USA Today Rejoices in Man-cession, Hails Rise of Gender Equality

You do rather tend to have this obsession with calling things you don’t like socialist which you use as a sort of dirty word. Here in the UK from where I write socialism has not entirely lost its working class roots and so characterizing male unemployment as in some way being socialist would not be generally understood. I am always a bit bewildered why you conflate feminism with socialism. Feminism in its most virulent form arose in America, not The USSR or China or indeed communist Eastern Europe. If it was socialist then surely it would have come from one of these places.

I can up to a point see that you might see feminism as socialist as it feeds from the state and so in that sense is ‘social’. But virtually everything else feeds from the state as well. The military is entirely parasitic on the state but I don’t think you would call it socialist.

Elsewhere on the Internet there are other who say that feminism was created by the Rockefeller foundation and the CIA. I do not know if this was so and it does rather smell of conspiracy theory. But whoever thinks that does not have socialism in their mind.

The point is I feel the resistance to feminism all the stronger if it is not included with other ideological preferences and prejudices. Let’s understand who are enemy is and who are aligns are. If we are a Men’s Movement that the name speaks for itself.

Paul,
Let me ask you a question, jsut to frame things out: Since most of the world was feudal, where did capitalism come from? And also, where did Marxism come from?
Feminism as a socialistic institution is not necessarily part of the USSR or Red China; that does not mean the goals are dissimilar. Newton was not the only one to create calculus, and Marconi was not the only person to “create” radio.

Also, the military is an item that the people as individuals can’t really support. We can only have a “M”ilitary when we band together. Why? Well, who geets the tank on Monday, or tuesday, or… ? Who gets to play with the thermo-nuclear warhead Sunday? Who has the M-16 today? And who has the ammunition? Parasitic? No. The military exists to protect the country against all threats, foreign and domestic, like it or not. We don’t like to use military force on the domestic front, but it’s allowed. And I don’t know about you, but I can’t even keep gas in my CAR, let alone purchase the sort of fuel an M1A1 uses on a regular basis. With my eyes, I’m not allowed to enlist, either. So my taxes are a worthwhile contribution towards protecting the nation there, since I can’t contribute time or a body.

Feminism is socialistic in that it intends to reduce all people to a unit of work, and then put them to work. 100% employment. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as job security or job satisfaction. We need a streetsweeper today, so Granny better take this broom and get busy. (She’ll have a heart attack, BTW.) We need a nurse’s aid, so Mr Olympia has to put on surgical scrubs and clean out bed pans – even though the scrubs don’t allow him to move his arms. It’s not about what HE wants, either – when the clock goes off, there’s still work to do, but we don’t yet have the next shift, so I guess going to the gym is out for tonight…

I know I’m being absurd; that’s the point. As the article noted, the funds meant to REBUILD THE COUNTRY’S INFRASTRUCTURE – the interstates, bridges, et al, are being diverted to fields where women predominate. Why is irrelevant – it’s central control of finances, which makes it difficult to find new employment, cuts down on mobility (can’t afford to go where the jobs are), and further empowers the emotional (usually women) while disempowering the earners and protectors (predominantly men.)

If the socialist intent isn’t yet obvious, you need to do more research – the evidence is obvious. Quibbling about whether or not the Socialists are to blaame is incidental.

BTW: Most of those heading the Feminist movement at this time, and for some time, are either communists or socialists outright. (Look at their credentials and affiliations.) Further, the Communist Manifesto states all the Democratis platform items at this point, and the Sociallists and Communists don’t even bother to run at the national level. IF THAT doesn’t indicate a lean towards communistic government, what can?

B.N.: Democrats may have adopted the Communist points, but the Republicans are no better. They are removed from the normal person’s life, and like it that way. Remember that the Elites always exist: Monarchy devolves to Tyranny; Tyranny is replaced by Aristocracy (Think Magna Carta), which degenerates to Oligarchy, and is then replaced by Democracy, which in turn degenrates into mobocracy, until someone tames and rules the mob, and becomes a monarch…. Plato wrote that centuries ago; guess where we are, and guess how things get moved along the wheel?

according to what i have read, we are a Republic, with a Constitution. In a pure democracy the voters can change everything, including the Constitution and all laws, by just voting a change. A Republic isn’t so easy to manipulate. notice how obuma hates the Constitution? remember, he took an OATH to uphold the Constitution, which is obviously the last thing on his mind.

Jean I wont spend too much time answering your points as I think endless disagreement is both tiring and pointless. I will just say these things then no more.

