How women are betrayed

This post has gone through some phases before getting to you.

Initially, after being attacked by a feminist yesterday morning in comment spam, I wrote a scathing denunciation of feminism [in draft] on the principle that if they try to shut me up, then that is simply a catalyst for further writing.  By about the 20th page of quotes and youtubes, I realized this might have been overkill, so the idea was dumped.

Plus it’s August Bank Holiday and we’re all meant to be in good cheer.  Plus some weird things have been happening at the site.  Plus I have some RL issues and possibly don’t need to dredge all this up again.

Then I read a piece on feminism as support material and it was a tale of a woman who had been devastated by this false doctrine and far from exuding victimhood, she acknowledged the phases she’d been though and what she was faced with.  Yet she now lacks the wherewithal to make good choices for herself and her child.

That started the ball rolling again.  Then, in a seriously indecisive frame of mind, it struck me that this is the last thing anyone wants to read on a bank holiday weekend.

Finally, it dawned again what this blog is about – if something has to be said, then just say it.  This is the thought which won the day and thus the post appears below.

Christina Hoff-Summers‘ book was not “I hate feminism” but Who Stole Feminism, a completely different concept.  Her tagline was “How women have betrayed women.”

I’d modify that a little because though feminazis have the outward appearance of women and it must be conceded, are barely biologically so, a more accurate description of the species is as a sort of grotesque mutation of what womanhood should be.  Think Greer, Harman, Dworkin.

It’s not a great deal different to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Tony Blair on the other side of the gender divide.  Yes, they are/were technically men but most people see them as monsters.  Throw in Mugabe there and Idi Amin.  Nor are they all black, nor are they all Muslim.

They’re just monsters, a designation which applies outside gender and race, even if they use gender and race in their narrative.  The most vital thing about feminists is that though most are technically women, they are not in tune with women and what women want and need.  They can’t be because they are brainwashed.

CHS, in the vid below, speaks of when, as a professor, she gave “feminist studies” at university and she mentions one woman who dedicated her new book to the women’s studies “ovular”.   CHS had to think it through and then realized it was a made up word.   The real word was “seminar” but for obvious reasons in women’s studies, “semin” had to be dropped and so “ovule” replaced it.

She says the woman wasn’t kidding – there was very little humour among these people and it was all one-sided.   Which is fine if it’s a political campaign on the streets but it wasn’t – it was teaching undergrads about women.   At that time, CHS was a feminist philosopher and that course is where she says she changed her perception – it was all completely one-sided and deeply misandrist.   There was a lot of hatred oozing through the pages and pages and pages.

When she objected, she was regarded as a heretic and excommunicated from a religion she’d never known had existed.   She goes on to say that she appreciates fora where an alternative viewpoint is allowed to be put and where there are many women of intelligence and power present – just not speaking in the hardline rhetoric of the feminist.

Barbara Kay is better known for not being the flavour of the month for Quebecees, for want of a better term.  She has also castigated feminism in stronger terms than CHS [see vid below].  Here is a sample:

I consider feminism a very pernicious ideology and I do think it is the ruling ideology of our time.  And if you look at other struggles – gay rights and so on – it all becomes subsumed under the general rubrik of feminism.  It’s the best organized revolution I’ve ever seen, it’s a bloodless revolution, it’s declared enemies gave up without a fight … and because it is now entrenched at all educational levels … because it’s 40 years on … we’re seeing the fruits of that revolution in the corridors of power, in all institutions of educational influence, at the bar where many go into teaching law because they are strongly ideological … it permeates our society.

She goes into the whole nonsense of women not having opportunities pre-feminism – they did – and as for having no power, they had different kinds of power.  When you get to 2nd stage feminism, she goes on to say, it’s not about equality any more but about women’s interests – their interests.  It becomes a zero-sum game.  If men have any advantages, then they are taking away from women, she says the feminists feel.

Just returning for the moment to it being the best organized revolution she’s seen – yes indeed.  It was well organized, was it not?   Almost as if it had been pre-planned by the global elite to conduct a bloodless coup d’etat.   It sets up, she says, an adversarial system which is just plain wrong.  Isn’t this bad for men, she asks.   They don’t care – they’re only interested in themselves.  The men can take care of themselves.

Stop and think about this logically.   We have two sexes – roughly equal in numbers.    We need to work together for the preservation and the propagation of the species.   A man and a woman working together is unbeatable [not “are” unbeatable].   The whole game, the whole chemistry – all of it is now damaged, seemingly beyond repair, by bitter mutants who wish for there to be a state of hatred and animosity, as exuded in a message I received yesterday morning from a feminazi and it was both vicious and spiteful.

Over coffee, I couldn’t help wondering why such animosity, why such utter hatred?  And why is the gender division the only important one in society to them?   What about, race, creed and colour?   What about nationality?  What about class?   No – gender trumps all.

Christy O has strong views on the topic.  She worked for civil air patrol and was introduced to Facebook by a colleague.  In her About section, she mentioned her views and was attacked by feminazis she “didn’t even know” who called her f***ing pathetic and sad – over and over.  She mentions speaking to one of the species who claimed it was all about giving women the right to choose but that’s precisely what this person was not doing with Christy O.

She came to realize that feminists not only hate men … but they also hate women.

So there is not only an intolerance to feminists but also a hypocrisy and propensity to tell lies.  The girl below has woken up to this.  As she’s the product of today’s education, she has trouble articulating and organizing her thoughts but you can hear her feeling behind the utter lies feminists tell women.

Like many women, she has woken up to this:

One of the reasons for the failure of feminism to dislodge deeply held perceptions of male and female behaviour was its insistence that women were victims, and men powerful patriarchs, which made a travesty of ordinary people’s experience of the mutual interdependence of men and women. – Rosaline Coward

And there is one other major stumbling block to the feminist hate crimes:

Nobody will ever win the Battle of the Sexes. There’s just too much fraternizing with the enemy. – Henry Kissinger

I generally don’t bring men in on this topic as feminists will not accept anything coming from a man, especially from me but Stuart Schneiderman quotes Hanna Rosin on the new direction feminazism is taking:

If you yourself are wondering what women want, feminist author Hanna Rosin has the answer: women want to hook up. Rosin believes that hookups advance the cause of feminism. Women who hook up are more likely to be immune to the siren song of husband, home and family.

If we ask what feminists want women to want, the answer is clear: feminists want women to repress their feminine mystique, the better to be good feminists. They do not just want women to adhere to feminist ideology, but they want women to live their lives as feminists want them to live their lives.

Rosin states it clearly:

To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture. And to a surprising degree, it is women—not men—who are perpetuating the culture, especially in school, cannily manipulating it to make space for their success, always keeping their own ends in mind. For college girls these days, an overly serious suitor fills the same role an accidental pregnancy did in the 19th century: a danger to be avoided at all costs, lest it get in the way of a promising future.

Rosin would have been more accurate if she said that it is feminists like her who are perpetuating this culture.

Rosin must be either a fool with no understanding of how humanity operates or else she is deliberately doing this.  If women are encouraged to become skanks and the only connection between men and women therefore becomes the physical joining, then all the things women have begged for since time immemorial – that men will respect them, listen to them, support them – and not attack them – it all goes out the window.

There is zero incentive for a man who can have lowlife nooky on tap to make any sort of commitment whatever and like all mutually exclusive communities, a certain coldness enters into it, a lack of understanding of the other’s point of view and eventually rivalry and dislike, culminating in some form of violence.  In every community it’s always been the same.

Stuart Schneiderman continues, about Rosin:

In so saying, she is lying to young women.

If a woman has developed the skills necessary to navigate the hook up culture she will not be developing the skills necessary to conduct a relationship, no less a marriage. Better yet, if she had learned that suitable suitors are toxic she will not suddenly decide that she wants one of them to ravish her.

The psychic malformation she has suffered by living the feminist nightmare will preclude that kind of happy ending.

Just, be honest to young women. Don’t tell them that after a decade of hooking up and abusive relationships they are going, magically, to be attracted to a man who would make a good husband and will then morph into a good girlfriend or a good wife.

I saw a vid of a girl complaining that she was coming home from work and saw a man fail to get up and give his seat to a woman.  The girl was outraged.   What she had no idea of was that so many men have wiped their hands of women’s wants and needs now and wouldn’t give them the time of day, let alone a seat.  This has become a fight to the economic death.   Relations have been reduced to an unstated brutality just beneath the surface which erupts every so often.

Yet there is still the remainder who do hold vaguely to the old ways, male and female and they’re also on that bus.  These sorts of people are now unwanted by the New Skank who fears commitment just as much as any man ever did.   Too late the New Skank sees how empty total hedonism is and how it saps the soul of its decency.

And in her self-centred desire for power, she doesn’t understand her power to scar men forever:

I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell in “They’re Spoiling Eve’s Great Con Game,” American Opinion, September 1970, page 8.

The endgame, should this hurtle on the way it is, is this:

I have a feeling deep inside
That somethin’ is missing
It’s a feeling in my soul
And I can’t help wishing

That one day I’ll discover
That we’re living a lie
And I’ll tell the whole world
The reason why

What such women utterly fail to see is that when the natural and biological does eventually bite, they are so hardwired to having it on their own terms and are such degraded goods that they will slowly realize their situation, not understand it and try for bizarre solutions. One such flew to Denmark to be artificially inseminated and a child will now come who will never know his father. She thinks this is fine because her own need for a child is all that matters.

And what is the topic of 2012? Rape. Why would that still be an issue in 2012 if feminism has achieved its goals? I am implacably opposed to this mutant disease for what it has done to society but more than that – for what it has done to women. It is has robbed them of everything that being a woman could have meant and left, in its place, some sort of cackling carcass of womanhood, a creature of no value to anyone, woman or man.

If you won’t listen to me on this matter, then perhaps you’ll listen to a woman:

“The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.” ~ Margaret D. Nadauld

3 comments for “How women are betrayed

  1. August 26, 2012 at 07:53

    Who can argue with the original precepts of feminism? Equality of opportunity regardless of gender. What’s wrong with that?

    “Christina Hoff-Summers‘ book was not “I hate feminism” but Who Stole Feminism, a completely different concept. Her tagline was “How women have betrayed women.”

    Says it all.

  2. August 26, 2012 at 08:06

    Most reasonable people would go along with general concepts such as fairness, tolerance and so on but the issue here is 1. there is a political agenda hijacking these concepts and 2. they lie about how things were before they came along.

    The effect is divisive. Women’s pay would need to have improved in the 60s and 70s in the light of the way the western world was going and the way in which M-F get along begins in the home – in how the two get along.

    Trouble is, the self-appointed ideological movements which came in and then “owned” the issues, e.g. feminism, had no mandate to do so. No one gave a bunch of radicals of any political hue carte blanche to rule the roost and wreck society by being promoted by the governments.

    The tone through the post is that initial gains, as you indicate, Mark, were lost in the rabid 2nd and 3rd wavers. These are the ones against whom the post is directed, not women in general.

    In fact, if anyone owns the voice of women, it’s more likely to be the ones in the vids who basically care about women. Plus me but I don’t count.

  3. August 26, 2012 at 15:23

    I remember the early days when valid points were being made about gender-segregated schools, how girls were taught home economics, and boys woodwork. Girls were steered away from science and maths, and boy were steered towards them.

Comments are closed.