There Is a Disturbance In The Force…….

 

Yeah, yeah I know, more sci-fi (ish) metaphors – what can I say, am a sucker for sci-fi (ish) films. As a reflection of, and metaphor for societal mores and “norms” films act as a sort of filter through which those mores and “norms” become embedded in the zeitgeist – doncha think?

Someone mentioned the Joss Whedon film Serenity a few weeks ago on a comment stream – for the life of me I cannot remember where I read it – anyhoo – one of my personal favourites as well, especially the theme of an all powerful authoritarian system literally with the power to invade your mind.

Classic scene where River (as a child) is being lectured by a sanctimonious teacher about how the “outer planets” refused to accept the social conditioning of the all powerful alliance – for their own good – now where have we heard that justification before.

In other words those who reject this social conditioning are nothing but savages and barbarians – or words to that effect.

The title of this piece though, pertains to something related but parallel, the undermining of the prevailing ethos within and through the societal glue that holds that society together.

An unchallenged (till now) allegiance to a femalecentric worldview controlled and disseminated by the official spokespersons of modern gynocentrism – feminists.

No-one can now dispute that ALL “theories” emanating from feminists and various acolytes of academic feminism are complete and utter bullshit, fraudulent, phoney, lies and deception.

These are facts, and they are not in dispute by anyone with half a brain.

The question to be asked though is this – the underlying driving force behind modern feminism and all manifestations of a female centric worldview is and has been gynocentrism. Whither to now for feminism?

Aha! Whither to indeed? Why back to the drawing board – to the source – for inspiration, for a new and shiner template upon which to write the outline for the next manifestation of gynocentrism. A caring sharing warm cuddly gynocentrism, a nice gynocentrism – with a large dollop of………………….”it’s for your own good” as seasoning.

Because who could argue with a sincerely expressed motive that all you are offering is a template to follow that will be “for your own good” hmmmmm

I came across these two words juxtaposed next to one another some months ago – and decided to wait to see how this latest salvo would be received.

Freedom feminism.

I shall never need to hunt for another example of a perfect oxymoron than these two words placed together to form a whole.

Main driver behind this new and improved and shiny feminism is Christina Hoff Sommers. Have always been in two minds about Hoff Sommers, she has done some good work in the area of men’s and boy’s rights – and to be fair, has taken some quite accurate pot-shots at “gender feminism” but – there was a point about a year ago when it was time to “chose a side” or rather, to shit or get off the pot.

She chose to attempt to repackage feminism, airbrush away its toxic roots, sidestep its inherently flawed premise and inexplicably try to rewrite history – or what passes for history – feminist style.

It’s what my mother would describe as “wanting jam on both sides of your bread

Hoff Sommers is relying on something to give this new shiny improved feminism purchase into the zeitgeist – a willingness on the part of societies at large to continue to endorse a gynocentric world view of…………………everything, in effect the theory goes – if it’s good for women, then it’s good for men, ergo the emphasis should always be on what’s good for women, and making men become what’s good for women – again. Just not in that nasty, shreiky, gender feminist, all men are patriarchial bastards kind of way. Nosireebob – in a nice, “it’s for your own good” kind of way. Sigh.

Hence the title of this piece – there is indeed a disturbance in the force – a singular lack of willingness on the parts of a great many people, both male and female to subscribe to, endorse or give tacit or implicit approval to a continuing female centric world view.

Without that willingness, gynocentrism withers and dies, without gynocentrism any manifestation of feminism will fail – will become subject to the derision and disdain that all crackpot ideas or “theories” deserve. Freedom feminism is one of those – hence why I couldn’t actually be bothered giving it any more attention. Bit like spotting some roadkill at the side of the road as you drive past – depends on the state of it, if you go – eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuw as you glance at it.

I was asked recently “just how old is gynocentrism? And was it always a bad thing?”

Actually – gynocentrism is very old – and was not necessarily always a bad thing – it developed out of a need to protect and provide for one’s “mate” during our human history when life was an exercise in survival. Though one couldn’t actually call this form of human interaction true gynocentrism.

To illustrate just how old this particular way of seeing male/female relationships is, the quote below is from an ancient Egyptian text called The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep.

“……..Instruction of Ptah-hotep in its entirety, divided into sections by red writing, as aforesaid.[7] In this, also, we get a definite date, for we learn in the opening lines that its author (or compiler) lived in the reign of King Isôsi. Now Isôsi was the last ruler but one of the Fifth Dynasty, and ruled forty-four years, from about 3580 to 3536 B.C. Thus we may take about 3550 as the period of Ptah-hotep.

(emphasis added)

What this quote below also illustrates is something very important – how women were viewed in ancient Egypt – as persons to be treasured and cherished – not a hint of oppression to be found. Damn!

“21. If thou wouldest be wise, provide for thine house, and love thy wife that is in thine arms. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; oil is the remedy of her limbs. Gladden her heart during thy lifetime, for she is an estate profitable unto its lord. Be not harsh, for gentleness mastereth her more than strength. Give (?) to her that for which she sigheth and that toward which her {51} eye looketh; so shalt thou keep her in thine house…. “

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

As an Irish person I can trace back some of my “traditions” to the Iron age – so it does amuse me when I read either positive or negative commentary from feminists/gynocentrists regarding “traditional” practices – usually referred to as “traditional gender roles” with “traditional” marriage practices being either lauded or denigrated.

The period of “history” generally used to illustrate the “historical oppression of women” by the dumbest of the dumbest feminists are the 1950’s – because apparently the 1950’s was a really really really long time ago!

Did you know that the phrase “tying the knot” actually originates from one form of marriage practiced in Ireland called “hand-fasting” – this form of marriage (yes, we had several different forms of marriage) – was only designed to last for a year and a day – after that time expired, one could renew it or not – if not, both parties went their separate ways with no-one owing anybody anything. It was very civilised – it was a contract – between equals – as were most forms of marriage in ancient Hibernia (Ireland)

Pure Gynocentrism evolved in feudal societies and had its roots in a warped form of chivalry – the place to go for a thorough grounding in this is Peter Wrights site Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins

Link here http://gynocentrism.com/

This form of a warped chivalry (gynocentrism) lies at the heart of all manifestations of feminism. A demand for special status to be afforded to women because they are women. There is a complex interplay between echoes of an ancient urge to protect and provide, that early gynocentrists harnessed and various “waves” of feminists hijacked – till it eventually evolved into the toxic ideology we have today.

The paradox is that feminism demands “equality” by invoking that ancient “oppressive” urge to protect and provide for women because they are “vulnerable fragile creatures who need special treatment” institutionalised toxic chivalry (gynocentrism) masquerading as “equality”

Now don’t get me wrong – feminism is deeply embedded into the political and intuitional structures of almost all frameworks of our societies and cultures and they (feminists) will fight tooth and nail to resist being excised from there. In fact that battle is already ongoing.

But this is the 21st century – the rules of engagement have changed utterly – whereas previously, during times of social and cultural shifts, the mores and norms of a society or culture were imposed from the top down. Now?

Ah yes – now – the power to influence society and culture at large now rests……………….within society and culture.

Put rather simplistically – who controls the flow of information?

Answer – Nobody. Everybody. Actually the only way to regain control of the flow of information now would be to shut down the internet – permanently. Would be to erase from the billions of individual personal computers spread all over the world every single piece of information that has been disseminated from the time when one individual sent another individual………..anything.

That’s an awful lot of free-flowing information to track down and destroy – wouldn’t you say?

There are also two other things that you would need to unravel and suppress – the much trumpeted dedication to “democracy” and “Human Rights” that ALL western governments take enormous pains to claim as their raison de etre.

Over the last 6 decades or so, there has been an almost comical pissing contest among western nations to outdo one another in the “most democratic” and “best Human Rights record” contest.

Again granted – the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there are visible and concrete examples abounding of the lack of democracy, the pathetic Human Rights records of very many western states.

