The F Word
The F word today is Feminism — not fuck like it is usually.
It seems that on the topic of men being better than women eventually the topic of feminism should be covered.
Although I don’t really see why.
Since no one gives a shit about it.
Instead of summing up The Feminism, Feminists, or the Feminist Movement in any way shape or form, I’m just going to let the experts do it for you.
Point your browser over to feministing.com, a harem of horn trumpeting and the slandering of nonsense the likes of which I have never seen before. It’s as if someone has hot-boxed horseshit hysteria. Remember that one short-lived game on American Gladiator, where the contestants and the gladiators would bounce from platforms on bungee cords, with a frantic and desperate mania, to stick Velcro balls to a suspended pole in the middle of an arena? Of course you remember it you’re a man and every episode of that show was man-tasticly great. Feministing.com is a lot like that game. Except instead of contenders, gladiators, and balls; there are only women and their lust for getting outraged as quickly and as often as possible about absolutely any news story that has to do with men, women, or gender. The frantic and desperate mania is quite the same.
Since only men are allowed to read this, I can guarantee what the first thing that catches your eyes on that page will be, and that is the giant picture of the braless woman on the right hand column of the page with her nipples sticking through her shirt.
Let me repeat that.
With her braless nipples sticking through her shirt.
Interesting.
That’s a very interesting thing to see on a site whose sole purpose is to counter that exact kind of female empowerment (read exploitation). It’s so interesting that one might even call it not interesting at all, typical, and complete bullshit hypocrisy.
Far be it from me to tell someone how to run a business — which feminism definitely is, just as much as is Nike Jogging Wear for women. The picture is an ad to sell T-shirts. That’s fine. Everyone knows attractive women sell the goods as well as their goods (while still not being as good as men at doing so). Women see that ad and immediately lust for her braless attention like rabid wolves, frothing at the mouth for their chance to casually tread the line between “taken seriously” and “woops”.
Put your hard helmets on, ladies. Your integrity is dropping like flies as Girl Power strikes again.
Addendum:
If you would like to see what feminists have to say about this site, click here.
Related Articles:
February 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am - IP Man-Hash: 83b017ee466e9
What a sad and pathetic site. I find it interesting that all of you hate the very thing that you came from: a woman. Which leads me to conclude you desire women; but are deeply afraid of them. What you fellas need is therapy, not a website.
Tsk, tsk….
February 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4b8494f25ae28
Why are these subhuman disposables are so socially inept? They awkwardly stammer repetitive garbage as though they suffer from a cloned strain of oral dysentery.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am - IP Man-Hash: cc39113c19cdc
Men can adopt babies and men can build productive members of society, ie robots. FTW Done!
February 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7643a695b94ca
You can always tell when a twat is talking…The have to say “small dick”….
Well feminist-no-dick, if the dick size is your measure of comment relevance, your inside out vaginas make you irrelevant.
Shut up and get naked if you are not ugly.
Gad… women suck.
Hillary is crashing and burning because she has no penis and only grey-haired witches are left to vote for the crying demon.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 277857f21a9cf
What a refreshing site.
It’s good to see men fighting back at last, and I hope that your voices come to be heard far beyond this place.
It isn’t just you men who have suffered under feminism (which was rarely ever about equality, but superiority). Women who want nothing more than to look after their man are virtually shunned by others of their sex, those who have been sucked into it all go out of their minds trying to take on male roles, children are raised by minders not mothers, houseprices have rocketed as most families have become double income, stacks of men barely know how to be men anymore. It allowed anti-man jokes to become acceptable, and tried to silence even constructive criticism of women. Suicide levels are WAY up amongst young men as they struggle to grapple with an indefinite idea of what a man ought to be.
I’m lucky, I have a proper manly man and all I want is to look after him and help to make his life run more smoothly. We are both cool with that, but society as it currently stands treats him like a bastard and me like a victim for doing the most natural thing in the world.
I wouldn’t go quite as far as to state that men are better than women, although that is what my instinct tells me (I could never see a female doctor, hire a female lawyer or work for a woman etc), but they do have different roles. This has been denied us all in the West sincce WW2. I remain confident that the current status quo will be remembered as no more than a historical oddity, if only for my daughters and granddaughters.
