Feminism’s sole purpose was to destroy the family structure. Feminists do not care about women. The only reason why they came after women is because it is easier to make women hate men than it is to make men hate women.

The entire point of feminism was to fan the flames of gender warfare. And this is where the genius of Dan’s latest article comes in. Dan comments that a man should not look at what women want in the plural, but rather at one individual woman. You’re not after all women; you’re after one woman (and by knowing her needs, a man can offer them to her in exchange for what he wants from her). The real genius is Dan simply tells us to look at the individual and not the collective.

Feminists encourage women to do the opposite. They do not tell women to look at an individual man, but at the collective whole of men. And they do not want them to see any good aspects of that.

Feminists do not want women to see individual bees, but the swarm. Feminists encourage women not to look at the individual men in their life, but at a generic, fuzzy, inaccurate concept of “men.” Women, thus, start speculating about what all “men” are, regardless of what actual men are like. Since it is unrelated to real, live men, any person who wants to twist its definition can do so, regardless of what is true.

And guess who is right there, spinning the definition and attributes of men.

Feminists seethe through their teeth about a collective history of male upon female oppression. They hiss that men covered up any invention created by a female. They cry that men get all the benefits in life, while women get nothing. They rile hatred in women, convincing them to hate the plural, “men.”

If you’ve ever heard a woman say that women should be allowed to cheat on their husbands, because “Men have been cheating on their wives forever,” regardless of the fact that her husband has never cheated on her, you have experienced what I am talking about. All women hate all men regardless of their personal experience. That is the ultimate goal of theirs.

Looking at the swarm like this is the devil's ground for hatred. You can learn a lot about a swarm by studying individual bees. You can determine that every bee in the swarm is yellow, has wings, can sting people etc., by studying individual bees. Similarly, with men, you look at a multitude of individual men and determine all of them have certain body characteristics, certain behaviors, and are all most definitely men. But nothing of truth can be learned about the individual bee by studying the swarm. Indeed, when one tries to do this, hatred, bias, and prejudice have a funny way of wiggling their way in.

Some may say the feminist movement was a hate movement. Indeed, it has all the makings of a hate movement. There is a pure, victimized group: women. There is an invasive group corrupting them: men. The victimized group is fueled by a racist hatred of the "oppressive" group. This is the same formula as all other hate movements – including NAZIs, communists, and Islamic terrorists. The goal is usually for the “victimized” group to rip the moneyed, “oppressor” class of their money.

However, I do not believe ripping men from their money and funneling it to females was the goal of feminists. Men already were giving their money to women, on an individual level, in a natural transfer of wealth. There was no need for women to rip men of their money.

The goal, I believe, for feminists was to break down the family structure. The only thing feminists are accomplishing is changing how a male-to-female transfer of wealth occurs. Instead of husbands giving it to their wives, in a natural, private, voluntary transfer of wealth, the state takes the money from the collective men and gives it to the collective women. (But that is where it may be a hate movement, since many unmarried women slip into the arms of a hate movement). The only thing that was changed is that the family structure is dissolved. That was the end goal. This is also a staple of communism.

There was a built in genius to the feminist revolution. Some may say feminists’ purpose, again, was to criminalize men, depopulate the earth of men, and rip men from their money. I don’t think that was it. I think it was to fan the flames of gender warfare. It started as women hating men. But soon it will also involve men hating women. And that’s the genius: after terrorizing men for so long, it’s only natural men will start to hate women as well.

After criminalizing men for typical male behavior, denying them custody of their own children, and ripping them of their money, men will also gain victim status. Then the seeds for a hate movement and socialism (which are not typically there in men) are thus planted in men. They were victimized, and now it’s their turn to get some retribution.

Then, men will start to hate women as well. And not only that, but - unlike the female hatred of men that first started it all - the men will be able to point to X, Y, and Z behavior of females as corrupt.

And that’s where the flamers of hatred get to come in and hiss evil things into men’s ears. They will extrapolate the base behavior of pockets of women and project it unto the female gender at large. Men will be encouraged to not look at the individual bee, but to hate the whole swarm of women.

Women are ripping you of all your money in divorce! Women are thankless whores! They tease you with their beauty just to let you down! All of them are. Men who have had nothing but mild negative encounters with women will begin to hate all women.

