Category Archives: Radical Feminists

Oglers of the World Unite!

Repost from the old site.

First of all, we are obsessed with sex, as a nation. When I was growing up, sex was mandatory. If you were not doing it all the time, there was something wrong with you. Shoot, if you had not done it in two or three weeks, there was something horribly wrong with you.

I would submit that that is nuts right there. These were college aged young adults aged 18-24 that we are talking about here. Part of the reason it is unfair is that I am convinced that lots of people who do not have very active sex lives are not doing that out of choice. They really want to be having tons of sex, but they just not getting any, or not much anyway.

From a liberationist point of view, this person has their heart in the right place. Unless you have lots of money, are gay or very good looking with an excellent personality, sex is not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to get tons of if you are a male.

There are some other issues here. First of all, looks. I really do not believe that looks do much for a guy in the same way they do for a woman. You could be the best looking guy in town, but if you don’t have any money, or if you are strange or weird in a neurotic kind of way, or maybe if you are just shy, you could probably go years without so much as a date.

The most beautiful woman in town will have no such problems. If she is broke, no problem. Half the guys in town will gladly pay her way or even let her move in with them for free. She won’t even have to work for a living! Hell, she can work on her back!

She can have sex and make a living at it and not even be a prostitute. Just get yourself a sugar daddy or a rich guy, and a beautiful woman gets an excellent income and never has to do a day’s work for the rest of her life.

Suppose the most beautiful woman in town is shy? So what! Shyness is no obstacle for females, and women don’t really ask men out much anyway, despite all the liberationism. Women just have to sit back and wait for men to ask them out. Wow, that’s really hard!

So, the shy guy really has some problems. He needs to ask women out, but women often give out conflicting signals. The woman who seems like she really likes you one day becomes your worst enemy the next, especially after you ask her out.

With the insanity of sexual harassment laws and pseudo-laws, I have actually seen cases where men were called on the carpet on jobs for asking a woman out – it happened once at a workplace. The guy was kind of strange, but I thought he was harmless enough. I talked to him about it afterwards, and he said he had worked there for five months and that was the first woman he had asked out.

He said he thought about it very carefully and only asked her out when he thought she might say yes. He said he did not ask out the overwhelming majority of women he met because he did not get good enough feelings from them. He told me had not asked out a woman in almost two years. I saw him years later and he told me that after that incident, he had not asked out a woman for four years.

But the whole office was up in arms over this! This weird guy had asked out a woman! Horrors! Horrors! Such a terrible man. My God, I bet he was tying to get laid, that evil bastard creep. The office ran to the rescue of the fair maiden being pestered by the horny male. What were they looking to preserve? Her virginity?

Shy guys have it bad enough without everyone dog-piling on them after they ask someone out. I honestly think men ought to be free to ask women out. Really. That should not fall under sexual harassment charges.

Ok, now what if the best looking woman in town is kind of weird? Let’s say she’s kind of neurotic. She often looks distracted and worried, and looks like she is thinking about something else all the time.

Now, for a guy, this is absolutely deadly. First of all, it’s going to get seriously in the way of making money. Second of all, hardly any woman will touch a guy like that, even if he’s the best looking guy in town. He’s going to get pegged as a weirdo, or maybe dangerous, or a creep.

Now, a woman can be like that and no one is going to say she’s dangerous or a weirdo just for having a funny look in her eyes. Female creeps don’t even exist. Creeps can only be male!

Actually, this sort of woman will have even more guys after her than ever, I bet. She’s known as a spacer chick, or a space chick. No guy in town will care about this. She can have dates with rich guys every night of the week if she wants. Being spacy will probably attract even more guys to her, because guys think spacy women are just out of it enough for her to be easier to get into bed.

This is where I really part company with Western feminists and their “woman is so screwed” line. From where I’m coming from, Western women in the US have it made.

Women won’t even go out with us until they look at our bank account and our net worth. Yet a beautiful woman doesn’t even need to work. There’s a ferocious anti-sexual current in feminism, and it’s particularly aimed at males who are, um, trying to get laid.

Looking at women in public? Ogling! There is nothing, I mean, nothing, a feminist hates worse than ogling.

I know a 45 year old guy who just got thrown out of a local Starbucks for checking out the waitresses, aged about 17-20. He said he’s been looking at women his whole life, and all of a sudden it’s a problem. Fact is, he’s gotten too old, and he’s not rich. If he had lots of money, those same silly young women would have thrown their phone numbers at him instead of banning him.

The guy’s an acquaintance of mine. He said since they tried to ban him, he’s afraid to look at women period, because he’s afraid they are going to try to get him in trouble again.

As I said, the problem is the guy is aging. Young women really don’t want us old guys, despite our fantasies. They want guys their own age. At some point, if we keep looking at them, we become, “Ewwww!” creeps. Dirty old men. Society plays into this mad bullshit with the recent insanity over child molestation. A man over age 45 who looks at girls aged 16-20 is considered a child molester. No kidding!

