Category Archives: Radical Feminists

FEMEN Protests Against Islam during Berlin Islam Week

NSFW!

Pretty amazing video. Some Muslim group is holding a function during Berlin’s Islam Week. The balding man is a well-known leader of Berlin’s Muslim community, but he is not too well-liked by non-Muslims who consider him to be a fake moderate and a loudmouth.

I believe they are having some sort of a discussion about Islam in this conference room and the balding guy is hosting the discussion. The room is full of Muslims, mostly Muslim women for some reason. Almost all of the Muslim women are wearing the Muslim headscarf.

Halfway through the presentation, provocateurs from Ukraine’s feminist FEMEN group burst into the room and onto the stage. They are naked from the waist up. They have anti-Islam slogans written on their chests. One woman has “FUCK ISLAM” written on her chest. They take the stage and start yelling anti-Islam slogans.

The group is shocked at first and does not know what to do about them. The Muslim women stand up and start yelling at them, telling them to go away. The Muslimas are clearly disgusted by these provocateurs. The conference host does not seem to know what to do. At one point, the Muslims decide that if they give the women a standing ovation and cheer them on, that this will be enough to get the women to leave the stage. But the FEMEN girls refuse to leave the stage. The cops finally have to be called. The girls resist arrest and have to be dragged out of the room. They are screaming the whole time.

All of these things are just provocations. I expect many more of these provocations to happen in the near future. Really they are trying to bait the Muslims into responding to these insults and provocations. You could argue that the Muslims should just be cool in the face of blasphemy and other insults, but their religion just doesn’t work that way. I actually think they have been pretty calm in the aftermath to the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

These provocations will continue and will probably escalate in both size and offensiveness. The Muslims will no doubt start responding to some of the provocations. Surely more violence will occur. The non-Muslims will respond to Muslim violence the same way the French did the next day after the Paris attacks – two mosques were attacked with hand grenades. No doubt this will escalate into a tit for tat war.

Ever study the history of the Algerian War? It was like that. The FLN were definitely terrorists, but the French Foreign Legion responded with a lot of repression and torture. Food was cut off from entire cities. The more the French engaged in repressions against the populace, the angrier the Algerians got. What started out as limited terrorism soon bloomed into full scale terrorist war as the FLN was now tossing bombs and grenades into cafes full of French people.

You would be walking down and street and suddenly hear a loud gunshot. You jerk your head up and look across the street. The rebels have assassinated a 10 year old French boy just because he is French. Blood is pouring out of his head as he lies on the sidewalk. The Algerians look around anxiously. They know that the French payback for this crime is coming soon, and it won’t be pretty.

I think this tit for tat, paybacks are a bitch, feuding style of low grade war is probably going to happen in the near future in Europe and even in the US, Canada,  and Australia.

I really do not see any way out of this.

 

23 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Algeria, Colonialism, Europe, France, Germany, History, Islam, Modern, North Africa, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Regional, Religion, War

Jackson Katz on Crying, Porn and Miley Cyrus

The comments are full of MRA types bashing this guy to Kingdom Come as a male feminist, which is unfortunate. I am not very wild about what passes for male feminists these days – they are basically men defending gender feminism, so they are defending the indefensible. However, I can resonate with this guy.

The only part I did not like was at the beginning when he talked about Miley Cyrus being sexually objectified. I like the fact that women are sexually objectified. I think it is great. Also, if you look around you, you will notice that a very large number of women seem to enjoy sexually objectifying themselves, or making themselves beautiful and sexy for men.

The comments about porn are unfortunately true. Much porn now is misogynistic as all get out, but honestly, it’s always been that way. I started watching porn back in the 1970’s and it was very misogynistic even way back then. I do not know what the solution is, but I have always liked porn and I continued to watch a fair amount of it even into my fifties

Most women I meet tell me that they watch porn sometimes and that they like it. They like it pretty down and dirty too. They put on a couple of nipple clamps, get their clit vibe out, turn on some really dirty gonzo porn and diddle away to orgasm after orgasm.