But – the fact is – those Human Rights instruments EXIST – those claims are on record – and there are very few people with access to the internet who cannot with a click of a mouse sit and read in the comfort of their own homes, a concise and detailed account of their personal – HUMAN RIGHTS.

100 years ago – the average person wouldn’t have had a clue what rights they did or didn’t have – wouldn’t perhaps even believe that they had rights.

Today? Please – I hear it all the time – it gets monotonous – “I know my rights

Generally this is a rather self-absorbed declaration because it rarely takes into account this – “do you know everybody else has the exact same rights?”

Feminists and gynocentrists are typical of the first example – they “know their rights” as they should – they clawed out most of those extra rights by depriving others (men and boys) of theirs. Nearly. By playing the poor fragile wittle woman card.

But – the fact of the matter is this – even the most ignorant twat or arsehole has a very definite belief that they “have rights”

One does not have to be a genius to discern from even the most juvenile and poorly written feminist screed that the over-riding theme is a direct assault on the notion that men and boys have rights.

Feminism is a rights stripping narrative wrapped up in hysterical rhetoric about…..all kinds of trivial bullshit that has “upset” or “pissed off” or “offended” some whiney irrational and petulant female.

Acknowledging that men and boys have rights would dissipate and render null and void the idea that all attention and focus should be on – women’s rights. It would literally deprive women of that thing they crave above all other things – being the absolute centre of attention by…………………….everybody.

Like I said – everybody knows or believes that they “have rights” everybody is aware that the last 6 decades or so have been the era of “rights” so when insane feminists keep shrieking about “women’s rights” and claiming that women don’t have rights to this that or the other – even the most ignorant of persons is going to look at these claims and think “what the fuck is that fool talking about”

How much more could you possible want?

Here is where it gets just a tad complicated – the belief is/was that “everybody has rights” even among men – until they come to test that premise – then they discover something.

Those rights they believed they had – they get violated, trampled on, brushed aside – in favour of enhancing the extra rights of some female.

The knowledge that this has been happening over and over again in all these self-congratulatory “democracies” at the behest of feminists is now saturating the zeitgeist through the power of the internet to disseminate information directly to millions of people – without interference from anybody.

As Mr. Universe in the film Serenity says “you can’t stop the signal”

Hence why there is a disturbance in the force – the force being the power of feminism to dictate the narrative, to set the terms of what is or isn’t true – about anything. To control the flow of information.

There is a terrible sickness in a government that lauds and congratulates itself on its Human Rights record while actively endorsing, encouraging and supporting blatant abuses of Human Rights – against men and boys.

That blindly and with wilful ignorance gives credence to the bigoted, biased and fraudulent “research” being shoved at it by vicious malign and toxic feminists designed to strip rights from men and boys. Designed to prevent even the conversation taking place about Human Rights abuses being perpetrated against men and boys. Hence why the shrieking, caterwauling and hysterics are growing in volume and intensity from feminists – all in an effort to drown out the voices of men and boys.

The question for these governments is – has it ever occurred to you to take the societal temperature – to take your heads out of your over-fed arses and listen to what is being said outside your golden privileged elite circle? To ignore the nutcase feminists, the screams of outrage, the tantrums and hysterics and listen to men.

Take IPV/IPA – Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Partner Abuse.

I’m NOT a feminist so I have no problem saying this – approx 20% – 23% of all relationships have aspects of IPV/IPA.

Within that relatively small cohort of relationships – approx 40% of “violence/abuse” is mutual – meaning both parties are as bad as one another.

The rest of the violence/abuse is more or less evenly distributed between male and female perpetrators – meaning that approx half those violent abusive arseholes are male and approx half are female. Which means that approx half the victims of uni-directional violence are male and approx half are female.

The causes of that violence are myriad and complex – and have sod all to do with patriarchy or any other stupid and ridiculous feminist non “theory” but everything to do with, socio-economic factors, drug/alcohol abuse, mental health issues, childhood experiences of family violence etc to name but a few of the more prevalent “causes”.

All of those factors impact upon both men and women.

There is no such thing as “gender based violence” and to continue to believe and endorse this rubbish is to fail to actually address the causes and TOTAL victims of IPV/IPA.

Have I deliberately and callously ignored female victims of IPV/IPA? No – I bloody haven’t – I have quite clearly acknowledged that approx half of victims are female.

Because – I’m NOT a feminist – ergo – I have no need to lie or dissemble or fraudulently try to airbrush ANY victim OF ANYTHING out of the picture in order to advocate for excessive amounts of funding to line the pockets of poisonous malign ideologues.

To those in power – you seem to believe that unless you endorse these lies peddled to you by feminists that “society” will follow suit and go into hysterics at being told NO.

Newsflash – society will applaud – society will be right behind you – society is WAITING – is begging you to tell these malign bitches to – bugger off!

There is a disturbance in the force – a change in the zeitgeist – NO-ONE – other than insane toxic feminists believes or wants that crap anymore – READ the damn comment section of any article – including the ones peddled by feminists.

You are basing your policy decisions on blackmail from a small toxic network of vicious ideologues – you are making political decisions based on lies, on fraud, on bigotry.

There is a delicate balance that holds most societies and cultures together – more importantly – an even more delicate balance that holds an economy together.

Citizens and the state must interact with one another is a myriad number of ways in order to maintain those balances.

Feminism has and is putting enormous uneven pressure on one side of that societal, cultural and economic scale – the tipping point is drawing closer and closer – that tipping point is the gathering critical mass of a shift in the zeitgeist – a shift in mores and norms that the majority of peoples within those societies and cultures endorse.

There is also nothing more important within healthy functioning societies than the quality and depth of the relationships and kinship groups that individuals are part of.

Feminism has consistently attacked and set out to destroy the delicate strands that hold those relationships together – the relationships that are the glue that keeps societies functioning.

The toxic effects of these attacks are becoming more and more visible – more and more apparent – and people are finally waking up and really seeing the devastation caused by feminism. Ultimately feminism is the ideology of elitists – a superior “class” dictating to the “peasants” and it is fuelled by malice.

“19. If thou desire that thine actions may be good, save thyself from all malice, and beware of the quality of covetousness, which is a grievous inner (?) malady. Let it not chance that thou fall thereinto. It setteth at variance fathers-in-law and the kinsmen of the daughter-in-law; it sundereth the wife and the husband. It gathereth unto itself all evils; it is the girdle of all wickedness.[11] But the man that is just flourisheth; truth goeth in his footsteps, and he maketh habitations therein, not in the dwelling of covetousness.”

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

No-one needs feminism to point out or interpret anything for you – all you need, is to be a fully aware Human Being with a conscience. All you need is to recognise that male or female you share this planet with other Human Beings.

All Human Beings suffer – why would anybody need a vicious malign ideologue who hates one half of humanity to tell you that?

Feminism is the belief that human beings not yet born are guilty of crimes not yet committed and are only waiting for these human beings to be born so the punishment can begin.

Advertisements

A Perfect Example of Toxic Gynocentrism – Courtesy of the TDSB.

 

If ever there was a perfect example of unrestrained toxic gynocentrism – this is it. This being a series of comments posted to this blog in the space of 12 minutes – yep – 12 minutes to go from a standing start to towering rage and hysterical and epic tantrum throwing.

I give you one Amanda Schooner – Amanda has no boundaries apparently – the way two year olds have no boundaries – though in Amanda’s case we are talking about a particularly obnoxious two year old – already prone to tantrums, screaming fits and unrestrained rage.

My sincerest hope is that if the last comment is typical of a thwarted Amanda – that this nutcase is NOT a teacher – if she is then – for the love of God would somebody with any sense of decency or concern about children remove this completely out of control hysteric from whatever school she might be teaching in – Please – I beg you – get this nutcase out of the classroom.

 

Here is the series of comments this lunatic has just spent the last 12 minutes posting.

 

Comment No. 1 at 11.52am

Posted on – TDSB – The Beat Goes On – A Rhino Charges In!