Truth is, non-dead, non-homosexual males of all ages are attracted to teenage girls. Any man who says he isn’t is a hypocritical liar.

Young females are empowered and think they can throw men old enough to be their dads out of establishments for the crime of wandering eyes.

Another favorite rant of feminist rantings is “guys who ask women out” or maybe “ask them out too much”. Or something. Or this or that. Along the same lines, guys who make sexual innuendos are a major target.

Sexual innuendos are what’s called flirting. Since humans have sex, humans flirt. Flirting is what humans do when they want to have sex. It figures that feminists would make flirting all but illegal, and it almost seems that is what they have done.

Nothing offends a feminist more than a guy looking at her, talking about sex within earshot (damages those pretty little ears of hers), flirting with her, or asking her out. Except if he’s rich. Then she’s all ears.

I submit that this lunacy has gone way too far. We are for all intents and purposes living under a Feminazi Dictatorship here in America. Really, men of all ages ought to be reasonably free to look at women within reasonable bounds. It’s normal for any man to look at a teenage girl a bit, even if he can’t touch her. There’s a reason beauty contest feature 18 year olds. The female is at her most beautiful then.

Men really ought to be free to ask out women, provided they aren’t being completely clueless idiots about it. Any reasonable guy asking out a woman with no power differential involved is never a case of sexual harassment. Flirting is one of those things that humans do. They do it because they have sex. I guess if we want to get rid of flirting, we need to get rid of sex. As sex is not going anywhere, flirting is here to stay.

Once again, there’s a time and a place. Women flirt with men all the time. Men even flirt with men. I’ve been on the receiving end of all sorts of innuendo from both sexes. Some of it wasn’t exactly optimal, but I never thought of calling the PC Police. Men really ought to be free to engage in carefully thought out flirtation with judiciously chosen women.

If she doesn’t like it, just communicate that.

What makes all of this so much more complicated is my perception of the way women act. There’s a couple of women out there who really hate me right now. What’s weird is I swear a little while ago, they seemed like they really, really liked me. Hate is close to love, especially in the female. Ask a woman out, she says no, and she’ll probably hate you forever.

Ask a woman out, she says yes, you date for a bit, and she’ll probably hate you forever still. I’ve dated a couple of hundred women in 50 years, and I don’t look forward to meeting any of them. The few that I still come across act like they hate me. I suspect the rest all feel that way too. I just figure that’s normal.

But supplying these hot and cold burning and freezing objects called females with a weapons dump of ammo called Political Correctness is a bad idea. They’re going to abuse it, and they do.

Honey, listen up. This is Bob the Pig talking.

If a guy asks you out and you don’t want to go out with him, just say no, and say it not very nicely. If he’s ogling you too much, glare at him. If he’s flirting with you, and you don’t like it, act huffy, glare at him and storm out. If he’s talking about sex, and it hurts your dainty little ears, do the same.

Women have been doing this for centuries, and it’s worked just fine. All those centuries, women lived without any PC Police protection, and they didn’t even go extinct. Will miracles never cease?

1 Comment

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex

Gender Feminist Bitches Attack Me at Manboobz

Here.

The article is not about me at all, instead it is about something else entirely. The subject is a 14 year old boy who writes that he wants to go to Dartmouth University, but he is worried that it is full of a bunch of sluts as so many colleges are these days. He is a traditional and conservative guy, and he’s looking for a nice girl who shares his morals. He worries he won’t find one at your typical Slut U.

Here is his comment below. He made similar comments at eight other university boards.

Traditional man inquires about various Slut U's to determine the % of sluts at any given university. Slut majority U's are out of the question, but if the dirty whores are only a minority, he could abide by their loose morals and let it slide.

Traditional man inquires about various Slut U’s to determine the % of sluts at any given university. Slut majority U’s are out of the question, but if the dirty whores are only a minority, he could abide by their loose morals and let it slide.

I don’t share this fellow’s degree of rectory, but I have nothing against people with high morals who wish to save themselves for marriage or whatever and then harbor conservative sexual morals after marriage. There’s nothing evil about celibacy, virginity or chastity. One of the worst things that the Cultural Revolution of the 60’s did was to make chastity into a sin. Since when is chastity a sin or a sign of failure as a human being anyway? Sluts and players perch on the top of the moral pyramid while the chaste and true wallow in Hellish boiling mud below. Give me a break, talk about inversions. We have truly turned morality upside down and made morals of sins and sinners of the good.

And it’s true that the way I lived my life, while I am proud of it, isn’t exactly optimal for society. In fact, a lot of society’s problems are due to too many people living like I did and not enough people showing some degree of moral probity.

Needless to say, the gender feminists and male feminists piled all over the poor sod. Male feminists are otherwise known as “pussies,” and a prominent male feminist, a big fat dorky pussy looking guy, runs the blog Manboobz, from which he mocks the Manosphere. The general reaction was that a decent boy’s desire not to attend some variety of Slut U is an example of sexism and misogyny. But everything is misogyny to a feminist. There are more misogynists than there are grains of sand on a beach according to feminists.

