Archive for November, 2008
I posted a YouTube video recently arguing that the statement ‘All Feminists are Rapists’ has far more truth in it than the infamous radical feminist claim that ‘All Men are Rapists’. I wasn’t merely being melodramatic or deliberately provocative – I really think that feminism is the rape of the male and that therefore anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist has to accept the responsibility of being a rapist as well.
The logic of my argument is quite simple :
Premise 1/ Feminists imprison men through laws intended to coerce men into having sex with feminists - or the demographic of women that support feminists into positions of power where they can make these laws. (example : British feminists recently criminalized the paying for sex with prostitutes by men. This is an attempt to discourage men from paying for anonymous sex rather than having sexual relationships with i.e. middle-aged feminists. Another obvious example is the wish by most feminists to criminalize pornography i.e men will go to prison to be raped for looking at pictures of beautiful females instead of having sexual relationships with feminists).
Premise 2/ Coercing people into having sex is rape.
Therefore : Feminists are Rapists
The second premise would probably be accepted by all. The first premise might seem controversial. Today I came across a remarkable article (published in 2003) by the famous feminist Naomi Wolf, author of ‘The Beauty Myth’. The article is entitled ‘The Porn Myth’ and argues that ‘porn puts men off the real thing’. In other words, Naomi Wolf accepts that the standard feminist claim that pornography leads to rape etc. is simply a cover for the real objection : that porn makes it less likely that men will have sex with feminists. Feminists object to the voyeuristic element of porn, the fact that porn leads not to men wanting more sex with women, but rather less sex with women. Porn enables men to satisfy their sexual urges by jacking off to pictures of beautiful 19 year old models instead of having to have a sexual relationship with a real woman and this is why middle-aged feminists hate it. As the great Bernard Chapin puts it, porn doesn’t lead to rape, it ‘simply allows men to get to sleep a little earlier’. Actually feminists probably wouldn’t object to porn if it did lead to higher levels of rape, so long as it also led to men having more sexual relationships with them.
That this has always been the real reason for the feminist objection to pornography strikes me as simply obvious. If porn led to men wanting to go out and breed like rabbits then evangelical Christians would no doubt be handing out copies of Hustler and Penthouse to all the men in their congregations rather than preaching eternal hell for masturbaters.
Porn enables men to say no to women, in particular to say no to having a sexual relationship with a middle-aged or plain looking woman (the type of woman feminists tend to be). Banning pornography is an attempt by feminists to remove that ability to say no. Banning pornography is the rape of the male and Naomi Wolf is here admitting that All Feminists are Rapists.
Bernard Chapin has served up another splendily thought provoking video at Chapin’s inferno. Bernard makes clear that any use of violence or even aggressive behaviour on the part of MRA’s would be counter-productive to the cause and simply play into the hands of feminists who wish to portray men, or at least those who criticise feminism, as violent brutes.
Of course, violence is being committed upon men worldwide through the injustices of feminism on a massive and horrendous scale. Despite this, I would agree almost entirely with Bernard’s sentiments in this video. It’s important to remember that the mens’ rights movement is still in a very nascent and fragile form. If just a single anti-feminist or MRA was convicted of politically motivated violence then it would possibly derail and bring about the abortion of our movement before it had even really begun it’s long and (hopefully) productive life…and you know how feminists love to do things like that.
We still retain the ability to fight the emotional violence of feminists with the cool, rational arms of plain words and argument. Of course, that might not continue indefinitely – in fact it surely won’t. Feminist politicians in the UK and Europe have already begun drafting the broadening of hate speech laws to include any criticism of women and of feminism. What happens when saying blindingly obvious truth’s such as ‘men will always prefer younger women to older women because older women can’t reproduce’ gets you 6 months of prison rape time as a ‘sex offender’?
I’m probably too mild mannered and, perhaps, cowardly to ever even consider using violence as a political means, even if I were to condone the use of violence (which here and presently I am not doing). As I have argued, any ‘resistance’ to feminism is probably futile in that feminism is being driven by blind and brutal forces of nature that the human animal can never really have any control over. As far as the situation in Europe is concerned, any violent resistance is doubly pointless because sooner or later, in a sense, Islamic radical groups will do our work for us. And to any idiot who thinks I am here condoning what might or might not happen down the road in our continent, I am not. No more than any of the thousands or millions of clear sighted people were ‘condoning’ anything when they observed that the invasion of Iraq would increase the likelihood of Islamic terrorism occuring in the UK. And when I say ‘do our work for us’, I mean equally ‘do the work of women for them’. Regular readers of this blog will be aware I believe that feminism is akin to being the twin sister of Islam. Rather than being polar opposites, as many unthinkingly assume, Islam and feminism have a great deal in common. Maybe in 20 years time Muslim radicals will be targeting feminists in Europe just as they do in Afghanistan or parts of Iraq and Nigeria. But the Islamic radical state that these people aspire too will never represent the defeat of feminism, but rather the removal of the need for feminism. The only objective that Islamic terrorism against feminism could possibly achieve is simply the bringing forward of the day that the European femi-nazi state inevitably merges and melts into an Islamic theocratic state.
