(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:
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 until this past week, when I read several essays that have really helped me understand what is going on there.
Matt Forney, himself no stranger to violent feminist threats, recently explained a bit more about the psychological underpinnings that cause so many liberals, including feminists, to have such poor control over their emotions and aggression:
I’ve written about how most leftists, or at least the most prominent ones, are narcissists who construct a false identity and constantly fudge the facts to maintain that identity. When a narcissist is at risk of his world caving in, he has to eliminate the threat to his ego by any means necessary. The most visible response is by physically attacking or killing whatever is causing him narcissistic injury, known as “narcissistic rage.” All the feminists who went berserk at my article on self-esteem, threatening to murder or castrate me, were in the throes of narcissistic rage [...]
Destroying a threat is an option for the narcissist, but so is pretending that the threat doesn’t exist to begin with. The idea that men want to be men, women want to be women and people would be happier in their traditional roles is incomprehensible to leftists, sheltered as they are. By dismissing the manosphere as being attention-seeking trolls, they can maintain their false identities and realities while still looking (relatively) sane.
Leftists and feminists construct their false identities in part around the idea that they’re more enlightened and intelligent…than conservatives.
And 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.
Both Matt’s and 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.