I disagree that the military is their to protect the nation. I think that is what you said. When you say the nation I suspect you are thinking of the USA. Well since the USA is feminist then to protect the nation is to protect feminism and I would hardly support that. However, this is just a small point. What I will say is that USA military is an aggressive, imperial army intent on imposing american ( and to a lesser extent european ) will worldwide. Of course in doing that it will also be imposing feminism. In protecting the nation I suppose you can include the early days when the military slaughtered and ethnically cleansed the original ‘Indian’ inhabitants. There was also some skirmishes with the Mexicans and canadians as the nation took land by force. There was also a brief period when the nation fought itself during the was between the states. Nowadays it is becoming hard to find any country on earth that at one time or another the usa has not invaded or bombed. Is this what you mean by protecting the nation?

However, thinking back none of the above was really what I had in mind when I made my point about the military. My point was more general. What I was really getting at was MRAs who complain endlessly that feminism is funded by the state but are then more than happy to see the state fund their pet obsessions like the military. The state is redistributing wealth just much when it take money and gives it to the military as it is when it takes money and gives it to feminists. Now you Jean may not see it that way. But all I think this double standards. All your doing is showing which government spending you approve of and which you don’t. How about disapproving of all government spending and being at least consistent? I don’t think libertarianism is a matter of cherry picking which government programs you like and which you don’t. That at least is my understanding of libertarianism.

As for my having a go at the use of the word socialism in the article. Well I do this for lots of reasons. One is that I oppose political correctness. A feature of PC is that it uses language in a way that promotes its ideas. One way it does this is by having certain words that carry the force of a complete argument within itself. Thus they use words like ‘racist’ and even ‘heterosexual ‘as though merely using them constitute a complete unanswerable argument. I feel the same way when I hear MRAs banging on about feminism being socialist or communist. They are using these words as though they where complete arguments in themselves when it fact all they conveyed to me is that they are right wing and I fear have just transfer their loathing to feminism.

Actually it would be good it feminism was just a simple political philosophy it would then be much easier to challenge. As it is I believe it to be much more massive than that but then again I see maleness as hardly worth having at all.

Anyway say what you will Jean. You can have the last word. One thought that I find helpful to keep in my mind is that anything any of us say here is as nothing. It may make us feel better (or may be worse ) but our only real freedom from feminism will arrive with our coffins.

feminism isn’t principled enough to be socialist or communist. It’s simple minded, self-centered tribalism. The female collective that makes us all miserable is a spoiled child and any arguments about hidden agendas are pointless. Just remember: man bad, woman good. Everything else follows from that.

THIS IS THE GOAL to disenfranchise men from benefiting or contributing to the system. If you have not read “NO COUNTRY FOR BURLY MEN” PLEASE google it now. It is a mandatory read to understand just how far this has gone..

MEN you are under attack under the name of equality.

The “criminals” who run this country have a very specific plan, destroy the family. Creating a “mancession” is just another tool, these people are not stupid, the more men that are “disabled” the more they can put women in control and then they control the women.
All this money and resources put into a “woman dominated” economy, while at the same time starving “man dominated” economy puts pressure on all of us. A woman based service economy does not produce anything and production is how you make a nation prosperous. More is well…… more, but when you create lack, you create envy and that creates conflict and when you create conflict between women and men, the government ends up with more power and that is what they want!
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out or to know how to stop these bastards. The men must rise and do it quickly! Because I have a feeling that all this is part of a master plan, a sinister plan to make us all slaves, even the women who have been culpable in this thing. We have to stop them!

@ Robert Stevens

- I do agree with you and a few of the above posters to an extent.

Feminism was an engineered movement designed specifically to weaken and or destroy the bond between men and women. And the easiest path to do that was through manipulating women. It worked wonderfully. The simple reason it was done this way is that the large majority of women are much more easily controlled than men are. Tactics like intimidation and threats are far less effective on men than they are on women, when it comes to that.

Divide and conquer folks. That is what this is about. Make no mistake, those who are pulling the strings know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing it to weaken and destroy us.

The simple fact of the matter is there is no country out there who can destroy us externally. The same as it was for Rome. Corruption and rot from within is what will kill us.

One thing they may not have considered fully however, if you carefully look at revolutions started around the world…it is often started by angry, disenfranchised young men. Of which, I am seeing a growing number. I might add, until or unless they manage to disarm us, could be a very well-armed group. Ours is one of the few (if not the only) country in which a full fledged revolutionary war not only succeeded, but was started by predominantly wealthy landlords on ideological principles. That is a fact not to be discounted. And judging by what I’ve seen on this site, and many others I visit, and many men I speak with…there is much to be feared should we continue to be trampled and provoked and dismissed.

I am past the point where I believe things can be fixed using the system. The way the media has dismissively dealt with the Tea Party protests and shoved many other things under the rug, many many comments by politicians and leaders and judges regarding the People with disdain or labeling us as ‘brownshirts, nazis, gun-nuts’ or whatever other labels happen to be at hand…means that logical discourse is probably a foregone conclusion.

No one said it better than Benjamin Franklin. “You can have a free Democratic Republic, if you can keep it.”