, there are constant rumors in the groups concerned about young Danish African girls being circumcised. Yet there is no substantiated evidence in the form of court cases or social service documentation.

In Norway, there has been one report to the police concerning circumcision, when a Gambian woman reported her husband. This report was, for unclear reasons, withdrawn. Rumors are frequent and a list with anonymous examples of Norwegian African girls said to have been circumcised has been edited by an organization working to support immigrants in Norway but no case has been taken to court (pers. commun., Sara Johnsdotter, Lund University, Sweden, and R. Elise B. Johansen, Oslo, Norway, at the state project against female circumcision; ‘‘Omsorg og Kunnskap’’).

In Finland, sending children abroad for circumcision is prohibited as well. There have occasionally been rumors regarding girls being circumcised in Africa during summer holidays, but no cases have been verified so far.”

 Does circumcision happen to boys and men? Is it taken as seriously as female circumcision? No, it is not.

 So, who resists abandoning this practice? Within those cultures that practice it? It is the women, the women of these cultures that perpetuate this practice. 

“I could write an entire book about the emotions, the fear, the pain and the pride as well, that many women surprisingly still felt instead of all the hardship they had been put through by their mothers and grandmothers.

 The problem will be,” said Cheik Camara, the eldest and wisest of the team members, ” to convince the mothers. It is much more difficult to convince the women to give it up than the men. It has nothing to do with Islam either. It is much deeper”..

3. Up to 7 IN 10 WOMEN in the world report having experienced physical and/or sexual violence at some point in their lifetime.

 Really?  Let’s break this statement down. “Up to 7 in 10” what does that mean? Is it any number between 1 and 7?  Let’s take “in the world” next. What parts of the world? Were comprehensive studies done? and by whom in every single country “in the world”? Where are these studies? What about “report having experienced” where are these reports? Who compiled this data? Where is this data? What definitions for “physical and/or sexual violence” is the UN using here?

 The UN is implying in this false statement that practically every woman, anywhere in the entire world is being assaulted and abused and yet there is no mention of the assault of and abuse against men.

 Perhaps this major review of over 1,700 studies will give a clearer picture.

PARTNER ABUSE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE PROJECT (PASK)

The world’s largest domestic violence research data base, 2,657 pages,  with summaries of 1,700 peer-reviewed studies.

4. 603 MILLION women live in countries where domestic violence is not yet considered a crime.

 Again with the rather vague “countries” and of course the massive number guaranteed to shock, and of course imply that these 603 million women are being beaten in these “countries

 Let’s see, there 196 or so, recognised sovereign states in the world, perhaps the UN might like to pick which of these sovereign states they are referring to, or does the UN prefer to just make vague unsubstantiated allegations against EVERY sovereign state in the world, as barbaric, uncivilised and in violation of international standards of law?

With regard to the “population” number, there are many countries that have substantial population density, and quite a few that have relatively small population density, the fact that x number of women live in a particular country means nothing, the allegation that in these vague “countries” there is no “law against domestic violence” because what this is implying is that the men in these vague “countries” are all beating up their wives/girlfriends/mothers/sisters/daughters/nieces etc, in fact ALL men in these “countries” are beating up ALL the women, ALL the time.  That’s some vague, unsubstantiated, unfounded allegation to make against practically the entire male populations of “some” countries.

5. Approximately 250,000 TO 500,000 WOMEN AND GIRLS WERE RAPED in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

There is so much wrong with this claim, this attempt to use ethnic conflicts with complex multi-faceted causes and roots to insinuate that ALL men are and will be rapists that it is hard to know where to begin.

First, note the date – 1994 – almost 20 years ago, second during the course of the ethnic conflict in Rwanda, not only were atrocities committed, they were committed, instigated and sanctioned by WOMEN as well as men, thirdly, rape as a weapon of war has been used against MEN as well as women, see here, here and here.

But lastly, Rwanda is a sovereign state with many deep cultural and ethnic scars to overcome and heal, is the UN implying that Rwanda should be constantly reminded of a dark time in its history, that Rwanda should ever be held up as an example to the rest of the world to illustrate men’s, and woman’s inhumanity to men and women?

6. As many as 1 IN 4 WOMEN experience physical or sexual violence during pregnancy.

 Again, really? Where? What data, what studies what EVIDENCE is the UN using to support this allegation? What does the UN mean by “physical and sexual violence”?

 7. Over 60 MILLION girls worldwide are child brides, married before the age of 18.

 Where? Define “child bride” is the UN including countries where the “age of consent” is below 18, such as these.  Including, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, UK and the USA to name but a few.

 “More than 800 years after the first recorded age of consent laws, the one constant is the lack of consistency. Laws around the world define the socially appropriate age of consent anywhere from 13 to 18. Some differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual acts while others do not. Some apply to young men as well as young women and others remained focused on the lives and actions of girls. And beyond the legislation lies the world of practice, an even more complex story.”

From: Stephen Robertson, “Age of Consent Laws,” in Children and Youth in History, Item #230, http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230  

8. More than 100 MILLION GIRLS are ‘missing’ due to prenatal sex selection.

 This one takes my breath away, rather coyly the UN is using a euphemism for abortion, and as we all know and have had hammered into our heads by feminists for the last 40 or so years, the mantra of feminism is “My body, My choice” unless the UN is again implying that 100 million women are being forced into having abortions? Is that it?

