Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?

(Note: There is some crass language quoted in this post.)

Since starting blogging several years ago, I have had some very strange interactions with women who self-identify as feminists.  Whenever they disagree with me, they become sort of hysterical.  Their emotions seem to overcome them, and not infrequently they make astonishingly violent comments.  And I have watched the same thing happen to others.  Here are just a few examples directed at me:

[–]darkequestrian24/F/No fucking way 4 points 16 hours ago

I would just love to find the woman who wrote this blog, go rifling through her kitchen cabinets, find one of her skillets and hit her in the face with it.

Here is another example:

Cunts like you are the reason why no one wants any part of Christianity anymore you fat ugly cumbucket twat. Go to hell (well, there isn’t one so just go fuck yourself with a rusty pipe)

I could give dozens more examples like this, as I have become the object of intense obsession by a number of feminist (and even a few supposedly non-feminist) women. If you really want to see hysteria in action, try having a look at GOMI, a site I’d never even heard of until they linked to several of my posts.  Their comment threads are full of GIFs of people smashing their computers, banging their heads against the wall, and just having total meltdowns. For a taste of what I’m talking about here is one of the threads about me, but you can find dozens like it about other bloggers, all equally hysterical, angry, and full of violent imagery.

I have wondered for a long time why this is so.  Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?  They claim they advocate for women to have choices and freedom of thought, so why should they be so angry at anti-feminists for choosing what we have and for thinking as we do?  I did not understand how they could justify to themselves making such hate-filled and violent comments toward another woman.

It isn’t just that they see themselves as more enlightened and intelligent; in fact, they see us as sub-human and therefore not worthy to be treated with any kind of human decency;  this is why they feel free to doxx and threaten bloggers with whom they disagree and this is why they feel free to behave like the women in this YouTube video, protesting a lecture given by Warren Farrell, who is affiliated with the men’s rights movement (which, by the way, I am not affiliated with).  If you don’t have time to watch the entire video, skip to the 3:30 mark; the women come completely undone in the face of a quiet man who is just trying to enter the building to attend the lecture.  They scream obscenities at him; here is just a few seconds’ transcript:

You should be ashamed of yourself.  You’re fucking scum.  You are fucking scum.  You are fucking rape-apologist, incest-supporting, woman-hating fucking scum.  Fucking scum…

To understand how liberals/feminists justify such behavior to themselves, you need to understand more about liberalism, and Zippy Catholic has written several essays recently on that topic.  First, he explains a bit about the goal of liberalism, which is the overarching movement from which feminism has sprung:

I frequently see the claim in neoreactionary circles that the goal of liberalism is to destroy whatever is good. But the goal of liberalism is not directly to destroy whatever is good. It is to create a world where freedom and equal rights are made universal through political action. It is when this political ideology encounters reality that it becomes the destruction of all that is good.

It is important to understand and articulate this, because nobody understands themselves to have the aim of destroying all that is good…

He then goes on in another post to explain how it is that feminists such as the women in the above video can justify treating men in the terrible way they do; it is because feminists see men as sub-human:

Feminism is liberalism focused on the ways in which women are generally inferior to men. It views this as a socially constructed situation which must be rectified through political action in order to bring about a state of equal freedom.

Every form of liberalism has to have its bad guy: its subhuman oppressor tyrannically impeding the march of equality. Because they are wicked tyrants they are not members of the herrenvolk: they are not subjects with equal rights, they are less-than-human impediments to equal rights. They are the problem which must be solved: the low man.

When liberalism focuses its attention on sex inequalities, men are objectively superior in the materialist ways that matter to liberals. But natural superiority doesn’t fit into liberalism’s world view: superiority can only be the result of tyranny.

Given the way I and other anti-feminist women have been treated, it seems that one doesn’t literally have to be a man, but instead must only identify oneself as an enemy of liberalism, in order to be labeled and treated as a subhuman oppressor – an untermensch, which Zippy explains is a

 …less-than-human oppressor who through his actions or perhaps his mere existence…stands in the way of the full emergence of the free and equal new man. As an impediment to the emancipated equality of the superman, the untermensch is himself not a full member of the human race.

Zippy’s essays have helped me to make sense of feminist women’s aggressive behavior toward those non-liberals with whom they disagree.  These women are prone to violent, obsessive, threatening, and emotional reactions due to their intense narcissism and fragile egos, and they justify such speech and behavior by categorizing those who disagree with them — non-liberals — as sub-human oppressors worthy of violence and aggression.

Further reading:

Martel: Barbarism

http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/barbarism/

280 thoughts on “Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?

  1. Cautiously Pessimistic

    I see two aspects to this question: Why do feminists feel angry, and why do feminists have hysterical fits resulting from that anger. You thoroughly explore the first aspect, but don’t mention the second (perhaps because the answer is so obvious). Feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical because they are so rarely called to account for their behavior. They live in a society that does its best to shield them from the consequences of their outbursts, and so they have no reason to learn to control themselves.

    [ssm: What you say is true, and I think it even goes beyond being a liberal/feminist problem to being a man/woman problem. Women are in general prone to outbursts unless men insist that they learn to control themselves.]

  2. The Continental Op

    The real reason why is because their wickedness is not suppressed.

    [ssm: Yes, that is so. But why is their wickedness not suppressed? I think it is because we are a nation ruled by liberals, and liberals believe that what we see as wickedness is actually justified because it is directed against the sub-human oppressors (men, nonliberals, anti-feminists).]

  3. Escoffier

    I think the explanation may be even simpler.

    The point, Mary, is that you should not exist. “Progress” should have done away with you and your kind decades ago. The modern liberal truly believes in Progress with a capital “P,” a process of inevitable improvement, deepening wisdom and competence and so on. Biblical faith is not merely reactionary. It has, in these people’s minds, been positively refuted and superseded. So when they encounter you, the first reaction is incomprehension. How can you exist? Don’t you know that the war is over and you lost?

    And the second reaction is anger. Because “Progress” has been yoked to justice. Newer is better. Modernity is synonymous with enlightenment. The more we progress, the better/more moral we become. And all past standards are seen as terribly unjust. So, you are not merely a reactionary. You are a Bad Person for stubbornly clinging to views that have been PROVEN to be wrong, immoral, unjust. Only a very Bad Person would do that.

    Now, it would be possible to believe all this and not behave like such louts. However, our education system is now very bad and shallow. So, the type of liberal I grew up around, who believed all of this, but in a deeper, more sophisticated way, is just gone. They don’t exist under 40. What we have instead is a massive cohort or propagandized robots who are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they are right about everything (which is what they have been taught their whole lives) but whose actual understanding even of their own principles is very shallow. Rage is really the default reaction of someone like that.

    We (society) used to do a better job of teaching people manners. But beyond that, the tendency to ill-manners has always been strong in the sort of epigone who knows with ABSOLUTE CERTANTY what is right and what is wrong and that you are wrong.

    There is a great Flannery O’Connor story about this.

    [ssm: Great comment; I’ve highlighted a particularly important point.]

  4. Professor Hale

    The answer is simple and since there are only a few comments ahead of my, I will tell you. It is all about emotional approval. If you don’t agree with them, it is like telling them that they have made a bad choice and they cannot accept that they were ever wrong about anything. They are so insecure about their own choices in life that they need EVERYONE to make the same choices so that the group consensus will always support them. Your life and choice is a repudiation of their life and choice. If it were up to them, you would have to live your life just like they do. Mean girls club. You need to be in the club. There is no “live and let live” option.

    [ssm: Man, isn’t that the truth! I wouldn’t care if they were dogmatic and insisted that their way is the only way, (“All ways are my ways!”) if they were at least honest about that.]

  5. Rollo Tomassi

    Been there, typed that:

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/12/20/first-man-awake/

    Intellectual Lethargy

    What offends me about this protest isn’t the actual protesting, but the sheer ignorance behind it. If it were the easily digestible blatherings of Rush Limbaugh they were protesting I could understand it, but Dr. Farrell isn’t even in the same universe. All this is is an example of intellectual lethargy, which is really a shame because I would expect that the young men and women involved in the protest, all students at U of T, would be acquainted with research and critical thinking skills necessary before formulating such strong opinions and visceral reactions.

    To be educated takes a constant effort. Most people in modern society simply do not have the time, inclination or motivation to be in any way knowledgeable about more than a peripheral understanding of the world around them. The ridiculously ironic part is that we live in an era when communication of information has never been more easily accessible to us.

    Now add to this that we’re expected to be at least somewhat well informed due to this access. Our ego-investments with regards to politics, religion, social dynamics, gender relations etc. all depend upon a belief that we’re actually well informed enough know what we’re talking about and draw our own conclusions. We would have to be, right? It’s expected of us as intelligent human beings.

    The truth of the matter is that unless we are immediately benefitted by educating ourselves about a particular subject (i.e. as short term a profit as easily manageable), for the vast majority of modern society, educating oneself is a hobby at best. We live in a fast-food, fast-information society. We can’t be bothered to, or in some cases really afford to, develop critical thinking skills – particularly when they might challenge our own ego-investments. This is why the feminine Matrix flourishes today, it’s easier not to think about things that are counter to our social conditioning.

  6. Calliso

    Eh I have seen horrible things said by both men and women feminists and non feminists and so on. Some people are just nasty people and the internet allows them to speak without consequences for what they say.

  7. Rollo Tomassi

    I should add this too:

    But we want to be right, and to be right we have to believe that we have these critical thinking skills. In fact our personalities and well being depend upon being correct in our beliefs. This is an age of ego-investment. Ego investments are beliefs we associate with, and internalize, so strongly that they literally become elements of our personalities. So to challenge that belief is to literally attack the personality of the person with that ego-investment. It would make no difference how empirical your evidence to the contrary of that belief might be; you attack the belief and you attack the person. Religion, racism, political affiliation, gender dynamics, social dynamics, world view, all find their roots in individual ego-investments in those beliefs.

  8. Cail Corishev

    Calliso, don’t play into their moral relativism. Yes, there are nasty people, or decent people having bad days, on all sides. But there’s no comparison in the overall level of nastiness on this. None. Take a manosphere blog like Roissy’s that’s known for some pretty offensive language, and even there you won’t find anything to match the standard level of filth on numerous feminist sites. Only leftists and atheists (the worst being those who are both) consider it righteous to spew filth at their opponents because, as Escoffier said, they see the other side not just as differently-opinioned or confused, but as Bad People who deserve the worst possible treatment including death.

    [ssm: Agreed. It’s not that we are never unpleasant, of course, but our vitriol is a pale comparison. As much as I despise feminism, for example, I would never threaten to hit a feminist in the face with a frying pan. As much as I despise sexual sin, I would never try to doxx someone who blogs pseudonymously and extols sexual sin.]

  9. Fred Flange

    Couple thoughts, perhaps obvious, but —

    This kind of noise, being anonymous, is now the coin of the internet realm. Also, nasty as these women are, here is some small comfort: when they dust-up amongst themselves, it is even nastier. Each side must ego-joust (h/t Rollo) and sub-humanize the other to claim victory to lead the battle for the oppressed dumb masses. Both today and at feminism’s inception, it was and is common for more radical speakers to lead a putsch against founders of a group on the ground the founders are insufficiently pure in heart and thus cannot lead others in the struggle.

    But folks on the right should not be too smug. This same tendency is now emerging in the Tea
    Party and affiliated groups, and you will see more of that in the coming year. Extremism being no vice, you know.

    Back on-topic: The put-upon Toronto lecture-attendee gets props for keeping his cool – always a good rule when you know you are on camera. Smart guy. A good model for other such confrontations – let your opposition look crazy. But that reminded me of the uber-Beta daddy blogger who admitted to Lusting In His Heart after pretty women despite being married, then trying to mansplain himself when he caught heat for saying so. Note the visceral hate and threats of violence he got – from a woman writer publishing under her own name in the MSM New York Magazine! And “liked” by hundreds. If a man had written that about a woman writer he would have been fired, sued, doxxed, and picketed. But why could she get away with it? Well, you know, it was just a – jk! -. And because patriarchy. But more important: she knew he would not fight back. She knew white knights just suck that stuff up and shame themselves. So she was safe to wail away. She would never dare to talk like that to, say, Alec Baldwin. Like him or not, he is obviously capable of giving right back whatever is dished to him. He might miss some work after an arrest, but she might be missing some teeth. And these screamers know that – so they know to stay hidden, like 4Chan creeps do.

  10. The Woman Margery

    What it comes down to is that they are very much invested in their beliefs, they must be right or their worldview crumbles, so they fight tooth and nail believing that anything that suggests they could be wrong (like a woman choosing her own “oppression” ie: staying home and submitting to her husband) is simply “The Enemy” trying to take down their movement.

    But, and this is such an important BUT, this is not just a liberal thing. We all do it to one degree or another. What needs to be attacked is this narrow mindset to begin with as it is the only thing that will actually root it out in someone’s mind. The flaw is in the thinking first and the ideology second.

  11. Maeve

    Maybe it’s that they’re truly afraid that, deep down, they want what you have SSM but they can’t allow themselves to have it or fee that way. They’ve boxed themselves into a tight corner and it would require the sacrifice of their pride to get out.

  12. The Woman Margery

    @Cail Corishev: “Calliso, don’t play into their moral relativism. Yes, there are nasty people, or decent people having bad days, on all sides. But there’s no comparison in the overall level of nastiness on this. None. Take a manosphere blog like Roissy’s that’s known for some pretty offensive language, and even there you won’t find anything to match the standard level of filth on numerous feminist sites. Only leftists and atheists (the worst being those who are both) consider it righteous to spew filth at their opponents because, as Escoffier said, they see the other side not just as differently-opinioned or confused, but as Bad People who deserve the worst possible treatment including death.

    This simply isn’t true. This mindset does exist outside of liberalism. Liberals and feminist never stop complaining about all the death threats and what not they get. And they do get them, the difference is they complain and make it known whereas others laugh it off and press the delete button.

    This is human nature and the internet magnifies it. A threat to our world view is enough to “lock and load” on anything or person. This isn’t moral relativism is the truth.

    However, we don’t need to have a kumbaya moment where we all pearl-clutch and fall into “can’t we all just get along?!” The fact of the matter is that right here and right now the attack is heavy handed on the liberal and feminist side. As they are more or less in power at the moment the threat from them is much greater. In that that conservatives do it too is a problem but not the problem. But still, we need to recognize the issue for what it is instead of dehumanizing one side to the point of forgetting their tactics are, in fact, very human.

  13. bike bubba

    I am reminded in this case of an old lawyers’ adage:

    If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.

    If the law is on your side, pound the law.

    If neither, pound the table.

    Feminists are pounding the table all too often, and so therefore what must we conclude? Ironically, it’s a “tell”, isn’t it?

    [ssm: HA! That’s well-put, sir.]

  14. Rollo Tomassi

    http://www.ihatemen.org/

    “A quarter-million users strong”

    [ssm: Whoa, never saw that site before. Yikes.

    But if there were any doubt about how feminists feel about feminist men…from the mouth of a feminist mare her own self:

    What’s up with all the “feminist”-”supporting” guys?

    Don’t they understand it’s ridiculous and insulting for them to post in a site called “i hate men” in the first place? What do they hope? to come off as “nice guys” and maybe even “get lucky”? and imagine that i agree with none of the sides just sayn…

    Feminist men seem to think that feminist women will like them if they talk about how feministic they are. To those gentlemen I would say this: not only do they not like you, they actually despise you far more than they do nonfeminist men.]

  15. Treep

    So, from that video, to be a feminist you just have to add the f-word every three words? Got it.

    Seriously feminists, get creative. Saying “fucking scum” over and over again will make me laugh, not listen.

  16. Farm Boy

    Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?

    Partly because their arguments lack facts and logic.

  17. The Woman Margery

    @Treep: “So, from that video, to be a feminist you just have to add the f-word every three words?”

    Yes. Anger and rage are virtues. They are how you know someone is both serious and has been seriously oppressed. Modern Leftist Activism 101

    [ssm: Another Liberal tenet: If you criticize someone, it automatically means you are more intelligent than they are. Feminists and other liberals always seem to need to talk about their supposed intellectual superiority.]

  18. Rollo Tomassi

    Not sure if you’d read this or not SSM, but you’re dealing with bored cube-lings: http://www.returnofkings.com/21289/the-mainstream-media-writes-for-people-in-cubicles

    It makes the cube-lings feel better about spending 9 hours a day in their veal-fattening pens if they think they can make the world a better place with point-and-sputter remote rhetoric. Wanna know why most of your critics are terrified of being doxxed? They’re scared to death of being forced to start all over in finding another veal pen where they can give their live’s meaning from behind another company’s internet firewall.

  19. Farm Boy

    If only human nature would get out of the way and people could be treated as blank slates. Then some very awesome social constructs could be imposed on the people

  20. redpillsetmefree

    Maybe it’s that they’re truly afraid that, deep down, they want what you have SSM but they can’t allow themselves to have it or feel that way. They’ve boxed themselves into a tight corner and it would require the sacrifice of their pride to get out.

    It’s that, what Maeve said. I wrote about it here: http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/quell-her-inner-war/

    What would you do if you had a longing, a craving, an intense unquenchable hunger for male attention, and Alpha attention at that, like all the other girls, but knew that you’d never get it, EVER, because you quite factually are not pretty enough? And you’re fat. Do you think that might produce some intense emotions and lashing out?

    What if, down inside, you knew you had an insatiable desire to be dominated by a man, but along with the fact that you’re not pretty or skinny enough to even be considered by the top men, other successful women start to tell that your longing? Is nothing but pathetic weakness. You’d begin to hate what you are(a woman), and hate how you feel(wanting to be submissive), and don’t you think said self-hatred would produce some level of cognitive dissonance?

    And so who then, would be the most likely target of this cauldron of ire boiling over in your soul?

    [ssm: I think you’re on to something here. My only quibble is this “top man” or “alpha” idea. A man needn’t be a top-dog alpha to dominate a woman, given our relative inferiority to men in the material world. Therefore, the only reason that feminists cannot get what they crave is because they have made themselves so unattractive (obesity, tattoos, facial piercings, nasty attitude) to normal men and because many of their fellow liberal men are such pathetic herblings that they couldn’t dominate a fly.]

  21. Farm Boy

    We all do it to one degree or another.

    True enough. But liberals do it to a much greater degree. So making such a statement, and implying that it all cancels out is pure silliness.

  22. tz

    As to the quiet man, he should have provoked a physical response, then responded to the mild sting with a “bitch slap”, or decking her with a proper hit. They aren’t afraid – but much of that is the biased legal system. Emotional meltdowns and tantrums warrant a sufficient penalty response to end and prevent further occurances.

    If there is a problem with men becoming feminists, it is that they cease learning that they can cause real harm when they act violently. Women, not so much. Especially when men “aren’t supposed to hit women”. But see Vox’s post on the female marine.

    It is wise to know your own strength. It is even wiser to know your own weakness.

  23. Frank

    Feminists are really a subset of a much larger group consisting of hard left “progressives” who are also emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical.

    Although I do have a friend and while she’s an atheist and feminist, she has been shying away from the feminist crowd so she could, in her words, get away from the crazy.