The only complaint I have heard from women about porn is that they look at the beautiful women in porn and compare themselves unfavorably to those women. They do not think their faces or bodies look good enough compared to the women in porn. However, there is a ton of porn out there now with very ordinary, fat or even homely women in it. Most of it is amateur porn.

This holds true for men too. All the guys in porn now are so buffed. Look at those six packs. Are they all on roids? They are also extremely masculine, covered with tattoos, shaved heads or very short hair – super macho guys.

Well, that’s not me.

And I suppose I do compare myself unfavorably to these porn guys because that’s just not me – I am not a super macho type. Back in the 70’s, the men in porn were quite different. They were more ordinary guys, metrosexual,  hippiesih and androgynous in a good sense (Mick Jagger androgynous, not Boy George androgynous). That’s all gone now, and all we have are these muscled meatheads who look like they are going to kill you.

The rest of the talk was ok. I do not usually like these types when they start going on, but this one was different. I actually think he is an MRA in sense in addition to being a feminist.

Back in the 1970’s, there was a movement called Men’s Liberation which could be seen as the leftwing of the Men’s Movement. Warren Farrell and Robert Bly both came out of this movement. There were some problems with it, such as a worrying tendency towards promoting homosexual behavior (arguments were made that Men’s Libbers needed to “confront their hangups about sex with other men” – yuck), but then the feminist movement has always had that problem too, and they were much more guilty of this than the Men’s Libbers.

Although the Men’s Libbers and the feminists saw themselves as allies in the beginning (both were part of the general Liberation movements of the 1960’s which I and many others supported), some fights started pretty early on. By 1975, Men’s Libbers were offering pointed critiques of worrying trends in gender feminism and especially radical feminism. Radical feminism is now so nuts that only the most masochistic man would sign up for it, and even worse, radical feminists have long been at the reins of the feminist movement itself.

I could see these Jackson Katz fellow as both a male feminist and a Men’s Lib guy even though Men’s Lib hardly exists anymore. Most of these male feminists are not very sensible, and way too many of them are gay men, which seriously taints the whole male feminist project. Katz also a very masculine guy, even though he is critiquing masculinity. And he is not slamming masculinity per se; he is slamming the more idiotic, destructive, unhealthy and disordered aspects of it, which is a great idea.

I have noticed over at A Voice for Men, a site which is still far too misogynistic for my tastes, there have been some recent articles about how the Men’s Movement ought to welcome gay men into the movement. Of course that makes sense, but a lot of MRA’s are going to flip if they hear that. After all, gay men are men too, and men’s issues are their issues. But this move on Elam’s part seems to be a move in a Men’s Lib-type direction away from MRA reaction, which is heartening.

I have a lot more to say about his critique of masculinity but it is quite depressing and I will leave it at this for now.

Basically I would argue that redefining masculinity is a great idea (the Men’s Libbers were the first to do this) but sadly it doesn’t work in the real world because women still do not like transformed men even though they insist they do. They say they want a new man, but what they really want deep down inside is a macho meathead bad boy who ends up mistreating them.

So if you go the New Man route you are going to be forever running into women, even or especially feminist women, frankly challenging your masculinity because you are not the meathead of her dreams.

Not only that, but you will spend much of your life being accused of being a homosexual and having to argue with pinheads who insist that you are gay and you couldn’t possibly be straight. I do not know about you, but having to tell people you’re not gay gets pretty tiresome after a while, mostly because it’s a dumb question in the first place as picking out homosexual men is a trivial exercise. Is that the way you want to spend your life?

Well,this is what lies in store for you if you try to redefine masculinity and live that way.

At this late date, my basic attitude is to say fuck it and be the macho meathead that everyone apparently wants me to be.

Sad that it’s come down to this.

6 Comments

Filed under Celebrities, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Masculinism, Pornography, Radical Feminists, Sex

Queer Studies

Queer Theory.

