It would never have occurred to me that my gender was a limitation had feminism not suggested it.
Growing up, I never cowered beneath the male gaze or struggled in the grips of the patriarchy, and it never occurred to me that being female rendered me a minority in need of protection. I was not raised to be a feminist, and because of that, I was never encouraged to doubt that I was completely equal to men.
In today’s society, women are introduced to this doubt by feminism itself. The movement in its twenty-first century incarnation has become an inherently self-defeating entity. Feminism cannot survive as a movement if women truly believe themselves to be equal. Thus, feminism survives by encouraging women to see themselves as victims, thereby ensuring there remains an adversary, a source of conflict to give life to the crusade.
It is a movement that must undermine its own goals in order to sustain itself by creating victims out of its followers and calling it empowerment. Modern feminism has trapped itself in paradox and lured its followers into a losing battle. If women are truly equal, feminism itself is superfluous.
Thus, for feminism to survive, women can never win. Feminism only wins when women lose. Women can only be empowered if they are victims.
A Time for Feminism
I’m not sure when I first encountered feminism as a named entity. I imagine at some point in my elementary education, I must have had some understanding of the term as a historical movement linked to women’s suffrage, crowded into my mind under the same umbrella that housed vague notions of the Revolutionary War, the Aztecs and Martin Luther King Jr. all mixed up in casual miscellany.
By the time I was in middle school, however, I had apparently encountered enough feminist rhetoric within the media to harbor both an understanding of and an aversion to its role in modern society. Sometime in my early adolescence, I took to calling myself an “anti-feminist.”
This was, admittedly, more an attempt to ruffle feathers than anything else (and a solid one, as both feminists and critics of the movement alike generally tend to reject female “anti-feminism.”) My natural disinclination to feminism, however, did stem from legitimate concerns, although I could not, at that time, fully comprehend what they were.
By high school, I had crafted my manifesto, a speech given to my junior year English class titled “A Time for Feminism” whose first line asserted that the time “is not now.” Mostly I mocked body-positive Barbie dolls while name dropping Mary Wollstonecraft and Virginia Woolf as “true feminists.” But, behind the heavy-handed jokes and largely groundless literary references (I had never read “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”), I was starting to establish an argument behind my knee-jerk opposition to modern feminism, namely, that twenty-first century feminism does women more harm than good.
Now that feminism has become a crossroads of politics and pop culture, the movement is often plagued by problematic and even paradoxical rhetoric that ultimately threatens to undermine feminism, past and present.
Women Against Feminism
This, of course, was not and is not a unique idea. In a 2016 article, the controversial neo-masculine publication “Return of Kings” traced the ways in which feminism has met with millennial backlash in recent years. The article specifically highlights the Women Against Feminism movement that gained hashtag status back in 2014.
More significant than the article’s rundown on how “feminism has lost the minds of young women,” however, is its discussion of the feminist rhetoric surrounding these counter-movements. In its critique of the reactionary “confused cats against feminism” meme that grew out of the anti-feminist trend, the article notes: “When your ideological political movement to free all humanity from, literally, Hitler-inspired hatred and violence of the evil male patriarchy, is reduced to using cats to disparage opponents, your ‘movement’ is dead… period.”
Here, the article highlights something important about modern feminism: its tendency to dissolve into an “imbecility” that ultimately threatens to delegitimize rather than promote the movement.
Pink Pussyhats
In a previous article for “Study Breaks,” I discuss the danger the increasing intersection of feminism and pop culture poses for the movement. This trend of pop-feminism tends to inadvertently cast the movement in an unflattering light, leaving it vulnerable to problematic, paradoxical and, as “Return of Kings” pointed out, downright silly rhetoric that ultimately only undermines feminism and calls its intellectual merit into question.
You can’t talk feminism in 2017 without some mention of last month’s Women’s March. An event that received extensive coverage in both news journalism and pop culture publications, the march offered itself as a perfect microcosm of twenty-first century feminism—the good, the bad, and the pussyhats.