    [ssm: Ah, she’s making the first step away from feminism, then. Encourage her!]

  24. the bandit

    @The Woman Margery
    “And they do get them, the difference is they complain and make it known”
    Another difference is that they get so very few that they sometimes have to fabricate the threats themselves in order to get the chance to complain and make it known:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-hoax-university-wisconsin_n_3210326.html

    I get your point. There are indeed truculent and hateful people on any side of an issue; there are even a couple Christian conservatives I have blocked on my FB News Feed for that reason. But they come no where near the level of hate and number of haters on the other side (including the metric of those blocked on my News Feed — and considering population pool of my friends, that’s a damning bit of evidence). Although you are correct, there is some hate on both sides, I am going to have to say that Cail is also correct: there is an observably higher concentration and extent of hatred on a particular side in this case. And SSM’s post connects the dots others have drawn: it’s a natural outcome for an ideology that sees its opponents as impediments to progress to spew hatred at its opponents.

    Once you see your opponent as evil, the seed of hatred has been planted. It is indeed easy as a rightist/traditionalist to see the left/feminism as evil. But it’s practically required, as a leftist/feminist, to see the rightist/traditionalist as evil. Hence the lopsided distribution of hate.

  25. Frank

    Speaking of rage, a female commenter on another blog loses her sh^& after I discuss how women are attracted to strong men:

    You are an idiot. You are whining all over here that you don’t have a woman because women want strong men, they don’t want emotional men. They want this or that. Have you considered you don’t have a woman because you are an incoherent asshole? Don’t worry there are women out there that love assholes, you will find one eventually. They think that guys that show no emotion are powerful, controlled, when actually they are too scared to express emotions because they reveal too much about their weaknesses. Weak men show no emotion, it isn’t control, it is fear. Which I believe is an emotion…

    My response: Well, aren’t you a precious snowflake of warmth and sunshine. I envy any man blessed enough to be able to share his bed with you.

  26. earl

    “They think that guys that show no emotion are powerful, controlled, when actually they are too scared to express emotions because they reveal too much about their weaknesses.”

    Ladies and germs…might I present Projection 101.

  27. nightskyradio

    The Woman Margery – Liberals and feminist never stop complaining about all the death threats and what not they get. And they do get them, the difference is they complain and make it known whereas others laugh it off and press the delete button.

    Because many libs and feminists would follow through on their threats if they had the stones, so they project that onto others. They also know that non-liberals have guns, so they’re terrified that those crazy bitter clingers with their guns and religion will hunt them down.

    [ssm: You know, once one actually owns a gun and has a concealed carry license, one suddenly becomes aware of how much one does not wish to get into a threatening situation with another person. You become more polite toward others and less confrontational when you are aware that you have deadly weapon on your person. That’s been my experience anyway.]

  28. the bandit

    @ The Woman Margery
    I realize now you were not really contesting the current imbalance of hate, but rather that either side is capable of viewing itself so righteously to be justified in hate. I have no disagreement with that.

  29. Farm Boy

    after I discuss how women are attracted to strong men:

    You are an idiot. You are whining all over here that you don’t have a woman because women want strong men

    Frank,

    First she calls you an idiot. Then she agrees with your point

  30. Zippy

    Although human beings everywhere demonize their enemies, they don’t do so out of rational necessity. Demonizing enemies is rationally necessary in liberalism and other modernist ideologies like naziism (which also insisted on absolute equality among the supermen): because everyone who is fully human is equal, anyone who gets in the way cannot be fully human. If they were fully human then their views would carry the same weight as liberal views.

    So liberalism literally cannot view it’s enemies as fully human. It isn’t that non-liberals always view their enemies as fully human: it is that it is not possible for liberalism to view its enemies as fully human without giving up on the idea of equality – and therefore ceasing to be liberal.

  31. The Woman Margery

    @the bandit,

    I don’t disagree with you.

    re: feminist/liberal fake abuse claims- this goes right along with there assertion that women that stay home are miserable (etc). They know it’s true because they know it’s true so making stuff up just speeds the realization of that truth along. No doubt it makes sense in their heads but…

  32. redpillsetmefree

    ssm: I think you’re on to something here. My only quibble is this “top man” or “alpha” idea. A man needn’t be a top-dog alpha to dominate a woman, given our relative inferiority to men in the material world. Therefore, the only reason that feminists cannot get what they crave is because they have made themselves so unattractive (obesity, tattoos, facial piercings, nasty attitude) to normal men and because many of their fellow liberal men are such pathetic herblings that they couldn’t dominate a fly.

    True, that’s the real, but I’m talking about the ideal as well. In an ideal sense, having desires that you cannot ever hope to live out can drive you batty. Remember that the same thing often happens to loner men. And they too, don’t seem to realize that just because they can’t get supermodels doesn’t mean they can’t get a pretty girlfriend. We’re talking about people that are starting form a position of self-hatred, not rationality.
    And most women still want a shot at the highest man that they could reasonably get, but a woman’s imagination of her prince has no bounds, so. I understand how badly a girl wants to be the belle of the ball. A man can work his way up to higher status, but there’s only so much a woman can do if the genetics aren’t there to begin with.

    Result? …..Frustration.

    ssm: “In an ideal sense, having desires that you cannot ever hope to live out can drive you batty.” Yes. The Bible says the same:

    Hope deferred makes the heart sick,
    but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life. – Prov 13:12

  33. The Woman Margery

    I understand that people think I am trying to say one thing isn’t relevant because that one thing is universal. I am not saying that at all. I have noted this more than once and I will note it again- as a progressive feminist I never had to hide my identity when I spouted my beliefs all over the internet. As an anti-feminism transitioning out of progressivism I have. In fact when I told a progressive friend what I was planning to start a blog about he responded with “better hide your identity” and cited cases of liberal/feminist/progressive/social justice bullying (of their own, no less!) to the extent of physical stalking and threats to people’s children.

    My only point is that we all run the risk of dehumanizing. The danger in that is not only the obvious but that we, then, don’t actually understand our enemy.

    [ssm: The point you make in this comment carries a lot of weight because you’ve actually been on one side of the fence and are moving/have moved onto the other side.]

  34. earl

    Here’s a question to think about…which is the greatest weakness of a person?

    Physically, emotionally, or spiritually.

    I’m of the idea…emotions. They are the bridge between the spiritual welfare and the physical state of the person.

  35. Frank

    [ssm: Ah, she’s making the first step away from feminism, then. Encourage her!]

    I am, so far we have a good rapport, even after she called me a d%^& and rabid fundie, only to come back the same day. She just can’t quit me.

    [ssm: Mmm, any potential romance there? LOL, Frank, if you marry and convert a feminist, puh-lease invite HHG and me to the wedding!]

  36. nightskyradio

    SSM – they feel free to doxx and threaten bloggers with whom they disagree and this is why they feel free to behave like the women in this YouTube video, protesting a lecture given by Warren Farrell, who is affiliated with the men’s rights movement

    What’s really funny is that Farrell used to be a feminist activist and a member of NOW. He finally figured out how feminists are not pro-equality but actually anti-men, therefore committing High Crimes And Treason against the Cause.

    His solution to the “boy crisis?” Get the most liberal, feminist-sympathetic government in American history to – get ready for some real decisive, manly action here – create a commission.

    http://nightskyradio.com/2013/01/08/boys-for-pele/

    He’s still a liberal Democrat – see a problem, create a committee – but he transgressed against the law of the herd.

    [ssm: Yep, that’s why I mentioned in the OP that I’m not affiliated with the MRA. I’m sympathetic to some of their issues in a big way, but they are secular humanists and often, as you noted, liberals, thus in my opinion they are trying to get rid of an invasive bush by cutting off some of its branches rather than by digging it up by the roots.]

  37. Frank

    I love how she is harping on you for valuing strong men… and then calls you a weak man as an insult.

    Logic is not one of this woman’s strong point, and yet ironically she touts her logic based brain, which her boss supposedly LOVES, and she claims to make a lot of money due to her ability to analyze data sets in her head.

    Right. I totally believe that.

  38. Martel

    Liberals are more likely to see conservatives as pure evil because to them morality is fundamentally political. The Left insists that “the system”, racism, sexism, etc. are the primary reasons behind people’s unhappiness. The solutions all require “collective action”, which means a lot of government. If you oppose their politics, you oppose what they believe is the only way to improve people’s lives.

    Say whatever you like about Romney (not my favorite), but he gave tons of money to charity, but to lefties this counted for nothing. It doesn’t matter how you treat the black people in your life, if you oppose affirmative action, you’re a racist.

    On the other side, by their standards Bill Clinton was a serial rapist, but he was fundamentally morally upright because he was a political ally.

    As to my answer to the original question regarding feminist loopiness, it’s the narcisssim described by you and Forney, and that narcissism was able to grow because they never had a man in their lives who knew when to tell them to shut the hell up. More here http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/from-hamster-to-shrew/ and here http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/princess-of-the-damned/

    [ssm: GREAT posts, Martel. Also, it’s been studied and established that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do.]

  39. nightskyradio

    SSM – it isn’t just that they see themselves as more enlightened and intelligent; in fact, they see us as sub-human and therefore not worthy to be treated with any kind of human decency

    Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2002 – “To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer072902.asp

    …the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean. How can conservatives believe in the things they do — self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power — without being soulless? How to understand conservative desire to abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? The argument that it would increase self-reliance and thus ultimately reduce poverty is dismissed as meanness rationalized — or as Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., put it more colorfully in a recent House debate on welfare reform, “a cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare mothers.”

  40. Cail Corishev

    This simply isn’t true. This mindset does exist outside of liberalism. Liberals and feminist never stop complaining about all the death threats and what not they get.

    There are exceptions, of course. But in general, if a Christian or a Tea Party member makes death threats or waxes eloquent about the fetidness of his opponent’s genitals, he doesn’t think that makes him a good person. If he does it in the heat of battle, he may feel some shame over it later, and if he tells his fellows about it, they may admonish him for it. In contrast, the liberal makes these attacks proudly. A liberal can be speaking to a crowd of liberals and talk about how some conservative should be taken out and shot, and everyone will laugh. There’s just not the same restraint for them, because they’ve gone beyond disagreement to complete dehumanization of the Other.

    [ssm: During the presidential election, there was a local news story about a man who was caught stealing Romney signs. He said he was an Obama supporter and felt that it was one of the greatest political acts he had ever done. He was so proud of himself. For committing a crime.]

  41. earl

    And this is why men should pick their own way and stay on it from their own judgement. Never a woman’s validation.

    Because she will call you an idiot for picking that street…while thinking that she agrees with it. After all…can’t give credit to men and whatnot otherwise you’d be betraying the herd.

  42. nightskyradio

    The Woman Margery – as a progressive feminist I never had to hide my identity when I spouted my beliefs all over the internet. As an anti-feminism transitioning out of progressivism I have. In fact when I told a progressive friend what I was planning to start a blog about he responded with “better hide your identity” and cited cases of liberal/feminist/progressive/social justice bullying (of their own, no less!) to the extent of physical stalking and threats to people’s children.

    I believe this supports my point upthread.

  43. Peregrine John

    Isn’t it entirely possible that it is all a demonic influence?

    Possible, I suppose, but my bet would be indirect. That is, why go to the trouble and attention of possession when a nudge into herd-like activity and mutual glorification of infantile behavior sets the thing in motion for years? Writers as diverse as C.S. Lewis and Neil Gaiman have suggested as much.

  44. redpillsetmefree

    There’s a young woman I work with, and I call her a nickname.based on her initials….she has begun to call herself that, and texted me recently to tell me that my nickname for her has now become her name on her other freelance jobs as well.

    My ex, I called her “baby” once, and she told me, she wanted me to call her that as much as possible.

    Woman long for a strong man to name them, call them something, and they love to become what you say. They love to feel like “I’m HIS.”

    I wonder what it does to a woman to know, that she will never be “his?” Or, to know that any man that would come in her life would already be so pathetic until he’d be sh*t tested and ball busted in no time at all. She will never be named & claimed by a strong man. EVER.

    Hmmmm, I wonder why when young girls fall in love with a male, they scribble “Mrs [insert guy’s last name here]” all over their notebooks?

  45. earl

    @ Frank…

    Has she reminded you how small your dick is and that you live in your mother’s basement yet? If not…I give it two more postings.

  46. Amanda

    I see liberalism as a sort of spiritual delusion at its core. Liberals of our current persuasion simply deny the principles set forth by God, ultimately denying Him. They don’t even realize they are doing it. Consider this blog — although SSM is not afraid of discussing contentious topics and using colorful language at times, the main message really isn’t that offensive, and in fact much of the ideas here have been acceptable in times past for centuries. They are ideas even reflected in nature. Yet the amount of vitriole levelled toward this blog? Something deeper is at work than merely hurt feelings.

    [ssm: I would tend to agree with Earl that it is demonic. I pray even more since I’ve started blogging, often prayers for protection for myself, my family, and my readers.]

  47. The Woman Margery

    @: “In contrast, the liberal makes these attacks proudly.”

    Yes. This goes back to what I was saying upthread about anger and rage being a virtue. They absolutely believe that their anger and rage is a source of pride because it shows just how “awake” they are. Though this is true to some extent (think “if you’re not angry you’re not paying attention” about this world’s general sad state of affairs) they reveal in this, thinking it somehow makes them more right. They wouldn’t be this angry, after all, if there wasn’t actually something to get them this angry. Of course this ignores that we are completely capable as humans of working ourselves into a tizzy over the smallest of thing but that doesn’t jive with their reality so it’s ignored. Unless, of course, you disagree with them. Then your anger is ignorant and dangerous as it is based in privilege.

    There is no arguing with other people’s logic, especially when it is entirely illogical.

    [ssm: I agree, and I think we women are particularly prone to working ourselves into a tizzy. I know I’ve done it before, though I try to be on guard against it now.]

  48. Fred Flange

    Given the talk about narcissism, here is what I said over at Matt’s about it responding to his “Troll” post:
    Uncle Fred’s two rules of comment-trolling: (1) anyone using the word “narcissist” more than once a paragraph, or in speech more than once every three minutes, IS ONE; and (2) outside of womens/gender studies and psych majors, no one, and I mean NO ONE, in college or grad school, knows or cares what “cis-gendered” means.

  49. Martel

    I’m repeating myself I know, but whether it’s stealing yard signs or physical threats, to the leftist all of these are morally legitimate because to them, morality=politics. Therefore, what’s politically beneficial is morally upright NO MATTER WHAT.

    Thus, there is NO objective moral standard by which to judge anybody or anything other than what helps “the cause”. Likewise, conservatives will get NO credit for caring or nobility or anything else. Such positive traits on the part of the enemy are but a weapon to use against him. Saul Alinsky (in a book dedicated to Lucifer) promoted the idea of using an opponent’s own moral standards against him, thereby using somebody’s morality to denigrate their morality.

    And be kind to Margery, she’s come a long way. She left a comment on my last post that I found very insightful and relevant to what’s going on here:

    http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/fruity-rubble/comment-page-1/#comment-2290

  50. Martel

    And my last comment doesn’t apply to everybody who votes Democrat. There’s definite variation in that some are true believers and others merely naive.

  51. Frank

    Has she reminded you how small your dick is and that you live in your mother’s basement yet? If not…I give it two more postings.

    Someone else already beat her to the punch on my blog before with the mommy’s basement remark. Now she thinks I have a beautiful mind. I swear if i hadn’t learned about fitness testing this bipolar change in women’s behavior would have driven me insane.

  52. The Woman Margery

    ((Ack, *revel not reveal. I’m just full of typos today.))

    @ssm: “The point you make in this comment carries a lot of weight because you’ve actually been on one side of the fence and are moving/have moved onto the other side.”

    I have been shying away from all the liberal talk of late because I don’t want to come across as “the liberal defender” or some such thing (plus, I’m still trying to flesh out where I stand) but it does make me nervous that so many are willing to simply not engage with a liberal. Had I not had conservative and libertarian friends willing to engage with me I wouldn’t be here. When a conservative/libertarian would shoot me down in similar ways to what I have seen happen to liberals in general on “this side” throwing out words like “narcissist” I would take it as indication that I was even more right. Attacking someone vs. attacking what they are saying only bolsters their resolve. But when people engaged me, when they actually took on what I was saying and we “talked it out” my mind began to change- first about them and therefore what it means to be of their political persuasion which, then, naturally led to me entertaining their ideas as more than just “ignorant bigotry”.

    Martel has the right idea about how to deal with liberals.

  53. Frank

    [ssm: Mmm, any potential romance there? LOL, Frank, if you marry and convert a feminist, puh-lease invite HHG and me to the wedding!]

    Stranger things have happened! Although I’d have to see how good of a cook she can be to really know if this could go somewhere…

  54. deti

    Escoffier, 11:11 am:

    +1 with the correct answer.

    To feminists and their liberal/progressive brothers in arms, people like Sunshine Mary should have been eradicated from the social and political and sexual landscapes long ago. Your very existence is a threat to them and their worldviews. Therefore, you MUST be silenced , shamed , humiliated and embarrassed.

    And if you still will not shut up, you must be sent to the gulags. You must be doxxed, outed, identified by your real name and address, your livelihoods and material goods taken away, and your jobs taken away. Your children’s schools will be identified. Your children will be bullied and tormented at school, and their lives threatened. You must be shunned from all society, you must be denied a way to earn a living, you must be forced into poverty, your reputations and those of your children must be ruined forever.

    “Gee, SSM. That’s a real nice good paying job HHG has there. Be a shame if he couldn’t keep that job. “

    “That’s a real nice house you have there, SSM. [Puts up picture of house and posts its address] It would be too, too bad if something ever happened to it.”

    “Those are real nice looking daughters you got there, SSM. [Posts photos of kids with their full names and birthdates, and locations of their schools/dorms]. Be a shame if something ever happened to them. Wouldn’t it?”

    [ssm: Some of the things you just wrote about have actually already happened to me, as we discussed in the password-protected thread this summer, though with an implicit rather than explicit threat tag at the end (and actually, not always by feminists, either…watch out for friendly fire is my new motto, given that not all who pretend to be friends really are, but that is a conversation for another day).]

  55. Escoffier

    Martel’s post reminds me of an idea I formulated a while ago.

    One of the more insipid trends of our time is the rise of what I call “opinion morality.” Basically, it is the notion that morality is defined not (or less) by how you act than by what you think or believe or feel. So, if you hold all the “correct” opinions, then you are ipso facto a moral person.

    Genuine morality, i.e., adhering to Biblical principles and/or living up to the virtues of Aristotle’s Ethics, is quite difficult. People have mentioned Romney. There is no question in my mind that he is a highly moral man in just about every respect that matters. But his opinions are “wrong” hence he is bad. Clinton is a dirtbag on virtually every level but his opinions are “right.”

    I don’t know exactly where this originated. I know that I first noticed it over apartheid. This was a Very Big Deal when I went to college—roughly 10,000 miles from South Africa. But students who would never SA in their entire lives were completely up in arms about it. Now, no doubt apartheid was unjust (this is to say nothing about the fate of post-apartheid SA, which is dismal). But the obsession over it was strange.