Queer Theory is utterly ridiculous, completely stupid, and 100% bonkers. Structuralism plus a bunch of more or less homosexual types. It’s mandatory to be some type of homosexual in Queer Theory World. It’s best if you are gay, and that’s what Queer Theory is really all about, but bisexuals are welcome too, although most people who identify as “Queer” even if they are bisexual tend to lean towards the homosexual end.

I was surfing porn on Tumblr one night (Come on – cheer me on! I am 57 years old!) and I came across some porn videos by a bunch of radical feminists. I forget who exactly they were fucking. But I noticed in their statement of principles about this porn company they were founding that one of the principles was something like

7. Stay Queer.

Yeah, “Stay Queer?” What in the Hell does that mean? Well, really that’s what we all need to do right? First we need to Go Queer, and then we need to Stay Queer.

All you guys who like pussy, get a clue.

All you women who are strictly dickly – oh come on, that is so 20th century!

Nothing is defined in Queer Theory because nothing has any definition. True to its structuralist roots, nothing means anything in Queer Theory. This lack of definitions or proof of anything on Earth is a problem in all of the fake sciences (I mean Social Sciences! Excuse me!). Nothing means anything, nothing is true, nothing can be defined. I guess nothing is real either. We must all be in the Matrix.

It’s not so much that nothing means anything in Queer Theory but more that anything can mean anything. All definitions are all inclusive. Can straight people define themselves as “Queer?” Sure! Knock yourself out! What about people who have “normative sexuality?” Welcome aboard! Queer Theory embraces you too.

The problem is that when a crazy, perverted weirdo from the Cultural Marxist freakshow defines themselves as “Queer” it literally means nothing whatsoever. Sure, there is some major homosexuality implied, but it’s only implied. Could be a lesbian living with shemale. Or a gay man living with a transman. Seven different types of genderqueer? Are you kidding? We got more gender flavors than Baskin Robbins!

Of course if you are sane and object to any of this obvious psychopathology is Weirdo Chic or whatever it is, you happen to be a bigot. You know, like a racist, cracker, Nazi, KKK, White supremacist, ugly, evil type of person. Why? Because you firmly believe that weirdos are weirdos and are not normal. Because you think normal actually has a real definition that has nothing to do with Queer Theory.

Nowadays you can actually major in Queer Studies. Back in the 1970’s, that would have been a great joke. Now the ludicrous is real. Now why anyone would major in Queer Studies, I have no idea.

There do happen to be a few seminal Queer Studies documents. One is called Is the Rectum a Grave? by Leo Barsani. I actually read this document for some reason one afternoon. Turns out it is an incomprehensible piece of Critical Theory that has nothing to do with its title, homosexuality, AIDS, or really anything.

Mr. Barsani is a gay man who is a tenured professor at some university. He regularly writes about how he hangs out in gay bars, picks up guys on the street, goes to wild gay orgies, visits bathhouses and generally lives a highly degenerate lifestyle.

Now if I did that as a straight professor, I assume I would go up before a Tenure Committee. That is if a feminist hit squad didn’t get me first.

Queers have all the fun!

A major Queer Studies book was recently released. In it, a tenured US professor and gay man writes about how we really should not put down bug-chasers. Bug-chasers are homosexual men who are going out and deliberately trying to get infected with HIV.

This professor writes about how liberating it is to have sex with countless men with no Comstockian condoms to get in the way of the dangerous fun. These men are rebels, thumbing their nose at society while they drop hits of sexual strychnine in bathhouses or on Fire Island.

This book has provoked many comments online. A lot of the Queer Studies types have been cheering this stupid book on.

Their reviews are full of thick structuralist fog. They don’t say much of anything except bug-chasing is cool and how we are all bigots if we think bugchasing is indicative of mental illness. It turns out that there is something edifying and profound about mad human lemming marches!

I have only scratched to surface of this insane field, but I am sure you get the picture. Gay and Lesbian Studies was pretty preposterous – queers and lesbians staring at their navels and scribbling solipsistically – but Gay and Lesbian Studies looks reasonable compared to Queer Studies.

Yes, there are actually Queer Studies departments at major universities.

You can stop laughing now. The article is over.