One of the commenters in the piece, ShiOres, starts the attack on me here.

Sorry for the derail, but does anyone here know the blog of self-confessed “liberal” racist race-realist Robert Lindsay? Some time ago he also wrote about sluts and the double-standard which was super-misogynist (the particular irony is, that he always claims to be different than “those women-hating MRAs”) but gives a nice outline of all the hypocritical thinking.

Proceed at own risk

She calls me a racist, as all these liberal/Left loons do, then she calls me a super misogynist, as all feminists do. I am neither a racist nor a misogynist, but I have my own definitions about those terms other than Identity Politics daffynitions. It’s true I do not like most MRA’s because their off the charts misogyny simply makes me sick.

You can follow the thread down a ways to see all of the silly comments that are directed at me. You can’t win with these bitches. Seriously.

You might also want to check out the piece of mine they linked to that set them all into mass PMS: Double Standards for Men and Women?  It provoked some pretty wild discussion when it was first posted.

26 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Radical Feminists, Scum, Vanity

Roosh on the End Game of Feminism

From here.

The end game of feminism is to make it impossible for a female to do any wrong, absolving her from all responsibility for her actions, no matter how reprehensible. The fact that a human being has a vagina will soon mean that she can not make a bad decision about anything. Punishing or criticizing a woman for her life choices will be abolished.

Name one thing right now that a feminist would criticize their gender for doing. I’ll save you the mental effort: there’s nothing. There is absolutely nothing that a girl can do that would get hate from feminists.

I have criticized Roosh before, but nevertheless, a lot of what he says is simply true. I also think he is a fine writer. He certainly deserves to be read whether you agree with him or not.

The piece goes on to list a whole range of female mistakes and failures and how feminists would explain it all away as not the women’s fault. He then lists a whole range of similar instances where the man is always at fault no matter what he does.

Anything other than equity feminism is nightmare fro men and should not by supported by any thinking male.

Gender feminism is frankly an out and out disaster and it was from Day One. Feminism has always been awful. From Day One, it’s been more about hating men than getting equal rights for women.

Simone Beauvoir’s The Second Sex is a catastrophe, full of man-hatred from start to finish. I dated a woman who loved that book, and she bristled with man-hatred. Feminists always make excuses for women who hate men. They excuse Beauvoir, saying that Sartre didn’t treat her very well. So? So she had a right to declare war on all of us?

Go over to American Renaissance and see all the Whites there who have had terrible experiences with Blacks. Therefore, they have a right to be racists? No way. A lot women have treated me pretty badly (and a lot have treated me well), therefore, I should turn into a misogynist due to those who treated me badly? I am not going to fall for that one.

Feminists, even the non-man-haters, will always make excuses for man-hating feminist women. They will even defend idiotic women who turn lesbian because they hate men so much (in fact, this is the cause of a great deal of lesbianism). Men are evil, so what do you expect? Of course women turn lesbian because they hate us so much. Of course women turn into man-haters, what do you expect?

Well, do any of these feminists sympathize with misogynists?

How about sympathizing with serial killers? Well, he had an evil mother who mistreated him horribly. Of course he turned into a murdering rapist who slaughtered beautiful women? What do you expect? How else was he supposed to act considering his upbringing. Actually, he showed a lot of self-control. Look what women did to him in his life. We women should feel lucky he only killed 10 lying whores and not fifty of us!

Well of course men beat up women. Look at how women act. We women drive these poor men to these extreme acts. Why, any normal man who had to put up with that would turn into a woman-pummeler. We should congratulate them for just beating them up and not murdering them.

Furthermore, the feminist attitude about sex is utterly and insanely toxic. It is dangerous to the life and liberty of all males. Feminists have such an insanely expansive view of rape that it makes rapists out of the vast majority of males.

We can look at the Feminist Hell of Sweden to see where this bullshit logically ends.

Sure Sweden has one of the highest rape rates on Earth. Why, because Swedish guys are rape-crazy? Nope, because Swedish feminists have instituted the most insanely expansive definition of rape in history, resulting in a lot of normal sex and non-rape being classified as rape.

Feminists not only want to put us in jail for rape, but they want to jail most of us for sexual assault. Ever grabbed a women’s body? Ever grabbed a woman’s tits or ass, or put your hand up her dress? I’ve been grabbing females that way my whole life. There haven’t been a lot of complaints, and I haven’t been arrested yet. Ask a feminist and she will grumble that I should have been arrested by now.

Truth is, feminists are worse than an annoyance. They’re a menace to us men. They’re dangerous. They are our enemies, and they are out to get us put in jail or prison for nothing. They are out to get us fired from our jobs for fake sexual harassment bullshit, thereby depriving us of a means to earn a living.

Feminists are our deadly enemies, and there can be no peace accords with them.

24 Comments

Filed under Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Law, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Sweden

Rape Paranoia Article of the Day

Here.

