Women & Feminism

Feminism, Hatred and Dissaffection.

There is an ongoing fractured debate in the MRM about women. Feminism depends on women although there are many men willing to don a mini-skirt and flash their feminist credentials. But it is women, the ordinary woman in the street that carried the feminist mantras about and uses them for advantage.  So just how far are women-in-general to be held to account. What is their part in ‘Ideology’?

One needs to look at the nexus between ‘Feminism’, driven as it is by ‘Women-in-Particular, and its constituency, ‘Women-in-General’.

To remove man-hating from feminism would be to extract the DNA nucleus from a living cell, the fuel rod from a reactor, the teeth from a rottweiler.

My friend Fidelbogan , a long standing and ‘thinking’ MRA, asserts that man-hating – Misandry – is feminism’s moral center of gravity, and that without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection toward males, feminism could not logically continue to exist—it would flounder without purpose, and disintegrate.

If you give the matter a little thought (and he and I both have given it a LOT), you will see that no other theory so elegantly accounts for the observable facts of the case.

Of course there are women, feminists, who will say that feminism is about equality. Sure. National Socialism was about building autobahns and making Volkswagons.

Let’s start with some basic questions.

Would anybody dispute that feminism is a socio-political movement on behalf of women?

Would anybody dispute that feminism proffers a particular analysis of man-woman relations?

Would anybody dispute that feminist analysis holds women to be globally disadvantaged, by some objective and quantifiable standard of measurement, in comparison with men?

Finally, would anybody dispute that feminist analysis concludes a pronounced and blame-worthy element of male authorship in the comparative disadvantagement of women?

Yes, feminism is a women’s advocacy movement which identifies Men !! ™ as the wellspring of certain difficulties said to afflict women. This would both summarize and make reply to those questions. Even though most of those difficulties are bogus.

And given that Men !!! ™ are said to be the wellspring of women’s difficulties, are we to believe that no opinion about men as men ever infiltrates feminist thinking on any level?

Does any self-admitted feminist, having once identified “men” as the source of women’s troubles, go serenely about her business harboring no strictly personal opinion about “men”?

I’d call it a considerable stretch, to believe any such thing.

Admittedly, we fashion the argument upon probabilities. But they are compelling probabilities. I seriously doubt that any better can be offered.

I’ll have no truck with the “blame patriarchy” cop-out. This is simply a way of postponing the issue by obfuscating it, since the phrase is so fuzzy it is useless for normal purposes – although useful indeed for underhanded purposes!

But patriarchy is plainly understood as a uniquely male Institution; men created it and men keep it rolling, or so the mendacious, calumnising story goes, to oppress women.

Do not ask yourselves, all you dear women out there, about Affirmative Action; or the dispossession of fathers and the taking of their children in our Divorce Courts; of the massive funding to women’s health and next to nothing for men’s health; of not only funding ‘Violence against Women’ contras but totally ignoring women’s violence against men and childre; of men dying 7 years earlier than women and waiting longer for retirement.

It’s a very odd patriarchy that ‘disadvantages’ women with such Largesse and ‘advantages’ men with such punishments.

Despite that it is mighty difficult to understand how a person could “blame” a mythical patriarchy without “blaming” men in the very same swoop.

Different Women?

Let us enquire further into probabilities. Feminism identifies “men” as the source of women’s difficulties. So ask yourself, what class of women might be drawn to such a social movement in disproportionate numbers?

Would such a movement attract women who get along well with men and enjoy their company? All right, possibly a few. Just possibly.

But would such women compose the bulk of the membership?

Where do you suppose the probability lies in such a case?

Would such a movement attract women who do not Personally see “men” as a source of difficulty in their lives? Is this probable? Is this plausible? Is this credible?

In my own experience I have met quite a few ‘Good Women’, as I call them, who raise themselves above simple gender distinctions and blaming. They actually like being women and like men being men. But they are getting harder to find.