14 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Higher Education, Homosexuality, Radical Feminists, Sex

I Am Proud to Be a Gender Essentialist

And I really do hate Amanda Marcotte. I always wondered why the Manosphere hated her so much, and now I get it. She is a stereotypical feminist lunatic crazy bitch on steroids. Here is one of her latest insipid tirades.

Honestly I dislike all Identity Politics types.

According to Marcotte, gender essentialism is where you think there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Gender essentialism is sexism. In that case, I am absolutely a sexist 100%, and I am very proud to be one. Not only that, but I am certain I will be a proud sexist for the rest of my life.

Marcotte says that if you believe that men are more aggressive or violent then women, then you are a sexist. I certainly believe that men are more aggressive and violent then women, and not only that, but it is inborn in men and women to be this way.

Marcotte says if you believe that men are less nurturing then women, you are a sexist. Of course men are far less nurturing than women, and this is inborn.

Much of the post is about whether men have better critical thinking skills than women. I think I will pass on that one, but my only comment would be that although women can be excellent at critical thinking, they do not like to do the sort of critical thinking that involves the abstract word of ideas and concepts. However, I believe that women are excellent at critical thinking when it comes to relationships, children, the sexes and other things that they value. Its not that they cannot do that pure intellectual type thinking, but it’s more that they think it is boring.

That is why the female pure intellectual is not so common as the male pure intellectual. I have met some very smart women, some with IQ’s of 140+. However, many of them could not be described as pure intellectuals. They are just as smart as men with the same IQ, but these women found that intellectual world to be a snooze-fest. They were simply not interested in things like that.

Their interests were more along the lines of people, the sexes, the emotions, sexuality, human personality, relationships and whatnot. This is the sort of thing women really get off on, and when it comes to intuitive thinking along those lines, no one does it better than a woman. So it’s not that one gender is inferior and the other is superior, it is more that their brains are different and their intelligences are more geared to certain areas as opposed to others. It’s a matter of interests, not ability.

Marcotte says if you think men can handle rough and tumble criticism and women tend to shy away from such things, then you are a sexist. But this is probably true. Women can be catty as Hell, but they dislike raw verbal aggression. They probably think it is ugly, scary or ridiculous, and often it is.

Let us ask my Mother, the smartest woman in the world about this. I told her that they are many people on line who absolutely love to fight with other people.

They get into wild fights with other posters and commenters that go on forever. In many cases, they insult and threaten each other, try to get each other fired from jobs, threaten to turn each other into authorities for some sort of violation, try to get each other kicked off websites of ISP’s, dig up personal dirt on each other and air it on the web, set up whole webpages just to smear other people, post under a never-ending array of fake names and handles (morphing), etc. I told her that a lot of them seem to actually enjoy this sort of ugliness, and they often spend hours a day attacking each other. Some of them were high-ranking people with good jobs such as university professors.

She nodded her head like she had heard it a million times.

“They’re mostly men, right?” She asked.

“Yes! They are almost all men!”

“Of course,” she said, shrugging her shoulders.

So going by that, it seems men love to fight just for the sake of fighting, and women do not. Who can take criticism better? All I know is that my girlfriends keep complaining that I have insulted them even when I didn’t intend to. They get horribly offended and angry, call me names, threaten me in various ways, try to hit me, break down into tears, refuse to talk to me for days on end. A lot of them seem to find fault in all sorts of petty things. So going by that, I would say that women don’t take criticism very well. In fact, they tend to break down.

Marcotte says that if you agree with or make statements like this, you are a misogynist:

Listen, honey. I go to strip clubs every week. I love women — especially when they’re covered in oil.

I do love women, especially when they are covered in oil. And I used to love to go to strip clubs. In that case, I am very proud to be a misogynist.

Marcotte says that if you believe that gendered violence in men (that is, men beating, raping, and killing women) is inborn, then you are a sexist. I do believe this. I do not believe that men are born to be violent towards women. Men are biologically more violent period, to both sexes. And yes, they are biologically more prone to rape. This sort of gendered violence will always be with us. You can reduce it, but it will never go away.