For many, the march was a revolutionary demonstration that brought renewed attention and power to feminism. For others, it was a “confused and pointless” exercise that would ultimately only make it “harder, not easier, to fight genuine rights violations under the Trump presidency.” For many critics, opposition to the Women’s March is not chauvinistic, but stems, rather, from anxieties about the dangers that this magnitude of pop-feminism poses for the integrity of the movement itself.
Intensely promoted by lifestyle publications like “Cosmopolitan” and “Glamour,” and attracting a number of special guest stars who sparked various degrees of controversy, the Women’s March was a breeding ground for the kind of paradoxical feminist rhetoric that leaves the movement vulnerable to criticism.
Take Max Roscoe, the “Return of Kings” contributor whose observations of the march’s “glorification of women being nasty” led him to declare that “American women are proud to be failures.” While the march’s reclamation of “nastiness” was a calculated political move, it ultimately paints feminism in a bad light, hampering the movement with a kind of trivial “I know you are but what am I” rhetoric that leaves it susceptible to attack.
Similarly, paradoxical issues arise with the movement’s famous pink pussyhats. When a movement that prides itself on subverting a tradition of female sexual objectification crafts a signature uniform that reduces womanhood to a tongue-in-cheek pun on the female sex organs, it’s hard to remain convinced by modern feminism. While pink pussyhats, like declarations of nastiness, were an attempt at reclamation, the line between reclamation and self-satire is a fine one, and this kind of cheekiness isn’t doing feminism any favors.
Good Little Victims
The heart of my opposition to feminism, however, does not stem from the heavy-handed, you-go-girl sentiments currently dominating my Twitter feed. Rather, my aversion to the movement in its modern day incarnation comes from an unwillingness to see myself as a victim.
Without oppression, there can be no uprising. Thus, feminism depends on women being victims. It is a movement nourished by its own defeat. Women are indoctrinated into feminism under the belief that they have been oppressed by “the patriarchy.” In the feminist rhetoric dominating Western society, women are taught that various ambiguous foes–society, the patriarchy– pose a constant threat to their independence.
If a woman, like myself, can’t identify any signs of having suffered under this daunting omnipresence of oppression, it is because she has internalized it from a young age. She has been subconsciously infiltrated by this all-powerful villain. Thus, feminism robs women of their ability to even take authority over their own thoughts and opinions, as they have already been corrupted by the patriarchy.
Feminism leaves women entirely at the mercy of the very system it claims to subvert. Don’t worry, your failures and insecurities aren’t your fault. How can they be, when your thoughts aren’t even your own? It’s not you, it’s the patriarchy.
In one of the many post-election healing circles that replaced ordinary class time on my campus the week after Decision 2016, a classmate of mine made a statement that epitomized exactly the empowerment-by-victimization paradox that has cemented my left swipe on feminism: “Women who voted for Trump did it because they hate themselves, because men have conditioned them to hate themselves.”
There you have it: Feminism denies women even the ability to be the agents of their own self-loathing. You can’t even hate yourself of your own accord. As a feminist, you have already completely abandoned any right to your opinions, even about yourself, to the patriarchy.
Modern feminism operates like Munchausen by proxy; its practice demands that women be convinced that they are victims of a diseased society. Convincing women that they have unknowingly been infiltrated by the patriarchy is a barbaric psychological violation, nex tdoor to archaic traditions of Freudian psychoanalysis that sought to convince patients that they had repressed histories as sexual abuse victims.
Anti-Feminism Is the New Feminism
This is what feminism looks like in 2017. The movement has deteriorated into a self-defeating entity, whose biggest enemy is neither society, the patriarchy nor any of the other imagined forces it encourages women to cower beneath, but simply feminism itself.
In an article last year, controversial neo-masculine activist Roosh Valizadeh declared the female anti-feminist a “feminist in disguise.” This was meant as an attack and a warning: Beware the feminist in sheep’s clothing.