A very, very, very stupid article by a silly, ditzy feminist. This idiotic article is now being reposted all over the Blogosphere by silly, moronic feminists. It’s dumb. I don’t even have to start going into the ways it is dumb because it’s just dumb. First of all, rape paranoia is dumb. Violence paranoia is dumb.

We males have way more to fear from other males in the way of violence than females do (though we don’t have to fear rape so much, it is true). Males are simply dangerous. As a male, I have been on the alert for dangerous males and signs of danger and violence even in males I know well for a long time, most of my life in fact. I am frankly quite a bit scared of males myself. I think everyone, not just females, should be scared of males. I see no reason why females should be more afraid of males than we males are. They should probably be less afraid of us males. After all, we males bear the brunt of male violence against other humans.

There’s really no way to get away from the charge that one is a dangerous man. I’ve been dealing with the “dangerous” charge most of my life, but there’s not a lot of evidence to back it up. I’ve only spent 6 hours in jail. I’ve never been to prison. I’ve never even been charged with a violent crime. I’d say that I’ve never even committed one either, but you wouldn’t believe that.

I’ve committed very little violence against women in my life. I have committed some, but those women all assaulted me or tried to assault me first. They threw water in my face. They slapped my face. They chased me around an airport waiting area swinging on me and kicking at me. So, yeah, they all got hit. You women don’t want to me to hit you? Hey, no problem! Just don’t assault me first baby!

I am quite proud to say that I have never raped a woman or a girl. Of course I have been accused of that too, but it was a lie. She was drunk. I was drunk. We were both drunk. It was as consensual as things get between two drunks. Then again, my definition of rape is different from the feminist daffynition of rape.

The feminist daffynitions of rape are in bold below:

Ever had sex with a woman who said no? Yep, once. You see, there’s yessy no’s and there’s nooey no’s. This was a real yessy no. Yessy no’s mean yes, not no. Only nooey no’s mean no. She was saying, “Noooooooooo,” like she was having an orgasm. I listened, and I decided that was a yessy no, not a nooey no, so I proceeded accordingly. All was well and good after that!

Even had sex with a female who had been drinking or using drugs? LOL, I am trying to think of how many times I did it with a female who was not high or drunk. According to feminuts, if you have sex with a woman who was high or drunk, it’s rape. In that case, I am proud to say I must be one of the biggest rapists out there.

Ever had sex with a female who did not explicitly give you permission to have sex with her? LOL, I am not sure any female has ever in my life said, “Ok, I agree to have sex with you, Bob.” They have said similar things, like asking me flat out, “Bob, let’s have sex.” But mostly I just attack them. That means assault them. That means grope them. That means grab them. That means attack them. Then we just proceed from there and move on to the sex.

Ever groped, grabbed, attacked or assaulted a female? Yep. By attack or assault, I just mean that I got physical with them without asking their permission. I just jump on them. Push them up against a wall and start kissing them. Grab them and start kissing them and feeling them up. According to feminist idiots, that’s called “assaulting” and “attacking.” They also say it’s illegal; they claim it is something called “sexual assault,” and they say you can go to jail or prison for it. That’s funny because I have grabbing females my whole life and I haven’t been arrested yet. To be honest, few of them even complained.

Ever had sex with a woman because she was afraid of you? Who knows? Maybe. Women have been telling me that they are afraid of me for most of my life. But then they go ahead and do it with me anyway. According to feminuts, if you’re a scary guy, it’s always rape. In a nutshell, you never legally get laid. If a woman is afraid of you because you’re scary, and she has sex with you because she’s afraid to say no to you because you’re a scary dude, well, that’s rape. And that’s about the most BS-ey notion of rape yet!

15 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Feminism is Mental Illness: Are You a Rape Supporter?

From an insane feminist blog called Eve Bit First, we have a list to determine whether or not you are a rape supporter. If you check even one of these, you’re a rape supporter. If you check lots and lots of them, like I just did, well, you’re practically the reincarnated ghost of Ted Bundy.

All of this is standard radical feminism or gender feminism. Radical and gender feminism came with the Second Wave. Since then, there have been Third and Fourth Waves of feminist bullshit. Supposedly the 3rd and 4th waves differ somewhat from the lunatic 2nd wavers. Whether they would differ with any of the below is not known, but the author of this post, a femcunt psychobitch named Eve’s Daughter, is an explicit 3rd Waver, so I guess we can write off the 3rd Wave, boys! Also, it’s 3rd Waver nuts who invented the idiotic notion of “rape culture” to describe of all things, US culture.

Gender or radical feminism is deeply invested in hostility, rage, anger, etc. towards men. Many to most females who get involved in this stuff have varying degrees of man-hatred. Within the ranks of this group, you will find many women who are extreme man-haters.

The branch of feminism called lesbian feminism is particularly poisonous. That there are women who are lesbians simply because it is their nature is ok. However, many lesbians are lesbians by choice – political lesbians. A political lesbian is a woman who has become a lesbian because she hates men. In other words, she’s a Nazi. She’s a feminazi, a lesbonazi. If you hate men so much that you turned into a lesbian, then you’re a Nazi, plain and simple.