The feminists (communists) will be able to – easily – pit men against women. We’ll be left with nothing but a petty war between the two sexes. Women will cry that men don’t appreciate their work as mothers, nurturers, and housewives. Men will cry that women don’t appreciate their work as risk-takers, protectors, and providers. Women will think that it’s a man’s world. Men will think that it’s a woman’s world. Women will think men victimize them. Men will think women victimize them. Chauvinism will dominate both groups.

Men will not seek out one woman to live with forever in marital bliss. Women will not seek out one man to live with forever in marital bliss. They will both look at the swarm, of which they hate. Men will be on one side, women on the other, both fighting each other, neither having known each other. The gender war will be complete.

The debate should not be men versus women, but gender warfare versus gender healing. It should be those who support dating, family, chivalry, and marriage on one side and those who support cheap sex, anti-male or anti-female rhetoric, gender division, and hatred on the other.

I’m basically asking you to avoid this petty war of men versus women. Don't fall trap to what they want. Avoid sexist and racist slurs against women or Western women. It does nothing but add fuel to the fire, and cements the gender war by hurting women who do not deserve the slurs. Don’t look at men or women in the plural as the swarm, but as individual bees.

What does it really matter what the swarm of women (or men) are like? Every human is unique. (Swarms are never accurate descriptions of all individual bees). As Dan says, you are not after the plural woman; you are after one. I refuse to believe every single Western woman is evil. Do you really want to look at the collective swarm of women, festering anger over them, or to set up one, individual marriage and family in your personal life? Nothing would make the feminists/communists happier than for you to do the former.

If you do have a reason for not getting married at all, it should be because of faulty divorce laws, not women themselves. Some have told me they tell young men not to get married as a matter of tactic – to force lawmakers to clean up the mess known as divorce court. Admittedly, this makes me nauseous – and anyone who does so should make it abundantly clear that the end goal is stable marriages – but this is fine. And notice something: tightening divorce laws is a pro-marriage move.

This is not my problem. I take offense to the misogyny. Misogyny and misandry should not, as a rule, be considered good things. They should be considered as a weakness, to be overcome. A person should not, in good consciousness, decide that half of the population is innately evil and corrupt. The problem is not women, but the leaders. Don’t fall into their trap by being turned against the female gender at large, which is what they want you to do. The problem is feminism, not women.

This is where Christianity would help to combat communism. Communism commands hatred; Christianity commands love. Christians are commanded to love their neighbor, and therefore to love women or love men. Misogyny and misandry are considered innately wrong and to be fixed. Gender warfare does not exist in a Christian world. This is why feminists hate Christianity.

Christianity also does another thing. It allows people to get over their baggage. Despite a woman being hurt by man after man, or a man being hurt by woman after woman, Christianity allows a person to find healing and forgiveness. Thus, they can go on to pursue an ideal life, not being sucked back into misery and anger.

Thus a person is liberated to pursue an undeniably selfish goal: romantic love, marriage, a husband or a wife. Please don’t tell me I’m being naïve by supporting the ideal of marriage and family – that it can’t happen in this feminist world. Romantic love is a profound psychological need of any human being. Thousands of stories, poems, etc. have been written about it. Family is another undeniable source of joy and happiness. These are things worth fighting for.

Feminism’s sole purpose was to divide men from women. When you think of it that way – then start to think of everything feminism stands for – everything starts falling in place. They made women masculine and men feminine to make them unattractive to one another. They told women to get out of the role of mindless housewife and into an equally mindless career to destroy the role of wife and mother. They want to destroy chivalry, because chivalry is an effective method to bring the sexes together. They are obsessed with rape and sexual violence in an effort to criminalize heterosexuality. Legalizing abortion was an obvious method to stop men and women from having children together. Most young girls today seem to think the epitome of female independence is being able to open doors themselves, which serves nothing except to destroy a dating culture. I really can’t think of a thing that feminism advocated that didn’t serve to divide men and women. They were not, and will never be, interested in helping and promoting women. No person in honesty and good consciousness should call themself a “feminist.”

And now I hear men advocating similar things as feminists. They tell other men to stop paying for dates, to not be chivalrous, to hate women, to not get married, etc – not out of tactic – but because they hate these things. These positions sound more like feminism than conservatism.

True leaders need to step up against feminism and point the rest of us towards a real goal: gender healing. We need to go after the leaders, not women. Do not make it a war of men versus women. Make it a war of those who want to re-unite men and women and those who don’t. Do not turn against the female gender at large. Do not give them what they want.

Amber Pawlik