For my part, I write this blog as a means of self-expression, to keep sane, and to have the personal satisfaction of stating (and spreading) the truth about feminism while it remains possible to do so.
Here’s a book review I posted on Amazon a little while back. I should begin by saying that genuine eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa are awful psychological conditions. But for feminists to exploit such an illness by conflating it with counting calories at mealtime and teenage girls being ‘obsessed’ with looking good, all as a reason to demonize men, as well as promoting legislation or social policy which hampers efforts to combat the far more urgent problem of obesity amongst young people… well it is shocking and its disgraceful. Here is the review :
’This book is not only false and misleading on so many levels, it’s actually dangerous. Books like these now influence public policy and legislation and when the victims will not only be middle-aged men paying for the patriarchal sins of their forefathers, but also children and young people, then its time to read with a little more critical sobriety.
No matter the exaggerated number, but very real tragedy, of young women suffering from eating disorders – they have complex psychological causes. What is more, obesity clearly represents a far greater and urgent health problem facing our young people. Many American tourists come to my city and I have to say that I have never spotted an anorexic amongst them. I would however say that around half the young American females I see are unhealthily obese – by any reasonable definition. It strikes me therefore as utterly obscene for an American author to pretend that anorexia (a terrible psychological illness though it is) is in any way comparable to the threat posed by obesity to the health and well being of our young people today.
And yet the author has the audacity to claim (with no empirical proof or rational argument) that obesity itself is simply another eating disorder resulting from the evil objectification of the female body by men. Does obesity really have nothing to do with the junk food culture or the failure of parents to teach children responsible eating habits? Or, in fact, that so many females now DON’T care about living up to traditional ideas of femininity and grace? If we ban images of slim women (as the French have recently done) we will simply be guilty of encouraging obesity and therefore of abusing our children…even if middle-aged feminists no longer feel jealous rage whenever they watch a bikini model in a beer commercial or threatened by a slim teenage girl turning the heads of their husbands (they will all be over 18 stone soon before they even hit puberty).
Actually, it would be far better for the physical health of young Americans (if not the psychological health of middle-aged feminists) for young girls to be given compulsory beauty classes at college. Wanting too much to be attractive to the opposite sex appears to be the last thing on the average American girl’s mind.
Of course, no mention is made of the millions of young American males who are now force feeding themselves daily with steroids in order to be sexually acceptable to the opposite sex, knowing that they will likely be dead at 40 through liver disease or some other consequence.
What does the author really want men to do and what would be the consequences for us if we did it? Are we really to feel guilt and self-hatred at finding slim females attractive? Should we start cutting ourselves in shame and guilt every time an image of Maria Shaparova enters our heads instead of an 20 stone Russian shot putter (or feminist)?
And why no public discussion of the grotesque female sexual fetishisation of urban gangsta culture? Something that increasingly turns our young men into violent brutes willing to kill each other in a warped and tragic desire to seek validation from their female peers?’
A Russian advertising executive who sued her boss for sexual harassment lost her case after a judge ruled that employers were obliged to make passes at female staff to ensure the survival of the human race.
What should an anti-feminist say about this? Well, each anti-feminist to his own opinion I say. Personally, after having suffered sexual harassment at work myself (from a female and which eventually forced me to leave my job due to the stress – and getting no sympathy whatsoever from any member of the senior staff) I find it hard to cry chivalrous tears reading this, wronged though this woman may have been. I find it also very heartening to witness (and I have been predicting this for many years) that Russia is being forced to recognise that feminism = the death of your civilization. The Russians have had western feminism forced upon them in the space of less than a generation (rather like the Spanish), and consequently have experienced one of the sharpest and most disastrous declines in the birth rate in the entire world (just like the Spanish). The pace of change has occurred rather more gradually in America and the other European countries, giving the feminists time to mask the pernicious effects of their ideology behind the usual smokescreens of lies and political correctness.
Meanwhile, perhaps we too could recall more often the wisdom of Albion’s greatest son:
‘We should be woo’d and were not made to woo’
(Helena’s lament – Midsummer Night’s Dream, William Shakespeare)
Unfortunately, we continue to worship at the barren womb of the most insidious death cult in history.