While his argument was meant to be disparaging, it holds a kind of perverse truth. Amidst the paradox and cyclical self-destruction that has come to define modern feminism, it seems that the only way to truly embrace female equality is to reject the 21st century wave. In 2017, feminism is in the hands of the anti-feminists.
The author is another one in a long line of women clueless about first wave feminism.
Feminism has always been a racist sexist hate movement from the very beginning in 1848. Read “Declaration of Sentiments” that defined all men (He) as the source of all evil and women as victims. The statements are factually false. Just try reading it replacing “He” with “Jews”, “Blacks” etc.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments#Sentiments
Men wanted to attend the Seneca Falls convention IN SUPPORT of these hateful sentiments, but were not allowed by the women. When the men insisted, they were finally allowed to attend, but ordered to sit at the back and never say a word. Many of the men were husbands, uncles, sons, brothers of the women attendees (the above Wiki page has a list of the people). Read “White Women’s rights: the racial origins of feminism in the United States” by Louise Michele Newman (a female feminist). She describes how early feminism was against black women’s rights:
https://www.amazon.com/White-Womens-Rights-Origins-Feminism/dp/0195124669/
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5317/
http://the-toast.net/2014/04/21/suffragettes-sucked-white-supremacy-womens-rights/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/magazine/how-a-fractious-womens-movement-came-to-lead-the-left.html?_r=0#permid=21414430?smid=pl-share
https://www.avoiceformen.com/education/quiz-suffagists-ku-klux-klan-or-feminazis-part-1/
Read E. Belford Bax in his “Fraud of Feminism” and “Legal Subjection of Men” where he shows that in the late 19th, early 20th century, feminists were JUST LIKE today’s third wavers:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism
Read about the White Feather Campaign, where women pinned feathers on men and boys as young as 15-16 to shame them as cowards to sign them up to the military, so that women didn’t have to serve (because men got the vote in exchange for their military duty and women got it for free). Read about the terrorist suffragettes like Emmeline Pankhurst who bombed buildings, and other suffragettes who jailed their own husbands to aid suffrage cause:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/nicoletta-f-gullace/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk
http://www.albany.edu/history/digital/stanton/law.html
http://www.historytoday.com/fern-riddell/weaker-sex-violence-and-suffragette-movement
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/12/sends-husband-to-jail-to-aid-suffrage.html
https://www.scribd.com/doc/205734334/First-Wave-Feminists-Physically-Attack-Prime-Minister-Asquith-1913
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/christabel-pankhurst-the-white-feather-betrayal-of-history/
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R7RfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xWwNAAAAIBAJ&dq=queen%20victoria%20suffragette&pg=6275%2C3514237
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lxcqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BYUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6299%2C275887
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uBwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LEkEAAAAIBAJ&dq=suffrage%20whip&pg=5090%2C4131098
https://archive.is/Fav5w
https://archive.is/nJZX5
https://www.scribd.com/document/175344555/Feminist-President-of-the-National-Women-s-Party-Wanted-Women-as-Dictators-1922
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZqIkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2CcDAAAAIBAJ&dq=suffragette%20bomb&pg=5013%2C1172933
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B-ELQhEQCrUFfngzbXROZmV2eF9ESDNWc1BoNXpvODBIQm4zNUpRQVY1OE56dmZZUkRmRGM
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=y788AAAAIBAJ&sjid=Gy4MAAAAIBAJ&dq=suffragette%20bomb&pg=3709%2C1299690
https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/19y76jtzk02rrb3o/images/1-bb9ececbd3.jpg
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=j_2sfT5pwQ0C&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Mrs.%20Millicent%20Fawcett%27s%20non-violent&f=false
[…] Read the full article from the Source… […]
Hey study break.com, your site says two comments, but shows only one. You deleted mine, even though I was well-behaved, concise and accurate. So, this is your idea of open dialogue fit for students? OK, Berkeley!
We certainly idealise the feminism of the past. Back then, the story goes, women were indeed held back both culturally and legally. Some may add that in Saudi Arabia, they still are.