Bottom line is according to this women and countless other feminist nuts, I am a sexist and a misogynist. I agree with her, and I am very proud to be these things.

3 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Intelligence, Left, Man World, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Scum

Why Identity Politics Is Inherently Reactionary

I dislike all Identity Politics. They all suck. Identity Politics Blacks suck. IP Hispanics suck. IP Asians suck. IP gays suck. IP trannies suck. And of course Identity Politics feminists suck. Identity Politics Jews suck. Ethnic nationalists of all types suck. Hindu nationalists suck. White nationalists suck.

Why the Left has piggybacked on board all of these asinine movements is beyond me. Identity Politics is really like nationalism in a sense and it is inherently reactionary. IP feminists are nationalists supporting the “nation” of women. IP gays are nationalists supporting the gay nation. IP Blacks support the nation of Blacks. If ethnic nationalism is no good, then it corollaries in other “nations” such as the nations of women, gays, and transsexuals, is no good too.

Is it possible to be a sensible feminist? I suppose it is, but it requires some hair-splitting.

Identity Politics feminists = Bad
Non-identity politics feminists = Ok

Gender feminists = Bad
Equity feminists = Good

Radical feminists = Bad
Liberal feminists = Ok

I suppose it would look something like this? How to sort out the lunatic feminists from the sane ones? If she is running around screaming “sexism” or “sexist” all the time, she is a feminist nutcase.

How to sort out the sensible minorities from the loons? The Blacks that are running around yelling racism all the time are the nutballs.

Who are the reasonable gays and who are the kooks? The crazy gays are the ones running around yelling homophobia all the time.

9 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Ethnic Nationalism, Feminism, Homosexuality, Left, Lunatics, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Feminists, Scum, Useless Western Left

Radical Feminism Is Wrong Right off the Bat

The radical feminist definition of sex and gender. Briefly, sex is what you are born into – a male or a female body. Gender in most cases is what happens when a male turns into a boy or a man or a female turns into a girl or woman.

Patriarchy is a caste system which takes humans who are born biologically male or female and turns them into the social classes called men and women.

Deep Green Resistance

This is so wrong. Gender is as real as race. In fact, my own philosophy at the moment is that Gender Realism has a lot more going for it than Race Realism.

I guess Gender Realism would say something like:

Gender is real, it is not socially constructed, and much of it is in fact biological in nature.

How many of you are Gender Realists? I would imagine that the vast majority of the older generation are. Every woman and girl I have ever dated was? Where are all these morons who insist that gender is socially constructed?

10 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Radical Feminists

Libfems Versus Radfems

Interview with Gail Dines, radfem, about her anti-porn book Pornland. The interview was written up on the site of the New Left Project, so apparently both libfems (such as the author, Sarah Ditum) and radfems like Dines are both part of the Left.

I do not think men should blanketly oppose feminism as much of the reactionary Manosphere wants us to. However, choosing to support libfems and to oppose radfems seems to be a rational thing to do. In opposing radfems, we avoid the trap saying, “We oppose feminism,” or a cryptic, “We oppose some feminism.” We lay out exactly which feminism we oppose (radfems) and which we support critically (libfems).

Radfems strike me as mentally ill people. As someone who works in mental health, I do not see why I should support a movement full of mentally disturbed people who seek to impose their mental illnesses on society.

1 Comment

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Mental Patients, Pornography, Radical Feminists, Sex, Women

Which War Forward, Western Woman?

Your choice ladies, the Qatar Model or the Brazil Model. Which will it be?

Your choice ladies, the Qatar Model or the Brazil Model. Which will it be?

You radfems don’t like the sexual objectification of females? Fine, I present you with…drum roll…Qatar! You happy now?

8 Comments

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

10 Similarities Between Conservatives and Radical Feminists

10 Similarities Between Conservatives and Radical Feminists

the-horseshoe-theory:

The Horseshoe Theory states simply that, as you get more and more extreme with respect to a political view (ex: more and more left-wing), you “horseshoe” back around and your actions become similar to that of your philosophical opposite (ex: begin acting more right-wing).