Good luck with your cause.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:38 am - IP Man-Hash: 27c303354f5b2
The current state of affairs in society are fucked. Most men these days are fucking douches … I am actually embarrassed at times… Geez.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: a0c0de20b6346
Dick, I’m glad I found you. You and I have a lot in common. I’m a regular over at http://www.glennsacks.com and http://www.antimisandry.com.
I announced my new book at both sites and I’m amazed that your writing style is so much like mine. As a matter of fact, my new book (my second) is going to be released around the same day as yours in early April. My new book is titled. “How To Train Your Woman.” It’s the answer to “What shamu Taught Me About Love and Romance” where the author quotes, “If you can train a fish you can train a man.” That remark insulted the hell out of me so I decided to hit back just as hard. maybe even more. I’ve been a writer for over 30 years so I know how to get my point across. I also have a website called wwwfeministsareliars.com. I won’t begin hosting it until my book comes out. I’m going to advertise on Glenn’s site. I’m often accused of being too extreme on Glenn’s site. But I think very clearly. I’m of the school that there is no good form of feminism. Would you tell me how to get in touch with you? I believe we have a lot to discuss.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 98de918efc131
I just wanted to say, men who are against feminism don’t hate women, as someone here suggested. I hate feminism, and I love women. I hate feminism because it is so contradictory it falls apart before it starts. It says that men and women are equal, but then uses the word “feminism,” that is, a philosophy based on femininity, thus positing women as superior. Feminism claims to promote freedom for women and denounce the roles “proscribed” by white males, but in fact is even more vicious and exacting in saying exactly what it thinks the modern woman should look like. If for any strange reason some woman disagrees with feminism, then she’s a slave of the masculine system and is thrown under the bus by any “enlightened” woman. Feminism tries to assert that women are superior to men because they can make babies, but since when have we esteemed people for being born with abilities through no fault of their own? I am not a good person for being born with any physical talent as a man; there is no reason it should be any different for a woman. Feminism claims to esteem feminine “virtues,” and yet will oscillate either from reaffirming the same BS stereotypes of gentleness, kindness, meekness and blah blah blah when those qualities are desired, and then flips over to encouraging a total destruction of feminine qualities and instead demands that women take on masculine traits and become more manly than Chuck Norris, as if by being manly women can prove that femininity is better than masculinity. Feminists claim to battle the male chauvinist, but feminism is just a contraction for “female chauvinism,” and is essentially the same evil wearing a different set of genitals. If you truly want equality you will call yourself an egalitarian, not a feminist. If you’re a real woman, you’ll love who you are and what you’re able to do without having to steal what men have from them, betraying a subconscious admission that men have their own unique talents and value. I have no patience for feminism; real men have no patience for feminism; and real women have no patience for it either. Feminists claim to demand tolerance, but no one is less tolerant to a man who is honestly masculine than a feminist. Some day, society will look on feminism as equally outmoded as male chauvinism. But this requires effort from both sides of the fence.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2a7c9fc627454
Email.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 189d7c092be2b
I’m afraid your first premise is wrong. The first premise of feminism is that women are oppressed - not that men oppress women.
So you could put it like this:
1. Women are oppressed. (empirical evidence is abundant to support this).
2. Oppression occurs through an imbalance of power
3. The power is held by the party who are not oppressed who oppress the other party.
4. Power has historically been controlled by a minority of men and favoured men’s rights consequently diminishing the relevence women’s rights.
5. Whether individual men or women are aware or unaware of the discrepancy between their rights in the law, etc. this does not change the truth of the situation.
6. When oppression becomes intolerable for the oppressed, an anti-oppression movement may occur.
7. An anti-oppression movement occurred to relieve women from oppression. This movement was called feminism.
8. There is a causal relationship between oppression and the consequent anti-oppression movement.
9. Feminism then was caused by oppression.
10. Because the oppression of women was largely perpetuated by men and a small number of women, and also benefited the same demographic - (though its questionable that men *really* benefit from this oppression) although a bit sloppy for purposes of shorthand in this throwaway internet forum for communication, you could say ‘men’ have oppressed women.