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 11:52 am

Remove defamatory libel or else the Toronto Police will get involved.

 

 

Comment No. 2 at 11.58am – 6 minutes later.

Posted on – What Are The Toxic Roots of Feminism?

Amanda Schooner

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 11:58 am

Anja Eruid,

You have deliberately posted libel and approved libel comments about several male & female teachers of the Toronto District School Board.

You should remove this article and the entire thread:

TDSB – The Beat Goes On – A Rhino Charges In!

The Toronto Police Services will be informed of your hate speech against our teachers, and trust me, the Toronto Police Services will petition to have you and other commentators extradited to Ontario to face trial for criminal libel.

You have done enough damage by smearing the names of Ryan Bird, Roselands Junior Public School, Barbara and other TDSB personnel.

Criminal defamation is a serious offense in Canada, and the TDSB will ensure that your blog gets shut down for harassment, libel, cyberbullying and hate speech.

You deserve imprisonment Anja Eruid. You shouldn’t have been smearing the names of the TDSB, Ryan Bird, Barbara, Roselands Principal and Donna Quan.

Mark my word. The TDSB and Toronto Police will make your life miserable in court you digital terrorist and cyberbully!

 

Comment No. 3 – posted at 12.00 pm – 2 minutes later

Posted to – What Are the Toxic Roots of Feminism?

Amanda Schooner

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 12:00 pm

Anja Eriud you have 72 HOURS TO REMOVE ALL LIBEL ABOUT THE TDSB BEFORE THE TORONTO POLICE GETS INVOLVED.

 

Comment No. 4 – posted at 12.04pm – 4 minutes later

Posted on – Creating “Misogyny” out of Thin Air – in Canada – and Putting Children at Risk.

Amanda Schooner

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 12:04 pm

REMOVE THIS FUCKING SLANDEROUS POST AND COMMENTS NOW!!!! THE TDSB IS A PRESTIGIOUS AND WORLD CLASS SCHOOL BOARD YOU FUCKING DEMENTED CYBERBULLIES!11

I SAID, REMOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT ROSELANDS & THE TDSB NOW!!!!

THE POLICE WILL HAVE YOU EXTRADITED TO CANADA TO ANSWER CHARGES OF INVASION OF PRIVACY AND CRIMINAL DEFAMATION!

REMOVE YOUR DEFAMATORY POST!

THE PRINCIPAL OF ROSELANDS SHOULD SUE YOU AND FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST YOU, FUCKER!

*********************end of comments**************************

 

There is a point beyond which I can only sit here and stare in absolute horror at the kinds of people who appear to infest the TDSB – Toronto District School Board

Cont// – aaaaaaand we’re back!

Well now Amanda – are we all calmed down yet? Do we need some more time on the naughty step while we “think about what we did”? hmmmmmm?

No. Good.

Listen up rent-a-bitch and listen up good – you and your cronies – yep I’m speaking to Barbara and [twat no. 1] and that other wretch [twat no. 2]

As for that moronic thug Rhino thingyamabob – do me a favour – go smack your head off a brick wall would ya? Thanks. Where the feck
did you find this eejit? 1-800–dial-a–henchman?

Let’s start with your laughable claim.

Comment No. 4 – posted at 12.04pm – 4 minutes later

Posted on – Creating “Misogyny” out of Thin Air – in Canada – and Putting Children at Risk.
Amanda Schooner

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 12:04 pm

“REMOVE THIS FUCKING SLANDEROUS POST AND COMMENTS NOW!!!! THE TDSB IS A PRESTIGIOUS AND WORLD CLASS SCHOOL BOARD YOU FUCKING DEMENTED CYBERBULLIES!11………….”

(emphasis added)

Are you completely insane, as well as being a complete moron? “………A PRESTIGIOUS AND WORLD CLASS SCHOOL BOARD…..”

And which bloody world would that be? An uninhabited planet at the arse end of the Milky Way?

Do you read your own newspapers? Watch your own news programmes? At all, at all? Let me help you out with that.

Education Minister announces panel to examine troubled TDSB, By Staff The Canadian Press
http://globalnews.ca/news/1885230/education-minister-to-make-announcement-about-tdsb-2/

“TORONTO – Ontario’s education minister has appointed an advisory panel to look at ways to reform Toronto’s troubled school board, including possibly dividing it into several boards.

A government-ordered review found earlier this year that a culture of fear at the Toronto District School Board is getting worse because elected trustees interfere in everything from hiring principals to procurements.”

(emphasis added)

Actually, this is not the worst thing about this poisonous saga – not by half – this article generated 101 comments – not one of which was positive towards the TDSB – let me repeat that another way.

Not one single person of the 101 who commented on this article had a good word for the TDSB. In fact no one had a good word for what seems to be viewed as a bit of a farce in the setting up this panel, several people point out that this would be either the fourth or fifth time that the TDSB has been, to all intents and purposes – investigated.

The top three comments on this article garnered a total of 116 upvotes including 7 which came from replies to the top voted comment.

Now – think about this for a moment all you foaming at the mouth TDSB harridans – will you and your fellow harpies be hunting down each and every one of those 101 people who commented on this article and spewing out your bile and vitriol at them?

Will you?

What about this lass – will you and your wretched cronies be screaming abuse at her?

“Jennifer Platt 8 days ago

Its clear the TDSB is dysfunctional. However having just watched the press conference with Liz Sandals and then Barbara Hall, I couldn’t help myself at laughing at these two clearly incompetent bureaucrats stumble and bumble their way through a press conference.
Sandals and Hall sound close to mentally challenged and can hardly (each of them) put a sentence together. Its ironic that people trying to find the rot at the Toronto school board are themselves clearly incapable of representing the students of Toronto.

This problem will never be solved as long as this gong show continues.”

(emphasis added)

Yep – you can see quite clearly that Jennifer is completely underwhelmed by how “prestigious” and “world class” the TDSB is!

What about this person?

“Citizen 1 8 days ago

TDSB is the sandbox of the Toronto left-wing political hacks to learn the trade of political corruption.”

(emphasis added)

Ouch! Now that’s gotta hurt – “…… learn the trade of political corruption.” At the TDSB apparently – big ouch – huge!

These two comments reflect the general consensus of opinion among YOUR fellow citizens re the TDSB – it also appears to be the general consensus of opinion among the numerous other articles I’ve read about the TDSB – in fact it’s hard to find anyone who has a good word to say about the TDSB – anywhere!

Soooooo, you’ll be screaming abuse and spewing out invective at all those journalists, at all those people who posted equally mean comments about this “prestigious world class school board” on those articles – will you?

The school board that no-one has a single good word to say about, certainly not any of your fellow Canadian citizens – as for the rest of the world – methinks – just like the world watched while screaming feminist lunatics tried to physically prevent people from hearing a talk about male suicide and made up their own minds about Canada – (and no, not in a good way) so too will you and your vicious cronies fly the flag for Canada – yet again – in the “are they all fucking insane lunatics in Canada or what?” way.

Well done – once again you’ve done your country proud – you’ve managed to convince me that Canada is a toxic hellish shithole inhabited by complete arseholes and lunatics.

Here I am, thousands of miles away in The Republic of Ireland – a citizen of another sovereign state – on the outside looking in, so to speak, and my opinion of you, your cronies, your “prestigious” school board couldn’t be lower – to me you’re a joke – a pathetic joke – all of you – especially when you consider that what triggered all this was a journalist phoning a school to make inquiries into allegations of unreported child abuse – and being hung up on.

You see I haven’t forgotten what triggered this – what the precipitating event was – a journalist attempting to get answers about allegations of unreported child abuse.

Now fuck off before I get really annoyed!

What Are The Toxic Roots of Feminism?

 

Andrew DiKaiomata asked an interesting question as the title of an article over on A Voice For MenIs Feminism a Movement? Link Here.

Before I even read this article or the usually equally enlightening comments my gut reaction was – NO – feminism is the visible political and public policy face of a distorted and malign state of mind – it is the sly whisperings of an agent provocateur seeking to influence and corrupt the very roots of societies and cultures.

