Feminists, be warned – by history!

I constantly hear from women (and men) who declare themselves to be feminists, that feminism is a ‘broad church’ with many different aspects to it: that feminists can’t all be expected to see eye-to-eye with each other, and it all seems rather obvious to them. Their argument goes that people can disagree, and that’s alright.

But I’m afraid this selective hypocrisy simply doesn’t wash if you stack it up against reality.

These ‘soft-line’ feminists might disagree with, for example, their hard-line sisters who parade in their nakedness and depravity in ‘slutwalks’, asserting their ‘right’ to dress as provocatively as they wish. They might be somewhat repulsed by them parading almost naked in the streets, screaming obscenities against patriarchal society, and taunting men with their nakedness, blaming them for ‘objectifying’ them and alleging men are all potential rapists.

They might turn a blind eye to these public outrages, but still also assert the ‘wrongness’ of Page Three pin-ups and prostitution, because it is obviously a ‘bad thing’ to objectify women – isn’t it? (See my post about objectification here.)

Well no, I’m sorry, the sluts who walk the streets naked, shouting obscenities and accusing men of being rapists and objectifying women, and the women who take a stand against Page Three pin-ups are in common cause with one another.

Feminism might be a broad church, but it is still the same religion.

It is an impossible ethical proposition to say that you don’t agree with the man-hating mantras that some women put forward in the name of feminism, yet still agree with their basic principles. All who claim to be feminists are feminists. It’s called the Duck Test.1The Duck Test is most likely attributable to the Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) who said ‘When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck’. It is not a matter of picking and choosing what is good and rejecting what is bad, it’s all the same thing.

The Slut Walkers are feminists, and the Page Three Prudes are feminists too. They are all tarred with the same brush. All are fanatics, engaged in a one-sided, irreducibly partisan cause against patriarchy, which is actually the rule of the father. All are engaged in fomenting a fight against the father in the family, and what they see as male domination of women that derives from that, and all are intent on asserting their self-invented ‘rights’ to overturn this.

With feminists, there is no difference of principle, just degrees of expression of the same angry, rebellious creed. It really is as simple as that. The feminist’s crusade against patriarchy is a crusade against the father. That is what underpins all that feminism and, therefore, feminists stand for.

In Germany in the 1930s and 40s, some people didn’t agree with Hitler and his ant-semitic ranting, yet they remained members of his National Socialist Party. Some actually saw the movement as a cause for good, and Hitler as some form of messiah. We now know that all of them were deluded. Hitler sold them all the ‘Big Lie’ 2The ‘Big Lie’ (Große Lüge) was a term coined by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (‘My struggle’), where he talked about a lie so colossal that no one would believe that anyone could be so impudent as to distort the truth so much. His big lie was that the Jews had been responsible for the post-First World War German economic collapse..

Many in the rank and file of the NAZI party were dupes of the directing mind of the movement, but they went with the flow. Some attended the rallies, some stayed low. Many shouted the slogans, and all were in joint venture: all were undoubtedly collectively culpable in the crimes of that evil regime.

The crimes of the Nazis became the responsibility of an entire nation, and, to this day, the immediate post-war generation in Germany feels this acutely. Many of them still carry a vicarious sense of collective guilt for the horror of the holocaust, perpetrated during their parents’ and grandparents’ lives.

The principle of joint venture 3A joint venture is a contractual agreement that joins two or more parties for the purpose of executing a particular business undertaking.  In a joint venture business, all parties agree to share in the profits and losses of the enterprise.  The risk and expertise are also shared in a joint venture business., carries with it the concomitant idea of joint and several responsibility. (Where each carries total responsibility for the actions of the other.)

In an invading army, where one platoon fights fairly and another loots, rapes and murders innocent people, are not all as guilty of the war crimes? Are they not all engaged in the same overall purpose? If each believes in the cause the army is fighting for, are not all, morally at least, jointly and severally responsible for that cause?

Those who say they are feminists, yet seek to wash their hands of the extremist elements of feminism, are being morally and ethically dishonest. Both are seeking to socially reengineer society: destroying marriage, the family, fatherhood, and our children’s lives in the process. The evidence is before our very eyes. (Read My Challenge)

No one can reasonably say that there is good feminism and bad feminism, it is all feminism – a one-sided ideology – a partisan view of society that is actually unbalancing it, not creating equality. Right-minded people who espouse this angry creed need to wake up to this stark truth.

What is happening today, with feminism, is a common cause against society as we know it. People who say they are feminists should be in no doubt about this.

The common cause principle states that every correlation is either due to a direct causal effect linking the correlated entities, or is brought about by a third factor; a so-called common cause.4Reichenbach’s Principle of Common Cause.

