Anti-Feminist Theory

I’ve started to re-load/re-design the site : this was necessitated by a wordpress bug that I couldn’t fix, and also because of a desire to make this place more worthwhile in terms of allowing visitors to quickly find relevant material to combat feminism with.

This site’s primary purpose is to showcase my argument that feminism is, and always has been, a sexual trade union for unattractive women (the vast majority). When I use the term ‘sexual’, I’m referring to a woman’s sexual and reproductive interests, as well as the economic needs that, historically at least, depended on them. Clearly it’s a no-brainer to identify feminism with ‘reproductive rights’. However, this is usually narrowed down to a focus on issues over abortion – and perhaps custody award decisions, right to a divorce and the like. In my eyes, the ‘reproductive rights’ essence of feminism entails campaigns against pornography, prostitution, and raising of the age of consent, just as much as the ‘right’ to an abortion.

A good starting point for those sceptical of this idea, would be to read up on the origins of feminism in the social purity movements of the 19th century. You will learn that ‘feminists’ were campaigning for a rise in the age of consent and for laws against prostitution BEFORE they had even seriously demanded the right to the vote. In fact, it was often clearly stated by leading feminists that the franchise was simply a means to the end of allowing women to dictate legislation on sexual matters.

You should also consider just why did second wave feminism manage to conquer the world in the space of a generation? Can it really be explained as just an extension of the black/homosexual civil rights movements of the 60’s and 70’s? And why have women gone from near zero representation in high government ANYWHERE, to actually LEADING countries like Germany and Argentina, and failing only narrowly to win the presidency of America and France, IN THE SPACE OF LESS THAN A DECADE (3rd wave feminism)?

Seeing modern feminism as simply a Marxist extension of other civil rights movements completely fails to explain these things. It also fails convincingly to explain the deafening silence of feminism over Islam. Seeing feminism as a largely blind and primeval response to technological changes in society that threaten women’s fundamental sexual interests DOES explain these things.

You should also take a look at feminist websites and note the topics that are frequently discussed. One typical such blog I came across recently is Love Letters In Hell (linked here for reference purposes only). It is in no way an ‘extremist’ or ‘femi-nazi’ site. This is mainstream feminism. And virtually every single post is concerned with ‘reproduction’ as I have defined it. You will find angst ridden posts about the sexual threat that female robots pose next to articles that compare the decision to have an abortion with choosing which couch to buy at Ikea. You will find wailing about growing older and losing one’s sex appeal right next to convenient calls for men to be criminalized for having sex with younger women, because young women can’t give meaningful consent. Then in the next post you will read justifications of casual sex for women in their late twenties – when you hit 25, sex suddenly becomes so trivial and uncomplicated that if you want to fuck, just do it. Once your limbic system is fully matured, sex requires less reasoning power than does furniture shopping…or deciding whether to kill your unborn child.

Likewise, visit Reddit/r/feminisms or Reddit/r/mensrights (there are actually more feminists on the men’s rights page than are on the feminist equivalent) and take a look at what other sub-reddits the feminists are posting in. Invariably it will be in the sex and relationships categories. Art? Technology? Sport? Very rarely. How do I deal with my cheating boyfriend? That is where you will find the feminists.

A brief note on the myth that feminists are all lesbians. Whether or not many senior figures in the feminist movement were/are lesbians (by choice, by identity, or through no other choice being so pug ugly?) is irrelevant. Feminism is a blind, primal force that has the anxieties and fears of the vast majority of ordinary women driving it.  In a sense, feminists are just the figure heads and rationalisations for what is a natural and largely uncontrollable force.

Anti-Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement – Another reason why I have decided to set about re-branding this site, is because of my utter disillusionment with the ‘men’s rights movement’.  I’ve always been an anti-feminist.  A couple of years ago I came across the website of Angry Harry, the leading online men’s rights activist, at least in the UK.  I also found Bernard Chapin on YouTube, another anti-feminist identifying himself as an MRA (men’s rights activist).  Both of these guys are tremendously intelligent (as well as funny and compassionate) and genuine in their committment to rid society of the harm that feminism is doing to it and, in particular, to men.