While I don’t agree with the overall interpretation that the history of feminism is full of hate, we do perhaps fail to appreciate how tightly linked conservative gender roles (that ENABLE men to PROTECT and PROVIDE for women) have shaped its history. This might strike some as bizarre, whatwith all the talk about deconstructing gender roles – but the fact is that I have never seen, historically, any opposition against feminism grounded in compassion for men. This piece, which I largely agree with, is an example of that stigma: we should oppose feminism because of how it disempowers women, not because we should be as compassionate towards men as to women.
I’d love to read a follow-up about this in 10-15 years. I didn’t believe in patriarchy in college either, but now that I’m working my way up the career ladder it’s extremely blatant that [white] are not scrutinized at the same level as women or people of color during the interview process, and people seem to be more willing to make excuses of white men do substandard work than if anyone else does.
I don’t consider myself a victim at all, nor do the other feminists I know, but that doesn’t preclude us from recognizing the ways that we have to compensate for patriarchal bias. It’s like global warming–I don’t think I’m a victim of global warming, but I know it’s a real thing that requires me to take steps to avoid harm and mitigate progression.
My sex: I was born without a gender, meaning that Marxist “gender” theory came to be sold and bought by the bureaucratic establishment after I was born/. One can play lots of cool post-modernist (irrational, non-realist) word games and power-plays around the specious notions of “theory,” yet, in my case I was born with a sex, not assigned one and I do not refer to “my gender.” This is a matter of “privilege,” of course, my having come into the world before the control-freak social engineering Frankfurt School schemers monopolized the education industry and infiltrated and expanded many of the authoritarian government bureaucracies to promote the anti-scientific dogmas and superstitions of Neo-Marxism.
Yes, except the other half of the point of comments like that of Roush V, is that women do not care a damn about men. The fairlure in terms of education for this generation of boys. The lack of concern with regards to false accusations, or the reality of the capability that women also have to violence. The assertion that feminists have made that they are always the victims of the patriarchy, not only misses the reality that playing victim is disabling, it also misses that they are at the same time accusing men of being oppressors and perpetrators.
The fact that feminists oppose shelters for men, or equal parenting etc, means men are understanding that women do not care what happens to them. Anti-feminists are not concerned with looking at how this hurts the other side. There is no desire to look at the norms of school really, or the lack of books for boys, the elimination of male role models from school, or the elimination of fathers from the home. There is no concern, for the impact on men and boys of this. There is no recognition, that the “you go girl” that was given, was the one that said it is ok to hit boys, while still insisting that “you cannot hit a girl”. Today anti-feminism, is still largely focused on women, not on the idea that we have in effect removed any notion of the import of fathers. Removed the idea, that men should not be required to raise children that are not theirs, nor that women need to be held to account when they trick men, or abuse minors to become pregnant.
What too many women are missing, is that for men, one of the great things that feminism has done, is it has made clear, how few women cared about the impact on men and boys. How little concern there is for the doping of boys in school. How little reaction there has been to the falling reading scores for boys, that are such a large part of the relative improvement. How clear the willingness to ignore the reality of the research that shows certain types of books are required for boys to learn to read. How still we are ok with a male victim of statury rape, being required to pay child support to his rapist, even when he was 14 or younger, and she was 20 years his senior. How we are ok, with the idea that paternity fraud is supported by the courts.
Feminism has done far more than just hurt women, it has also left a lot of men, thinking that women are happy to view them as disposable.
Trust me, it is not often that I defend feminism.
But I find your view overly cynical. Most women I know and respect are, unfortunately, feminist. It is not that they do not care about boys and men, but that they have been told there is a patriarchy that, at most, hurts men in the process of creating a society that favours men. Speak to them, show them a few statistics, and that stance is typically mollified, though seldom reversed.
This stance is also what compelled NOW to oppose, say, shared parenting. But feminism in Sweden has gone the other way, making shared custody the default and making paternal leave obligatory at the expense of forfeiting benefits. At the moment, this applies to only one of out 18 months of parental leave, but they want to expand it to three. The effects are little short of revolutionary: I have never seen as many engaged fathers on the street as in Stockholm. And husbands make more than their wives in less than 60% of households. They may be doing this for the sake of women, but so be it: clearly men benefit disproportionately.