But even a cursory glance through Feminist literature exposes a distinctly different sort of woman who seethes with disdain, derision, destructive force, against men and even against many women.

Depth of Feeling.

Hate is a very strong word, and it signifies a very strong modus. It is hard to imagine just how powerful hate can be. Do you think you can imagine it? Well, the chances are that you are nowhere near, and have no idea. It can get even worse, far worse, than you can imagine! We can see hatred in historical events and that is quite enough to turn our stomachs.

Men do not have to imagine it. We experience a low-level, persistent hatred all around us.

It is all on a spectrum. It is all on a continuum. “Hate” can be bad, and it can always get badder!  Even to the point where the Hater implodes into a black hole, and pops clean out of the moral universe, and sucks as much as possible along for the ride.

All right, maybe the word hate is not the wine for all occasions. I like the word disaffection. It is more inclusive than hate because it embraces all shades of disliking without privileging the extreme.

A social movement such as feminism needn’t hope or even try to exclude the element of disaffection. But it can and does amplify it and exploit it.

If the disaffection spectrum begins with mild disenchantment and progresses by shades clear up to unmitigated and irrational loathing, and if feminism incorporates at least some of this spectrum, then we should pause to wonder exactly how much of the spectrum is thus incorporated, and precisely how far it reaches in the direction of uncompounded malevolence.

How high on the hate scale does feminism’s emotional aura actually extend? Where does it stop?

Again, consider the likelihoods. If the feminist disaffection spectrum reached no higher than a mild and possibly sporadic disenchantment—an occasional mood, as it were—then feminism would very plainly lack the sustaining force to be a viable women’s advocacy movement.

There is simply no way it could gather the necessary motivation and momentum. There would be neither snow for a snowball, nor any appreciable hill to roll it down. No accretion of mass and no accumulation of velocity.

In a word or two, feminism would be a non-starter.

A thing like feminism requires a mighty fund of passion both to launch itself and to keep itself running. Tepid feeling will not suffice – it needs to be robust and vehement – and it needs to gain validation through a bogus and mendacious political analysis that will both justify the original feeling, and contribute to the growth of that feeling by the use of a self-fulfilling feedback loop.

The world has always contained a certain number of people—sociopathic or what-have-you—who for various reasons don’t like the opposite sex. The word ‘Misogynist’ is bandied about and misused in common parlance.

When an Ideology like feminism appears, proffering a political analysis of sexual relations casting men in the role of miscreants, it is easy to foretell the response man-hating women will make to this.

Clearly there will be some exceptions, but I feel confident most such women will be on it like bees on a honeycomb. Or flies on turds, if you prefer.

The Dynamo of Feminist Analysis.

There’s nothing quite like finding an analysis to uphold your attitude. And the documentary record indeed bears out that early second-wave feminists in the radical 1960s and 70’s were a vehement, passionate lot. They were not wishy-washy. They were not tepid. They were not mildly disenchanted with men.

Just look at Antipodean Greer, the Marxist Dworkin, the inventive Koss, the Professor of Feminist Justice McKinnon and the publicist Steinham.

These are the great Gas Planets orbiting around feminism’s Black Hole. With many lesser but rocky planetoids circling beyond.

They were by no stretch of the imagination living on the low end of the disaffection spectrum. More significantly, they were not merely attracted to something which somebody else had created. No, they were present at the very inception; they themselves were the creators and early architects of the modern, vituperative movement.

Without them, or people like them, the improved, modernised ”movement” would never have started moving in the first place! Older Feminism wold have died out.

Nor would the movement be moving still today, if people like them were not down in the engine room continuing to stoke the boiler, or up in the pilot house turning the wheel and tapping the binnacle.

They are the dynamos, the generators, and if we should replace them with a crew that was just a shade less disaffected, the new dynamo would be a shade less dynamic, as would the entire movement. It would be just a shade less inclined to bulldoze over reality and truth obstacles, a shade more inclined to call it a day earlier in the day, and a shade more inclined to lower the bar of compromise overall.