The Left has fallen head over heels in love with these diabolical man-hating Nazi psychos. Lesbonazis and feminazis are not acceptable anywhere. They are just as bad as misogynists, religious bigots, jingoist nationalists or racists. These are all varying types of Nazis. They hate people based on their gender, their religion, their nation of origin or their race.

Feminazism is wrong! Lesbonazism is wrong!

Bottom line is that modern feminism is poison. It’s a form of evil centering around hatred of men. It’s also a form of mental illness. Its arguments don’t even make sense.

One wonders what type of man would actually go along with this insanity. No real man could possibly agree with the insanity that is modern feminism. Only pussies and fags would ever go along with general feminism, and if you study the movement long enough, you realize that that is exactly what a lot of male gender feminists are!

A man is a rape-supporter if…

  • He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion. Underage? Yes. Drunk? Certainly. High? Of course. The rest, no, but I had to think about the coercion thing long and hard.
  • He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense. Yes, I defend the current legal definition of rape.
  • He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man. No.
  • He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked. I hate to say so, but yes.
  • He has procured a prostitute. Yes, several times.
  • He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes. Of course.
  • He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional. Surely sex is transactional. Women from Old World cultures understand this truism of human nature very well.
  • He has gone to a strip club. Sure.
  • He is anti-abortion. No way.
  • He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. Of course that is why I support abortion silly!
  • He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.” Sure it is.
  • He watches pornography in which women are depicted. No homo. If there ain’t no women in it, homeboy ain’t watchin’ it!
  • He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present. Hmmm, Had to think about this one long and hard, but yes, I have watched porn like that before. Some of it bothers me a lot though. Some of the rest of it, sure it turns me on even though I have to admit it’s awful. But a lot of women like awful, that’s the thing, see?
  • He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man. Of course that is why women wear stuff like that.
  • He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed. Not really. I don’t like such depictions.
  • He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects. Presented as sexual objects? Of course!
  • He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification. Not really, but a lot of “sexual harassment” is simply nonsense. All it means is “this beta/omega/zeta guy is acting sexual towards me.” So what! Men have a right to flirt with, try to pick up on and act sexual with whoever they want to!
  • He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them. Obviously this is true, but it’s more true in other countries. I believe it is definitely true in places like the Philippines. Those women are clearly inhibited by their society. And of course I support Sexual Liberation, and it’s capitalized, and there’s no quotes, bitch!
  • He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill. Well, many lesbians are simply lesbians by choice. They have chosen to be lesbians due to their extreme, near-Nazi-like hatred of men. Many lesbians hate men the way Nazis hated Jews. This is not acceptable, and it is sick and wrong that society, and especially the Left, has demanded that we respect and give rights to feminazis and lesbonazis. If I want to refuse to hire a lesbonazi due to her insane hatred of men, that’s my choice. As far as the rest of it goes, I am not so sure. But prudishness and inhibition are going to be correlated with lower rates of heterosexual behavior in the female.
  • He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention. Male behaviors towards women are indeed cultural, and feminists can work themselves into a tizzy about anything they wish to.
  • He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men. No, women and men have different interests.
  • He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s. No.
  • He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women. Yes, but not the latter clause. I have never heard of anyone referring to women as being empty. A female is anything but empty kiddo.
  • He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.” No, but it’s an odd argument. Who consents to be beaten? Weird.
  • He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.” Yes, teenage girls have a right to have sex with teenage boys. I would extend that right all the way up to men aged 18-21 or so, but that’s just me. As far as the rest of it goes, the law is the law and sex with little girls is always wrong.
  • He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children. Not sure about this one, but a lot of women want to have kids, bottom line, and they will just about kill to get one if they don’t have one. So obviously there is some biological imperative going on here.
  • He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.” We do, in fact. Believe it or not, women do too. Trust me on that one!
  • He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing. There are indeed types that I am attracted to. Unfortunately, there have been cases when there were women after me sexually. I had to tell them that I was not attracted to them. Sorry about that! Not really into demeaning people though.
  • He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity. Of course I do!
  • He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them. Yes.

69 Comments

Filed under Culture, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Sweden’s Gender War (Könskriget)

An excellent video titled Könskriget in Swedish or Sweden’s Gender War in English. It’s very long (2 hours), as long as a full-length movie, but it is well worth the watch. The movie is about the women’s shelters that are funded by the Swedish government and how they got taken over by radical feminists.

Young girls were abused by males in their household and were taken in to the shelters. They were brainwashed and told that they had abused by part of a vast Swedish pedophile ring of Satanist rapists and abusers who rape, molest and murder Swedish girls and women. Some of the girls were so upset by the brainwashing that they ran away from the shelters. One girl took off for Norway.

To this date, no evidence at all for this network has emerged. Nevertheless, Sweden’s feminist mafia continues to believe in this nonsense.