This is also why some prominent feminist somewhere have recognised every single main MRA talking point. Even hateful pundits like Jessica Valenti have acknowledge the problem of false accusations, linking it – correctly, I submit – to slut shaming and the onus on women to not sell themselves too cheaply. Sure, they will refuse to see the systematic nature of the problems men face, but the fact is: MRA issues are intimately intertwined with exactly the factors that have held women back professionally. Or, on a more basic level, the incentives straight men and women face: a man without a job is worth nothing, and with a job – more than women at the same level (in terms of status and sexual attractiveness).
And in fact, though they are not accepted by the mainstream at the moment, there are several strands of feminism, such as the one Hoff-Summers subscribes to, that pretty much align with mainstream MRM. One that I think most of my feminist friends, or any feminist driven by a true wish for equality, would subscribe to if we only could get the full narrative out there. Unfortunately, it is exactly those darn gender roles that hold men back from speaking out, and that make it so easy to dismiss those that do as “whiners”.
Instead, perhaps the best way to get the narrative out there is to AGREE with feminists that gender roles are the problem. Close to all MRA issues follow from that starting point; once we agree on the basics and take away the assumption that traditional society (read: patriarchy) is there to benefit men at the expense of women and swap it for one that has ample support in biology and sociology: that it was there to ensure the survival of the tribe.
Once MGTOW grows women, feminist or otherwise will regret their rabid hyprocricy over the last 60 years. Millions will be alone the Tax base will also suffer as MGTOW men don’t have to work like blue pill men. Many MGTOW are also part of the minimalist movement, also a massive anti big media trust has been going on in the MGTOW community in the last year or so. No TV, radio or lame stream media in my home.
The problem with your perspective, is that it assumes that MEN are responsible for all the ills which befall women, and affords *NO* agency to women with respect to “things being the way they were”. Thus it is all the fault of “The Patriarchy” and women are completely absolved from all part and complicity in it. A neat trick of sophistry, I applaud you for that.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that women are great movers and shakers and have contributed to every society, and then claim that they are poor oppressed victims without any agency or control– poor poor oppressed little victims of “The Patriarchy”.
The problem with Feminism is that it’s always been about hating men. From it’s earliest inception right on up to the present day. In order to exist, Feminism requires Men to be its foils. It is literally impossible to define “Feminism” without casting Men into the role of antagonists.
And then Feminists claim that it isn’t about hating men– so I say PROVE IT.Show me all of the Feminist love songs for men. Show me all of the Feminist love sonnets for men. Show me all of the great Feminist novels extolling the virtues of men. Show me all of the great Feminist quotes expressing heartfelt love and equanimity and kindness and goodwill for men. Show me all of the Feminist books and articles which sing men’s praises and give thanks or even simple acknowledgment to their many accomplishments. Show me the vast cadre of Feminists toiling away building things, making things, inventing things to make Men’s lives a little easier, or a little better.
Feminists don’t do anything for men– ever. Unless it somehow benefits Feminists *more*, first and foremost. The only thing that Feminists have for men is the back of their hand and their denouncements and slander and ugly vilifications– the constant daily sludge of “Women Good, Men Bad” which oozes out of every media orifice.
In contrast, Men work their asses off for Women. They work to feed them, clothe them, give them shelter and all of the comforts of civilization that they can possibly dream up and afford. Men help women in their daily lives. The build things, move things, create things, they provide companionship and protection and resources for their children.
Since the dawn of time Men have written countless works giving praise to women, wherein they are held up as “special” and “good” and “righteous”– virtues to which men themselves vow to aspire, women are granted automatically. Men honor women for their accomplishments and achievements, and just for being women. Men have sung millions of love songs to women expressing their faithfulness and undying love. Men sing the praises of their women. They hold them up and encourage them to grow and become all that they can be and do. Men even tear each other down at the behest of women, in their eagerness to please and provide what women say they want– even when it isn’t them (the Men).