At this stage, there seemed to be a real brotherhood to the online men’s rights community.  It seemed clear to me that there were apparently irreconcilable philosophical tensions between our members.  Most MRAs are conservative, some of us are liberals.  Some are ‘misogynists’, some are ‘traditionalists’, some believe 100% in genuine equality between men and women.  However, my experience was that most were happy to operate under the maxim that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.  And it seemed that intelligent people like Bernard Chapin, a conservative and a libertarian, at least understood that there are tensions between those two positions and that recognising feminism for what it is does involve also questioning traditional tribal political allegiances and categories (and I still believe he does understand that – unlike 99% of others).

Yet only last night, I was flicking through forum discussions at the Spearhead, one of the leading sites frequented by MRA’s (its ultra-conservative owner disclaims a men’s rights site’ classification) and what do I find?  Well take a look for yourself at just how imbecillic men’s rights discussion is becoming (or at least descends into – it starts off quite reasonably) :

Amongst other things, you will see the self-proclaimed leader (and policer) of the men’s rights movement calling for another MRA to be raped in prison for merely questioning feminist laws that lead to hundreds of thousands of men being raped in prison…and for calling him a pansy.  Migu sums it up best on page 38 :

Okay what happened here?

Shit ass lick motherfuck cocksuck turdburger cuntweenie fuckjoiter.

I got all that. What else was happening?

Two years ago, it seemed to me that the Men’s Movement was about to explode – in the right way.  Quite soon, I thought, there will be a hundred Bernard Chapins, a hundred Angry Harrys.  LOL!  Actually, when you spend any time reading men’s rights blogs, both the articles and the comments posted beneath, you’ll realise that it’s the same tiny handful of people making any intelligent points, making any kind of sense of the bigger picture of what feminism is and how we can proceed to fight against it.  And mostly, this small handful is being set against each other out of loyalty to the undiplomatic egotists, who claim to speak for the public face of the movement, and yet who delight in vicious, asinine feuds.

Any school boy, studying sociology, or politics, or philosophy, will be familiar with the complexity behind the apparently simple notion of equality.  90% of MRAs, many believing that progress is only possible if we embrace the absurd PC notion that men and women are fundamentally the same, would probably go so far as applaud their government if it handed out free tampons to the entire population – so long as they were distributed equally between men and women. 

This example might seem absurd, but when the majority of MRAs, in the name of equality, are actually prepared to force 17 year old boys to be dragged through courts and to accept victim status, and consequently to have their lives destroyed, for sleeping with an MILF – then count me out of this pea brained ultra-conservative mask of a movement. 

I don’t want to go to hell.

What the site will become : It will mostly consist of constantly worked upon permanent pages/long essays/resource collections.  Pages I have planned include secular arguments against abortion, arguments for the legalisation of prostitution and the paying for sex, a rebuttal of feminist arguments against pornography, a discussion of feminist laws on the age of consent and a reference guide to the harm caused by the feminist (and American conservative) exploitation of the true and historical definition of paedophilia.

I also want to write a detailed and serious history of feminism as a sexual trade union

Finally, I want to write study guides for a few of the small handful of anti-feminist books that are in existence.  These will include guides to ‘The Decline of Males’ by Lionel Tiger and ‘No More Sex War’ by Neil Lyndon.  Also guides and essays on the fiction of Michael Houellebecq and perhaps August Strindberg.  Another possibility is to write an essay on the anti-feminism of Arthur Schopenhauer, and to rebut the oft-repeated claim that his wider metaphysical system is entirely separate to his views regarding women.

I will soon be setting up another blog, where I can update regularly and sound off about all manner of topics.  I hope my regular readers will keep dropping by at this site, and perhaps visit my new one too (I will provide the link, as well as a feed, here as soon as I have it up).

15 Comments on "Anti-Feminist Theory"

  1. Yes, I think we get it.

    No one else is truly fighting for men’s equality but you, because they all pansies who refuse to call women on their shit.. And fuck people like Glenn Sacks. Stupid collaberater. Why, he thinks women actually have brains.