People who say they are feminists but are not card-carrying feminists, as it were, must come to the realisation that the legions of children who are being damaged by the close-to-total disintegration of the stable, conventional home that is their sanctuary during childhood, will bear the cost of their espousal of this highly politically motivated, Marxist partisan ideology.

For the length of their lives, the children will suffer from the institutional disposal of their fathers – their protective, providing patriarchs – and from the absence of their mothers during their crucial first years, the time when their social operating system is burned into them, because their mothers believe they have a ‘right’ to a career and selfish self-actualisation, as endlessly propagandised by feminism.

It will all come back with a vengeance. And it will be the responsibility of everyone who calls him or herself a feminist.

The widespread, blind, unreasoning belief in feminism we see around us today, will be the cause. Those who believe in it will be jointly and severally responsible for what they are doing: not just to themselves, but to future generations, who will pay the price for the destruction of the normal social order – the family – that feminism is wreaking.

They will be held accountable for their espousal of the angry creed of feminism that is ripping us all to pieces, and I hope they feel guilt before it is too late.

   [ + ]

1. The Duck Test is most likely attributable to the Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) who said ‘When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck’.
2. The ‘Big Lie’ (Große Lüge) was a term coined by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (‘My struggle’), where he talked about a lie so colossal that no one would believe that anyone could be so impudent as to distort the truth so much. His big lie was that the Jews had been responsible for the post-First World War German economic collapse.
3. A joint venture is a contractual agreement that joins two or more parties for the purpose of executing a particular business undertaking.  In a joint venture business, all parties agree to share in the profits and losses of the enterprise.  The risk and expertise are also shared in a joint venture business.
4. Reichenbach’s Principle of Common Cause.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

  • CitymanMichael

    I believe there are women who call themselves feminists but are not anti-men.
    My understanding of feminism as a toxic ideology which is only starting along its path to the total emasculation of men does not change the fact that there are many misguided, but basically good women who identify themselves as feminists.
    The answer to that is to show and tell the world the damage which feminism does.

    • CH1EF_QUEEF

      I think a lot of that has to do with mainstream feminism’s recent attempts to rebrand itself as “if you believe women and men should have equal opportunities, congratulations, you’re a feminist!” I’m seeing this statement everywhere now, and I’m sure many women (and more than a few men) will think “hmm, sure I’m all for equal opportunity, guess that makes me a feminist?” It’s a deliberately simplified description designed to win neutral parties over by glossing over the more problematic and contested elements of feminist philosophy.

      • Slowcoach

        Femarxists will twist and turn, slither and squirm like slug and worm, sisters n’shape-shifters with detail microscopic, to confound with shades kaleidoscopic. (Sorry, dunno what came over me there, I’m alright now doctor!)

    • Shady Slim

      its not the emasulation of men that is problematic, in fact that is a good thing, its the craizes in the fem movement who still act as if men are 1920s brutes who have no emotions, strong silent, distant an controlling, when men are just as feminine as women these days, are not much stronger and do not deserve such gendered laws based on a very atiquated knowledge of what a women and a man is, that say women can not be responsible for their own actions or that a man can never be a victim, hence no law protecting male victims of domestic abuse, no laws protecting men from having custody of children. It is because “egalitrianism” and “socialism” have become dirty words that so many cotton onto nationalism, feminism, ukip libertarianism etc.

  • Honeycomb

    They know this label is toxic (re: Feminist).

    They are distancing themselves from this word. Campaigns have been formed to say they aren’t Feminists. Yes.they all are. If you can’t recant the ideology then you are.

    Reminds me of the campaign of muslims regarding islam.

    Some will believe them.

    We are in for a fight with an enemy that will desguise their very appearence / team name.

    • Slowcoach

      Yes, Honeycomb that’s right. Your enemies will always come at you in disguise.
      That is part of the attack.

  • evilwhitemalempire

    Yes, feminism is a battle of essence. No one particular plank.
    But the appropriate counterargument to “feminism isn’t monolithic” should be to say “If feminism isn’t monolithic then who’s to say it’s for equality in each and every instance?”

  • Dave6034

    Here’s another warning for feminists: This is not the first time in history that women gained enough independence that they could afford to spurn most men. Each time this happened (I’m thinking of Rome in the fourth century and Baghdad in the ninth), the rejected men eventually said “fuck it”, went their own way, and let foreign invaders come rape all the women. If you’re not good enough to be any woman’s husband or father, why risk your life to protect them?

    • Shinobi Theninja

      That’s not a punishment that’s a feminist dream come true. They have no sense of loyalty or honor. The very idea of the piteous, invading forces (How does that work) seizing them in a fit of passion fits their narrative all the more…

      Up of course until they’re put to death for blasphemy, treason, heresy, STD spreading, indecency, – etc