The shelters are part of a network of houses that takes it’s name from the heroine of a feminist tract written in Swedish. This heroine goes on a rampage and slaughters many men out of revenge similar to what is advocated in another canonical feminist classic, Valerie Solanas’ SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto.

Solanas, a paranoid schizophrenic, tried to murder Andy Warhol and was sentenced to prison. Warhol suffered ill effects from this attempted homicide for the rest of his life. Solanas is still a huge hero in feminist circles and her tract is still widely read and praised among gender feminists.

Much disturbing and chilling footage is in this video. A woman tells how she went to a rally of gender feminists in Sweden where they started chanting, “Hang the men! Kill the men!” She was so upset that the she left the whole movement and never went to another rally.

These rallies are similar to the idiotic radical feminist “Take Back the Night” rallies staged in the US. I attended one of these rallies, which featured an extremely propagandistic anti-pornography video followed by a stupid march. I was one of the few men there. I got a lot of hostile stares from some of the Stepford Drones.

Many of these Swedish feminists cut their hair short in feminist style. More than a few are apparently lesbians. The short hair style is typical among US feminists also and is apparently designed either to say, “I’m a lesbian” or “I hate men.” It seems to be a deliberate effort to deny the woman’s femininity, make her look unattractive and make her look like a man. Radical feminists are odd in that they hate us men, yet they try to look and act like us!

There is footage of brainwashed young women, now apparently or possibly lesbians, with short, dykey feminist hair styles.

One of the main themes of the movie is that Swedish batterers do not need treatment for their woman-beating, since that would say it is pathological and instead it is simply men being normal everyday men.

The Swedish feminist argument against treatment approaches incoherence, but they seem to be saying that as long as patriarchy exists and men hold all the power in society, there is no point treating male batterers. Apparently as long as women labor under patriarchy, men will always batter.

So men get jail or prison instead of treatment. The Swedish feminazis have opposed all efforts at treatment for male batterers and there is still little or no treatment to this day. Norway next door has instead offered a treatment program which has worked very well. Many studies have shown that treatment works for offenders, but feminist lobbying has prevented the proper analysis of these studies in Swedish academia and politics, both of which are overrun with feminazi idiots.

Radical feminism is the official program of Swedish government which has been run by the Left wing Social Democrats for a long time. Radical feminism was adopted as an official part of the platform about 25 years ago, and it’s only gotten worse since. Swedish feminism has been called “state-sponsored feminism,” and Sweden is thought to be the most advanced feminist state on Earth. Nevertheless, Swedish feminists are angrier than ever.

There was a large split in the Social Democrats recently with many female SD members leaving to form an even more insane feminist political party.

Although early polls showed many Swedish lemmings would vote for the party, the party soon many some proposals that were so radical that they sunk the party.

One of them was for a “man tax” in which all males would be taxed to make up for thousands of years of patriarchy. They also advocated abolishing marriage and getting rid of male and female specific names for babies as inherently oppressive. All of these proposals went over like a lead balloon, and the party sunk in the polls from over 20% to a final tally of ~3%.

However, they did push through the most radical anti-rape laws on Earth. These are the nutty laws under which Julian Assange is being accused by the Swedish state of “raping” two Swedish women. Assange’s behavior was ungentlemanly, but those women would never get a US district attorney to even file their cases in the US, and no US jury would convict him anyway.

This video was shot by a young Kurdish-Swedish woman who has since reportedly received thousands of threats, including death threats, from Swedish feminazis. It is even said that she had to go into hiding due to the threats.

I always thought that the “Nazi” in the word “feminazi” was an overwrought misnomer, but the more I study radical feminists, the more totalitarian they look. Interestingly, other Identity Politics such as gay rights radicals also seem like “Nazis” or totalitarians. PC in general seems to be a fascist-like or totalitarian movement in the constant use of threats and censorship.

What this implies that is Identity Politics is like a substitute for nationalism, which is simply egotism writ large. People identify with their gender, orientation or race in the same way that residents identify with their nation or state. Identity Politics is also egotism-based. You attack my gender, race or orientation, you attack me.

The wild responses of the Identity Politics crowd resemble the fascist-like behavior of the ultranationalists, which at the end of the day, is all down to tribalism anyway. In this sense, Identity Politics has set up new tribes for us based on gender, orientation, race etc. Now one can be a member of the Woman Nation, the Gay Nation, the Black Nation, etc.

Gender feminists, gay militants, etc. are simply the ultranationalist vanguards of the Female and Gay Nations respectively. The same problems and critiques of nationalism and ultranationalism that the Left has long brought up and fleshed out would seem to apply here. An ultranationalist of the Gay Nation or the Female Nation is not so dissimilar to a German, Japanese, Indian, Turkish, Arab, Chinese or other ultranationalist.

The bottom line is that these bitches are simply our enemies. If you’re a man, they’re your enemy. If you’re a man who sides with gender feminism, you’re not only a pussy and a man who won’t fight for himself, but you’re also a traitor to your brothers in lining up with our enemies.