    There was nothing anyone could do about it, of course. But simply “taking a stand” was somehow emotionally satisfying. It was psychologically gratifying as proof (to oneself) of one’s own virtue. And it had external benefits: it made you part of the herd, the tribe.

    [ssm: Oh, and don’t forget the bravery of giving up Coca Cola! I know that I felt like a liberator of the oppressed every time I reached for a Diet Pepsi back then. How about you? Or were you one of those racist Coke drinkers? :)]

    Disagreeing was simply unthinkable. I recall some students arguing that the divestment movement was actually bad for SA blacks, because it was foreign companies that were most likely to employ them. Those kids got called “racist” immediately of course.

    What was (and is) more, there was (and is) no opting out. It was not enough not to disagree, not to oppose. You had to actively affirm. There was a sort of homeless man who stand on a corner and hand out “red ribbons against apartheid.” The first time he asked me if I wanted one, I said no, without even thinking. I just did not want a red ribbon. I got the most foul tirade, I was shocked. “How’d you like to live in Soweto, white boy?” etc. Um, I guess I would not. But so what?

    Once when I was in China, literally on the Great Wall, I met some people, Dutch I think, and chit chat led to me revealing I was American, and they started to lash into me over the Helms-Burton law, as if it were all my fault. What they were really looking for was me to agree, to denounce it and prove to them my bona fides as a good person. Which I would not do. I was there to see the wall, buzz off. (As an aside, and no offence to our Commonwealth fellow travelers, I have found that absolutely the worst offenders in this regard are non-American Anglophones. There is nothing quite as sanctimonious as a leftwing Canuck, Kiwi, or Aussie. The Canucks in particular seem to want to go to war with every American they meet over Cuba policy. As for Castro’s “shortcomings,” those don’t seem to trouble them at all.)

    [ssm: Ha, this same exact thing happened to me in Greece a number of years ago. An Italian man waylaid my mother and me in a gift shop and was ranting at us about U.S. foreign policy. It was so strange.]

    Anyway, in part this emerged as a substitute for real morality, since it’s easier to hold the “right” opinions than it is to actually act moral. And lots of people prefer to take the easy way. It’s so much easier just to wear the red ribbon than to actually BE moral which is, like, hard.

    I believe this trend explains a lot of what we now know as “PC” and partially explains the rather strange (and apparently unprecedented) phenomenon of late modernity in which the super-rich are all on the left. But those are topics for another day.

  56. Jeremy

    But the goal of liberalism is not directly to destroy whatever is good. It is to create a world where freedom and equal rights are made universal through political action.

    It’s hard to believe this is the case, simply because it reveals a profound lack of understanding, to the point where those people thinking like this are not aware of the redundancy of thought existing within their own minds. Universality of freedom cannot be legislated any more than gravity can be brought into or out of existence through the signing of a bill by the president. Equal rights cannot be guaranteed through the actions of authority. Before you protest, consider that the bill of rights is anything but a bill of rights. It is a list of things the government is not allowed to do, or such was the original intent. The bill of rights is actually the INVERSE of it’s name, it is a bill of restrictions on government. The original intent was all that which is not expressed on the bill is inherently allowed for the people, not that only that which is expressed is allowed.

    Freedom and equal rights can only be protected for the individual by the individual’s own actions. The grizzly bear does not pass laws allowing him or her to roam the forests, they simply do. The eagle does not seek consensus and democratic process on allowable airspace in which to seek food, they simply fly and hunt. Such a mindset looks on a lion killing a gazelle and considers the action of animal instinct a form of violent oppression, rather than the natural order by which nature has determined life should exist. If the lion did not kill, the lion would not exist. If the lions did not kill, the herds of gazelle would not be the fantastic grassland fertilizers they are, keeping vast swaths of grassland life-enriched by their grazing and migration. This way of thinking presupposes that humans can be their own god and supplant natural order with paper and signatures. Humanity has adapted to natures reality for eons, so attempting to guarantee the life experience of individuals by laws is entirely contrary to normal human existence thus far.

    If liberalism is indeed life enriched by fiat, giving no regard for differences between animal states (for all humans are animals), then there is no other word for liberalism other than path to dictatorship. For all other paths presumably recognize the folly in attempting political action to guarantee that which can only be guaranteed through individual action. What must be recognized by any human attempting to idealize human government, is that the natural order is the individual looking out for him or herself. Self ownership is the lowest “energy” state of human existence, one which is highly efficient, guarantees freedom, and is the only chance for all to achieve equal rights

  57. Martel

    “When a conservative/libertarian would shoot me down in similar ways to what I have seen happen to liberals in general on ‘this side’ throwing out words like ‘narcissist’ I would take it as indication that I was even more right. Attacking someone vs. attacking what they are saying only bolsters their resolve. But when people engaged me, when they actually took on what I was saying and we ‘talked it out”’ my mind began to change- first about them and therefore what it means to be of their political persuasion which, then, naturally led to me entertaining their ideas as more than just ‘ignorant bigotry’.”

    Pay attention to Margery here, folks.

    However, I’ll add that there IS a time to be insulting, there IS a time to go for the throat. Yet such decisions must be made strategically, not based on our own (often justified) rage.

    I could dissect when to use which approach forever, but my default is what Margery reccommends unless I’m shown otherwise. Also, I try to keep in mind who I’m dealing with. Amanda Marcotte needs to be handled altogether differently than a naïve college freshman in her first womyn’s studies class.

    But a basic guideline to who’s who is here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/they-are-not-what-they-are/

  58. LP

    What does anyone ever express emotions? Emotional displays are designed to produce a certain behavior in others. A threat display is to get the target to stand down, crying is to motivate protection, anger is to signal violence. I think that the reason women as a whole express emotions more is that they need others to fight their battles for them. A women going off to cry with her girlfriends is trying to get sympathy and protection because they are in a situation where they can’t cope by themselves, they cry or nag to men to get men to perform whatever behavior it is they want performed. So I think Matt Formey is right, this screaming in rage is targeted at their listeners in order to get affirmation; probably it is to console them about their low SMV and protect their ego.

    [ssm: Good point.]

  59. Lori Alexander

    It is funny you should bring this up. I was just listening to Dennis Prager and he was talking about the Cheney family problems. The married gay sister refuses to speak to the sister who believes that traditional marriage just remain intact. The straight sister has always treated the gay sister and her spouse with respect but until the straight sister changes her opinion about gay marriage, they are not going to speak to the straight sister. How narcissist is that???

    [ssm: Sad, but unsurprising.]

  60. Escoffier

    I agree, the purpose of liberalism is not to destroy everything good. And, since there are so many kinds of liberalism, it makes sense to go to the root, to that which preceded and gave birth to liberalism, which is modernity.

    The purpose of modernity is not to destroy everything good. But modernity does emerge as a fundamental rejection of the classical concept of the good, of the primacy f the good. Modernity redefines the good as being merely the wants and needs of the demos, of most people most of the time, of the common denominator. All recourse to transcendent good is excised from human thought (or at least attempted).

    Then the rest of the task is to organize everything so that what most men want most of the time can be delivered. In very real and obvious ways, modernity has made good on this promise.

    But because it was wrong at the beginning about the most fundamental questions, it has always been beset by internal contradictions and problems. We are, I believe, in a very late stage in which the bankruptcy of modernity, beyond the merely technological sense, is becoming more and more evident. The crisis at the highest level of thought has already taken place, culminating in Heidegger’s lament that “only a god can save us now.” It takes years for that to filter down but it is happening.

    Meanwhile, modernity is no longer very good at delivering on its promises. It appears that the ancients and the Bible were right after all, there is no permanent progress, and man is not perfectible. Chance cannot be fully and finally conquered.

    Some people intuit that and it makes them very angry. Angry because what they have been taught to expect and told they “deserve” seems like it may never come true.

    This is another source of the anger at you, Mary, because you are speaking for the older tradition which all these people believe as an article of faith that modernity has superseded, but it hasn’t.

  61. Farm Boy

    So, if you hold all the “correct” opinions, then you are ipso facto a moral person.

    Easy to do, this is

  62. Frank

    Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?

    There’s also the plausible theory that it’s because they don’t have a strong man in their life to keep them in check.

    [ssm: Oh, and have we talked about the importance of regular exposure to semen for a woman’s mental health yet on this thread? I really don’t think we can mention that often enough. :)]

  63. Just Saying

    “Why do feminists feel angry, and why do feminists have hysterical fits resulting from that anger.”

    This is actually a typical response from someone with a mental condition who has deluded themselves so much that any proof to the contrary that their delusional world isn’t real cannot be tolerated. That is because you are the worst in their book – one of their own – a WOMAN, who points out the flaws in their little fantasy world… They say they speak for ALL women, but you have the audacity to disagree and say – “You don’t speak for me.” At least any man – the ENEMY, can be attacked normally. (He has a small dick. He is dateless. He is a loser.) But YOU must be shut-up, and destroyed. Heck, you never hear a word from them about how Muslim women are treated – that MUST be ignored at all costs… It goes counter to their fantasy world, so is conveniently ignored. So a woman who questions the narrative, and thinks for herself? That is someone that MUST be destroyed and shut-up at all costs. Dissent isn’t tolerated. Questioning, isn’t tolerated.

    [ssm: And though I don’t want this thread to be a big discussion about me personally, I will say this one thing about my situation. I’ve been doxxed – it’s not even a big deal anymore and I don’t even attempt to hide my real identity at this point – but if you look at feminist sites that write about me, one of the most common comments you’ll see there is that I must be the victim of an abusive, controlling husband. Over and over they will say how sorry they are for me, that I must have Stockholm Syndrome or something like that, otherwise I wouldn’t write what I write. When I’ve tried to protest that my husband has never raised a hand against me and has never tried to control or abuse me, I’m accused of lying. I would bet other anti-feminist women are probably accused of being in abusive marriages, too, despite the fact that they aren’t. Feminists/progressives just cannot accept that any woman wouldn’t love feminism.]

    You are only one of many women they attack. I’ve known women who have been driven off the internet for having the audacity of enjoying being a woman and being feminine, and wanting to talk with other women who share their beliefs. But the outcome of that little vignette scared the callers – terrified them. They are like tiny critters when faced with a real predator – like mice looking into the eyes of a snake seeing death coming for them – their hearts practically explode from terror. All women are like those mice – their fear of the real world terrifies them, so the world MUST be like their fantasy – where they are in control. Anyone who says differently must be shouted down.

    If they are attacking you – you are onto something they are afraid of – always a good thing.

  64. Michelle

    I think it has more to do with the anonymity of the internet than anything else. People post things they would not dream of saying to some one’s face. For example, your friend at Unmasking Feminism called all women “wretched sinners, feral animals, worms.” That is ALL women, including you. I am not sure if she was just drunk or angry posting but it seemed like over kill to me. When Carolyn Petit criticised Grand Theft Auto for portraying women as “strippers, prostitutes, long-suffering wives, humourless girlfriends and goofy, new-age feminists we’re meant to laugh at,” male commenters threatened to rape her. Kind of over kill for disagreement about a video game.

  65. Zach Frey

    @Margery,

    it does make me nervous that so many are willing to simply not engage with a liberal.

    I’ve become less and less willing as time goes on, for exactly the reasons outlined in this thread.

    If I am, because I am not part of the groupthink, not part of the Borg and refuse to be assimilated… if I am therefore, automatically to be considered “hate”-filled and hateful, then there’s really no point. Nothing I say can have any effect than to provide more evidence of how ‘unenlightened’ I am. Therefore, why bother? Best to not waste my time and theirs.

    Now, if a particular liberal is more in the old-fashioned mold (remember Voltaire’s “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” boast?) and is willing to work in the world of logic and facts, well then — that’s an entirely different matter.

    peace,
    Zach

  66. Carlotta

    I make it my goal each day now to provide a counter to these demon possesed low class and brain washed people.

    [ssm: Good! Can you give any examples that others might try?]

  67. Stand Watie

    @Escoffier

    But beyond that, the tendency to ill-manners has always been strong in the sort of epigone who knows with ABSOLUTE CERTANTY what is right and what is wrong and that you are wrong.

    There is a great Flannery O’Connor story about this.

    Only one?

  68. nightskyradio

    SSM – Oh, and have we talked about the importance of regular exposure to semen for a woman’s mental health yet on this thread? I really don’t think we can mention that often enough. :)

    I volunteer to service – er, serve the cause.

    [ssm: So patriotic of you. Ask not what your country can do for you…ask what you can do for your country.]

  69. Martel

    To piggyback on Just Sayin, anti-feminist women subject themselves to the same breed of scorn as conservative blacks and other “victims” who don’t toe the party line.

    Many lefties cherish their status as victims more than anything else in this world. Their race or gender is THE REASON they’ve been OPPRESSED. Their “race card” is like their debit, EBT, membership, and Discover cards all rolled into one. Without it, they’re nothing.

    So when somebody actively surrenders their “victim card” and somehow *gasp* still manages to survive and thrive, it’s among the most profound threats conceivable. It’s not just attacking their belief system, it attacks what they define as their very humanity.

    More here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/eliminate-the-positive/

  70. Cail Corishev

    The purpose of modernity is not to destroy everything good. But modernity does emerge as a fundamental rejection of the classical concept of the good, of the primacy f the good.

    True; since they consider themselves and their goals to be good, they can hardly want to destroy those. It’d be more precise to say that they wish to destroy everything which has traditionally been considered to be good, or the “classical concept of the good” as you put it. The more tradition and authority there is behind something, the bigger its failure in not yet having brought about Utopia, so the more urgently it must be destroyed. The newer and more novel something is, the more it can be given the benefit of the doubt.

  71. Frank

    [ssm: Oh, and have we talked about the importance of regular exposure to semen for a woman’s mental health yet on this thread? I really don’t think we can mention that often enough. :) ]

    Dude, seriously, I’m trying to have lunch here.

    [ssm: But it’s Science, Frank! :)]

  72. LP

    Mary, you are probably not aware of it, but there is a large and growing phenomena of bimbo blogs, mostly on Tumblr. There are at least a hundred of them there with a new one appearing seemingly daily. These are women who have decided that they are turned on by the idea of acting and looking as much as like a stereotypical bimbo as possible and submitting to a man as basically a sex toy. It is like a Freudian return of the repressed. As we all know when the repressed returns it comes back distorted, base, and ravenous. Feminism has made women repress their natural femininity for so long I feel like we are starting to see this return of the repressed in these bimbo blogs. But this is not what we here in the sexual realism-sphere had in mind in criticizing feminism; it is almost like the bimbos have intentionally become what feminists mis-characterize us as wanting for women. These bimbos rationalize it by just saying that the bimbo thing is their kink, or fetish, but it is just the rationalization hamster at work. They can’t admit that the enjoy femininity, so they have to come up with an excuse to allow them to escape responsibility for their desires. Warning: if you go looking for them they are very, very NSFW.

  73. redpillsetmefree

    ssm: Oh, and have we talked about the importance of regular exposure to semen for a woman’s mental health yet on this thread? I really don’t think we can mention that often enough. :)

    Discretion. I’m utilizing it. They say it’s the better part of valor. #NoBanningBecauseofWhatImThinking

  74. The Woman Margery

    So…

    Bimbos are something to aspire to now
    Jane Austen is everywhere
    SAHMs are on the rise
    Most women admit to wanting to be a SAHM
    “Girliness” and femininity are making a comeback (see: Zooey Deschanel, Ariana Grande, etc)
    More and more women are saying “I’m not a feminist”
    Domesticity is all the rage

    How is this all not a backlash?

    [ssm: Indeed, though it remains to be seen whether men have any interest in supporting such a backlash and allowing women *yet again* to change our minds about what we want. My suggestion to womankind: we put our prettiest dresses and heels on and say pretty please with sugar on top and hope they say yes.]

  75. redpillsetmefree

    These are women who have decided that they are turned on by the idea of acting and looking as much as like a stereotypical bimbo as possible and submitting to a man as basically a sex toy.

    It is like a Freudian return of the repressed. As we all know when the repressed returns it comes back distorted, base, and ravenous.

    Feminism has made women repress their natural femininity for so long I feel like we are starting to see this return of the repressed in these bimbo blogs.

    But this is not what we here in the sexual realism-sphere had in mind in criticizing feminism; it is almost like the bimbos have intentionally become what feminists mis-characterize us as wanting for women. These bimbos rationalize it by just saying that the bimbo thing is their kink, or fetish, but it is just the rationalization hamster at work. They can’t admit that the enjoy femininity, so they have to come up with an excuse to allow them to escape responsibility for their desires.

    Ja.

  76. Novaseeker

    How is this all not a backlash?

    It can just as easily be seen as a consolidation. No-one who wants those things sees them as being possible outside of feminism as currently constituted.

    For example, the idea of “choosing to be a SAHM” is itself a product of feminism in that it results from having the choice to begin with – it becomes a kind of feminist luxury good – a luxurious option afforded by the choices given by feminist progress.

    The same holds for girliness – women are empowered sufficiently now such that being girly does not imply inferiority or weakness. Women are coming from a position of great power, which has been afforded by feminism, and it is this power which empowers them to act girly without being perceived as – or feeling – weak.

    The same holds true for bimbos and 50 shades and so on – all a result of the freedoms granted by feminist sexual liberation. Again, women are “free” to be bimbos, or become a man’s sex slave or what have you because this is (i) freely chosen and (ii) coming from a “place of sexual empowerment and expression” and (iii) is therefore a triumph of feminist liberation rather than a backlash.

    I honestly don’t see these things as being very backlashy. To me they simply reflect that feminism’s “achievements” are now more or less baked in socially and culturally, and so (often younger) women feel comfortable to relax, now, and behave as they wish based on their consolidated gains as a sex made by women who are older than they are over the past several decades. It’s like the “feminist dividend check” much more than it is like a backlash. The key difference being that not one of these modern aspects seeks to undo or undermine the core principles of feminist liberation that comprised the second wave and the sexual revolution – not one iota. It’s simply about taking the choices offered and acting on them with a mindset that takes them as a given, rather than a mindset which sees itself in a struggle. Most young women don’t have the “struggle” mindset that women of Gen X and Boomer generation have. They are the beneficiaries down the track who take the gains for granted, and don’t feel the need to fight, but rather just enjoy the choices afforded by the gains.

    [ssm: I think this is mostly correct, but additionally, when a modern woman has a baby, she is often surprised by the fact that she suddenly actually wants to be with him/her. Modern women often suppose they will be fine with dumping the child in a day orphanage and slogging back to work ASAP, and then when Baby actually arrives, the woman is startled to find herself wanting to be a traditional wife and mother. Of course, as you say, it all has to be her choice; it mustn’t be imposed upon her by a man! That would make it sexist and patriarchal and even housewives are devoted feminists in our progressive era. Still, one hopes as the movement Margery noted – to at least say that one is not a feminist – continues to grow that some small number of women will truly discover what it means to eschew feminism. We anti-feminist women should be on the look out for and encourage those women.]