Dial this down shade by shade and watch the movement grow more and more anemic. Eventually, “feminism” would be wavering in its convictions, sleeping late, and frittering away its dwindling energy on matters increasingly peripheral and unfocussed. In other words, feminism would become a non-entity and a non-movement.

But instead it is endemic, deeply embedded and extending by the day. All with the connivance of Myz Women-in-General.

So, we have shown that feminism offers an ideological interpretation of female disadvantages in life. We have alluded to the feminist belief that female disadvantage originates from a male-driven power conspiracy, and asserted that such a belief is not feasible to uphold absent a pejorative evaluation of men both individually and as a group.

From this we have concluded that some varying degree of Personal disaffection toward men cannot be absent from the minds of most feminists, and therefore cannot be absent from the Feminist movement as a whole.

Finally, we have made the case that feminism’s viability as an advocacy movement is directly indexed to the degree of disaffection toward men found among the movement’s membership, with greater viability correlated to greater disaffection.

Or as stated early in this article: man-hating is feminism’s moral center of gravity; without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection with males, feminism could not logically continue to exist.

Milder forms of feminism do indeed exist. And so do milder feminists. But they are not the vanguard. They are not the cutting edge. They are not the powerhouse. But they are equally effective in shaping society

They work diligently to secure advantages for themselves ana excusing their rapacious behaviours as ‘benefitting women’  like scavengers in the aftermath of the main assault, once the enemy has been routed.

They are the petty clerks, the bureaucrats, the carpetbaggers, the rent-seekers, the ‘Contractors’ who move into the occupied territory and secure the administration of it.

It is part of their job to seem unthreatening, even benign, which is easy when somebody else, their Big Sistas of the movement, do the dirty work.

Their distinguishing feature is that of taking for granted what has been ideologically instilled into the general culture, and taking their ease against the immoral support cushion this affords them.

Left entirely to themselves, they would have neither the ambition to initiate a political movement, nor the drive to keep it operating in a political capacity.

Yet they have an immoral investment in feminism’s world-view, which proposes male guilt as an explanatory model, and by this investiture they plant themselves within feminism’s web of misandric operations.

Further, the ‘woman-in-general’ take disproportional advantage if the complete immorality of feminism. They, individually and en masse advocate and exercise an anti-life philosophy which pays for feminism in dead babies. 50 million so far in America alone since Roe vs Wade.

They keep their talisman’s in their bedside tables, replacing the excoriated natural men with a plastic penis.

It is easy to see that if man-hating disappeared from the world, feminism would neither serve any life-affirming purpose nor have any means to continue operating. But feminism is still operating, and if you are male you are not amiss to suspect that feminism means to harm YOU. If you are female it provides you with a rationale for total selfishness.

So under the circumstances, you don’t owe feminism any favors. Neither men, who bear the brunt, nor women who carry and spread the virus of this evil creed.

Nor do you owe women-in-general any favors under the immoral banner of feminism while they persist in their low-level hatreds of men!

Yes, I call feminism a hate movement.  A black hole with a circle of Gas -bag Planets and a host of planetoids.

Whosoever desires, may undertake to convince us that feminism is a love movement. Empathetic and caring. Nurturing.

Fat chance !

This has been Amfortas bringing, hopefully, some clarity with help from the mind of MRA Fidelbogan.

I dedicate it to my estranged and beloved daughter, and my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.

Ask, Who Does the Grail Serve.

Read Fidelbogan at:

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-feminism-hate-movement.html

Hear Amfortas at:

http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/is-feminism-a-hate-movement

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm and is filed under Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 394 views | Trackback | Print this page |

Amfortas is a Psychologist and Men's Rights Advocate living in Tasmania; the mania inflicted by Feminist-Socialism. He is the Past-Chairman of mensnewsdaily.com Ask, Who Does the Grail Serve. | More from Amfortas