It does this through the workings and machinations of its advocates by misrepresenting facts and reality, and by exerting duress – political, societal, cultural and psychological upon that society and culture. In the key areas of influence within that society – education, media and public policy.

It also does this by infiltrating existing “movements” and moulding them, steering them in the direction that serves feminism’s needs. Feminism’s ultimate end game – which is:

Female supremacy – achieved by proxy – that is – men who are willing to dismantle all legal and political safeguards against tyranny and actual real oppression (against men and boys)…..in order to disenfranchise all men by stealth, while maintaining an appearance of “democracy” or “justice” or “fairness” or the piece de resistance – the unattainable and spurious goal of “equality”

Feminists themselves will claim that there are many feminisms, that feminism is not some monolithic entity with a central command – superficially they are correct – superficially it would appear that there are multiple strains of “feminism” but – this is merely a device to deflect the potency of any opposition – if there is no “common enemy” then that opposition can be diffused – or so the thinking appears to be.

What binds ALL feminisms and ALL feminists together is one single thing – their femaleness – and yes I know, I know – there are male feminists – and these poor saps seem to believe that they are “equal” to female feminists – is there any point in pointing out the bleeding obvious? Nope – didn’t think so.

No matter what political or ideological stance any particular feminist takes – it is her femaleness that binds her and her fellow coven members together – that underpins the rhetoric (bullshit) that emanates from ALL feminists. Including the “nice feminists”

Being female is the common denominator, ergo, it is femaleness that informs and feeds feminism(s) – but, not just any old femaleness – a particular toxic form of femaleness – a virulent bitter and corrupted femaleness – feminism (whatever its manifestation) has always emphasised the FEMALENESS of its acolytes – above and beyond anything else.

The vast majority of women are not feminists, an even larger cohort of men are not feminists – but – they don’t need to be – they only need to have had their view of reality distorted enough, corrupted enough to fail to question the validity of what they have been told, what they hear, what they see and what they believe.

They also must have been corrupted enough, just enough – to believe the lies about themselves that they have been told. By feminism. In whatever manifestation it has assumed through the ages.

They must see themselves reflected in the distorted mirror of feminist “theory” and incorporate that distorted image into their subconscious deeply enough and over a long enough period of time to replicate the visible manifestation of this distorted “image” – they must also, through their own actions within their own lives, pass on that distorted and corrupt “way of being” to their children.

Feminism has been described as a psychological disorder, a form of mental illness – I concur – with a caveat – the original pioneers of feminism – through all its so called waves have without doubt been, to use a less than scientific phrase – completely off their trollies.  There is something else that a lot of them share(d) – perfectly described Here – what these nutcases also did, was draw to this movement/cause persons who also were a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic in various degrees – though some of them were and are quite capable, as Val McDermid’s character Dr. Tony Hill, in her brilliant books calls, “passing for human

The most illuminating comments on the article came from:

Lana Voreskova> xpxpxp •2 days ago

I am not suggesting that feminists understand Marxist theory, which had very much to do with social as well as economic ambitions.

Feminists generally understand very little of anything at all. They have that in common with Marx. Feminists simply sherry-picked rhetoric that sounded good to them and interpret to mean whatever they want it to mean.

They do share a lot of ideals with Marx though whether they actually understand that or not. Many of the earlier ones did understand that and openly identified as Marxists for that reason. You simply cannot get away from the fact that much of feminist theory, was based on watered down Marxist theory.

Lets face it; you could hardly expect feminists to come up with original ideas all by themselves.”

(emphasis added)

And from:

Mateusz82

Feminists will latch onto movements in order to use them, co-opting what they can, and using the window dressing to attract followers. Feminism is just as happy using capitalism, through women in business organizations. They use atheism, through atheist +, and are more than happy using Christianity, or Judaism when they can. They’ll use animal rights, or hunter’s rights. If feminism resembles any movement, it resembles the Borg (assuming the Borg was a movement).”

(emphasis added)

The mistake I believe, that most of those make when arguing about the political aspect or focus or roots of feminism is this – feminism isn’t political in the sense that say Liberalism or Socialism is – political systems are merely the vehicles through which feminists operate – they are political passengers – or if you prefer political opportunists – the personal is indeed the political when it comes to feminism – and it is ALL personal.

Think about it – broadly speaking mass social movements such as the civil rights movement in the US are composed of a specific cohort of people bound together by a common cause – generally a deprivation of specific rights on the basis of a clear and visible commonality they all share – in this instance we are talking about black people – ALL black people – men women and children.

I realise it is rather simplistic to say this, but within the black community in the US there were no classes per se – one did not have upper or middle class black people oppressing their working class black brothers and sisters.

They were ALL oppressed.

Now – look at the feminist “movement” – look at its pioneers – without fail – all middle and upper class white women.

Oppression is a deprivation of basic Human Rights accompanied by a regime of terror and abuse and a dehumanising programme that reduces that Human Being to an object, a chattel, a non human utility.

One could hardly describe any of these pioneers of feminism in those terms – whiny petulant entitled avaricious white women with chips on their shoulders – yep – selfish self-absorbed over-indulged twats – absolutely. But – oppressed? Give me a break.

As always Peter Wright of Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins hits the nail right on the head. Link to the site is on the blogroll.

Peter Wright Mod> Dagda Mór •5 days ago

“Nope” is not a historical argument.

 Unless you can bring detail showing that gynocentrism did not come in waves, and was not an ideology before Marxism/communism, then your historical argument is, well, not historical. Think of all the gynocentric writers from before Marxism/communism – Pizan, Pozzo, Marinella, Wollstonecraft (and hundreds of other protofeminists, male and female).

Without a knowledge of history it’s easy to make the mistake that feminism came out of Marxism…. but it aint true.”

(emphasis added)

Feminism isn’t about politics, per se – politics are simply a means to an end – feminism is about female power and control – the mechanism through which that power and control is exercised is actually rather irrelevant – the purpose is that it is exercised and only by feminists.

In order to really see the evolution of a female centric worldview one must step back and take in the long sweeping panorama of history – what we have today, modern feminism – is but the latest in a series of incremental historical steps – pre the Industrial Revolution rampant gynocentrism – except amongst the middle and upper classes was constrained by the practicalities of simply surviving – post Industrial Revolution that began to change – gradually.

Alongside the Industrial Revolution was another kind of revolution a social and political one – “the masses” began to exert some influence on “policy” not that societies and cultures had reached the stage that “the masses” would be included or consulted on matters of public policy but their needs began to be factored into the equation. Again – not for altruistic reasons – but for economic ones, for political ones.

Feminism’s claims that women are and were excluded from the political system deliberately by men is a camouflage – it is merely a ruse to hide the real agenda – female supremacy so deeply embedded into all the institutional, social and cultural frameworks of societies that “politics” or the political system if you will is a front – a useful distraction for the masses – does anyone actually believe that political decisions are made in parliaments?

That elected representatives are acting autonomously? That when votes are taken on various political programmes or public policy initiatives that these emanate from “government”?

How many examples would you like of actual non partisan, non ideological, non feminist policies torpedoed BY feminist agitators, organisations and advocates, because they have wandered away from the path of total focus on FEMALE “issues”?

Now – THAT’S real power.

The contradiction if you will, is that for feminists – even those who aspire to actual visible political power – is a preference for exercising that power and control by proxy – at a remove – from the sidelines – in the shadows – in order to maintain the illusion of powerlessness necessary in order to perpetuate the never ending “struggle” for a power that already rests in the hands of those allegedly seeking it.

Convoluted – isn’t it?

The answer to that though is glaringly simple – with power and the exercise of that power comes responsibility and accountability – and – THAT is the last thing that feminists or the vast majority of gynocentic females want.

The seething bitter core of ALL feminism and ALL feminists – be they Marxist, Liberal, Socialist – whatever – is that being female automatically ascribes VICTIM status TO YOU as an individual and as part of a class of victims.