    Here’s the thing: people have commented on sexual trade unionism among women before, so its not like its an idea unique to this site. So there’s no real reason to come here if the only thing you have going for you is bitterness and anger that other men dare disagree with you on this or that sub topic, and contempt for people who don’t toe your party line.

  2. Sounds good to me. I look forward to reading your essays.

    To me, ‘MRA’ is nothing but a tag – a label we can adopt or drop as we please.

    What is crucial, what SHOULD be uniting us all, is the central theme you have identified; that is, anti-feminism, of ALL its varieties, not just the radical leftist but the conservative version too. Perhaps what I really mean is MISANDRY.

    That being said, I consider you to be a valuable asset to ‘the cause’ – whatever we decide to name ‘the cause’! And indeed, by foregoing arguments over who is and isn’t an ‘MRA’ by dropping the tag altogether, and thereby focusing your energy on producing anti-feminist theory and propaganda, you do a lot more to fight misandry than those who turn to sectarian infighting.

  3. @Clarence Wtf are you talking about? I never said the idea is unique to this site – if you read my fucking article you’d notice I declared my intent to write detailed study guides to the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, Strindberg, Neil Lynden, Houellbecq, and Lionel Tiger – the reason being they all said much the same thing (in varied ways).

    I never mentioned Glenn Sacks! I never called anyone a pansy. My major beef is with Paul Elam’s shameful treatment of Jay Hammers, the dangerous prescedent he has set in doing so, and the support he has been given by other MRAs.

    Now please fuck off back to Reddit.

  4. “Seeing modern feminism as simply a Marxist extension of other civil rights movements completely fails to explain these things. It also fails convincingly to explain the deafening silence of feminism over Islam. Seeing feminism as a largely blind and primeval response to technological changes in society that threaten women’s fundamental sexual interests DOES explain these things.”

    Yes it does explain those things.
    But it does not explain the money.
    Could feminism really have destroyed patriarchy so quickly without cultural marxism and it’s elite backers?
    (If they could have done that all on their own then surely pornography would have long since been outlawed everywhere.)

  5. I agree that there has been a huge financial ingredient. For example – in the self-perpetuating abuse movement. And I know cultural marxism has played a huge part in rationalising motives, influencing male academia etc. And I agree that (male) governments have lapped up the disharmony caused by feminists as a means to exerting ever greater control over their populations.

    But does capitalism not have wealthy backers too?

    I think you’re underestimating the speed with which ordinary women had their outlook about politics changed so rapidly in the 60’s. Do you think this is really all unrelated to the pill? In your view, what’s in it for these elite backers of cultural marxism, and why was it only in the 60s that they began to succeed (very quckly) rather than any previous decade?

  6. I think that the backers of cultural marxism are the capitalists themselves. (Rockefellers, Rothchilds, etc.)
    But they are only interested in using cultural marxism as a way to protect their position on top. They believe that any serious threat to their power will likely come from other white men. And so an ideology that suppresses all things white and male ought to help keep them at bay.
    As they control the purse strings they can also keep their ‘revolution’ from actually achieving it’s stated ends and so they don’t see their ‘creation’ posing any real threat to them.
    The Vietnam draft had started protests which the dormant marxists latched onto. Before this time the elites probably didn’t consider the marxists viable.
    I certainly don’t dismiss the importance of birth control. And it’s easy to see that once the pill was unleashed the feminists would be in an uproar.
    But consider this. We are in an uproar about feminism but where is it getting us by comparison? Surely it all comes down to money.

  7. Well, of course I accept the difference between economic marxism and cultural marxism and we’ve seen in the UK how the ‘socialist’ party have allowed the wealthy to get wealthier whilst pursuing a program of trying to force equality between fundamentally different groups of people…but..

    how do you account for the fact that feminism has been successful (if a little slower) in every part of the globe apart from strict islamic societies? India and Mexico, for example, are almost catching up with Sweden in the femi-nazi league table.

    Perhaps the wealthy elites saw feminists as useful idiots, surely it will backfire on them as feminist societies and their entire economies fall further down the plughole.

    I fully accept that that cultural marxism has been exploited by feminists and used as a philosophical rationalisation of their goals. There was a confluence of unique factors occuring in the 60’s and 70’s, but I still maintain that the pill had the greatest causal effect as regards the feminist movement.

    To answer your previous point about pornography – at first many feminsts were pro-pornography (usually the younger, more attractive ones). Feminism was, and still is, largely blind and sub-conscious in terms of true motivations and driving forces. Completely abolishing pornography is still a huge step (and I would assume unconstituional as far as America, the producers and consumers of most porn, is concerned). All women had to do to overturn partriarchy was largely to start voting differently to men (and how does cultural marxism explain why women suddenly started voting hugely differently to men after the pill was introduced?). As far as today is concerned, present laws on pornography serve quite a useful purpose to women in that they have managed to spread the meme worldwide that it is perverted and criminal to find teenage girls attractive, something that would have been laughed at as crazy anywhere outside of the USA at any point in human history prior to only 10-15 years ago. That’s quite a spectacular achievement and it would not have been possible if porn had been banned per se. Most women would settle for that as far as their selfish sexual interests are concerned.

    I don’t think it all comes down to money if what you mean is we should be fighting the wealthy instead of feminists.

  8. “I don’t think it all comes down to money if what you mean is we should be fighting the wealthy instead of feminists”

    Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps we should be fighting jealousy. OR perhaps using it to our advantage.

    It’s interesting. You are very unique in the MRA world. At first I thought that only your basic train of thought was correct. After all the idea of women being jealous is (in and of itself) pretty much a no-brainer. And so the tendency is for folks (including myself) to look at your ideas and think “It can’t be that simple.” But the more I’ve turned the idea over in my head the more sense it starts to make.
    Sexual jealousy is quite common. Everyday at work I see a battle being played out between the young attractive women and the older and more wrinkly variety. And interestingly it doesn’t seem to be so much pretty vs. ugly (as a group) but rather the pretty vs. too old to be pretty anymore. It’s as if it’s a struggle between upstart alpha females and the older established alpha females. (The older women who fight these battles often look as though they were attractive once upon a time. Women born butt ugly don’t seem to care all that much.) It’s a very primal thing that way. Quite easy to imagine these struggles in other primate societies.

    Here’s a worry. If VR technologies and lifelike sex doll/robots ever catch on in a big way could it cause an alliance to form between the two enemies described above to fight this new upstart?
    Perhaps some new GAME technique could be developed to keep them at each others throats while we enjoy our machines. Divide and conquer strategies? Maybe such an alliance could be subverted by spreading rumors that the pretty ones are trying to get the older ones husbands. Stuff like that.

  9. Hey from Madrid (and sorry for my english). A little consideration after reading this article. There is a political thing we can call feminism, with all its laws, policies, conventions, and so on. That is a surface wave, very conspicuous and restless. And there is a historical thing we can call feminization of the western society, and that is no so apparent and dynamic, but that is the true deep drift of our era. By feminization I understand the prevalence of feminine values and approaches in our society, no matter if they are advocated by men or by women. There is no way to divert this strong course of action called feminization. Greetings.

  10. Interesting point Javier, and yes, I agree that ‘the feminists’ are largely drifting on top of a historical current not under anyone’s control.

  11. Marxism, this ism that ism..It’s women revealing themselves for what they are and always have been and WE have allowed it to get out of control. The good thing is they have stepped on the stage into the spotlight and what we see is far from pretty. Now we can stop wasting our time and money. When I see the astounding things men have achieved to benefit all of us and then listen to the rabid delusional rantings of WOMEN believing that with our permission all would be the same …never have I come across such rot. Next time the Titanic goes down we take the men and the children, especially the children because , if its one group who suffered the most at the hands of these MONSTERS , it is surely them.

  12. Hey, this is the first opportunity I’ve had to promote my anti-feminist feelings.

    I’m a politics undergrad student and I’ve written a few essays based on anti-feminist feelings. I posted them on

    It would be greatly appricated if someone would have a look at these, maybe comment? It would mean the world to me to know someone agrees. Thanks 🙂

Comments are closed.