Therefore: the oppression of women which has largely been perpetuated by men for the benefit of men is indeed the ’cause of feminism’
You see… no patronising links to wikipedia needed.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 189d7c092be2b
Just to let you know. I am a feminist, I don’t think women are better than men. I love my man more than anything in the world and to me he is the worlds best person. Feminism isn’t anti-men. It’s just pro-women. Give us a break
March 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 189d7c092be2b
March 16th, 2008 at 5:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: 84a1e7e0e569e
How to destroy feminism: Don’t marry feminists - I mean they don’t really believe in marriage anyway so it can’t be too hard - That way natural selection will work against that which drags down the world and eliminate those worthless bitches.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: d653cff06dec4
Passive solutions to social diseases are uneffective.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3e8d1e2b2a4c4
I think that the premise that men oppress women for the benefit of other men is fundamentally flawed. It seems to be the by-product of philosophical speculation within the domain of the social sciences, rather than based on any rigorously oriented scientific methodology. Although I doubt the veracity of the foregoing premise, I do believe there is considerable empirical and statistical evidence pointing to a tremendous amount of oppression being exerted by women over other women. In fact, it is quite possible to assert that women have been oppressed; except that women have historically oppressed other women, as well as many men, through the use of both her sexuality and reproductive biology.
Sexual relations between both genders functions as a means of socio-economic exchange by which the woman offers both her womb and vagina as a means of receiving such benefits as money, status, power and commitment. Sex would be used as a means of economic exchange at a going marketable rate that most women would accept as adequate compensation for the giving of sexual favours. Due to the fact that men compete for women as a scarce commodity within the marketplace of heterosexual transactions, women are inevitably driven to possess little desire for any particular sexual relationship itself given the superabundance of men she is able to choose from; this enables her to exert a considerable amount of influence over the relationship by coercing the man to provide her with resources that will persuade her to have sex with him. Women who would offer sex readily, without participating within the process of sexual negotiation based on socio-economic exchange would readily invoke the hostility of most women by making the service of copulation readily accessible to men; by lowering the costs of sex, the ‘loose’ woman is a threat to most women because she undercuts the economic bargaining power of women within heterosexual transactions and reduces her ability to maneuvre her way into positions of power in a world characterized by male patriarchal dominance. As many evolutionary psychologists have noted repeatedly, it should come as no surprise that women have a considerably greater hostility towards pornography and prostitution than men do. In a survey conducted by Klassen et al. (1989), 69% of women, as opposed to 45% of men were likely to disapprove of prostitution. In fact, female opposition to both prostitution and pornography is of long-standing duration. According to Walkowitz (1980), the anti-prostitution and smut campaigns of the nineteenth century were largely participated in by women.
The laws which have formed the basis of every society that has ever existed has been aimed primarily at controlling men and not women. Men are arrested for all manner of crimes at a much greater magnitude than women are. Baumeister (2002) says that in 1998, 92% of all arrests for sex crimes involved men and the other 8% of arrests would involve women. The only exception to the rule would be prostitution and as we see from Walkowitz, much anti-prostituion legislation was put in place by means of direct female agitation.
In addition, it is women and only women who have sanctioned the horrific practice of mutilating the bodies of pre-pubescent females; a notable example of such would be the practice of genital subincision and infibulation or female genital circumcision. According to researcher H. Lightfoot-Klein (1989), the decision as to which daughter was to be circumcised was determined exclusively by the maternal figures of the household and that the operation is performed solely by women. Lightfoot-Klein also notes that girls who refuse to allow themselves to be genitally circumcised are routinely harassed and socially ostracized by other girls. Another researcher, A.A. Shandall (1967, 1979), found, after a statistical analysis of hundreds of surveys submitted in the region of northeastern Africa, that most men actually prefer wives who have not undergone the surgery and that female circumcision is not conducive to male sexual pleasure.