Men have beaten back the savage wilderness, farmed the land, tamed the beasts, built the roads, built the towns and villages and cities. Men have created and invented nearly all of the great labor-saving devices throughout history. Men invented commerce, laws, education. Men defend their countries and their women with their blood. Sacrificing themselves on the battlefield, often dying miserable deaths in faraway places in the hope that their women and families can continue on.
So what are the ways that Feminists express their love for men? They yell at men. Scream at men. Spit on men. Lambaste men in every conceivable manner from “The Patriarchy” to “Man-Splaining” to “Man-Spreading” to who knows what all else. They accuse men of being “oppressors” and of “hating women”. They tell men they’re creepy, “rapey”, can’t be trusted around children, call them monsters and baby-killers (odd really, considering the number of abortions they have carried out). The demean men, belittle men, slander men, and generally castigate men for anything and everything that pops into their heads– essentially for the crime of “being male”. They tell men that they should be castrated, “reduced to 90% of the population”, put onto “reservations” and “checked out like books”. They show men on TV to be stupid, bumbling, ineffectual, infantile, and incompetent compared to women.
And the list of Feminist “love” just goes on and on and on. To say nothing of all the wonderful quotes they have left us with, such as “I think man-hating is an honorable and viable political act”, or “all men are rapists and that’s all they are”, and “who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer”. And most especially this gem “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” And there are so many more “loving” sentiments to choose from, it’s hard to pick just one. Oh, and I almost forgot the best sentiment of all– Feminists have declared their independence from men “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”.
You forget that YOU are just one half of the world. The OTHER half gets to understand things, think about things, decide about things, and respond to things too– that would be US MEN. *WE* experience all your “Feminist Love” and know it first hand for what it really is– vile repugnant demonization and “othering”, with a shameless agenda of tearing down everything that is “Male” and “Masculine”. That’s why we empower our little GIRLS but not our little BOYS. Show me ANY little boy who has ever in his life “OPPRESSED” anybody. Just ONE little boy.
You can’t do it. Feminism is about UPLIFTING WOMEN at the expense of Men and relegating Men as second-class citizens of the society that THEY built. You know, screw you for that.
Men are sick and tired of your Feminist ditherings about this and that when it always comes down to the same thing– blame it on the MEN and the constant “Women Good, Man Bad” drumbeat.
You all want to march and “show the men” what “a day without Women” would be like– stop and consider what a day without MEN would be like. Or better yet, a whole week. Society would grind to a halt and just sit there because not one of you entitled pampered little brats knows the first thing about the hard, dangerous, risky, or icky jobs that MEN do every day to keep things going. Men invented the computers and Internet and communications equipment that you use to excoriate us with. And the electricity to run it all to boot.
Frankly the whole “A Day Without Women” thing has become an enormous joke. We’re all wondering how we can convince you to make it a whole month.
I understand very well that women make some valuable contributions to society. But if you want to impress anybody that Feminism is about “Equality” instead of just female supremacy– let’s see you dig some ditches, lay some pipe, crawl around in the sewers, put up some insulation, lay some pavement, haul some dirt, dig some coal– or any of the hundreds of things that MEN do quietly every single day, without fanfare, without complaint, and without a SINGLE THANK YOU from any of the pampered WOMEN who benefit from their service.
Feminism is a HATE GROUP and Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE.