Hence why Patricia Arquette felt justified in having something of a whine about some perceived disadvantage – why well-heeled, affluent middle class harpies can whinge about being “oppressed” while ignoring the thousands of homeless men and boys, while dismissing contemptuously the suffering of ANY male person, in any circumstance, as being totally incomparable – on the suffering scale- to being – stared at in the street!

Feminism is only “political” by default – those original pioneers of feminism merely harnessed their innate gynocentrism, modified it, tweaked it and wrapped it up political rhetoric in order to exert control over the political process and to spread the influence of gynocentrism outwards and upwards.

Again – think about it – does it really matter when it comes to influencing policy, whether the feminist(s) exerting that influence – or more correctly duress – is a marxist, a socialist, a liberal or a conservative? Does it?

Of course it doesn’t – what matters is that this is A FEMINIST – a female – or a gang of females – and the political wrapping paper is irrelevant.

What matters is that the social conditioning which had and has its roots is gynocentrism, now completely out of control – kicks in – women = victim = feminism = the voice of all victims.

I do actually find myself taken aback sometimes – not by feminists – nothing a feminist says or does would surprise me – but by men who still almost automatically fall for the women= fragile victim of………everything bad – thing.

For what it’s worth – I personally reject any “political” labels for myself – I belong to no political party or subscribe to any particular ideology – as someone did comment on this particular article that on some issues he could be described as “left-leaning” and on others as “right-leaning” – so could I – it depends entirely on the particular issue. The only statement I make that could be described as political is this:

I am NOT a feminist.

The only “ideological” stance I take is an over-riding belief in the sanctity of Human Rights for ALL Human Beings – and no – I really do not give a shit what kind of Human Being you happen to be – up to and including if you are a complete twat or arsehole.

What is worth noting – from a historical perspective that is, is this – the coalescing of the concept of Human Rights as a universal touchstone if you will, took a long long time coming to fruition – from the first declaration that human beings had rights (albeit limited) to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948 almost parallels the rise of “modern” feminism – and an outright if hidden declaration of war on the Human Rights of men and boys. A war that has over the last six decades intensified and expanded.

“In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Ironic isn’t it, that as soon as a global awareness of Human Rights as a concrete concept, began to enter the zeitgeist – feminism began to marshal its forces and harness the power of gynocentrism to fracture that unified concept into prioritising FEMALE Human Rights.

“In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

 The Member States of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles of human rights that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single document. In consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the constitutional laws of democratic nations.

(emphasis added)

Source: A Brief History of Human Rights. Link Here.

There was and still is no greater threat to the fulfilment of feminism’s end goal of global female supremacy than a world which embraces the concept of Universal Human Rights without regard to class, sex, political or personal orientation or status.

Which is perhaps why feminism itself is in a bit of a dilemma right now – particularly in the western hemisphere.

Hard to find much actual real “oppression” in the affluent west is there? Except of men and boys, that is – a hundred years ago one could point a well manicured middle class finger at various carefully selected examples – being sure to airbrush out any inconvenient facts of course – and claim that “as a woman” you share in this universal “oppression” of your “sisters” hmmmmm.

Oh where to find any real “oppression” now?

To a certain limited extent I agree with Andrew DiKaiomata’s comparison of modern feminism and Marxism and to the various commenter’s who pointed to the authoritarian nature of feminism, but – and it’s a big but – a political ideology, whatever it may be, is and always has been only a useful vehicle to carry the seeds of gynocentrism forward – generationally and historically – feminism is a parasite – a political parasite – whatever the “political” mask it wears, the core of all manifestations of “feminism” from “suffragettes” to “women’s libbers” to “feminists” has been and always will be gynocentrism – female supremacy.

In many respects feminists are correct – the personal is the political – feminism has taken the absolute worst aspects of female nature and politicised it.

Of all the “achievements” of feminism – and yes – the scare quotes are pertinent – several generations of women have modelled themselves and their behaviour (which yes you do have a choice about) on some of the most twisted, disturbed, irrational and dysfunctional creatures this planet has ever produced – you have internalised a belief system, a “way of being” that manifests itself, and celebrates that manifestation – in the most selfish, self-absorbed, malicious and vindictive behaviours.

Feminisms “gift” to women was to strip them of their humanity and to revel in it – celebrate it – preen themselves over it.

All the while congratulating themselves on how “special” they were!

To Boldly go………Absolutely NOWHERE good!

 

According to this next generation of baby feminists – you know the one’s I’m talking about –  the ones who write asinine little pieces and articles in online publications and blogs – the ones who took “women’s/gender studies classes in college and came out clutching their parchments in one sweaty hand while striding forward to take their place as the leaders and shakers of the world. During the last 10 to 15 years, they are the new fourth wave of 21st century feminism

Those baby feminists, those social justice warriors, those social and cultural “commentators” are here to take up the banner of feminism and achieve what previous “waves” of feminism have apparently failed to do, after over nearly 100 years or so of activity – equality. For women. (that’s some effective campaign you got going on there, if you haven’t achieved your goal after 100 years!)

Yep – according to them, feminism is about achieving equality – for WOMEN. That’s it, equality per se is never actually defined, a cogent analysis of where, what and how supposed “inequality” manifests itself is never offered – it just happens – so there! Not talking about bullshit “issues” like the “male gaze” or being “objectified” or a mythical “rape culture” which is simply a product of the fevered and over active imaginations of over sexualised sluts, and a device to keep feminists in lucrative jobs.

I have a few insights for them – first one being – they’re not really feminists – seriously – you’re not – oh you’ve got the jargon down pat, you may even have read a few tedious examples of feminist “literature” and some feminist “studies” but in general, you went into college with one huge disadvantage, and came out with a useless piece of paper and an attitude. A particularly nasty, unlikeable, and rather immature attitude. What you didn’t come out as was – educated.

What? I’m admitting that girls go into and come out of college with a disadvantage? Yep, I am, but before all my fellow MHRA’s get ready to take me to task – let me explain.

BOTH boys and girls leave school with an enormous disadvantage, which manifests itself differently in boys than it does in girls.

The problem for both boys and girls is the very nature of both primary/elementary and secondary school/high school – boys get discouraged from learning because how they like to learn is deemed to be “wrong” and girls get over encouraged, because how THEY like to learn is deemed “right”.

Neither approach achieves the things that school is meant to achieve – develop the ability or desire to continue learning, or to give students the learning tools they need to progress to next level – self-directed learning. –

The other problem of course is what and how girls are “taught” – girls are praised for being mediocre, for showing up, for producing sub-standard “work” for merely parroting what they are indoctrinated with. In effect, girls come out of secondary school with the intellectual and emotional maturity of 12 year olds, spoilt, obnoxious, shallow 12 year olds, and as tantrum throwing brats and total pains in the arse.

Over the last 20 years or so, colleges and universities have not just recognised, encouraged and facilitated this, but have tailored their “courses” the ones that the vast majority of girls take, to accommodate this lack of cognitive ability, lack of critical thinking ability and complete lack of ability to form either a coherent thought or express it in anything other than the most immature, superficial and to be blunt dumbest way.

While boys are more seriously disadvantaged by this less than adequate primary and secondary educational “experience” they have one singular advantage over girls – generally boys chose different areas of interest, they have different capabilities which are not dependant on their “feelings” and boys are capable to a greater extent than girls of self-directed learning, not just from an early age, but inherently.

Girls need to be coddled, encouraged, constantly praised for every little thing they do, girls want ongoing approval and gold stars – boys?  Boys will take apart a computer, a toaster, a car – just to see how it works – and more importantly WHY it works.

I realise I am making some rather grand sweeping assumptions here, and that there are exceptions, but this is not a academic essay outlining empirical conclusions – just a general overview of the phenomenon of the complete dumbing down of education, primary, secondary and college education – and a hypothesis that posits – the dumbing down starts on the first day of school. Boys can and do overcome it, girls chose not to.