It’s no surprise that male feminists are often the most pussified or unmasculine men out there. Many are gay. Others have renounced masculinity as some sort of oppressive ideology. Truth is that no self respecting man should ever identify with these bitches. Do you think that men are evil and women are the font of all goodness in mankind? If you don’t agree, don’t line up with these shrill shrews.

48 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nationalism, Norway, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Sweden, Ultranationalism, Useless Western Left

Gender Feminist Bingo

Click to enlarge. Let’s play Gender Feminist Bingo! On second thought, let’s not! At the end of the night, nobody wins anyway.

30 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Humor, Radical Feminists, Scum

Thoughts on the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW Sites

Bhabi writes:

Robert, you’re now claiming to be an MRA?

I am an MRA, yes. But I don’t like a lot of them. I do like the posters and commenters on a blog called Antifeminism. The main thing I dislike about the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW sites is that the misogyny is just so extreme in so many cases. I’m actually a guy who loves women, or at least tries my best to, difficult as it can be at times, so blatant misogyny like that really bites me the wrong way. I hate feminists, but I love women. And there’s two kinds of women,  feminists and real women.

Also there is a lot of feminism mirroring and general victim addiction that you see in most nationalist/chauvinist movements – and yes feminism is just female chauvinism.

This is characterized by “They hate us!!!!”  And endless screaming accusations of misandry. For one thing it is mirroring the idiot victim addiction I mentioned in a previous post. Victim addiction is demeaning to men because it depicts men as weak and helpless victims – a bunch of whining bitches.

Mirroring the enemy is not progress, and the proper response to female chauvinism is not male chauvinism. Yes, some radical feminists hate men, but I am not really concerned about that. I’m laffin right now thinking about it. What are these bitches going to do? Come over here and fuck me up? Beat me over the head with their strapons until I die? Big deal.

On the other hand, I am not going to ally with a bunch of haters who hate me and my kind, i.e. feminists. Male feminists are basically pussies who apologize for being men and beg forgiveness from women by claiming they are not like the rest of those evil pigs. In response, feminist women give feminist men what? In many cases, precisely nothing.

Also, I don’t like the whining, screeching tone. “They’re discriminating against us men and boys!” Oh boo hoo! Those mean girls. Didn’t they make a movie about them? Even if these bitches are discriminating against men and boys (and there is little evidence that feminism has gone that insane yet) the proper response would not be crying into our hankies and screeching like a bunch of banshee bitches.

A man doesn’t act that way when challenged. When challenged, threatened or attacked, a man fights back. He goes out and fucks you up.

So I think that the Manosphere ought to be taking a much more aggressive, hostile, menacing and threatening tone towards these feminists. It should be like, “Look bitches. We are at war with you! Got it? And we mean it. You wanted a war with us? Fine. No problem. You got that war. Understand? We are taking you on!”

We should be threatening to fuck people up. I don’t really advocate doing it, and it’s illegal anyway, but it’s the proper male response to feminism. Not wailing, but instead pure macho violent rage complete with bellowing, chest beating and threats. Let them think twice about taking us on. Are we gonna fight back? Damn right, bitches. You want to start a war with us men? No problem, you got one. Are you down?

I don’t really think we live in a misandrous culture, and misandry is not much of a problem nowadays. What is a problems is female thinking ruling society = Female Rule = Feminist Rule = Feminist Totalitarian Dictatorship. Keep in mind that millions of male manginas assist with these women in enforcing female rule.

I don’t really think most women hate us, and I don’t think they are misandrous. Instead, they’re just being cunts. This is what happens when you empower women to the extent where they think they can impose their bullshit thinking on society when male thinking would do a lot better job of it.

Men and women compete and differ in many ways and have opposing interests. So the stuff that female thinking is going to push via feminism is inevitably hostile to men. Most of the feminist women pushing this do not even hate men at all. Many love men.

But it’s not misandry that’s the problem. It’s female thinking and in particular, allowing women to carry out their competitive war of interests with men into the social and especially legal arena.

Men and women struggle for power in various ways even in marriage and loving relationships. This is because they have different interests. When the pro-female agenda is imposed on society, the anti-male effects are obvious. Because what is pro-female is often anti-male. Because females (even feminists) hate us? No, many to most of them love us. What is pro-women is often anti-male due to differing and competing interests, values and agenda among genders.

66 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Masculinism, Radical Feminists, Scum

Define Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism

William writes:

I’d like to understand these two terms a little better, gender feminism and radical feminism. Can you express and/or define what they represent to you and what you think they might mean to the woman who fit these terms?

For all intents and purposes, radical and gender feminism are the same thing. Looking at it more closely, radical feminism is part of gender feminism, but more the extreme end of it. It’s possible that there are gender feminists who think that some of the radicals just take it too far, but in general, the radicals have a firm and hard place in the world of gender feminism. Surely, in Women’s Studies programs, the radical feminists are an essential part of the canon.