You want us to believe otherwise? **PROVE IT **
A very thoughtful text that tackles feminism as an ideology. The problem with ideologies is inherent inflexibility, of which feminism suffers – like the rest of them -isms. No rational person today in any democratically enlightened and developed nation should doubt the importance of understanding the many years of discrimination against women throughout history. And how modern movements to correct this problem have proven essential to ensure for proper democracy, from the suffragette movements to equal pay for equal work. And of course much work needs to be done in some areas. Including movements that ensure a woman’s authority over her own body. Furthermore, violence against women remains a serious issue that demands better protection for victims and prosecution against perpetrators. By the way – sorry to all you politically correct types – but by “developed” I do not mean places like Saudi Arabia or any other country where religious doctrine dominates government policy and law… Feminism today, however, in said developed nations, has been expressed on more than a few occasions by an über militant “let’s get even” approach that casts men as basically evil, if not simply the enemy. Especially the worst for them: white males. The problem with militancy is that it creates counter movements. Political correctness, for example, has contributed to the http://womenagainstfeminism.com/ movement. The author thus cleverly outlines her argument with valid points against PC. Furthermore, trying to silence or to put down logical critics of this kind of feminism, or trying to de-legitimize them as “clueless” by posters like the one above, is woefully counterproductive. Timely reminders for such “smug feminism” took place once at a Hillary Clinton rally during the primaries, when Madeleine Albright admonished young women for backing Bernie Sanders (there is a “special place in Hell” for them, she said), as they should back the candidate with the vagina. Founding modern feminist Gloria Steinem went so far as to say last year that young women were backing Sanders… in order to meet young men. Wow! Ridiculous? Absolutely. See this link for more information on both: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0. Men and women should work together on an equal footing, to promote just causes that help human beings, while acknowledging, and even celebrating, their (often interesting) differences.
The snake is begging to eat its own tail and people are starting to look it’s way in its attempt to create its own patriarchal system that serves its own agenda
Feminists also support Abortion – the very practice of Killing Baby Girls. Over 90% of babies aborted in the US are female. Yet they support it cause its a “woman’s choice” regardless of why. Ironic, aint it? Women supporting the mindless death of their own gender?
Gendercide is having massive repercussions in the world – China, India, Vietnam, The Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, etc). and its spreading. 300 million baby girls dead. More coming. All because these sickos can use an ultrasound machine to abort females before they are even born.
Yet Feminists are silent on the issue.
Now with the US importing so many H1B visas from China & India – its 70% men. Causing an even further gender imbalance. This is a major impact to gender relations – not just because only less than 10% of men are gay and would like that – its wrong because it creates female bargaining power artificially.
It creates the attitudes that Western WHITE Women have. They are outnumbered by TOO MANY MEN so they can pick and choose. They can have sex with 100s of men and still find a White Knight at 35.
Bars, clubs, music festivals – even most conferences – all GUYS. Every city is a huge sausagefest except NYC, Philly and Boston. LA, San Diego, Seattle, Las Vegas (remove the Strip), Miami, Too few women.
Men have caught onto this. And MGTOW is a natural reaction to a huge GENDER IMBALANCE in the US (especially under 30 – look it up. I repeat UNDER 30….not over 50 which makes it look like the US is properly balanced. Its NOT! Old women outnumber old men so its a mirage).
I would actually argue the reverse for the black community. The gender imbalance is hurting the black community in the reverse fashion. TOO MANY WOMEN – not enough men. We all know this because 1.5 million black men are “Missing” aka in jail or dead. But that’s a different topic for another day.
Not ALL women are to blame. Some aren’t these 3rd wave Feminists that abort baby girls and still feel ENTITLED to everything but produce nothing. But a heck of lot are and its because they have the NUMBERS in their favor – until about age 50 unless they are black.
WOMEN’S OPPRESSION IS A HOAX, WOMEN ARE THE OPPRESSORS! EVERY YEAR WOMEN WORLDWIDE KILL 50-60 MILLION OF THEIR OWN BABIES BY WAY OF ABORTION, WOMEN ARE EXTERMINATING THE FUTURE OF MANKIND(BOTH FEMALE AND MALE FETUSES OF ALL RACES)! FEMINISM IS MENTAL ILLNESS, IT’S DESTROYING ALL PEOPLE!
[…] Read more by Kayla Kibbe in Study Breaks […]
[…] depends on what others think. On a private level, we may not identify as feminist because we associate it with bad things. And we don’t want to feel like a bad person, especially when we defend good causes. So, how do […]