Back to my original assertion – that our current crop of baby feminists are not really feminists. They couldn’t possibly be, for one simple reason, they are completely incapable of evaluating, comprehending or analysing anything but the most basic concepts. They come to college educated on a diet of soundbites, of superficial feelings based “opinions” and with an egocentric worldview that filters everything through the prism of HOW it makes them feel. The onus being on, if something makes them feel bad, it is bad. They are feminists in name only.

Now, while most of the “writings” of those pioneers of second and third wave feminism (the ones that find themselves onto college reading lists) are turgid incomprehensible academic gobbledygook, even this shoite is beyond the comprehension ability of our latest generation of baby feminists, oh yes they’ve probably “read” it, maybe even written assignments citing it, but in possession of an ability to critically assess or analysis it? Nope. Bit like eating corn, it goes in and comes out the other end looking more or less the same. (Sorry – gross image, but effective?)

Nothing makes an intellectual pygmy feel more “bad” than feeling like an intellectual pygmy. Struggling to understand concepts, being confused and unable to process complex or convoluted “philosophical” ideas – all this makes someone who has been indoctrinated to believe she is super special, super smart and super brilliant feel really REALLY bad, ergo – it is bad – and if it is bad – it is wrong. End of discussion. Unless it is feminist “thinking” then even though they haven’t really got a clue what the hell the “author” is on about – its feminism, its about WOMEN – ergo – it MUST be good! Duh!

Shall I pause while all those baby feminists finish spluttering in rage, get all that “how dare you tell me I’m not a feminist” ranting out of the way? Guuuuuuurls, here’s how it works, you don’t get to tell ANYONE what feminism is or isn’t – it’s an idea, a set of opinions, a mish mash of “concepts” put out there into the public domain – ergo – it is whatever those who evaluate it say it is. Get over it.

 Moving on.

Historically,  “women’s rights” advocates, and unlike feminists, and I DO draw a clear distinction between advocates for “women’s rights” and feminists – regardless of feminists efforts to not just rewrite history, but to assimilate into feminism some of those who would have been horrified to be associated with “feminism”  – anyway, they wrote some stuff – quite intellectual “stuff” the kind of “stuff” that would go completely over the heads of these baby feminists – and when I say “women’s rights” advocates, I don’t mean female suffragettes/ists either.

I’m using the word “stuff” so as not to scare all the baby feminists, or make them feel bad about themselves – also, I’m not talking about frustrated housewives (Betty Friedan) sociopaths (Valerie Solanas), self-promoting attention seeking hippies (Germaine Greer) seriously disturbed man-hating lesbians (Andrea Dworkin/Shulamith Firestone/Kate Millet) or even more seriously disturbed bitter and twisted legal experts (Catherine MacKinnon)

Nope – hard though this may be to believe – the world of intellectual, philosophical thinking DIDN’T begin on the 1st January 1959.  Perhaps even harder for you all to believe, women contributed very little to the canon of philosophical thinking and literature – which is probably why you’ve never actually been exposed to these great thinkers – the emphasis being on the word “thinkers”

What all you baby feminists are is Gynocentrists – you are all simply whining and wailing for a world where being female means being endowed with special privileges, with unearned adoration for being born, with an unlimited and ever expanding freedom to be as obnoxious, as vicious, as criminal, as abusive, as nasty, as vile, as inhumane, as toxic, as stupid, as murderous, as avaricious, as greedy, as unethical, as egotistical and narcissistic as you like – and to be allowed to get away with it.

You could give a rat’s arse about “rights” – Human Rights – what you care about is maintaining and expanding female privilege.

Misguided, deluded and disturbed as most of those second and third wave pioneer feminists I mentioned above are and were, they did superficially “care” about “women’s rights” – granted they were completely wrong, and indulged themselves in major histrionic meltdowns about MINOR issues that were and would have been resolved in a reasonable and intelligent way – but – to be fair – now and again – they made some MINOR valid points, about societal attitudes prevalent at that time – but one does not and cannot legislate for “attitudes” for cultural mores – nor does one campaign for “rights” that can only be achieved by depriving others (men and boys) of theirs.

So, they launched a campaign of whining, of political nagging, of tantrum throwing, of petty vicious and nasty social, cultural and legal aggression. They bullied, coerced, blackmailed and LIED.

Feminism was and is a campaign for INEQUALITY if it is anything. From a legislative perspective, there are no rights that men have that women DON’T HAVE – in fact the reverse is true – it is Men’s Human Rights that have been systematically stripped from them over the last 50 or so years.

So, to all you baby feminists, not only are you not feminists but Gynocentrists, you are all, without exception as dumb as a bag of hammers. Read a goddamn book now and again – would you? Take a look in a mirror at yourselves, try to imagine for one instant when you’re being YOU what other people see.

In fact, rather than dismissing what the MHRM says about females like you – consider this – it isn’t them – it IS you – you are everything and more we say you are – even on your best day – most of you are barely tolerable human beings. You are enveloped in an invisible cloud of nastiness, vanity, shallowness, egotism and narcissism that completely blinds you to what you really are. Not super special, NOT super smart, NOT super brilliant, and with the intellectual depth of a puddle, but more than this, you are invariably:

Exceptionally nasty human beings.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

They’re doing it Wrong……feminists that is.

 

I’ve just realised something, or rather something has crystallised, today’s young women are not really feminists, oh of course they call themselves feminists, some even have “certificates” to prove that they are feminists, but in reality, nope, NOT feminists.

In fact as I was pondering on this I took a trip over to the Counterfeminist and read this, posted on Friday, January 24, 2014  A Feminist Confirms that Non-Feminist and Anti-Feminist Amount to the Same which led me to this article, This Is What I Mean When I Say “White Feminism” by one ninjacate which led me to this blog called Battymamzelle.

You may have noticed that I have not posted link to the jezebel article (Fidelbogen has it on his post)

And is she ever – batty that is.

Her post is one long rant about what she characterises as “white feminism” and how “white feminism” does not serve the needs of “women of colour”

She is quite scathing about “white feminism” and basically announces that because she is a “woman of colour” she wins the victim and oppression Olympics – hands down. No contest.

In her post she has constructed a diagram, to graphically illustrate where everybody in the world stands – in relation to feminism, in particular “white feminism” which she dismisses thus:

“White feminism” does not mean every white woman, everywhere, who happens to identify as feminist. It also doesn’t mean that every “white feminist” identifies as white. I see “white feminism” as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn’t consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality.”

 Ouch! In one fell swoop, Ms, Ninjacate has dismissed decades of feminist agitation, forests of feminist “writings” “studies” and “literature” from Betty Friedan to Cathy Brennan, from Susan B Anthony to Hilary Clinton. Wow! Well done Ms. Ninjacate. The comments on the post in jezebel clearly indicate that, stunned into almost comical paralysis by this, not one of them has the balls to disagree, to criticise, to take issue with this. Deer in headlights time.

This bit she emboldened, because it is IMPORTANT – got that – IMPORTANT.

“White feminism is a set of beliefs that allows for the exclusion of issues that specifically affect women of colour. It is “one size-fits all” feminism, where middle class white women are the mould that others must fit. It is a method of practicing feminism, not an indictment of every individual white feminist, everywhere, always.

 Now, before anyone thinks for single solitary second that I am about to launch into a defence of feminism, white, black green or otherwise – nope.  What I am going to say is this – the one thing that Ms, Ninjacate totally and utterly misses the point of is this.

FEMINISM IS IRRELEVANT.

Her obvious lack of cognitive ability shines through, because in her arrogance, she assumes that feminism IS the only prism, the only lens, the ONLY ideological perspective through which to view the world.

In fact, she compounds her philosophical error by assuming something else, that the world revolves around the perspectives of WOMEN. At all times, in all places, and without exception. Superficially this is true, but only because feminism has imposed itself onto and into the consciousness of the world, and weaselled its way into the fabric of our society and culture.