  77. Dalrock

    Excellent post SSM, and excellent comments especially from Professor Hale and Escoffier. I would add two things:

    1) The left has a direct history with assigning ideas to people and then either literally or figuratively destroying the person. Pretty much any intellectual disagreement marxists have has an individual named as the poster child for the thought crime. This is why you have such things as Bonapartism, etc. In Whittaker Chambers’ autobiography Witness he describes the way communists in the US who backed the wrong horse (Lovestoneites) were treated by the Soviet directed American far left. When the more moderate left later lifted their skirts to hide the Stalinists after WWII, they inadvertently brought this practice into more wide use among liberals. Escoffier explains why this is so natural to the left, but it is worth remembering that there is also a very recent history of putting this kind of thing in practice. In the USSR thinking the wrong way got you killed or imprisoned. In the US it got you fired and blacklisted.

    2) Feminism has the additional layer that women are much more sensitive to judgment than men, and deep down they know what they are doing is wrong. If you recall the whole slutwalk global temper tantrum, it was because not only did a rather ordinary policeman say something men shouldn’t be allowed to think, but other men (including policemen) were no doubt thinking the same things. Tolerance doesn’t stop the painful burn of judgment, even unspoken judgment. This is why shutting you up (while high on their list) isn’t sufficient. They must not only silence you, they must stop you from existing to think the thoughts which so terribly convict them.

    [ssm: It’s odd how they don’t wonder why they feel so convicted and ponder whether that conviction might mean they are actually guilty of something. I love that phrase you used, global temper tantrum; it seems like an appropriate description of feminism in general. Whenever I see those topless pictures of the Femen feminist activists (link NSFW), I just have to laugh. Thank you feminists for liberating women to be more sexually objectified. No man can judge you now! Or something.]

  78. Martel

    I think that the bimbo phenomenon might be women reacting to feminism by caricaturing femininity. They have only a vague concept of the real thing, and they know something’s missing, so they mimic it.

  79. Escoffier

    It’s amazing too how fast “opinion morality” standards can change. As recently as the 2000 election, and even after that, most Dem-left politicians were against “gay marriage.” Hell, Clinton even signed DOMA.

    Now, that position is absolutely unacceptable everywhere. But leeway is granted if you are on the right side. For Clinton, while DOMA is of course evil, he gets a pass because he is on the right team. For any Rep, to have ever been against gay marriage and for (say) “civil unions” is proof that you are a bigot. And always have been. The fact that this opinion was universally seen as not bigoted only a decade ago is irrelevant. It’s a cudgel to be used to against actual and potential enemies, consistency be damned.

    That is part of the point, to keep people confused and guessing about what can be said (and thought) and what cannot. Because the more afraid and bewildered they are, the easier it is to control their thoughts.

    Mark these words, one or more tenets that is in 2013 a Holy Writ of Conventional Wisdom, or even of Liberalism itself, will be ruled evil within a few years an people who said unfortunate things about it today will be retroactively punished.

  80. earl

    [ssm: Oh, and have we talked about the importance of regular exposure to semen for a woman’s mental health yet on this thread? I really don’t think we can mention that often enough. :) ]

    But big pharma can’t profit off of that. Anti-depressants on the other hand…….

  81. Martel

    @ Escoffier: The left uses language in similar ways all the time. One example is “African-American”. Regular black people call each other “black” all the time, and when it comes right down to it, they’ll never criticize a white guy for using it.

    However, we can’t be sure, so to show we’re extra-sensitive, even most conservatives will use it AA anyhow. Never mind that it’s an awkward mouthful. I think that’s part of your “penance”; to stumble over your words so as to show how much you care.

    I also think part of the frequent use of the N-word is almost a sort of taunt. Spend much time around blacks and you’ll hear it dozens of times a day, but if you say it ONCE, they’ve every right to slit your throat on the spot.

    Also, notice how “global warming” gradually became “climate change” once nobody believed the Earth was getting warm anymore. Change the language subtly, re-frame the debate to your advantage without your opponents even knowing they should respond. Deroy Murdock has a great column on this here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354363/fight-liberal-word-games-deroy-murdock

  82. BlueSky DJ

    The theme that “The Left” sees its’ oppostion as subhuman has been raised throughout this thread. I came to that realization a long time ago. Do not, however, ask me to engage such people. It’s wrong. To do so merely rewards unacceptable behavior, places me at a disadvantage and cheapens any engagement with those who do consider me equal.

    I treat people as they treat me and will accept nothing less in return.

  83. LP

    Mary, how did they Doxx you? Did you reveal too much personal information, or did they trace your IP address, or some other techie spying?

  84. Mina

    You missed the big point that was made at Matt’s site and Captain Capitalism’s site about Feminists and Liberals: They have brain damage. No I don’t mean that in a figurative sense but a Literal sense. Their Amygdala is under-developed (for reasons I won’t get into here.) This is the flight or fight center of the brain and its function is to accept inputs, process them and then determine whether to produce some action. Because their amygdala is easily overwhelmed (technically called a “hijack” which you can look up on Wiki for reference) they protect it by projecting against any uncomfortable stimulus. They are seeking to prevent an amygdala hijack. So what they do is attack anything you press up against them that they deem “emotionally uncomfortable”. It is simple biology and they cannot help themselves. Once you know this and understand it, it is easy to 1. Create a hijack at will and 2. Beat them in any debate or confrontation. It isn’t you or your idealogy, per se. It’s that they are already invested in an ideology that they have integrated into their being and there is no way for them to process any new, much less opposing, information. Their amygdala will hijack and they will react long before you have had any opportunity to present any compelling facts. Therefore: It is Hopeless. Their brains cannot handle the information. You may as well spend your time teaching a pig to sing.

  85. Opus

    The terrific irony is that whereas the Liberal-Marxist left tend to mock Christians for their beliefs, boasting of their free-thinking abilities and even going so far as to nickname themselves in a moment of delicious hubris ‘brights’, the leftists are not only more doctrinaire than any (or almost all) religionists but spout their catechism in a manner that even The Bishop of Rome or an Ayatollah would be proud of and then turn into a howling mob baying for blood so as to prevent their castles in the air cascading to dust.

    Even better, the irony is lost on them.

  86. Farm Boy

    boasting of their free-thinking abilities and even going so far as to nickname themselves in a moment of delicious hubris ‘brights’

    In the US they call themselves “reality based” people. Which is odd, since they ignore the reality of human nature

  87. Frank

    I’ll say one thing, it does seem to take endurance of herculean proportions to suffer the feminist’s sh%& tests within your social circles before you become blessed to see this magical light bulb turn on and they realize they may not actually have all the secrets to the kingdom after all.

  88. Martel

    @ Mina: You know I like a lot of what I have to say, but a couple of points of contention.

    First, the brain damage you cite is real, but the extent of the damage varies considerably lefty to lefty. Some amygdalas will go off no matter what you do, other times speaking with them more or less rationally is entirely possible.

    Second, I don’t want to offer too much here before reading everything AC has to say, but I think I’ve stumbled on a way to circumvent their hyperactive response under some circumstances. I’ve dealt with some serious wackos who lash into others at the slightest provocation who actually listen to what I have to say.

    Therefore, although their responses to certain stimuli may be involuntary and biological, but common sense can perhaps be presented in such a way as to not seem quite like a stimulus that sets it off. This has been my natural style, and it’s only recently that I’ve been able to reverse-engineer what I stumbled on instinctively.

    I’m in the process of learning how AC manipulates the amygdala responses that he incites, and there’s obviously value to provoking their insanity when the time is right. But there are other times when it might be more advantageous to work around it.

    I’ve done both, and beneffited from both, and I don’t want to contradict AC. Yet it seems to me that he’s mastered using one edge of a sword, and I’ve mastered the other. I therefore want to learn everything he’s learned so that I can be a master of both.

  89. Opus

    May I add that one of the reasons that Leftists are far worse than Christians, is that Christians are conscious of human frailty, know that they are sinners and belief in repentance and forgiveness: leftists don’t.

  90. feeriker

    [ssm: Oh, and have we talked about the importance of regular exposure to semen for a woman’s mental health yet on this thread?

    Oh lord, now you’ve planted a vision in my head of several million newly-released sperm screaming “It’s a FEMINIST! GO BACK! GO BAAAAAAACK!”

  91. FuzzieWuzzie

    Months ago, when Maeve first started commenting here, she proposed the idea that feminists had had their teddy bears taken away at too young an age. The solution was to distribute teddy bears to feminists. While it may seem absurd, it will baffle them for a while. They won’t know how to deal with kindness.

    On a more serious note, they hate. In order to hate, first, you have to remove all humanity from your opponent. That then gives you license to commit all manner of atrocities.

    About the “semen” theory, I’ll bet there’s a whole lot more to it than that. If these women could live with a man, their personalities would be better grounded. It’s too bad their ideology gets in the way of that.

  92. Martel

    @ Opus: Other ways in which Christianity differs from leftism is the recognition that Heaven and Earth are different places. We know that there’s no point in trying to create Utopia; they don’t.

    Also, Christians already have a Savior so they’re not looking for one in their political figures. Just do a google image search of obama halo. Christians are less likely to seek God in another man.

  93. tj

    Two points here

    First – I clicked over to the GOMI thread justforthehellofit – and started laughing when I saw the banner ad for totally cute shoes – love that sort of irony.

    Second and to the point here – there’s a very simple answer to your question. Responses like you’ve listed are designed to elicit an emotional response in the reader. The writers KNOW they have no logical points to make, so rely on an appeal to emotion in an attempt to win the argument. In game parlance – they’re trying to control the frame via their attacks and childish language.

    And as most men know, arguing with a woman in the emotional realm = loss

    Once you starting arguing about emotions the feminists are projecting, they’ve won – now the discussion is about their feeeeeeeeeeeeelings – not whatever they’re objecting to.

  94. Lee Lee Bug

    Ann Coulter offered a well thought of explanation of this in one of her most recent books. I’m at work and can’t remember the title right now.

    She explained about how liberals work off of peoples’ emotions. They try to whip a mob into a frenzy and likened it to what happened during the French Revolution. Liberals seem to be able to excuse violence when it’s for a “good” cause (translation: A cause they want to promote.”

    I don’t visit feminist blogs very often, usually only if you or another Christian blogger links to them. I’m always surprised at how hateful feminist bloggers can be toward anyone who dares to disagree with them or their agenda.

    I think that whoever tried to dox you was probably angry because you often call women out on their bad behavior. They are entitled princesses who can’t stand to criticized, even if the criticism has merit or is done politely.

  95. Carlotta

    [ssm: Good! Can you give any examples that others might try?]

    1. Dress and act like a high class lady.
    2. Be seen in public being respectful of, submissive to and in love with my Husband.
    3. Show love and joy publically to and about my children.

    Arguing with feminists does not work. Creating a longing through envy for what is natural and right by having your joy and freedom in their face is what works.

  96. Martel

    “Once you starting arguing about emotions the feminists are projecting, they’ve won – now the discussion is about their feeeeeeeeeeeeelings – not whatever they’re objecting to.”

    The best frame I’ve found for avoiding this is condescension. For the more reasonable ones, I’m like the big brother sympathetically telling them how the world really works. For the bitches, I use dismissive contempt with a hint of mockery. Either way, their emotions are of no consequence.

    Amused mastery, always.

  97. Fred

    “Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?”

    Easy: because they’re not getting laid (at least not by men).

  98. tj

    @Martel – always handy to have a few quick comebacks too

    “Glad you like it”
    “Your nose flares kinda funny when you yell”
    “Whoa – your hair – how did you dye the roots like that?”
    “Hold still for a second – you know you totally have a face for bangs?”

    total redirects

  99. FuzzieWuzzie

    Maeve,
    That exchange was particularly memorable. It was a lot of fun.

    Back to the point of the thread. These people are taking a bath in negative emotions. Exposing them to positive ones could help.

  100. tj

    Been thinking about the violence aspect of things here and I think it’s like this.

    If a liberal man said something like the above to a red pill man, there would be consequences. The red pill man might get his ass kicked, but there would be a reaction. The liberal man KNOWS there’s a line not to cross w/o physical altercations occuring.

    With women however, thanks to our legal system and tradition, there is no threat of reprecussion. A woman can say pretty much anything she wants to a man or woman – and pretty much not fear the threat of physical reprisal. Additionally, virtually all men need to be probbed quite heavily to even think about hitting a woman in this sort of situation.

    IOW – she has no physical deterrent to her mouth.

    As any parent knows, children need limits and will go to extremes to find them.

    Toss in the safety of posting from behind a keyboard and we ought not be surprised by the violence so sadly common in postings from the feminists and the left.

  101. FuzzieWuzzie

    Fred said “because they’re not getting laid”.
    There’s more to it than that. I think it was GirlWritesWhat who said that just sitting on the sofa, watching television with her sweetie had a calming effect on her spirit.
    They can find boys to use for sex but, what is needed is the whole package.

  102. Martel

    @ tj: Those are effective dominance lines that I try to use when an overt expression of dominance would be to my advantage. I always start out gently (with hints that I have a nasty side), but if they try to take advantage of that, your lines are golden. My three step process when somebody name-calls, etc. is 1) make sure everybody watching knows that they just crossed a line, 2) frame myself as the victim/humanize myself, and 3) mock them or make them hurt.

    In the aggregate, we’ve been framed as heartless and caring, so too much aggression too soon simply plays into the frame. However, sometimes you gotta belittle somebody (or even rip them a new one). As an evil rich-loving fascist, being too “mean” can backfire, but as a caring fellow human being who simply has a different perspective, righteous indignation can seem downright heroic. When I get accused of not caring about the poor, I have a heartfelt retort that’s made everybody back down every time I’ve used it.

    I always try to keep in mind not only who I’m arguing against, but who’s listening in. If I’m arguing against a hardcore feminist with nobody listening, my goal might be to persuade HER. But if “moderates” are listening in, I’ll treat that same feminist altogether differently so as to get the low-hanging fruit.

    Also, I actually listen to what the other person has to say. If somebody’s the type of lefty that Margery used to be, belittling re-directs will also backfire. I’m very attuned to those who seek Truth but are just really bad at knowing where to find it, and these folks require much more softness.

    Still, your lines are great for the right time.

  103. nightskyradio

    SSM – It’s odd how they don’t wonder why they feel so convicted and ponder whether that conviction might mean they are actually guilty of something [emphasis mine]

    So guilty people should be convicted? Who woulda thought????

    So patriotic of you. Ask not what your country can do for you…ask who you can do for your country

    Fixed it for ya.

  104. tj

    @Martel – you are very spot on with your stance of viewing the other person AS a person – and being willing to see their point of view, much less being aware of your audience.

    Curious – as a fellow capitalist swine – what’s the line you use when accused of being a heartless soulsucking money grubber who wants to enslave the poor?

  105. grinnincolossus

    Incredible that they cannot see, or do not care, how lowbrow their responses make them appear. Does internet rage make them feel empowered?

    “You don’t even know what sex is, so your argument is invalid. Please go back to fondling your micro-peen and let the adults talk.” (in response to ‘Leap of a Beta’, I believe)

    “Sunshine Mary is a disgusting excuse for a human being…”

    Par for the course, I suppose. I’ve have never read any comments so inflammatory coming from SSM, or most parts of the manosphere for that matter.

  106. Cail Corishev

    [ssm: Good! Can you give any examples that others might try?]

    For women trying to teach other women, it’s important to remember the herd instinct. I think many people who aren’t experienced with herd animals misunderstand what that means and think it means that women always follow the herd — always go with the majority. But that’s not quite right. The thing about a herd is that the entire herd will follow one animal who is willing to take the lead. If you’re trying to get a herd of sheep to go through a gate they’ve never entered before, sometimes they’ll just mill around in circles, acting as if they can’t even see the gate, until you’re exhausted from chasing them. But as soon as you can get one ewe to break off from the group and go through, the rest will charge after her at top speed.

    I’ve seen similar behavior among women. If all the women in a group are doing the same thing, it’s very hard to get any one woman to go against them. But if just one woman will go her own direction — and look confident and happy and attractive to men while doing it — others will soon be drawn to imitate her, even though they’re still in the minority. I don’t think women realize they have this kind of individual power, because the fear of being that first one to break away is so strong; but one woman setting the right example can have a major influence on an entire group in a way that doesn’t really work between men.

  107. Rollo Tomassi

    @SSM, in light of today’s topic you will find this blog post extraordinarily relevant:

    http://manofdepravity.com/2013/11/what-have-we-become-2/

    You think feminist or christo-feminists are beating you up? This guy is getting savaged for just asking questions.

    [ssm: Thank you for the link. I left a comment, though I wonder if it will be allowed to stand.

    Christo-feminists are not really much different than any other kind of feminist. When roused, by which I mean when they are disagreed with, they are prone to rage, hysteria, irrationality, overstatment, and insults. In my post The church does not need feminism but it very much wants it, a “Pastor” named Karen Booth took me to task for my “stridency” for daring to criticize Christian feminism and egalitarianism.]

  108. Farm Boy

    Christians are conscious of human frailty, know that they are sinners

    Indded. Humans are not perfectable. Their sin nature is part of their human nature. Blank slates only happen in computers.

  109. Farm Boy

    Does internet rage make them feel empowered?

    Why, yes it does.

    Is it helpful to the cause? Not so much

  110. FuzzieWuzzie

    About violence, hard core feminists are indeed capable of it. The photos from the post about Austin TX demonstrated that their ranks are diminishing and what will remain will be hard core.
    They’re not about to leave the stage gracefully.
    The good news is that they will not be missed if they revert to form.

  111. FuzzieWuzzie

    “Does internet rage make them feel empowered?”
    “Why, yes. it does.”
    Farm Boy, do you notice that doesn’t happen here? Could it be because we’re more articulate and introspecive? Could it be that we are less prone to “knee jerk”?

  112. Carlotta

    @ Cali

    Agreed. I have always been that one sheep shooting off from the herd lol.

    I think it has to appeal to women as well. Himself is very hot and successful. Would it work as well if he wasn’t? I dont know. We are always noticed so I do my best to offer an example that the feminist claim does not exist.

    Of course, in these times, any women able to stay home has major envy directed her way. I have lost friendships over that.

    The herd is noticing.

  113. Remo

    One aspect I am also convinced plays a vital role here: evil. No one who looks into the eyes of a frothing feminist can doubt the existence of evil anymore than one who gazes into the eyes of a serial killer. She is rebelling against her true master (GOD) with the help of her adopted lover (satan). Ultimately her quarrel is not with men, or governments, or policy, but with nature itself and the one who designed it. How dare GOD make her inferior in *fill in the blank* I AM JUST AS GOOD IF NOT BETTER THAN ALL MEN!!! Cue rant against men, America, “patriarchy”, etc. but it always comes back to a deep resentment to GOD.

    Feminists obsess over the notion that they got less in the genetic lottery of life and therefore the world (and GOD and men) owes them and not only do they owe her but they should be sufficiently sorry for the obvious slight. Such pride is easily used by the devil as he is well familiar with it. These women will make their kingdoms even higher then men, they will rule over them, and how dare anyone or anything say otherwise! Of course the bible does say this which is why most are atheists – well not atheists per say – you’d find a deep loathing and resentment for GOD if you shot them up with truth serum not unbelief. Heck the devil isn’t an atheist either and hates GOD for the same reason – he is inferior.