The notion of culture and socialization functioning as the primary agents behind sexual differentiation in anatomical sex and gender roles really invokes the argument of infinite third man regression; if we are socialized by society than what socializes the basic infrastructure around which the dominant social institutions gravitate? Who or what socializes society? The division of labour between men and women is largely a product of neuro-endocrinological and physiological differentiation between both genders, resulting in sexual dimorphism in such traits as physical strength and intelligence. Every society that has ever existed has been a patriarchy dominated by men; there has never been a society ruled by women. In spite of enormous cross-cultural variation between many societies, the sexual physiological differentiation between men and women is the same in all societies. The universality of patriarchy on an anthropological level, as well as the androgenic hormonalization of the male central nervous system during embryological development producing significantly higher levels of male aggression and motivation, would make the existence of male patriarchal dominance physiologically inevitable.
Thus, subjecting male-female relations to a Marxist-Leninist sociological analysis along class lines is clearly illogical. The members of both groups possess the same hormones, albeit in vastly different quantities, and none can truly be in any dialectical antagonism to the other because a certain symbiosis between both sexes is necessary for the perpetuation of the human species. In the final analysis, the concept of sex is really a synthesis of both biological and socio-cultural factors; the social organization of human interactions is really an instance of behavioural conformation to a limited set of biological parameters that determine our existence as living organisms.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:25 am - IP Man-Hash: 84a1e7e0e569e
Yes I know, it was more or less a joke. However, I can’t see Feminism lasting much longer this century, girls bought up today don’t see themselves being oppressed so they don’t actually care about feminism. Only divorced mothers and women who have been feminists in the past bother. Besides, the last thing we want when things like global warming comes around the corners is for feminists to keep whining that they’re not the centre of the fucking universe.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am - IP Man-Hash: 01806746d8285
Anglo-American women have long harboured a detestation of women from less puritanical cultures, particularly oriental women. This surely relates to the fact that such women greatly increase the availability of sex, since the sexual act for them has no pivotal value as an arbiter of socio-sexual status. Anglo-American feminism has from the very first exhibited anti-Asiatic racism (an antipathy that emerged first in the 19th Century), which finds full expression today in IMBRA, a feminist assault on the right of Anglo-American men to select mates from outside the Anglosphere. All this relates to Adam Smith’s core economic dictum, that scarcity increases value. Anglo-American women derive all power from regulating the supply of sex; allowing Anglo-American men ready access to alternative sexual sources like the far east would utterly strip Anglo-American women of their power base, which explains their rabid racism and active resistance to the burgeoning cult of the oriental bride (‘Gook Whores’) among Anglo-American men.
But what business is it of theirs? They don’t own anybody.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: 189d7c092be2b
You say that men oppress women for the benefit of other men. I’m sorry but I don’t really believe that there is that much male solidarity underpinning it. I think men are in a very insecure space of having to assert their dominance irrespective of whether overt competition is in an individual man’s nature or not. If a sensitive/feeling man wishes to get a piece of the cake he is forced to play by the rules of the alpha male who defines them. The ‘alpha male’ is essentially self centred. The alpha male doesn’t give a shit about other men, and women are even lower down the scale of usefulness to him as they have less economic power. It is the alpha males that have defined the status quo and that oppresses everyone.
As for prostitution and pornography etc. The reason why I despise it is not because there is a loose woman deviating from the ‘feminine code’ its because I find the whole blurring of sex and sexuality - the most profound and important part of our humanity - blurring it with money and power - well it’s just totally distasteful.
I also despise all the pressure on women to only ‘put out’ to those men that are upheld to be sexually desirable because they fit certain lame superficial criteria. I wish women would just sleep with the men that actually genuinely turn them on. I agree that female sexuality in an assertive sense has been villified historically by both women and men and it is totally depressing. Women don’t even know what gets them going. They’ve been castrated. So if all this pruning of female sexuality was to stop, men would get a whole lot more sex. However porn and prostitution etc, is nothing to do with female sexuality, its all about male fantasy and as long as male fantasy dominates the sexual landscape there can’t be much real progress in freeing women as sexual beings.
So guys..what are you going to do about that?
March 18th, 2008 at 8:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: 822c948329db7
you are stupid.
I figured this kind of rhetorical and unsupported nonsense was what your arguments were being reduced to.
only a fool presents an argument and begs those he opposes do no take part in it.
seriously though, why are you named after the son of someone who masters dick?
March 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: ec88301aeb75a
Is it really that hard to read in between the lines?