In reality, a lot of women don’t give a shit about “feminism” what they care about is sustaining a world that endorsees gynocentric policies and laws and a mindset that elevates being female into a superior form of human existence – for now, feminism facilitates that.

Ms. Ninjacate is also completely, totally and blindly obsessed with one thing and one thing only – HERSELF.

In fact, every single aspect of what comprises and contributes to the human being who calls herself battymamzelle, from her skin colour to the size of her ass, from how she feels about beyonce, to how men treat her is fodder for her complete and utter self absorption – all of which confirmsm that when it comes to being the ultimate victim of oppression – not only is batty the universal, cosmic representative pinnacle of oppression and  victimhood, but anyone who says otherwise needs to check their “white privilege” and of course is a racist.

Because you see she has cornered the market on oppression and victim hood, there is no way on God’s good earth that she could be, in any way shape or form, simply just a loudmouthed, arrogant, ridiculous and laughable caricature and a bit of an arsehole, nosirrebob – she has not one, but two magic shields which protect her. She is female and she is black/a woman of colour, whichever one suits you best, and you would choose for yourself – I care not.

I took a quick look at her manifesto – ok – I admit it – I laughed – it is beyond ridiculous – it is bizarre and laughable.

All this is neither here nor there, what is though, is this – feminism is fracturing – within the ranks of feminism there is chaos, there is confusion, there is a sense of chickens with their heads cut off running around desperately trying to find something to latch onto.  Some solid ground, some purpose, some meaning.

This example of but one feminist – though to be fair to batty – she apparently prefers the term “womanist” storming into jezzie, bitch slapping all those mealy mouthed “white feminists” into submission, the superficial, the inane, the banal, the privileged, and declaring herself to be the new face of feminism – excuse me – womanism – had me peeing myself laughing.

Because they all took it, they tippy toed around this harridan, they made obsequious little comments, they massaged her colossal ego, and they agreed! Yes indeed, they were all baaaaaaaaaaaaaadd, feminists.

ALL HAIL THE NEW ORACLE.

Funniest thing I’ve seen so far within the ranks of feminism – first they all dumbly accept the concept that the world is divided up into feminists, and everyone else, then they accept that AS “white feminists” they’ve been doing it all wrong.

She is partly right about one thing though –

“It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context.”

Except, while they call it feminism, and might even believe that they are feminists, in actuality they are just gynocentric, hypergamous, self-absorbed, utterly vacuous nitwits, as soon as it is no longer to their advantage as WOMEN to attach the label feminism to themselves, they will find something else – maybe something called “womanism” perhaps?

What she calls “western privilege” is indicative of someone who hasn’t a clue about history, even a notion of how societies developed, and her inference of being a bit of an expert on “cultural context” equally shows her lack of knowledge in – how many areas of study can I think of – let’s see – history – anthropology – sociology – literature – economics – politics – law.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised though, especially when one is convinced that the world begins and ends at your feet, that the world and its history emanates basically from your own arsehole. The notion that the skin you happen to be wrapped up in somehow either privileges you, or oppresses you, with one being universally privileged, and the other being universally oppressed, and never the twain shall either overlap or even be reversed, is not just simplistic, it is arrogant, it is patently ridiculous and it is a load of bollox.

The fact that batty here assigns these categories of privileged – v – oppressed to only one type of human being – women – though one can see that regardless of which colour skin a man is wrapped in he is ALWAYS privileged is par for the course – after all batty IS A “WOMANIST”

Just so you know batty, I don’t think you’re an idiot because you are female, nor do I think you’re an idiot because you are a black/woman of colour female, I think you’re an idiot because – YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

You see, idiots come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, all sorts of colours and in all types of human beings – nothing and I mean nothing shields you from being an idiot, not race, not  gender, not ideology, not the size of your arse, or your mouth for that matter – only an idiot wouldn’t know that.

The ONLY thing that differentiates one from either being, or not being an idiot and an arsehole, is what goes on in that space between your ears, and what comes out of that hole in the middle of your face – or obviously, the method through which you disseminate what emanates from that space between your ears – such as keyboard or pen paper.

As for feminists having a bit of an identity crisis? Bummer!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

The Myth of Womanhood ™

 

Women have some serious fundamental problems,  with….well being women, and it has all to do with the cult of The Myth of Womanhood.™ Collectively known as feminism.

And progress. Technological, cultural, legal, and societal changes that have accelerated exponentially since the dawn of the industrial age.

And knowledge. In essence, almost universal education and the growing availability of information at the click of mouse.

In order to sustain a myth one needs a culture of ignorance and a means to control those who would question that myth – a bit like the child in the fairy tale who exclaimed “the emperor has no clothes!”.  One small lone voice in a sea of silenced and, coerced into submissive acceptance, voices.

One also needs one other thing in order to sustain a myth, a willingness on the part of others to believe this myth.

Perhaps the most well known of people in history who have suffered as a result of questioning  a myth, or in this case a religious belief has been Galileo Galilei 15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642, generally just known as Galileo, and referred to as the father of Modern science.

He challenged a myth/belief, not out of a sense of wanting to be “ornery” but because he discovered that the myth/belief was untrue. So, in a desire to correct an error of belief he shared what he had discovered. This is what happened to him.

“Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy“, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

 He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

 His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.”

You will note that Galileo lived a long long time ago. Centuries passed, centuries in which everything that Galileo had said was proved to be true, in fact universally accepted by everyone, not just in the scientific community but in the wider world, one would have thought then, that those, the keepers of the original myth/belief would have conceded the truth he discovered, and made things right? Apologised profusely and redeemed Galileo unequivocally?

Alas, those who proclaim themselves the keepers of myths are not so gracious.

“On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI)

“The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.”

“It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views.

Another keeper of the myth went just a tad further a couple of years later – but just a tad.

“On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei…………………….A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended.”

This is all very well and good I hear you thinking, but what has this to do with feminism and the Myth of Womanhood? ™

It illustrates perfectly what feminists believe that their ideology is – an unassailable and almost spiritual belief – in fact a religion – but even more than just a religion, a religion that takes its cue from the dogmatic, infallible and unquestionable doctrines of the 17th century Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who does question, does present evidence of the falsity of its beliefs is, just like Galileo was, be “vehemently suspect of heresy“, and there will be calls and demands and efforts expended to induce those heretics to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

What Galileo proposed was called heliocentrism, and rejected what was known as geocentrism, (remarkable similar to the word gynocentrism, isn’t it?)

“Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.”

For simplicity’s sake, Geocentrism is the belief that the earth is the cosmic centre of the universe, and heliocentrism is that it isn’t, rather one celestial body in a universe of celestial bodies

“The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy’s geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years. The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but from the late 16th century onward was gradually superseded by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the transition between these two theories met much resistance, not only from Christian theologians, who were reluctant to reject a theory that was in agreement with Bible passages (e.g. “Sun, stand you still upon Gibeon”, Joshua 10:12 – King James 2000 Bible), but also from those who saw geocentrism as an accepted consensus that could not be subverted by a new, unknown theory.”

The Myth of Womanhood ™ is the geocentrism of the modern age, we just need to change one letter, the “e” to a “y” and add a letter, an “n” and we have Gynocentrism, and just as in the passage above, one doesn’t actually need to be a fully paid up member of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ to be a believer, one just has to believe in the myth– while the original tyrannical defenders of geocentrism were Christians, our modern feminists, in fact all cults, all systems of belief based on unfounded assertions, need their useful idiots, their blindly following acolytes, in the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ these are just called……..women. There is a dedicated band of male followers, but these are merely those men who accept their lesser status in the human universe. Because you see, the core belief of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood states that.

Women are the centre of the Human Universe – around which all other human beings orbit.

Just as in the 19th century, despite growing knowledge, despite technological advances to further the acquisition of human knowledge, despite the increasing availability and access to human knowledge via education for more and more people– the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ has persisted, has been assiduously cultivated and propagated. By women.