    Cut through all the nonsense and you’ll find its pride, the oldest, most vile, most disgusting sin there is. “Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man… It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition is gone, pride is gone.” – C.S. Lewis

  114. Carlotta

    @ SSM

    That was an awesome exchange with Ms Booth. How arrogant to assume anyone would care for her offense to you and your commenters tone.

    Nice how ya shut her down.

  115. Remo

    And this most of all, the fact that feminism is nothing more than pride masquerading as “rights” is why there can be no compromise with it. You will never be able to fill the void the feminists feel for being slighted by GOD and they would ultimately get no pleasure from ruling over all men even if such an offer was on the table. In their hearts they know the truth, that they were born to be help mates and this they deeply resent and cannot change. So in total rebellion they lash out, mislabeling what is making them angry to gain credence, twisting logic, and in general shocking people with their frothing rage. If all they wanted was equal rights then it follows that there wouldn’t be all this hate when those rights were granted. Now in the U.S. they have far greater rights than men, legally, on the job, and in the home, but they are STILL angry. Such a person is angry at the world and cannot be appeased or made happy with concessions. The only thing to do is to shame them and humiliate them at every turn and when necessary fight them and put them down. Shine the light of truth upon them and turn the argument around at every step. Employ the same rhetoric and never grant them respect. You can’t argue logically with evil and no compromise is ever the end.

  116. lovelyleblanc7

    I don’t know what it is up with liberals/feminists being so hateful. I also realized, when they don’t have facts to refute you, they starts attacking your personal character which is irrelevant to the topic!
    “Maybe if I just insult her, I’ll win this debate” says silly liberals.
    Prime example would be what Martin Bashir said about Sarah Palin, don’t make any comments relevant to what she was talking about but just insult her.

  117. Ghost of 503

    Encyclopedia Dramatica (which makes Reddit look like a choir retreat) summed up it perfectly in its victim complex entry. “Victim privilege is a complementary disorder, where one uses their disproportional perception of being oppressed as a crutch to in turn assume they have carte blanche to act oppressive toward others out of spite”

    Women = victim = oppressed = carte blanche. You can see this same idea at times in the MRA movement.

    Men = victim = oppressed = carte blanche

  118. lovelyleblanc7

    @Ghost: I explained in a blog post why I was not an MRA as much as I wasn’t a feminist because of the victim card that each side plays. An MRA criticized me off the bat, but at least he was civil and didn’t choose name calling as his main argument.

  119. Historian

    The reason the feminists are violent is because they are latent homosexuals. They aspire to male prerogatives.
    Homosexuality and violence are linked:

    The Brown Shirts and SS leaders were homosexual. Ernst Rohm, a sodomite, said homosexuals made the best storm troops because they had no compunction to inflict violence; more so than straights. See

    http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

    The Marquis de Sade, a homosexual, was given to excesses that few straight criminals could stomach.

    The definitive work, from a Christian perspective, is “The Book of Gomorah” by Saint Peter Damian. This 11th century Catholic scholar documents the debilitating nature of homosexuality.

  120. Farm Boy

    “Does internet rage make them feel empowered?”

    I feel empowered when what I say makes logical sense.

  121. FuzzieWuzzie

    Observer,
    “We can’t be all INTJs?”
    There does seem to be a filtering mechanism for commenters.
    Maybe not all but, who else would feminists take as much joy from causing to grieve?

  122. an observer

    Feminists and Liberals: They have brain damage. 

    Correlation is not causation. The road safety loonies use this argument too, saying the brain is continually developing into adulthood.

    My response is: so?

    Fail to teach critical thinking, give people prepackaged answers, as Gatto said they never have to grow up at all.

    Feminism offers an all encompassing answer: theyre victims. No further analysis or processing required. Little wonder that brian processing might be underdeveloped. Its never been needed.

  123. Poder

    The main reason why the left in general and feminists in particular tend to be angry is because they sincerely believe their own nonsense. They really believe that people who aren’t white, rich, male, heterosexual, Western or thin, are oppressed. They believe that they are smarter than everyone else. They think if we just followed their advice, we would all be in utopia by now.

    Hence, because of these beliefs, they feel that if you disagree with them, you are either a) stupid or b) evil and want to hold people down.

    They cannot believe that non-leftists actually care about so-called oppressed groups as well. They believe that their solution is the solution and feel that their good intentions are more important than the actual outcome of their policies. It is the politics of good intentions and self congratulation.

    The fact that leftists typically come from liberal communities, go to liberal schools majoring in the liberal arts with their leftist professors and seldom hear an opposing view other than caricatures doesn’t help either.

    Therefore, leftists and feminists calling people names and being very condescending is common. They frequently ignore difficult questions they cannot answer. They ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their world view. Smear tactics are almost always used. So called “hate speech” laws are used where “hate speech” is anything that is contrary to liberalism and leftism. And when they become too powerful, they usually kill people who disagree with them.

  124. anonymous_ng

    While reading through the comments here, an errant thought has gotten stuck in my head like a song that won’t go away.

    I have a divorced friend who works in IT and has two jobs. That is, he has two six figure jobs. So, would the progressive/liberal crowd say that he’s stealing a good job from someone else by working two jobs? Frankly, trying to consider the idea is like trying to grab a handful of jello.

  125. Mina

    @Martel: I do understand you and agree. I, like AC (I am guessing here), am mainly interested in ~beating liberals~ in debate and in out manuvering them strategically in the political arena (gun control.) Therefore my approach will also be only one side of the sword. I am sure there might be a way to approach them and win them over but I am not really interested in that. Just beating them into the ground, into submission and getting them the heck out of my way.

  126. Martel

    @ tj: “Curious – as a fellow capitalist swine – what’s the line you use when accused of being a heartless soulsucking money grubber who wants to enslave the poor?”

    “Line” was a poor word choice; it’s more of a diatribe. It doesn’t come across as well in writing, and it’s never exactly the same thing (this is the expanded version). Just imagine something like this (or parts of this) said with genuine conviction. Also, depending on circumstance, I might insist ahead of time that they let me finish (with a promise to surrender the floor as soon as I’m done).

    “Wait a minute here. How do you know it doesn’t break my heart when I see beautiful little kids, full of life, growing up in a place like Detroit?

    “Believe it or not, it DOES. I love this country, and I want EVERY kid to have a chance. But I’ve done a lot of thinking, and lot of reading, and a LOT of talking to people who live in hellholes like that, and I’ve come to the conclusion that despite the best intentions of liberals, their policies make things worse.

    “And it’s entirely presumptuous of you to assume that just because I don’t want the entire country to be run like Detroit that I hate poor people. I have different ideas than you, but you’ll never even bother to hear what they are because you think you’re some kind of psychic who can somehow just tell who I hate and who I don’t. You are NOT psychic, and you do NOT know how I feel. I want to turn places like Detroit around, but you don’t give a shit.

    “It’s your choice. Write off everything I have to say. Assume that because I have some policy disagreements with you that I’m pure evil. But I swear before God from the bottom of my soul that ALL of America’s children matter to me, and for that reason I can’t in good conscience agree with your politics.

    “You mean well, but it wasn’t Republicans who turned Detroit into a basket-case. I see other options and have other ideas that might work, but people like you just want to call people like me names. I accept that, but no matter what you call me, I’m going to continue to fight for what I believe and for the policies I have every reason to believe would be a hell of a lot better for all kids.”

  127. Guest

    [ssm: Thank you for the link. I left a comment, though I wonder if it will be allowed to stand.

    Christo-feminists are not really much different than any other kind of feminist. When roused, by which I mean when they are disagreed with, they are prone to rage, hysteria, irrationality, overstatment, and insults. In my post The church does not need feminism but it very much wants it, a “Pastor” named Karen Booth took me to task for my “stridency” for daring to criticize Christian feminism and egalitarianism.]

    How nice that you recognize that Rev. Booth represents the Church. So many of your readers tried so hard to address her without her title in as obvious a way as possible. It seemed very childish, IMO.

  128. Emily

    As a feminist, I disagree with most of your opinions, but I usually enjoy your writing and your perspective. I’m embarrassed by the vitriol that’s been sent your way in the name of feminism. Some amount of anger comes with feminism (as they say, if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention), but the really petty obnoxious stuff is 95% a function of the internet, and 5% bad attempts at imitating Kate Harding’s writing style.
    Some people on the internet use anonymity as an excuse to behave badly (just look at youtube), but I really don’t see how you can justify a causal link with feminism.

  129. Modern Drummer

    Warren Farrell is an articulate,soft spoken advocate for men and boys who doesn’t fit their patriarchal boogeyman worldview.
    That really pisses them off.

  130. Frank

    Some people on the internet use anonymity as an excuse to behave badly (just look at youtube), but I really don’t see how you can justify a causal link with feminism.

    You clearly have never been to New York. Or Toronto.

  131. an observer

    when they become too powerful, they usually kill people who disagree with them.

    The right does that too. The left and right are not opposites. They are branches of the same tree, opposing individual freedom. The opposite end of the spectrum has the libertarians, the anarchists and the austrians.

  132. an observer

    Fuzzie,

    From wiki:
    INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and account for approximately 1-3% of females and 2-6% of males.

    Its tough being a special snowflake….

  133. an observer

    I always try to keep in mind not only who I’m arguing against, but who’s listening in.

    Here on the `net, I can surmise the former. But the latter is largely unknown. Apparently theres a quite a few lurkers and casual readers.

  134. Ghost of 503

    “@Ghost: I explained in a blog post why I was not an MRA as much as I wasn’t a feminist because of the victim card that each side plays. An MRA criticized me off the bat, but at least he was civil and didn’t choose name calling as his main argument.”

    No doubt he was civil, but I wonder what would happen if you posted pro-feminist opinions in some of the darker corners of the internet, especially ones where anonymous is default. Anita Sarkesian knew that if she posted her kickstarter info on 4Chan her postings would be get buried in misogynistic comments. Which she was then able to play like a fiddle.

  135. an observer

    The left has a direct history with assigning ideas to people and then either literally or figuratively destroying the person. 

    The right assigns people to ideas and then attacks both. McCarthyism is an older example; terrorism is a more recent one.

    Attempts at dialogue are squelched and painted as treason:
    “You”re either with us, or for the terrorists.”

    The growth of government under both left and right administrations threatens to kill the host, fo government is parasite that rules by coerced consent. Hence the largely artificial divide getween left and right, red and blue state.

    It is all coercion. The monopoly on ideologies through public ed is just the start. Twelve years of mandatory detention has a predictable result. Zombies, iphones and mindless sheep, amusing themselves to death.

  136. dannyfrom504

    Mary-
    i posted this yesterday. i watched it happen. i kid you not.

    http://dannyfrom504.com/2013/11/19/harpies/

    why are feminists like this? simple. because they can get away with it. if a man even attempts to defend himself from a woman physically attacking him, he’ll get hauled off. society has gotten so off the rails and women have become so entitled that they resort to violence and volatile tactics with complete abandon. no one’s going to hold them accountable. it’s almost expected.

    i told one woman who was being snarky and telling me how she’d “mess me up” (she was listening in on a conversation i was having with a guy about learning krav with my Marines)-

    “the only reason you’d ‘mess me up’ is because it’s socially unacceptable for me to fuck you up in self defense. the only way you’d beat me is via sneak attack. one to one from the chest, i’d fucking own you.” (sort for the language).

    a few people giggled (gotta love the south) and she sat there finishing her drink fuming. out here, once you get away from the cities, you’d be hard pressed to find a woman who’d take it to the physical plane with a guy. had an ex slap me in the face, and i ALMOST laid into her. turned around and walked away. girl grabbed my shoulder (she was apologizing) and i jerked my shoulder away. her aunt grabbed her and told her to let me go.

    we had a LOOOOOONG talk after that and well, she never put her hands on me again. this was in high school btw. i was a senior she was a sophomore. aaaah youth.

  137. nightskyradio

    LLB – I also realized, when they don’t have facts to refute you, they starts attacking your personal character which is irrelevant to the topic! …Prime example would be what Martin Bashir said about Sarah Palin, don’t make any comments relevant to what she was talking about but just insult her.

    That’s a problem, but the bigger problem is that it so often works.

    A few million people watching pumped their fists in the air and high-fived each other because, in their eyes, their man Martin totally owned that evil #%&$ Sarah Palin.

  138. an observer

    it does make me nervous that so many are willing to simply not engage with a liberal.

    The term liberal has been coopted by the progressives, themselves misnamed.

    Classically liberal thinkers embraced new ideas. Contemporary liberals reject them as alien to accepted narrative.

    I have a lot of sympathy for those refraining from engagement, the pearls before swine approach.

    The days are short, and my patience for pointless discussion wth brainwashed zombies* is limited.

    * with apologies to the clear thinking zombies who might be offended.

  139. Julian O'Dea

    I learned this in 1972, here in Australia. The party of the Left had just won government. I supported them then. A feminist was walking around shaking a tin to collect money for a government childcare campaign. I politely told her I didn’t support the cause. She called me a “chauvinist shit”.

    They don’t do thinking. Just emotions; usually hatred and resentment.

    As for threats of violence, this seems to be a woman thing, strangely.

  140. Norm

    I found the second comment strange. This woman possibly goes to a feminised church then says you are whats’ wrong with Christianity? I wonder if God and Jesus feel the same way? Not a chance. Micheal Savage is right when he states that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  141. tbc

    As for the violence, it is a pervasive and consistent trait of leftism, and Observer’s observation:

    The right assigns people to ideas and then attacks both. McCarthyism is an older example; terrorism is a more recent one.

    Attempts at dialogue are squelched and painted as treason:
    “You”re either with us, or for the terrorists.”

    what he is criticizing is actual another form of leftism, disguised under the rubric of ‘conservatism’ when it is not conservative at all.

    Leftism (of which feminism is a variant) is rooted ultimately in rebellion against God and has as its object the erasure of God himself, and barring that, the erasure of all that reminds one of God. But the reality is that God cannot be eliminated; the creature is dependent on the creator; reality does not bend to human willfulness. Consequently one feels weak and frustrated — like a child who cannot get his way and throws a tantrum.

    Feminism is even worse in this regard because women are in fact, weaker and dependent upon men. It is a frightening thing for feminists to contemplate that tomorrow, if such a conspiracy as the ‘Patriarchy’ actually existed and asserted itself, women could be violently and brutally suppressed and there is nothing they could do about it. Absolutely nothing!. There actually could be such a thing as rape culture. Women could be abused violently. Women could be made to stay home and do nothing but serve the needs of men. But men don’t do this — even though we could.

    So feminists rage because women like SSM are sleeping with the enemy — they are traitors to the cause, and like all traitors, they should be eliminated — both to destroy any hope of others who would hope to defect, and also (and perhaps more importantly) to kill any possibility of an alternate reality. They want to bend reality to their will and as long as there are happy, well-adjusted people who don’t live in their reality, they expose the lies under which they live.

  142. Julian O'Dea

    A couple more points. Feminists are nervous of humour. They do not know how to respond. Also, deep down, they know that men are indulging them and patronising them, since, as tbc points out, they only have their power on loan from men. And they realise that a lot of their behaviour is disgusting and childish. They are like children who have pooped their pants, and the adults are too polite to comment.

    As for acting like bimboes and reading Fifty Shades of Grey, I think there comes a point where even the most put-upon man must realise that these things are not wins for any kind of feminism.

  143. Opus

    This thread seems to have touched a frustrated nerve, by which I mean there is general agreement and frustration here with the behaviour – the childlike impotence of the behaviour – of Feminists and Marxist.

    In a case of seeing ourselves as others see us, I think that Leftists would (if they could remain calm) be shocked by how they are perceived as irrational, unpleasant, violent and intolerant, yet that is exactly how they come across, especially on-line.

  144. Julian O'Dea

    I have experienced nastiness from the Right and Left, and some on the Right can get ugly online. But in my experience the Left is worse. And they dearly want to shut down debate. If the Left had got its wish here in Australia on speech laws, several of my recent blog posts would likely have been literally illegal.

  145. sunshinemary Post author

    Feminists are nervous of humour. They do not know how to respond.

    You know, I’ve noticed the same thing, at least with female feminists.

    The ones that I really don’t know how to deal with are the male feminists. They usually aren’t as emotional as female feminists, but they can be just as illogical and nasty.

  146. sunshinemary Post author

    I think that Leftists would (if they could remain calm) be shocked by how they are perceived as irrational, unpleasant, violent and intolerant, yet that is exactly how they come across, especially on-line.

    Once in a while an unusually thoughtful and calm feminist – by far the minority, but see this example up thread – will notice how out-of-control many of her sisters-in-arms are and apologize for them. Unfortunately, what often comes next is a “no true Scotsman” argument from them…”if those were really feminists, they wouldn’t act that way.”

  147. Julian O'Dea

    I think male feminists are in revolt against Mean Old Daddy, including God the Father. I wrote a blog post about this recently, on Misandry As Misplaced Misotheism.

  148. Zippy

    Observer:
    The term liberal has been coopted by the progressives, themselves misnamed.

    That is often stated by people sympathetic to classical liberalism, but I think it is false. Classical liberalism is not something different from modern liberalism. It is, as the name implies, simply an earlier form of the same thing: the basic liberal doctrine applied to the background assumptions of an earlier point in history.

    This is important because it means that classical liberalism must also be completely and unequivocally rejected.

  149. Julian O'Dea

    Also, a not inconsiderable number of men get off on grovelling to women (I have just added Sacher-Masoch’s Venus in Furs to my bedside pile of books.)

    So great, incidentally, is the presumption that intellectuality implies liberalism that my posting poems seems to have confused my critics. Also, it is often men not women who complain about their “sexist” content.

  150. earl

    “A couple more points. Feminists are nervous of humour. They do not know how to respond.”

    They don’t know whether to do the normal thing and laugh…or to do their normal thing and be offended.

    I have no idea why anyone would want to be a feminist. There is no such thing as fun in their lives.

  151. Julian O'Dea

    earl, because it gives meaning. Feminism gives psychic comfort. It can be used to explain personal failure; provides the mob joy of hatred; provides the drama and pleasure of feeling resentment; and it is, like any really good hobby, enthralling and of neverending fascination. It is a complete system and can be referred to constantly in all of life’s vicissitudes. Some people have a favourite movie or book. They are buffs. Feminists are gender conflict buffs. This explains why they never tire of the game.

  152. Novaseeker

    I have no idea why anyone would want to be a feminist. There is no such thing as fun in their lives.

    Pretty easy to understand.

    It’s a narrative that gives people a worldview which sees them as victims and underdogs who are engaged in a thrilling movement of heroic liberation from “the man” who was keeping them down, as a sex. Keep in mind that women are very much aware of their own physical vulnerabilities (in ways that shock men because that mindset is very alien to us), and so the idea of a movement which bands together to combat that vulnerability — which the ideology teaches women men have used for millenia to “keep women in check” — is innately appealing. Couple that together with sexual liberation which enhances a woman’s sexual power as it is peaking, and you have a powerful cocktail. And that’s the case for most women who woudl deny that they are feminists. I’m not talking about the ideologues, but just the regular, rank and file women who do not consider themselves feminists. They still buy the feminist historical narrative, because frankly that is the “official narrative” of our culture currently. They buy it 100%, and most men do as well, for that matter.