  Well, if it is, then come right out and say so. Because you cannot have it both ways, on the hand chanting the mantra “my body, my choice” than getting all outraged, all righteously indignant when WOMEN exercise that choice and CHOOSE to abort baby girls.

 9. Worldwide, up to 50% of sexual assaults are committed against girls UNDER THE AGE OF 16.

Again.  Where is your EVIDENCE? What data, what studies, what research are you making this claim on? “Worldwide”? What countries?

10. In some countries the annual cost of intimate partner violence was calculated at US$1.6 TO US$5.8 BILLION.

Some countries”? WHAT countries? Who made these “calculations”? How did they arrive at these massive figures? Using what EVIDENCE?

What really angers me is that this international organisation, purporting to be at the forefront of “humanitarian” activities worldwide consistently and deliberately IGNORES one half of humanity.

Uses its position of influence to promulgate false and fraudulent “statistics” and makes vague unsubstantiated claims and allegations designed to demonise and smear ALL men, worldwide, and elevate ALL women, even the vicious, the inhumane, the ignorant and the cruel to perpetual victim status.

ENOUGH!

 

 

 

Feminists say the “funniest” things…Introduction.

 

I used to just skip over the comments sections in articles, especially if there were tons of comments.  Then I realised, if there are that many comments something sparked off the rush. Something in the article either resonated with, or grated with a lot of people.

Lately I’ve noticed that when an article appears by an avowed feminist, parroting some previously accepted bullshit, the comments show that people are not prepared to just shrug and let it pass unchallenged anymore. Nosireebob. Best part? The negative comments, the downvotes for feminist bullshit is growing, stuff that 10 even 5 years ago wouldn’t have raised a whisper of protest now gets challenged and challenged vigorously.

My own personal belief is that this is being caused by a combination of factors.

The spreading disenchantment with feminism overall, it’s like after 60 years of whining and bitching and complaining about “how bad women have it” compared with men in spite of the evidence in front of peoples own eyes, that this just simply isn’t true people are now reaching that “will you just SHUT UP!” point.

 It is now as simple as the click of a mouse to go check to see if what some feminist has said is true, 9 times out of 10 it isn’t, yet feminists keep saying this stupid provably WRONG stuff!  Almost like they think people are stupid, people will swallow any old rubbish, because…………duh! “I say so”

The hate, the bile, the bitterness, it just never stops, all directed at men being bastards and women being delicate fragile innocent snowflakes all the time. There are two things about this attitude that just pisses people off.  First, women who read this stuff are thinking, that’s my father, my brother, my son, my friend that bitch is dissing, and it’s (whatever crap the feminist is spouting) bullshit. Men are thinking – what complete and utter bollox.

Secondly, both men and women have eyes, have ears and again, not stupid, they can see the way some women behave, they can hear the crap that some women spout, and they can figure out for themselves that whatever it is – its UNNACCEPTABLE, its nasty, it’s horrible, women behaving like sluts, like skanky ho’s, women whining about stupid crap, women being total bitches and making life hell for the estranged fathers of their children?

 Then there are the feminists themselves, the ones who pontificate and blather on about “how bad life is for women” funny thing is, this lot are usually middle class, middle aged, white women who have never suffered (except in their own minds) one single day, one single minute of deprivation.  They take meaningless pathetic examples of “oppression” and – talk about making mountains out of molehills, making a song and dance about petty shit, about taking some minor thing and magnifying it out of all proportion.  Yep, that’s feminists for ya.

Now, some of them are copping on to this, the pettiness, the hysteria, and casting their beady eyes further afield, to see how they can extend the range of their influence as the oppression queens of humanity – to women in Africa, women in muslim countries, anywhere there are women who have real life problems that they can hi-jack and use as fodder for the feminist agenda. 

The fact that they didn’t gave a rats arse about these before is just……..details. the fact that the biggest item on the feminist agenda was……….I dunno, forcing people to say womyn instead of women, not important, the fact that at no time do they give a rats arse about the suffering of men and boys in these places – simply not relevant. The fact that they believe they have the right to speak from their ivory towers, for and behalf of these women – well duh, feminists are the spokepersons for all of humanity.  Did you not get the memo?

Anyhoo – this section is dedicated to those commentators on various articles etc who have said something in reaction to some feminist spouting claptrap and called – BULLSHIT!

Those people, you know, the ones that feminists condescend to, patronise and dismiss. Sometimes men, sometimes women, sometimes both.  The people that feminists assume THEY speak for, they represent. Those feminists who sit in their ivory towers and issue edicts, make pronouncements for and on behalf of everyone, who dictate how other people should live their lives!

Some Recent Examples.

Edit: I temporarily took this post off because I realised I hadn’t actually put any “examples” duh!

But, am now reinstating it because I’d like to invite anyone who wants to, to post the dumbest things you’ve seen a “feminist” post, ever!

🙂

Anja Eriud.

 

Previous Older Entries