One can reject belief in a God that one cannot see, or prove the existence of, but when one has millions of putative Goddesses (all women) right there in front of you, doing what our naked emperor did in the fairytale I mentioned – exerting coercive methods, either passively or aggressively to ensure your acquiescence in what is patently untrue – it is difficult to be that lone small voice shouting out from the crowd.

“The emperor has no clothes”

I coined the phrase The Myth of Womanhood ™ as the title to a larger piece of work – a historical work – that will look back at the origins, perpetuation, entrenchment and finally demise of a belief system, a cult that infected the race of humans in varying degrees over a long period of time. It is almost time to write the last chapters, because persistent though it was and is – the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood is dying, it is in its final death throes.

Because you see, rather than there being one small childlike voice shouting from the crowd that the “emperor has no clothes”, though in this case, it should be “empresses” – there is a chorus of voices, a veritable full choir of voices, all saying in harmony.

“The empress has no clothes”

It is those who persist in clinging tenaciously to their belief in this cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ who are being drowned out, and whose “leaders” are making fools of themselves, laughing stocks of themselves – because they still believe that……………the earth is the centre of the known universe.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Form a Posse Men…….There’s Wimmin Needing rescuing…..Giddy up!

 

 Paul Elam of A Voice for Men published an article sounding a warning bell at something emerging within the WordPress “Community” that warning bell was in relation to this article.

 Written by someone called Sarah Gooding it calls for “Cultivating a Culture of Respect in the WordPress Community

I’ve read Gooding’s article and first impressions – sanctimonious, self-righteous, passive aggressive busybody, she has decided that the “standards” SHE see’s in the “WordPress Community”, do not meet with her approval.  At all. The other thing to note about Gooding’s opinion is that because she is female, a woman, everyone needs to sit up straight and TAKE NOTICE.

A WOMAN is “uncomfortable” a WOMAN is “not happy” other people are behaving in ways “at parties” that a WOMAN does NOT approve of.

The only way to describe Gooding’s whiney little screed is to say – she is talking out of her gynocentric arsehole.

Gooding is a perfect example of what women have been doing, expect to continue to be allowed to do, and assume they have the right to do.

Dictate to all and sundry, how they must speak, how they must act, and how they must interact – because WOMEN are the historical etiquette police of the human race, women are the arbiters of what is “good and proper” and more importantly what isn’t – we could be sitting in a Victorian parlour listening to some pursed lipped, snooty spinster hold forth on the deplorable manners of the lower classes. 

How uncouth, how unrefined, how beastly they are.

Our putative spinster busybody is so overcome at the uncivilised behaviour of these lower classes, that when she encounters them she almost swoons with the assault on her delicate sensibilities.

THAT’S what Gooding is – a snooty, self righteous sanctimonious Victorian spinster looking down her pointy nose at the lower classes.

Well fuck you Mizz Gooding.

One of the themes of Gooding’s article is a demand that people treat one another with respect – mainly her of course – well I have a question for Sarah Gooding.

What exactly have you done to EARN MY RESPECT?

Yes, you read that right, EARN. MY. RESPECT. Because right now, with your whiney female snivelling, all I hear and read is, I have a vagina, I have ovaries, I am FEMALE – ergo – you OWE me respect – basically because I exist. Yet again I have one thing to say to that.

Fuck you Mizz Gooding.

Paul Elam in his article lays out the modus operandi of whiney “you hurt my feelings” victims everywhere.

.”“They are even approaching this with the same M.O.. First, set up the victim narrative; create a crisis for women that literally does not exist. This is done by a small number of very vocal ideological women who claim to be victims, and who need “special” enforcement of even more “special” rules, in order to make them feel safe and welcome (because we all know that women are not welcome anywhere, especially by men, right?). Then, of course, the idea is to punish anyone who disagrees with them with demonization and ostracizing

This is exactly what Gooding does, she starts off by setting up what Typhonblue (Alison Tieman) calls the Threat Narrative – i.e. create a false “threat”

“The WordPress project is going through some growing pains. After 10 years there are millions of people around the world using this software and interacting with one another on a daily basis. The vast majority of these interactions are positive and respectful and for a long time we haven’t needed any kind of official code of conduct, but this is changing.

“Women in WordPress” is currently a hot button topic and has been for years, with many discussions cantered around how to make women feel more welcome.”

Suggesting that something needs to be done “to make women feel more welcome” is femspeak for saying, people are being mean and nasty and just horrible to women, but because women are soooooooooooooo nice, and don’t want to just come straight out and say this, they use euphemisms like making women FEEL more welcome.

Oh she pops in a few more little hints at this “threat” to women, but more importantly she introduces the underlying agenda.

“A few incidents of harassment have popped up in our community and other open source communities, prompting a movement to create a Code of Conduct

Now what Gooding is doing here is appealing to chivalry, appealing to an age old code created and sustained by women throughout the ages that states, women must not be inconvenienced, upset, discommoded, annoyed, irritated or plain ole pissed off in any way shape or form. It is the responsibility of men to shield women, to protect women, and to never put a woman in a position where she has to act like a bloody grown up, take responsibility for HERSELF, and not expect the entire world to tippy toe around her sensitive and fragile feelings.  Hence the “Code of Conduct” it is Chivalry 101.

In essence – MEN die and women swoon.

The next little quote contains a nugget worth noting – when women “suggest” things, especially when it benefits ONLY women, and has the effect of imposing sanctions on men.  

“Stephanie Leary posted on the Women of WordPress site concerning harassment at WordCamps after speaking with a couple of people who experienced minor harassments at events but hadn’t reported it. She suggests that WordPress create its own harassment policy and that WordCamp organizers designate a safety officer:”

Such a sweet innocuous little statement, isn’t it? So self effacing, so concerned?  Naw, this is bullshit, female bullshit, it is a turd wrapped  up in pretty paper, tied up in ribbons and coyly offered as a “suggestion” when in actual fact THIS is the agenda, THIS is gynocentrism in all its putrid, underhanded, devious glory.

Translation from Femspeak to plain english.

Right now I’m being as sweet as pie, and playing the poor widdle damsel in distress, but, if you don’t comply, and do what I want, then I will cause such a shitstorm of female disapproval, tears and tantrums, and make such nasty, underhanded, mostly untrue, and definitely misrepresented statements, that your name (s) will be mudd.

 Gooding goes on, with some anecdotal “evidence” with her in the starring role as the sweet, delicate and naive damsel who doesn’t want to make a fuss or “cause a scene” it’s all bullshit, and she shirts very close to basically libelling some anonymous and innocent man, but plays that other female card, insinuation, she insinuates, she suggests, she leaves little clues and hints, and waits for everyone else to fill in the blanks.  For the requisite :

oh my God, you poor poor thing, that’s just awful, you’re sooooooooo brave”

With the piece de résistance being

“Men are such pigs – something NEEDS to be done about this” tad dah! Score!”

This whole article is an exercise in propaganda and femspeak, with one agenda and one agenda only – to “feminize” WordPress – to make it in the image of something that women can be “comfortable” with.  That only means one thing – Free Speech? Forget it – what if your opinion or your style of communication hurts some widdle sensitive and fragile woman? What if you say mean things about something a woman has said? What if some woman has posted God-awful tripe and you say that? Forsooth! What if she then………………………….cries?!

This last quote is the cherry on top of this toxic little pie – talk about threat narrative, talk about putting a silent unspoken “or else” at the end of something

“Community can make or break a project. A set of community expectations is the first step in laying a foundation for respectful behavior. I wish we didn’t need them, but we do.”

Cue big sad sigh, complete with trembling lip.

What Gooding is really saying here is – I will harness the power of the vagina, the golden uterus, and if I don’t get what I want – I scweam and scweam and scweam till I’m sick, till you give in and……………..WordPress exists to serve the needs, wants, whims and petty agendas of pathetic, snivelling, spineless, manipulative toxic little wretches like Sarah Gooding and her gal pals.

 

Previous Older Entries