    As I’ve said many times, in our culture, you don’t need to consider yourself a feminist to be a feminist — pretty much the only people who are not feminist in our culture are people who are deliberately trying not to be. That’s why the “feminist” label is being discarded by women — it’s not needed, because de facto feminism is the default setting, culturally, today.

    [ssm: Yes, exactly so! Well-put. It startles me how many so-called complementarians have pretty much accepted the historical feminist narrative. They absolutely believe that patriarchy was oppressive to and exploitive of women rather than something that was of great benefit to women, designed in part for their own protection. The only reason they are complementarians is because they can clearly see in the Bible that wives are supposed to submit to husbands and are not to teach men in the assembly of believers. But they are very apologetic when they express that and look for ways to placate feminism as much as possible.]

  153. Calliso

    “I have no idea why anyone would want to be a feminist. There is no such thing as fun in their lives.”

    I disagree with this. When I used to call myself a feminist I certainly had plenty of fun. Of course it probably helped that I was never one of the screaming get offended over everything types lol.

    But really those feminists that scream and act like the examples given in the OP need to grow up. They make it hard for those feminists who do try to have calm reasonable debates and discussions because unfortunately I think people tend to notice the ones that scream obscenities more then they do the ones that are actually capable of speaking calmly. Also I could be wrong but I still do not think that the screaming feminists represent the majority of feminists but it does seem that way I think because they drowned out the more reasonable voices. Not to mention I imagine that most calmer feminists don’t feel the need to complain/rant near as much so you just don’t see them on the internet as much. Making it seem even more so that the extremist are the majority even if they really are not.

  154. tbc

    Keep in mind that women are very much aware of their own physical vulnerabilities (in ways that shock men because that mindset is very alien to us), and so the idea of a movement which bands together to combat that vulnerability — which the ideology teaches women men have used for millenia to “keep women in check” — is innately appealing.

    This is the point I was making above: women are very vulnerable. They are physically weak and dependent on men and they know this. It must be terribly difficult to live in this reality if you are not safely attached to some one who can protect you.

    But the thing is, men do protect women all the time. Posit a scenario where a man is beating a woman down in the street and you can be sure that other men, unrelated to either of them, will intervene on the woman’s behalf. It reminds me of a scene in the novel White Fang where the protagonist (obviously a dog if you haven’t read the book) is terribly annoyed by another dog and having been trained to fight, prepares himself to attack the other dog only to realize that the other dog is a female, and he cannot attack her — it goes against his instinct.

    That is why a woman being abused by her husband is such an outrage — we all intuitively know that it isn’t right because it is a misuse of his strength and power. But it is also part of what drives feminists — they know that it is but the sufferance of the majority of men, the inherent decency of most men, and the ‘instinctual’ response of men to NOT abuse women, that allows them any freedom at all. And that terrifies them

    [ssm: I made a comment along these same lines at Zippy’s several days ago:

    Zippy wrote:

    “When liberalism focuses its attention on sex inequalities, men are objectively superior in the materialist ways that matter to liberals. But natural superiority doesn’t fit into liberalism’s world view: superiority can only be the result of tyranny. So men in general must be sexual tyrants: rapists.”

    Buckyinky replied:

    “And their fury is not even directed at the actual sin of rape, as this occurs infrequently, but at the potential sin of rape. They are not so upset that a few men have raped women, but that all men hold the power to commit such an act, even though knowing very well that the vast majority never would.”

    And Sunshine Mary commented:

    “In this way liberalism preys upon a natural insecurity in all women. Although very, very few men will ever rape, since all men hold the potential to rape, it is perfectly normal that women should have a bit of wariness around unknown men. Feminism exploits this natural, normal wariness for its own ends.

    Also, most women on some level are both impressed by and a little bit (and sometimes much more than a little bit) jealous of men’s obvious superiority.”]

  155. Julian O'Dea

    tbc, they also assume that men in authority will take their side. The cop, the male passerby. But what if those men have themselves suffered personally from feminism? That is the risk feminists take – running out of suckers.

  156. Looking Glass

    No consequence for certain actions (or encouragement) leads to pretty expected results. The natural state of humans is to depravity. Interactions with other humans forces that back, due to the need to work with others and to incur correction. (Christ sent the Apostles out 2 by 2 for a reason)

    For the “Left” in general, and most of the modern world, the truth is that the assumptions they want about Reality and the Actuality are at odds. It doesn’t “work” the way they want it to. No amount of “Logic” works when their assumptions are so easily taken apart, but attacking someone’s assumptions is to attack their Perception of Self. With Feminists, the dissonance is so strong that any criticism of one part is to attack them at a personal level. It’s taking a female trait to the 1000th time, which is why the lash out with such furor.

    But, they’re still fools and there’s no way to use Logic against that. You use Truth and Wisdom, and then hope they learn to listen by the destruction they do to themselves. Or, we can let King Solomon cover the topic:

    Proverbs 17:10 (ESV):
    “A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool.”

    There’s a reason you don’t cast pearls before swine. They cannot see the value of it.

  157. Novaseeker

    This is important because it means that classical liberalism must also be completely and unequivocally rejected.

    I agree.

    However, we have to realize how fundamentally subversive this is. It basically calls into question the entire “idea” behind the founding of the United States, among other things.

    [ssm: I know what you mean. When I first encountered the idea that Zippy wrote about above, it was upsetting. You mean everything I have held as being good and right about our political spectrum and what constitutes effective government and why I should (or shouldn’t) be proud of my country is actually wrong? I’m still trying to make my peace with that, slowly.]

  158. Farm Boy

    They don’t know whether to do the normal thing and laugh…or to do their normal thing and be offended.

    Yes, they want to deny their human nature and go with their filled in blank slate.

    Doesn’t always work

  159. tbc

    However, we have to realize how fundamentally subversive this is. It basically calls into question the entire “idea” behind the founding of the United States, among other things.

    As an American I can say that every since I learned of the founding revolution of our country, I’ve been a bit ambivalent about the whole project. Firstly as a descendant of slaves, that there was some offer of freedom for slaves who fought on the side of the crown makes the whole, ‘liberty & justice for all’ thing ring a bit hollow. Aside that however, I was just struck by how fundamentally odd it was to assert that the ‘consent of the governed’ is the whole basis of a government’s legitimacy when that same gov’t could then turn around and enforce laws against treason, or invade the southern states when they seceded from the union, etc. The whole thing seemed a bit fraudulent and dishonest to me, because the ‘governed’ practically speaking don’t really consent to most things the government did or does. And it was a repudiation of the notion of Divine Right — that God is somehow in the mix in terms of who rules a nation.

  160. Farm Boy

    I have no idea why anyone would want to be a feminist. There is no such thing as fun in their lives.

    It is probably a bit fun to always be right. And to cheer for the home team.

    The trouble is that the home team is aging and falling apart. And stuck with lots of bad contracts. And there is no longer any money to paper over the problems.

  161. earl

    Perhaps my definition of fun is different from others.

    But if you need anti-depressants to get through the day…you aren’t having fun.

  162. Ton

    Women in general see men as subhuman. Feminism is female thinking taken to its logical extreme. It isn’t surprising feminist would see men and those who oppose them as less then human.

    Leftist think they can create a perfect world. Those who oppose them oppose their version of utopia. Nothing is more hateful then a true believer of a failed belief system. You see this with the tradcons that post here as well

  163. sunshinemary Post author

    Julian O’Dea

    a not inconsiderable number of men get off on grovelling to women

    It’s so bizarre to me. Upthread, Rollo linked to a blog post written by a man who espouses complementarianism but who was trying to find “common ground” with Christo-feminists. They read him the riot act up and down, so I dropped by to lend a voice of support and he White-Knighted for the Christo-feminists! They were being so rude and harsh with him, yet he couldn’t stand up for them quickly enough.

    Men, help me to understand why so many of you do this!

  164. earl

    Men are programmed to either lead or submit. Men have been brainwashed into submitting into women is admirable of respect.

    Many men are devoid of the wisdom to know when to lead and when to submit.

  165. earl

    “Nothing is more hateful then a true believer of a failed belief system.”

    That’s what happens when a person’s ego has been inflated because everybody needs “high self-esteem” they think they are a god.

  166. ballista74

    Men, help me to understand why so many of you do this!

    Stuff like this is why I write on my blog that men should know their mission (what they stand for) and not waver on it for anything. Then, there’s the middle ground issue that’s perfectly illustrated.

    Other than this, this whole “middle ground” BS coming from him is just a blue-pill proof of his vagina addiction. Lots of “men” become less than men when it comes to the issue of gaining the favor of women.

  167. ballista74

    Observe how he is more about the women’s feelings than he is about what he stands for. Another simpering and spineless lickspittle out to service women, trying to gain their favor.

  168. earl

    Being controlled by your emotions is every man’s weakness.

    Actions should lead and the emotions follow. Being led by emotions puts you in a reactionary state.

  169. freebird

    There may be horse whisperers,dog whisperers,cat whisperers,but there are no feminazi whisperers.

    They would rather do the Mary McCarthy thing and burn Chicago down to the ground rather than take a word of assurance.

    Best wishes on moving to the country,it is not perfect,but you can see the evil coming from farther away,and that gives you a bit of reaction time.

  170. tbc

    men, help me to understand why so many of you do this!

    Men do it for a lot of reasons. 1) it is our ‘instinct’ to protect women, 2) most men don’t really realize how high the stakes are or what they are really arguing against. The guy you linked to actually is a feminist in so many ways, but he disagrees on one point. He really doesn’t understand that what they want is not dialogue, but capitulation. They want him to agree with them 100%. He believes that they have been harmed and are interested in dialogue. So he goes along with them. He really doesn’t see the harm. 3) Women are powerful.

    Women have tremendous power over men.. .even men they don’t know through the internet. So this guy is afraid. Afraid of what he couldn’t tell you, but he is afraid, just as a lot of men are afraid.

  171. Looking Glass

    I wouldn’t throw the whole American Experiment & the concept of the Nation State under the bus so easily, but that’s a much longer argument & discussion. Considering both the work God has done via the modernization of the West, the Book of Judges and the realities of the natural pull of Human societal organization, tossing the entire Enlightenment aside is short sighted. Tossing a good chunk? Sure, I’m down for that.

    Then again, I’m all for tossing all of the Philosophy and most of the Theology from the 1800s into the pit as well, considering the wreckage its still causing.

  172. Cautiously Pessimistic

    It’s a narrative that gives people a worldview which sees them as victims and underdogs who are engaged in a thrilling movement of heroic liberation from “the man” who was keeping them down, as a sex.

    Apart from the other issues you raised, this also feeds a woman’s desire for drama in her life.

  173. Opus

    It must be particularly difficult for Americans; your narrative is that George II (or was it III) and those titled men appointed one of thirteen colony governors were oppressing Americans (you know the rest). Obviously I don’t accept the narrative but that matters not for it is your story. Having imbibed too much Locke and probably a bit too much Milton too Jefferson (or was it Adam) drafts your Declaration of Independence. Equality was the watchword. Sadly, great philosopher that he was, Locke (a bachelor without issue) seemed to understand little of human nature – have you read his book on bringing up children? De Tocqueville, as soon as seventy years later observed that America was going to have or already had (I forget) ‘strong women and weak men’. Liberalism combined with the male proclivity to protect and exonerate women females at the expense of men (and the facts) leads (together with technology – of which Locke neither knew nor could have guessed) to the present imbalance between the sexes.

    The French Philosophes were anti-catholic and thus anti-religion but America despite adopting French enlightenment ideas was and is exceptionally religious. Personally I do not seem to have the faith gene (those English who had it went to America and multiplied) but I regard trampling on religious belief as about as stupid as attempting to eradicate sexual desire or the family – which is part of Feminism and thus of Liberal ideology.

  174. Farm Boy

    this also feeds a woman’s desire for drama in her life.

    And what is it about drama that women like?

    Is it related to tingles?

  175. Pingback: Feminists Are Violent, Dangerous Narcissists

  176. Ton

    They do it SSM because they think it will help.them get laid.

    Jefferson etc had a very different idea about equality. Jefferson’s letters to his daughter is pure red pill

  177. FuzzieWuzzie

    Cautiously Pessimistic,
    Flies like horse hockey because that is where they lay their eggs. That is why wherever you find horses, you’ll find chickens. Chickens like flyeggs. Gross, I know but, the alternative is to be beset by flies next year.

  178. Escoffier

    Let’s pause for a moment before we discard the United States and everything good about it (including the Founding). That’s not to say that we can save it. I am rather pessimistic on that point, but in truth none of us knows. And, even if we can’t save it, we certainly ought to save in thought what is (or was) good about it. Because (1), while the timing makes this unlikely, it’s possible that some of us as individuals may be called up to help start over; and (2) even if none of us is so-called, our descendants someday surely will be. So, whether (1) or (2) prevails, it’s all going to go a lot better if the re-builders act on the basis of truth.

    It is too pat, and false, to simply equate America with Locke or with liberalism or with the Enlightenment. Intellectually, America has four principal sources:

    1) Early modern liberalism, the liberalism of Locke, Sidney, and Montesquieu, which is to say, the best and soberest of the moderns.
    2) Classical political philosophy: it’s shot through the Federalist and other philosophic texts of the Founding era. Jefferson specifically names Aristotle and Cicero as central to the Founder’s thought. Adams, Hamilton and Madison (among others) were amazingly learned men in Classical thought.
    3) The Bible: There are references to God and theology all through the Founding documents (four in the Declaration alone), in laws, in the state constitutions, etc. PLUS the pamphlets and writings of the era all show deep religious belief, PLUS the sermons of the era show how and to what extent the leading religious figures believed the American project to be inextricably yoked to Biblical faith. While it is obvious that Paine was an atheist, and probable that Jefferson and Franklin were deists, that is just three guys. The overwhelming balance of the evidence shows that the Founding generation was deeply religious and thought their faith was integral to their project. Also, it’s telling that the religious folks won the day. In that, the deists had to bend to respect dominant opinion and conceal or downplay their deism, not the other way around.
    4) The experience of history, both ancient and modern. This, again, comes through very clearly from the Federalist, where successive analyses show that the Founders very carefully considered the failures of past republics and thought through how to mitigate those dangers. As did the Anti-Federalists who, though they lost the larger debate on the Constitution, were responsible for getting the Bill of Rights.

    To this I would add a fifth, which is not exactly an “intellectual source” but is no less important than the four above, and may in fact be MORE important. And that is the Founders’’ PRUDENCE or practical wisdom (which Aristotle says is the essence of statesmanship). These men were emphatically NOT rotely applying some theory. They were dealing with the reality on the ground as they found it, acting as statesmen to do the best they could for their country, for themselves and for their posterity.

    It’s important to understand that the “America is Locke” meme, which some here seem to adhere to, and reject on religious grounds, originated as an atheistic strand of anti-modern thought. I point this out only so that everyone has full clarity on with whom he is climbing into bed. I too would reject America if it were true that “America = Locke,” and on both religious and philosophic grounds. But happily it is not necessary, because it is not true.

    That said, America is today beset by liberalism, or I would say more accurately, modernity. As is the entire Western world and much of the non-Western world. It may be the case that modernity is so powerful a virus that all of the considerable antibodies in the American political system and philosophic tradition are simply not equal to the task of fighting, much less defeating, that virus. And, I admit sadly, it is looking that way.

    Even if that were not the case, we would eventually go down anyway because all regimes-states-nations fall. That’s just the way it is. Modernity promises that it knows the way to overcome this, but it has failed. Even the best regime must fall. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.

    So, whether we are doomed in a few days or in a few centuries, the fact remains, We Are Doomed. When it’s time to start over, let’s try to get it right. And that means not starting from false premises.

    P.S., Mary, don’t let anyone make you feel ashamed of your country. If you survive UMich and live in Ann Arbor and still think the way you do, then surely you have the fortitude withstand all manner of lie and error.

  179. theperkster

    Reactions like that occur when you have challenged someone’s identity – the foundation of their sense of worth. When an identity is based on something not meant to bear it’s weight (like feminism) challenging it exposes the shame it was meant to cover. Anger, violent reactions are one way to deal with the exposed (and maybe unexpected) sense of worthlessness that has not been dealt with at its core. http://choosetotrust.com/2012/04/adopting-roles-or-identities/#.Uoz5Mm8o7ug

    Also, these foundations of sand don’t allow for acceptance of other’s views. That elusive tolerance we hear so much about. Instead, relationships and interactions develop a rigidity. http://choosetotrust.com/2013/09/the-rigid-relational-system/#.Uoz5cW8o7ug

    At least, that’s the way I see it. Thanks for giving me the space to respond.

  180. Cautiously Pessimistic

    Flies like horse hockey because that is where they lay their eggs. That is why wherever you find horses, you’ll find chickens. Chickens like flyeggs.

    I feel as though there should be an awesome extended metaphor in there somewhere, but I just don’t have the energy.

  181. anonymous_ng

    @Opus, does not the UK have it’s own surfeit of strong women and weak men? If so, what is their origin? Just curious, not looking for an epic internet battle.

  182. bike bubba

    The discussion over the founding era of the U.S. reminds me of a parallel in male-female relations; if you boil down the rhetoric of the Founders, my take is you’d get that King George wanted to to keep collecting taxes without providing the essential services of government, just as Saul wanted to enjoy his harem wihtout going to battle against Goliath. In the same way, many men today want to enjoy the services of their wives without the leadership of a husband.

    Don’t know if the comparison is perfect, but if at all apt, it explains some things.

  183. Keoni Galt

    There’s an aspect here that no one has also mentioned…though Fuzzie came close.

    Months ago, when Maeve first started commenting here, she proposed the idea that feminists had had their teddy bears taken away at too young an age.

    More like feminists and liberals are far more likely to have their FATHERS taken away (if they ever knew him in the first place.)

    Children are far more influenced subconsciously by the environment they grow up in then most people recognize….far more than all the deliberate, conscious things parents try to explicitly teach their children.

    We now have an entire generation of people for which more than half come from broken homes or homes in which there was never a real Father figure in the home.

    No, the single, biggest environmental influence in these children’s lives, was a single mother and her imprinting of feminine-based emotional fluctuations. Self control and controlling your emotions rather then letting them control you are the behavioral influences imprinted on children raised in Fatherless homes. They develop a malady that has now been identified and labeled: We even have a name for it – O.D.D.

    Thing is, while examples of O.D.D. are typically highlighted with anecdotes of young males who grow up as out of control, emotional wrecks…females are impacted just as heavily by growing up in emotionally unstable, Fatherless homes as well.

    So all the Fatherless children grow up, and those who become liberals (and children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to be liberals/progressives et al), they are also the sort who are far more likely to react dramatically and violently when they get upset at something (like a political or ideological disagreement).

    [ssm: Excellent points here, Mr. Galt.]