The radicals are quite extreme in their man-hating, and many have abandoned men altogether for a political lesbianism. Many have hatred of men that can only be considered pathological or extreme. They often hate pornography too and want to make it illegal. They are often associated with the left and in particular the Hard Left, but socialist feminism is actually a bit different.

Gender feminists are a different breed, and many are happily heterosexual. If the straights though are extremely pro-gay, which really means pro-lesbian. Lately, transsexuals have gained a hallowed place at the table. The straight gender feminists don’t necessarily hate men, but there is definitely a lot of anti-male bias there. They are mostly at war with the Manosphere types and the Men’s Rights crowd. They have very little sympathy for the concerns of men and they don’t understand men at all.

Gender feminism is in opposition to or an expansion of equity feminism. Equity feminism simply wants equal pay. Gender feminism takes it further into more of an objective war against men in general, who are seen as the enemy. The aspect of men that is defined as the enemy is typically the sexual self – that is, they are really at war with male sexuality itself, which they regard as evil. They also lack a good understanding of male sexuality, which they caricature.

Others take it a lot further into a hatred of masculinity itself, which is defined as evil. Only the wimpiest of men are acceptable to these women, and indeed, many strong male feminists are extremely wimpy men. Quite a few are actually gay men, others cross dress, are “male subs” and engage in other sorts of male femininity. Really male feminists are often men who are strongly opposed to masculinity in general. Logically, quite a few of them are gay or may as well be.

Those who like sex and men a lot are often “ballbreakers” who put down men a lot and insult their masculinity. Hence many men are logically afraid of them.

Also gender feminists tend to think that women and the female nature are simply superior to men and the male nature. They deny any biology of gender and tend to think that all gender is constructed culturally. There is a refusal to look at the downside of women and femininity and to blame everything on some unseen patriarchy which is increasingly irrelevant in modern feminized and feministed America.

Among the more radical ones, there is a bizarre obsession with rape. Obviously rape is a serious crime, but it’s really not very common, and the vast majority of men never rape anyone.

Yet many gender feminists essentially run around yelling rape for dawn to dusk. Males who want to get on board with them are also required to run about hollering about rape all day and night and making it clear to everyone how they are not rapists and how they are fighting the War on Rape (how a man fights this war is not known).

The opposite of gender feminism is equity feminism, which simply wants a place at the economic table. Equity feminists often feel that gender feminists take it too far. They don’t hate men, and many of them love men. They are not on board with a war on men. They think men and women are different, even on a biological level, and don’t think one or the other is superior. They candidly admit to the failings and shortcomings of the female and femininity in general.

4 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Radical Feminists, Scum

EU Makes Flirting Illegal

From a MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) forum. The MGTOW movement is an interesting movement. I’m not sure exactly what it’s all about. Could someone please summarize it for me? Sounds like men deciding to live single lives without women, or at least without marrying them anyway.

Also among the clauses is one that will outlaw ‘unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.

This whole sexual harassment thing has gone completely insane. What exactly is it anyway? How do I know if I am sexually harassing a woman?

For the record, I’ve already more or less been accused of this a couple of times. Once I asked out a woman at work, and she apparently accused me of sexually harassing her on that basis. For asking her out! Another time, some female employees in a store accused me of looking them in a way that they didn’t like. I shouldn’t go into too much detail about this one because I don’t want my Internet enemies to use this against me (they’ve already tried to).

Sexual harassment is one of the areas in which feminism has gone absolutely berserk. The way I read sexual harassment is it means “some guy I don’t like is showing sexual interest in me.” As a man, how the Hell am I supposed to know whether or not I am sexually harassing a woman? I can’t. What are the rules about it anyway? At what point is a guy sexually harassing a woman? None of this shit is clear in any way.

The EU directive appears to attempt to make sexual harassment, which, incredibly, in this case means even nonverbal behavior, illegal or actionable not just in the workplace but all across society.

The comments on the forum are instructive. Posters note that this essentially makes all flirting, and all of human mating behavior for that matter, illegal:

Now approaching and asking women out will be a potential crime in all areas and contexts, not just in workplaces. No, this is not April’s fools…

Can someone please explain to me how this doesn’t outlaw all of human mating? The way people get together is that the one person takes a risk and makes a move to see if the person responds to it (tries to brush their hair, stares into the person’s eyes, winks, throws an innuendo, tries to step a little closer to the person to test intimate space)…This is how all of human mating works…But now it is illegal.

How are men and women supposed to get together? Write written forms asking for permission to flirt? But actually delivering the written form would itself be a form of harassment.

Others note that women increasingly complain that men won’t approach women anymore.

Wow, so they’re catching up to Canada, where the women now complain about Canadian men and how we never make any moves on them – duh…
…-> Men like approaching and introducing themselves to women, and being the initiator

-> Women bitch, moan, ridicule, mock and shame men who approach them, in many cases no matter how polite the man was

-> Men stop approaching women

-> Women wonder how come men are not approaching any more.

11 Comments

Filed under Britain, Culture, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Law, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum