It’s been a permanent mystery to myself, and to several of my loyal and esteemed readers, why it is that the men’s rights movement, and the manosphere in general, has been so reluctant to focus upon, or even barely mention the fact, that feminists are invariably ugly, and that feminists give primacy in their lobbying campaigns to goals that invariably will in some way limit the freedoms of non-ugly women (and more importantly often criminalize or at least restrict the liberties of thousands or millions of normal heterosexual men).
This is the great Elephant in the Room when it comes to feminism and the men’s rights movement.
A lot of this reluctance can be explained by the conservative and even Christian dominance of the MRM (something which is gradually diminishing as the movement grows and the demographic widens). Given that the feminist war on male sexuality involves at its core, paedohysteria, a lot of it can also be explained by sheer moral cowardice and paedocrisy.
But recently 2 or 3 articles have appeared at the venerable institution of The-Spearhead which seem to be part of a growing and welcome trend for the elephant in the room to be finally recognised. I linked to one of them yesterday, and since then, Anti-FeministTech has guest written an article entitled ‘Feminists Object to Hot Women Showing Their Bodies’, detailing the efforts of UK feminists to have ‘Lad’s Mags’ which feature girls in bikinis and underwear to be banned or reclassified as nude and pornographic.
Two comments underneath the Spearhead article provide concise illustrations as to why the MRM has been so reluctant to see feminism as the Sexual Trade Union that it is.
The first, by an obnoxious paedocrite with the name ‘AF’ (I really hope that doesn’t stand for ‘Anti-Feminist’), who agrees fully with the man-hating feminists who want pictures of girls wearing bikinis to be re-classified as nudity :
Well, I have to say I agree with all this. The world was a MUCH better place when everybody dressed respectably, and women wore modest, feminine attire, not aggressively provocative slut-ware.
Wouldn’t you rather women presented themselves like this:
The second, by the more cerebral and authentic supporter of men’s rights – The Fifth Horseman (author of ‘the misandry bubble‘) :
The problem with this is…. most people know that feminists are jealous of attractive women…but they think that is all there is to feminism, so think that feminists are harmless..
The real damage that feminism has done is top re-write laws in a manner that are incompatible with the basic rights enshrined in the Constitutions of all first-world countries. Most people don’t know about that.
By people thinking that feminists are just ugly, jealous women, the real harm of feminism is overlooked.
Although TheFifthHorseman is likely well-meaning, and is probably genuine in his belief that the possibility that ridiculing feminists as ugly jealous hags might serve to hide their very real danger and the crimes they are committing, he has in fact got things entirely the wrong way around.
It is the very fact that MRAs, and men in general, ignore the fact that feminists are blatently ugly jealous women that has allowed them to pass law after law that leads to thousands of men being raped in prison while simply serving no other end but to raise their own sexual market value (and those of their supporters – the mass of women) and to soothe their insane psycho-sexual jealousies. Feminists are trampling on basic human rights because they are ugly and jealous – there is no getting around this, however crude or even comical it can sound.
This site (and History of Feminism) is dedicated to illustrating that feminism has been from its 19th century Social Purity origins a sexual trade union for ordinary, not very attractive or downright ugly women. Despite the comment of TFH, I still believe firmly that it is important to highlight this truth, and that doing so has fundamental tactical value for our anti-feminist cause, and this is for the following reasons :
1/ we cannot hope to defeat an enemy if we are not fully aware of its true nature and its motivations.
2/ the men’s rights movement not only ignores the true nature of feminism and feminists, it largely ignores the crimes against humanity (or the male part of humanity) that feminists are committing through motives of jealousy and sexual self-interest – i.e. anti-male sexuality laws.
3/ pointing out that feminists are ugly, and that it is their ugliness that is directing their actions and their notions of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ is likely to be a more effective tactical tool than anything we have tried previously, even if the cerebral amongst us do find it crude or even reminancent of the tactics of the schoolyard. Women are deeply susceptible to shaming. And they are right to be shamed over this – what amounts to the attempted rape of the male through sexual envy.
4/ it gives us a concrete and practical long-term activist goal – the prosecution of leading feminists for attempted rape. As I have argued in the past, and will argue in a more detailed fashion soon, feminists are almost certainly breaking existing rape/sexual harassment laws in most countries, if they are acting through selfish sexual motivations and seeking to simply restrict sexual alternatives for men. Although given the corrupt and misandric nature of the justice system in most western nations precludes any likelihood that such a prosecution would be successful in the near-term, the embarrassment factor for feminists would be absolutely monumental.
It’s time to point to the elephant in the room.
http://www.returnofkings.com/2099/the-9-ugliest-american-feminists (WARNING – Article contains disturbing images)