  184. an observer

    the same way, many men today

    I would have rephrased it. That women want the benefits of male productivity, without the submission to patriarchy

    And pretty much, they have achieved it. This will be to their detriment. Men maintain civilisation. With less incentive to produce, progress slows and stops. I would argue western society has already peaked, but the eroding momentum of prosperity is running down.

  185. an observer

    Female emotions are celebrated and encouraged as strong and liberated.

    Male emotions result in shaming and disgust. Men expressing emotion are labelled spineless gammas.

    It happens here, all the time.

  186. Obliterated

    I’ve been thinking a lot about this question, and what rpsmf said does ring true. *warning, long comment*

    I can remember that at a very young age (probably around 8 years old), it struck me how the most popular, liked kids in school were either the most physically good-looking or the most wealthy. This was before anyone really was overweight or obese, too. The children divvied up attention and popularity based on these factors. What struck me was the injustice of it—how something that was completely out of a child’s control could have so much effect on how others perceived them. They could act like a bully or a snob, but that didn’t matter—what was inside didn’t ‘count.’ Research has shown that those who are perceived to be the most good-looking are often more successful than the average Joe. Couple this with the fact that nowadays, most men in America at least have access to not only pictures, but naked, often altered pictures of a large pool of the most beautiful women in the world—something unprecedented in history. Before men only compared based on the women they had seen in their small communities (minus those who were well-traveled, I guess, or had access to artwork—of course there were exceptions). It has been proven that viewing pornography causes changes in the brain, and sometimes can cause men to only be able to be aroused by a specific kind of image. As a woman, knowing that we ARE judged based on this is absolutely devastating if we were not so blessed to be gifted with physical beauty. Yes, a woman can keep the weight down and have long hair and have excellent hygiene—but as rpsmf said, knowing that you will be passed over for the more attractive women regardless can cause despair; hence, the overwhelming popularity of beauty products and alterations. It is simply something that will affect your entire life, your relationships, who you marry and what they compare you to, and more—and it is something that is completely related to the hand you were dealt. We are judged by our outward appearance and something inside of us hates that we are judged for that and not for the things under our control, our character, how we treat others, etc.

    It makes sense, therefore, that women in this state of mind turn to food or hatred or tattoos and piercings and of course, feminism, to help ease this sense of despair. They want to force the world to accept them as they are, but in the process they become even uglier, outside and inside. What they need is Jesus, who does not judge by outward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7). The Bible even says of our Lord, “he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.” Isaiah 53:2b C.S. Lewis said, in some book of his I can’t remember, that Jesus was the perfect man, even contemplating that perhaps he was a handsome man, but the Bible says otherwise. When the people wanted Saul to be king, it was based on his physical attributes, and not his character, and the Lord was grieved about the fact that the people wanted to even have a king, and be more like the world. Proverbs warns men to not be drawn in by the forbidden woman: her lips “drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol; she does not ponder the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it.” In James 2 we are warned to not show partiality based on wealth or appearance—saying that when we do so, we have become “judges with evil thoughts.” In John 7:24, Jesus urges us, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” When we have the Lord, we can have an inner peace that God will judge rightly, and that he has covered us by the blood of his Son Jesus—the judgment that would fall on us because of our wickedness has come upon Him, and now we are to be united with Him! We are co-heirs with men of this salvation—we have worth because He gave it to us as well, and He died for us while we were yet sinners. And of course, we have our beloved 1 Peter 3:4, that a gentle and quiet spirit is an imperishable beauty, precious to God. If these women could do their best to look their best while here on earth, that would be great; but more fulfilling and more important would be for them to cultivate that inner beauty that the Bible says God cherishes. They have despaired of something that is good to desire: justice. But if they would come to the Lord, they would find the only One worthy to judge them would give them the completeness they long for, and they wouldn’t have to strive so hard to change the mind of the world, which will always judge without right judgment.

  187. Novaseeker

    Okay, but that won’t help them attract men. It is a good place to be spiritually, but marriage is also very physical, and the physicality of it, in terms of attraction (for both men and women) is critical in finding a spouse.

  188. Obliterated

    @Novaseeker,

    You’re right. But the OP was about “Why are feminists so pissy?” basically, and I was attempting to answer that question. And short of getting plastic surgery, all we can do is wear light make up, have good hygiene, keep our weight good and stay in shape, and have longer hair. Once you’ve done all that, what is left? You are stuck with the hand you’ve been dealt. All you can do is hope that a man will find you attractive enough. What else can a woman do besides those things to help her attract men if she wasn’t blessed with a physically beautiful/attractive/symmetrical face or the right size of boobs? I’m not sure.

  189. Novaseeker

    King George wanted to to keep collecting taxes without providing the essential services of government,

    Except that wasn’t the case, really. The government that was provided was not wanted. But, anyway ….

  190. Opus

    @anonymous_ng

    You may well be correct that England (I cannot account for the Welsh Irish and Scots) have weak men and strong women, far be it for me to judge, but De Tocqueville who was of course French makes the observation. The reason he makes it is that he sees it as an inevitable outcome of Democracy. America is strong on democracy, far more so that England; we don’t for example elect Police Chiefs or Judges and our second chamber (The Lords) is entirely unelected, and I would say that Feminism is nowhere near as bad where I am; to begin with the Divorce Laws are not as draconian as those in the United States. We have other problems of a far more serious nature than loud-mouthed wealthy obnoxious women. In fact until I discovered blogs like this I am not sure I was even really aware of the terms Feminism!

  191. Julian O'Dea

    Obliterated, that is true, and it is not “fair”, but neither is the fact that one man may have drive and intelligence, and another very little of either. Most of that is genetics too.

    Also, I think you are being a bit tough on men. We are not that dumb. We know we will not be bedding the most beautiful women (and even they will have their off days). Most men do find a woman they like the look of. And most youngish women can look perfectly bedworthy. Unless they are fat.

    One thing that women can do, if they like a man, is to find out what he likes in a woman, and act and dress accordingly. A woman doesn’t have to attract all men; only one. And we are variable. You mention long hair. Well, I am on record as disliking long hair and preferring short hair on women. See my latest post. We are all different.

  192. Escoffier

    I’m curious as to where Tocqueville says America has weak men. He does say we have strong women, but he also says that in many respects we have (had) better marriages. I wrote a post about this in some other thread a few days ago. The point being that “hedonic marriage” or marriage for love is not as new as some suppose. Tocqueville claimed it was characteristic of early America and that it worked for a lot of reasons, not least religion and the absense of feminism.

  193. Julian O'Dea

    What Opus said, for Australia too.

    Individualism is less potent here too.

    And America seems to police its men especially hard.

    We do have feminists, and we had a nasty attack of political feminism at a high level recently, which we thankfully got rid of at our last, recent Federal election. Many of their ideas come from their American sisters. America exports this stuff in massive amounts.

  194. Escoffier

    Australia does seem to have a more macho streak than most of the rest of the west. But Canada and NZ are more feminist, PC and namby pamby than America by a long sight. They may have gotten it from us but they sure have run with the ball.

  195. Obliterated

    My husband and I have had two couples that have been our friends where the guy didn’t want to marry the otherwise amazing (by all the qualifiers I’ve read listed here by men on SSM’s threads) and very pretty women they were dating, all because she wasn’t enough. In the first case, the guy is now married to her, but after he had broken up with her (which had been quite a mystery to us, because they appeared quite in love) my husband called and asked what had went wrong. He replied that she didn’t “look the way he thought his wife would look.” We were pretty shocked because she was well above-average and their SMVs were right on par, as far as anyone else could see. She was visibly attracted and adoring, etc. They are together now and she is every bit as amazing of a wife as we suspected she would be. Right now, we have friends at church who have been dating for nearly 4 years. This woman is probably a step or two above his SMV, she’s a great cook, she has a gentle and quiet spirit, she’s smart and extremely physically fit, etc. And she ADORES him. He up until 6 months ago was reluctant to even think about marriage, for reasons unbeknownst to me—until my best friend, who is his cousin, shared that he had mentioned that basically she wasn’t as pretty as he wanted. ! I could not believe this, and wished I could dare him to find someone better to go out with him (a delta male if I’ve ever seen one). Anyway, I mention these anecdotal examples to say that men being like this is not rare in my experience. I could even share some of my personal experiences but I don’t really feel like it right now. But, it is always, always encouraging to hear men like you say that sort of thing, Julian. My intent was definitely not to be hard on men, but to explain the internal despair that women may be feeling.

  196. Obliterated

    Oh, and I only brought up the long hair because of so many posts bringing that up. I’ve always had long hair and it never seemed to be that big of a deal to anybody.

  197. Novaseeker

    It’s hard on both sexes. Men are limited by height (genes). Also by drive, smarts, ambition, which are to some degree genetic, and which limit his options.

    In the current market the rule is “do not be average”. Average is terrible, it’s like being below average in the past. You need to excel. If you don’t have the genes to excel, you need to compensate for that with your tail by developing yourself in other ways to compensate. That’s true for men and women. Both can develop personas that can counterbalance natural limits like being short for a man or plain for a woman. But if you don’t do that, you’re going to be screwed in the current market. Average is bad today.

  198. Novaseeker

    Australia does seem to have a more macho streak than most of the rest of the west. But Canada and NZ are more feminist, PC and namby pamby than America by a long sight. They may have gotten it from us but they sure have run with the ball.

    Canada is terrible, and NZ is Australia’s Canada. Canada has a government ministry called “Status of Women Canada” that is basically a tax-funded feminism ministry. It’s way, way worse than anything in the worst of the blue states in America. Ontario makes America look like a libertarian country.

  199. Obliterated

    @Novaseeker,

    Agreed. Happily, men haven’t responded in the hateful, bitchy, ugly, and socially destructive way women have.

  200. Novaseeker

    Happily, men haven’t responded in the hateful, bitchy, ugly, and socially destructive way women have.

    Eh, the male equivalent is MGTOW/MRA and X-Box.

  201. Escoffier

    It occurs to me, and there’s no question that the two are related, but Tyler Cowen’s new book “Average is Over” is all about the same phenomenon but in the economy. And, of course what happens in the economy helps drive what happens in the SMP. I asked a mag I write for to review the book, and I was going to make exactly that point, but it turned out that someone else had already claimed the book—Charles Murray! So, I said, yeah, no doubt you’d rather have Murray than me. But I am not confident he will bring up this specific point.

  202. Opus

    @Escoffier

    De Tocqueville

    Volume 2 Book 3 Chapter 2

    “nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women”

  203. Escoffier

    Please read the entire context of that statement; highlighting mine:

    “There are people in EUORPE who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things—their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women. IT IS NOT THUS THAT THE AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT SPECIES OF DEMOCRATIC EQUALITY which may be established between the sexes. THEY ADMIT, THAT AS NATURE HAS APPOINTED SUCH WIDE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL AND MORAL CONSTITUTION OF MAN AND WOMAN, HER MANIFEST DESIGN WAS TO GIVE A DISTINCT EMPLOYMENT TO THEIR VARIOUS FACULTIES; AND THEY HOLD THAT IMPROVEMENT DOES NOT CONSIST IN MAKING BEINGS SO DISSIMILAR DO PRETTY NEARLY THE SAME THINGS, BUT IN GETTING EACH OF THEM TO FULFIL THEIR RESPECTIVE TASKS IN THE BEST POSSIBLE MANNER. The Americans have applied to the sexes the great principle of political economy which governs the manufactures of our age, by carefully dividing the duties of man from those of woman, in order that the great work of society may be the better carried on.

  204. Farm Boy

    As a woman, knowing that we ARE judged based on this is absolutely devastating if we were not so blessed to be gifted with physical beauty

    These days, if a woman is deficient in the looks department, she can still get a guy who generates tingles, and even a guy who has decent job. They might not be top-shelf, but compare that to fine nice-guys with jobs who are left on the shelf.

    In short, if a young woman want to get married to a decent guy, she can.

    And if she wants to get married to a higher quality guy, all she has to do is have a pleasant personality, be able to cook and clean.

    In the end, how would one like it when one works hard to develop themselves and consequently have many fine attributes, and then be totally ignored?

  205. FuzzieWuzzie

    For those debating the causes of the American Revelution, consider this: it was about self-government for the most part. At the start of the French and Indian War, Colonel George Washington, Virginia Militia, was the ranking officer at Fort Necessity when it was was surrendered to the French. He signed the document of surrender and took his oppenents word that the language was standard (it was in French). OOPS!
    That started a world war we now know as the Seven Years War.
    England wanted us to cough up for it to cover our share.
    Until then, we had self-government by default and benign neglect.
    BTW, until the nineteenth century, the country was relatively cashless.

  206. Cail Corishev

    I really don’t see how you can justify a causal link with feminism. — Emily

    Easy: we look at the evidence, which bears us out. If you disagree, prove us wrong. Go to a feminist blog and post something that challenges one of their beliefs. Not vitriol or bad language, just a straightforward, “I think feminism is wrong about X, and here’s why.” You almost certainly will be attacked and called names, or your comment will be deleted. They won’t engage you in argument; they will simply shut you down by one of their two favored methods: shouting over you or taking away your voice.

    By the way, one reason the comments at sites like YouTube are so nasty is that they’re written by feminists. The comments at any site that’s not explicitly anti-feminist are written by feminists. We’re breathing it, so the strongarm tactics of feminists (liberals) show up everywhere.

  207. infowarrior1

    @Obliterated

    Like it or not Beauty in women and dominance as well as good looks in men. Signify genetic/biological fitness. Its has nothing to do with deeds or morality.

    Like the advice given by men above it is good to improve SMV by doing what you can. However Game like makeup can only raise a man/woman SMV so far. Even if I personally cannot land a woman in my lifetime. I still have a blast. Looking forward to the kingdom to come.

    The more you are given the more you owe. Remember that. And be content with your lot. Having done everything you can.

  208. infowarrior1

    @SSM
    “Below are compiled a series of authoritative quotes on the subject. Each points to evidence of the beginnings of sexual feudalism in early Europe, along with other contributing factors such as veneration of the Virgin Mary and its influence on women’s status. ”

    ■ H.J. Chaytor, The Troubadours: “In the eleventh century the worship of the Virgin Mary became widely popular; the reverence bestowed upon the Virgin was extended to the female sex in general, and as a vassal owed obedience to his feudal overlord, so did he owe service and devotion to his lady… Thus there was a service of love as there was a service of vassalage, and the lover stood to his lady in a position analogous to that of the vassal to his overlord. He attained this position only by stages; “there are four stages in love: the first is that of aspirant (fegnedor), the second that of suppliant (precador), the third that of recognised
    suitor (entendedor) and the fourth that of accepted lover (drut).” The lover was formally installed as such by the lady, took an oath of fidelity to her and received a kiss to seal it, a ring or some other personal possession.”

    ■ C.G. Crump, Legacy of the Middle Ages: “The Aristocracy and Church developed the doctrine of the superiority of women, that adoration which gathered round both the persons both of the Virgin in heaven and the lady upon earth, and which handed down to the modern world the ideal of chivalry. The cult of the Virgin and the cult of chivalry grew together, and continually reacted upon one another… The cult of the lady was the mundane counterpart of the cult of the Virgin and it was the invention of the medieval aristocracy. In chivalry the romantic worship of a woman was as necessary a quality of the perfect knight as was the worship of God… It is obvious that the theory which regarded the worship of a lady as next to that of God and conceived of her as the mainspring of brave deeds, a creature half romantic, half divine, must have done something to counterbalance the dogma of subjection. The process of placing women upon a pedestal had begun, and whatever we may think of the ultimate value of such an elevation (for few human beings are suited to the part of Stylites, whether ascetic or romantic) it was at least better than placing them, as the Fathers of the Church had inclined to do, in the bottomless pit.”

    http://gynocentrism.com/2013/11/15/the-sexual-relations-contract/

  209. Farm Boy

    Cunts like you are the reason why no one wants any part of Christianity anymore you fat ugly cumbucket twat

    I would dare say that the “fat” assertion hurts their credibility.

    As does the “ugly” assertion.

    If one is going to insult, at least make it plausible.

  210. Pingback: Vainglory & Hatred | The Orthosphere

  211. Cail Corishev

    And short of getting plastic surgery, all we can do is wear light make up, have good hygiene, keep our weight good and stay in shape, and have longer hair. Once you’ve done all that, what is left? — Obliterated

    That’s enough. Maybe not enough to win beauty contests, but enough to attract a good man for marriage. Seriously, I can count on two hands the number of women I’ve met in my lifetime who did everything you listed and were still unattractive to me. Yes, there are people with deformities and badly asymmetrical faces, but they’re not common (and sometimes, not so bad: I’d crawl across broken glass for a chance with a 25-year-old Gina Gershon). The average woman who thinks of herself as plain will be plenty attractive to many men if she stays fit, grows her hair long, learns to dress and use makeup to her advantage, and exhibits a pleasant, feminine attitude.

    That really is enough — especially nowadays, when the “average” woman is a size 14 or whatever, pushing the limits of what a typical man will find attractive no matter what else she does.

  212. Obliterated

    Those things make sense. I am trying to get into the mind of a feminist; though I have never identified as one and have always held many beliefs that were contrary to feminism, I also had many beliefs that were spot-on feminist. I have tried to put myself in their shoes…I’ve done it many times with friends who were “plain” and lamenting this fact to me time and time again. So, I think it boils down to the women who give up because they aren’t “the best”–what rpsmf alluded to in a woman being looked over and not preferred, not desired by the best men or something ALL the time. Women get obsessed with this, it’s unhealthy, and it’s not realistic, but because they’ve been rejected and have this desire to be desired they devolve into people who want to make everyone change what they’re attracted to so that they CAN fit in. My thoughts were trying to explain why I believe these women get so hostile. I think deep down it is because they need Jesus, basically. And if they are a Christian and still freaking out about this stuff instead of doing their best, then they still actually need Jesus and to obey Him.

  213. Obliterated

    @Fuzzie,

    That article confirms that most guys will go for the hottest first every time, just like most women . The other stuff was really interesting though. I couldn’t BELIEVE how harsh the girls were on just those four men sampled! Ufta. The first curve displayed was definitely encouraging too.

    @infowarrior1,

    You’re correct. I didn’t say otherwise. And definitely, if you did everything you could and were still ignored, that would be probably be even worse. And that’s the state of many men. Like I said, thankfully men aren’t overtaking the nation with “masculinism” because they’re pissed about it not being fair.

  214. FuzzieWuzzie

    Obliterated,
    I linked that Ok trends article to demonstrate that women, in their appraisal of men’s appearance, are oaverly harsh while men generate a healthy bell curve. 80% of men below average? That’s too harsh. Hypergamy?
    Could your experience with men being hard on issues of appearance be that of a “white lie” to cover for other reservations? Just guessing here.

  215. Obliterated

    I guess it could be. You mean a white lie being told by the men? Because at least in those two examples, the guys were apparently really embarrassed to admit that that was their reservation. O_O Which begs the question: Then why are you dating her? I guess it could be though.

    In my own personal experience…I would say I’m reasonably attractive, but I have been passed over for even skinnier (most people call me skinny, I don’t really think I am but since I’m smaller than a lot of people they call me that) women–meaning, women who were under 100 lbs. One case of my being passed over I think was more a matter of her personality being more gentle than mine, now that I am looking at it through a better lens. Others–nah, they were sluttier, wore tons of make-up to do the “make-up-hot” look thing…but in those cases, I can now also look at it through the lens of, “Okay, maybe those guys really were just looking for a female to bed, and once they figured out I wouldn’t, moved on.”

    BUT BUT BUT I am definitely in agreement that women could find a decent guy if they would quit being so freakin’ haughty and full of themselves. I do still want to slap my friend who won’t marry this girl, though. Argh!

  216. Julian O'Dea

    Be careful though; it is a common gibe, going back to Herodotus on the Egyptians, that another nation’s women rule the men. One of the stereotypes of American men is of great dominance: loud, with amazing technology, riches, and nuclear weapons. And I would warrant that the average American man gets more and better sex with nicer looking women than some young guy in Jordan or Pakistan, for example.

  217. Julian O'Dea

    Yes to what Cail said. Ask the average man what proportion of women in the 20 to 50 age range he could sleep with happily enough. A woman might be surprised at the answer. A very high percentage. Very few women are absolutely hopeless. I have know some women with real physical problems who found husbands.

    Be nice, be supportive, try to be what he wants you to be. Not that hard.

  218. ballista74

    I am definitely in agreement that women could find a decent guy if they would quit being so freakin’ haughty and full of themselves.

    Indeed. I’m like most guys (I’m sure) that would be pleased to have had a couple of the average women that’s crossed my path be interested *like that*. Only problem is, they were haughty and prideful. Basically 6 or 7’s that thought they deserved 9’s and 10’s.

    Women really create the rod for their own backs with regards to their own self-perceptions of attractiveness. I remember talking about this on another post – I counted the number of women I encountered on a shopping trip at a busy grocery store that were “attractive enough”. I lost count somewhere around 42.

    With most women, “attractive enough” isn’t the problem. Not by a long shot.

    [ssm: Wow, really that many?? I don’t know if you remember a post I did on my old blog, but I went to the grocery store and checked out all the men and had a really different experience:

    http://leticiamary.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/watching-shadows-come-into-focus/

    It amazes me how much wider men’s filter is than women’s.]

  219. ballista74

    the guys were apparently really embarrassed to admit that that was their reservation.

    In this feminist society, men aren’t allowed to have standards. It’s not embarrassed, it’s more fearful of what might happen if they were to express their preferences.

  220. Julian O'Dea

    SSM:

    “In this way liberalism preys upon a natural insecurity in all women. Although very, very few men will ever rape, since all men hold the potential to rape, it is perfectly normal that women should have a bit of wariness around unknown men. Feminism exploits this natural, normal wariness for its own ends.

    Also, most women on some level are both impressed by and a little bit (and sometimes much more than a little bit) jealous of men’s obvious superiority.”

    The infallible way to infuriate a feminist is to remind her of her femaleness. Anything which reminds them of this becomes the locus of their fury.

    On the second point, the only reason why we all tolerate this “Girls are Better” propaganda is that everybody knows it is nonsense. It is a beautiful example of what Paul Fussell called “the unlikely assertion”.

    On yet another point, if ever a woman is inclined to say that they used to be kept down by force, I would point out that avoiding the trenches and battlefields and most dangerous jobs, historically, might have been a pretty good deal on balance for women.

    [ssm: They conveniently forget about that last point there, don’t they?]

  221. Julian O'Dea

    One caveat is that men do often have a “type” and a girl can be quite attractive, but just not his type. Not the type he wants to go to bed with for decades of a marriage at least. Sometimes a nice girl just feels or smells wrong somehow. Pheromones?

    For example, there was a very attractive girl I once knew who moved sinuously, having been a ballet dancer, was pretty, indeed beautiful; had great eyes, good legs, a feminine personality; right religion etc. etc. But I just didn’t like the look of her. Too gypsy-like or something.

  222. Julian O'Dea

    SSM: “Wow, really that many??”

    You have no idea. I once played this game to myself on a bus. Of all the females on the bus, all, I could have slept with about half of them. No problem at all.

    If it has tits and a skirt, pretty much …

  223. ballista74

    ssm: Wow, really that many?? I don’t know if you remember a post I did on my old blog, but I went to grocery store and checked out all the men and had a really different experience:

    Actually that post is what prompted it along with the other one I mentioned. But yeah, there’s 42 that fit my SMV requirements. Of course, you know I want more than that.

    One caveat is that men do often have a “type” and a girl can be quite attractive, but just not his type. Not the type he wants to go to bed with for decades of a marriage at least. Sometimes a nice girl just feels or smells wrong somehow. Pheromones?

    Certain personal perceptions and features tend to tighten up your requirements with that realization that *this is the woman you want to look at for decades*. I don’t know what it is precisely. I’d like to think I’m not that picky, but there’s a certain feeling I get when I look at certain attractive women that just turns me off. I’m looking at a picture of a fully clothed one now…hair’s right length and has personality, eyes I could stare into forever…it could be hard to not say she’s “cute” enough…but her hair is black. Aside from my personal feelings, I’d go for her if she had interest…but I tend to be more naturally into light brown to blonde for some reason. Just how I am. Doesn’t mean this woman I’m looking at is ugly, she’s quite far from it, just something…off with her that doesn’t draw me towards her.

    It’s weird, but just is…

  224. Julian O'Dea

    ballista74, I am not sure. I very nearly married a girl who, in retrospect, was not my type really (wrong colouring, hair type, body build). I think being stuck in a small community (or indeed on a bus) does tend to broaden and coarsen one’s standards. I met this girl in a small rural college. The woman I eventually married I met in a larger city milieu.

    Men probably evolved in communities or bands of at most a couple of hundred people and it would have been untenable to be too picky. On the other hand, I find I do have a very strong type (which is very obvious from my blog).

    I was also thinking this morning that it was probably a good strategy once to marry the first reasonable male or female one came across. The girl on the next farm, or whom you met at the yearly fair, or – as with the Aborigines who used to roam around here in small bands – the nubile female you found at the yearly larger tribal meeting and corroboree.

  225. Obliterated

    I find the fact that men really do have a “type” refreshing, actually. It helps me believe my husband could actually be telling the truth when he says he’d still choose me over other, “hotter” women. My “type” is why I wanted him as well. He’s got a Peter Parker thing going for him, and a “large” nose (I’m a nose person…I know, weird right? Ha ha) And I’m the woman that gets to see those eyes when the glasses come off.

  226. ballista74

    Yeah, I’m not necessarily saying that I’d turn down a woman with one or two features off physically that was right in every other way, I’m just agreeing that there’s a certain “type” that’s there, and that I notice. I’d probably notice that “type” quicker than one that’s not (and probably even self-select down a point or so for it, not purposefully of course), but wouldn’t say “no I’m not going to have anything to do with black hair women”.

  227. Julian O'Dea

    Oh, yes. Feminists complain (amazing, no?) when men admit to having a type, but I like to say that it is only a problem if the guy is a serial killer.

    Yes, I have a type. My wife fitted the bill and it is no doubt why I chose her over other girls who were just as objectively attractive and maybe more so.

    Models and actresses, particularly the latter, are chosen for their generic appeal. But most men have some minor kink that they can find in particular women and thereby find a particular woman uncannily attractive. It is usually something about the face, but it can be something else.

    I only realised what my specific appeal to my wife was after many years. Not quite what I had imagined, although it makes sense now.

  228. FuzzieWuzzie

    Obliterated,
    I think you said that you were married, so this discussion about attraction and rejection should be an acedemic exercise for you. It does get complicated with “types” but, that helps in that there is some variance. The problem with rejection is that the rejectee never really knows what killed the deal.
    I have heard that women do have a bigger problem with rejection. That may be balanced out with the fact that men have to do the approaching. Donalgraeme currently has a post all about this. It is an eye opener.

    http://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/creepy-or-hawt/

  229. Julian O'Dea

    And one’s type is narrower than one imagines, and often attentive friends and family know it very well. There is a singer called Anne Clarke (stagename St Vincent), whom I recently mentioned to my sister and she remarked that she was my type. I suppose she is, but I hadn’t really noticed it, beyond thinking she was very cute.

    It is more that one simply excludes a lot of women from serious consideration.

  230. Obliterated

    This subject is helpful. Hearing unfiltered men’s perspectives is as well. I mentioned my situation on a thread that had already died a while back; because of it, I have lost all of the confidence in my husband’s attraction to me that had been built up because of the “pretty lies” he told me. I’m kinda back where I was before, and quite insecure again. That insecurity had diminished quite significantly because I believed he “only had eyes for me,” as he’d put it. So I too have some of those deep feelings of rejection to overcome.

  231. ballista74

    Something I wonder with the talk of women is how realistic they are when it comes to the expectations of men looking. I know I’ve always been paranoid of it being out with women, but it inevitably happens. I know there’s a certain insecurity women have, which I understand and honor. But it was always reassuring when I could go out with the ones that were secure enough to say to themselves “but I’m the one he’s with”. Where is the proper line with women when it comes to dating and relationships, and what does it take from both parties to be secure in this as to not worry?

    I don’t mean to belittle your situation at all by bringing that up, Obliterated, as I don’t dismiss your right to feel the way you do, but just thought it a good topic of conversation regarding what the right expectations are when it comes to dating.

  232. nightskyradio

    SSM – Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?

    “Intellectuals cannot operate at room temperature.” – Eric Hoffer.

    Feminists are, under it all, watered-down “intellectuals.” They can’t just merrily go along being moderately happy or content – they need absolute euphoria or burning rage to satisfy their need for constant emotional highs.

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/11/29/intellectuals-cannot-operate-at-room-temperature/

  233. Obliterated

    @ballista,

    That’s totally fine. I want to get to that place, actually. Biggest thing, for me, it would take would be trust and honesty. My husband would lie and say he wasn’t even tempted to look at other women. I think he was telling me what my hamster wanted to hear…but I never fully believed it–in short, because it’s not true. Ha! But when you know that yes, your man does find other women attractive, but he’s actively seeking to not lust after them and he picked YOU–at least for me, that would help in a huge way. :)

  234. FuzzieWuzzie

    I wouldn’t know about “macho”. Machismo is a Latin American concept, so it might be alien to Australians. However, some of them can ride well enough to make JEB Stuart happy.

  235. FuzzieWuzzie

    Obliterated,
    Have you considered seeking SSM’s cousel directly through e-mail? We’d all like to see you at ease but, probing for details would be too personal. It could be that your husband is trying to “keep you on your toes” and that may be a little tiring, even for ballet dancers.

  236. Julian O'Dea

    It is not machismo. Just being at ease with being men. And Australian women mostly like men. Our late female PM made the fatal mistake of attacking men. There are not enough male or female feminists here to make that a winning strategy. She explicitly attempted a divide and conquer strategy like Obama, but it failed.

    That film was apparently based on a famous bush poem. The line “you can bid the mob good day” is from the poem IIRC. I think the poem was by “Banjo” Patterson and there was a real stockman he based it on. I am too lazy to check, but I think that is all correct.

    Most Australians are nothing like that of course. We are a highly urbanised country. But a little bit of male chauvinism is perhaps more acceptable here than in some other places. Incidentally, New Zealand has quite a strong beer, rugby, agricultural culture. It is probably a politer, more English and Scots, place than Australia. But roughly comparable in many social attitudes really.

  237. Escoffier

    “..and your point is?’

    You said above that Tocqueville claims that American democracy produces weak men. He didn’t say that and the quote you cited in support actually says the opposite.

  238. FuzzieWuzzie

    Julian O’Dea,
    Found it for you! Wow, this is the best horse video yet from youtube. As I’ve overdone the videos on the current threads, I’ll post it on Open Converstions

  239. ballista74

    @Obliterated

    it would take would be trust and honesty.

    Understandable and okay. I know I would feel the same way at a woman that wouldn’t admit something that’s totally natural. What you describe is this “paranoia” that I was relating and a lot of men try to satisfy it by satisfying the hamster. I know a lot of women don’t want to hear “I’m a man, I think women are beautiful and when I see beauty I’m going to look, but I expect myself to be faithful to you until we see where this leads” (plate spinning is not me), especially if things are at “relationship” level, because I’ve seen women react negatively to it.

    I think a lot of women want to *know* that they’re the only one, but it’s just not realistic. It even extends to the ridiculousness of Christian women in “poisoning the well” when you ask one of them out – the others get this jealousy (if you will) because they aren’t the first, last, and only one you asked out.

    The biggest insecurity with these other women that got to “relationship” level were okay with me looking was that I would “cheat” on them, but that is much more easily dealt with by meaning trustworthy and honest.

    That said, I second the advice to talk with SSM via e-mail about your specific details, if you need to do so.

  240. sam

    I consider myself a feminist, I stumbled across your site by accident and to be truthful the articles i have read before this one have all made me cringe. This is my opinion and i have based it on a belief system that i hold, and although i don’t believe in the way you live your life and your belief system, I couldn’t really care less unless you try to legislate/force your beliefs on me.
    The reason I am commenting here though is to point out that if I was asked if I thought these women were feminists I would say no. I believe in equal rights and opportunity for both men and women and I think that mutual respect is the best way to go about this. The people in this video are not fighting for the cause, men who went to/tried to go to this were probably in the majority not women hating rapists and this sort of behaviour is a compounding reason why real victims are questioned. This is a shame. In fact most of these people I would just consider bigots, the same way a man who says a woman’s only place is in the home is a bigot. It is a shame that these protesters act like this because it is to the detriment of the feminist cause.

    [ssm: So, it is your contention that the shrieking women in the video cannot be feminists, despite the fact that they say they are feminists and hold to feminists talking points – simply by virtue of the fact that they are behaving badly? So, in order to be a feminist, one must not only hold the beliefs of a feminist, but one must also behave properly, otherwise one is not a feminist? In that case, it is a very small movement indeed, though it then becomes necessary to explain why the website Femininistng (a major spokespiece for the modern feminist movement) linked to this little quiz to find out if one is a feminist:

    Am I fucking feminist?

    And though that little quiz is undoubtedly meant as a joke, nevertheless the modern feminist movement has gone to great lengths to assure everyone that the real definition of a feminist is simply someone who believes that men and women are equal in every way. See this recent article in the Huffington Post:
    How To Tell If You’re A Feminist In Two Easy Steps

    Sam, have you ever heard of a No True Scotman argument? You should learn about what that is because it is the kind of argument you are making.]

  241. Opus

    My theory about Julian O’Dea is that he, being a Catholic, has a Nun fetish and is thus attracted to women with short hair (and probably Julie Andrews).

    I’d also like to say that there are some nasty Feminists types in Britain, and in the main can be found in The Home Office and The Crown Prosecution Service. Happily Steve Moxon (a former employee at The Home Office) has ripped into his former employers and led to at least one ministerial resignation. When he is not doing that he is attacking the Director of Public Prosecutions especially over the entirely bizarre persecution of aging Disk Jockeys for alleged offences (where there is no evidence) from forty or more years ago. Yes apparently sometime in 1972 a man put his hand on a young woman’s thigh, albeit over her tights and thus deserves to be imprisoned and probably for the remainder of his mortal existance. I can hardly believe it. You must excuse me so that I may take the smelling salts. History has not recorded whether she had long or short hair.

  242. Opus

    I would also like to say that the events of 1776 worked out well both for Americans and Britons, in our case because it relieved us of the financial burden of defending thirteen colonies against the French and Indians thus freeing us to bring civilisation to those parts of the world which had failed to discover the wheel, invent writing or compose a four part fugue, and at the same time bring order out of chaos in the Indian sub-continent and to its three hundred million inhabitants, as a result of which the most popular dish today in Britain is Curry and Chips [French Fries]. A win-win situation I would say for everyone.

  243. Julian O'Dea

    I have extensively and exhaustively analysed my obsession with short-haired sheilas at my blog. A nun fetish seems the least likely hypothesis. But in the spirit of scientific inquiry, I shall give it the attention it deserves.

    A young nun and I did develop a slight tendresse once, but she eventually married a priest.

    It seems that Australian entertainer Rolf Harris is in trouble for underage sex allegations. He never seemed the type to have groupies, but there you are.

    Steve Moxon is good value. He should have groupies by now.

  244. Opus

    Yes its true the long arm of the Director of Public Prosecutions extends as far as Australians, in the person of Sir Rolf of Harris (can you tell who it is yet your Maj? – apparently Her Majesty has felt compelled to return his portrait of her) and also Americans are not let off the hook as the latest victim is Paul Gambacini (who is an American who made his home in Britain – in case his name is unfamiliar – and one of the most calm and rational of the DJs). They’ll be digging up the grave of Sir James Saville OBE next – oh, they have already done that.

    No stone will be left unturned to ensure that so much as one single female ever suffers one moment of unease or distress and that includes at a residential home in Haut La Garenne, Jersey. Meanwhile HMG goes to inordinate lengths to protect and facilitate the Doctors McCann. Hmmm. Go get ‘em Goncarlo (Eddie and Keela say, ‘woof woof’)

  245. Farm Boy

    although i don’t believe in the way you live your life and your belief system, I couldn’t really care less unless you try to legislate/force your beliefs on me

    But do you care about civilization?

  246. Opus

    apropos Sam

    No one ever comes upon this (or any other) site by accident, any more than accidentally finds oneself in the bedroom of an Alpha Male.

  247. sam

    ssm my issue is not that shrieking and bad behaviour makes them not a feminist, though i do believe there is a much better way to get a point across, and it is disrespectful especially to the police in this video, but rather the throwing around of the word rapist.
    The woman at the end of the video tries to say that the guy is a rapist with no evidence. This is so detrimental to what is apparently their cause, if people want the questioning of legitimacy of rape allegations to end, then people need to stop throwing around that someone is a rapist because they don’t agree with them, because this reduces the meaning of the word. If these feminists truly want change then their needs to stop being a double standard on this issue.

    Opus, I was actually searching the social stigma vs trend of tattoos, so that wasn’t an accident but the theme of articles peaked interest

  248. Pingback: Feminists: maladjusted killjoys at the holidays. | Sunshine Mary

  249. Tiki Torch

    LOL – If I had a dollar for every time a rightwinger or anti-feminist or religious fundie
    called me filthy names or issued thinly veiled threats, I’d be rich beyond Romney’s
    wildest dreams –

    I never say things like that to you bubs, though – I don’t think you should be harmed,
    I just want you to be out-performed, out-witted
    and out-voted like you usually are ( Like in Albuquerque last week)

  250. Tiki Torch

    I live in a flag-wavin’, right-wingin’, bible-believin’, g-droppin’, FEMINST-HATING red state –
    and yet
    we were the #1 state in the nation in divorce for a few years :: puffs up with
    pride, it’s nice to excel at SOMETHING, we usually rank #46, #47 in most things::

    Guess our submissive women aint so submissive after all

  251. Pingback: The queer thing about bullies. | Sunshine Mary

  252. Pingback: Feminists need our help to stamp out online harassment! | Sunshine Mary

  253. Pingback: “Women are the worst. Here’s how they can be better ” By Sunshine Mary | Defunct Creakings of a Cog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s