Generalizations of common beliefs between radfems and conservatives.

  1. Generally tend to be middle class+ and white.

  2. They believe women have no sexual agency — conservatives believe the man should make the decisions, and radical feminists believe that the patriarchy makes women straight, and they couldn’t possibly like having sex with men.

  3. Furthermore, both oppose any amount of kink and claim BDSM is harmful.

  4. Both believe in compulsory sexuality — conservatives believe everyone should be straight, and radfems believe all women should be gay.

  5. Both believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with them on topics regarding rape are lying about it happening and should have vulgar acts done to them.

  6. Both groups are racist as hell, and often resort to the “I have a black friend!” excuse. Both will vehemently deny being racist, too. Conservatives will talk about how the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, and radical feminists will talk about how the first radical feminists were black.

  7. Both hate trans* people with a burning passion and think they’re a fake man/woman who is trying to “invade” or take over.

  8. Both think porn is evil and a scourge on society.

  9. Both believe consent doesn’t exist and that, even if two adults consent, a sexual act can be immoral and harmful to other parties.

  10. Both hate, hate, hate, hate gay men. Conservatives view them…well, we know how they view them. Radical feminists believe they are…

Sadly, there is a lot of truth to this. Radical feminists are frankly insane, and much of the feminist movement has been taken over by radfems. Many feminist heroes and icons are or were radfems. Many of these icons also strike me as possibly being mentally ill in some way.

Let us go through the charges.

1. True.

2. Pretty much true. At the very least radfems say that women are going to be a lot more fulfilled having sex with women than having sex with men due to inherent differences and power differentials existing between men and women. Other than that, they all believe that there are not enough lesbians, and we really need to increase the number of lesbians. The % of lesbians in the radfem movement is very high.

A number of others are deliberately raising their kids alone without fathers. Quite a few of them state that they hate raising their boys, and if they had their way, they would only raise girls. Some radfems have advocated that mothers kill their sons. Others adopt political lesbianism and lesbian separatism. The hatred for men (misandry) is extremely high among radfems, and in general, they do not believe that there are any good men at all. Nevertheless, quite a few radfems have boyfriends or husbands.

3. True, and I hate to say it, but the radfems may actually be onto something here. More on this later.

4. I went over radfems’ beliefs about lesbianism earlier. In fact, quite a few radfems actually believe that all women should be lesbians.

5. Radfems are pretty insane on the subject of rape. Rape paranoia is epidemic among radfems and is a continual redefining of the definition of rape downwards more and more away from the traditional legal definition and into some very murky area. Radfems to not have a high opinion of their critics – the general attitude is, “Go to Hell!”

6. Conservatives are racist. Well, most of them are anyway. I think there are a few conservatives who are not all that racist. At least they seem to be able to have Black friends or lovers without problems. The charge seems false against radfems; they are radical antiracists.

7. I do not know about this one, but I think there is some truth to it. Some of them say that transsexualism is harmful to women because radfems have a mission to get rid of gender. The other belief mentioned – that radfems believe that some transwomen are men invading women’s space, or that transmen are no longer women and should be thrown out of, say, women’s colleges, are widespread. Now whether they hate them like conservatives do, I am not sure.

8. This is absolutely true, at least of radfems. They want to wipe porn and prostitution off the face of the Earth.

9. This is absolutely true, at least of radfems, who have an utterly insane notion of consent, often saying that there is no such thing.

10. True about conservatives, not sure what they are getting at with regard to radfems. I always thought radfems were gay male-friendly.

The truth is that radical feminism is an insane ideology and most of the women in it are in my opinion mentally ill in some way or another. I have known some men who got into radical feminism, and their behavior was pretty ridiculous and pathetic, not to mention wimpy to the extreme. No sane male, even a liberal or Leftist man, should support this lunatic, ferociously antimale or misandrist ideology. Any male who does is essentially a gender traitor who has gone over to the enemy.

Radfems often counterpoint the feminists that they hate as what they call liberal feminists or libfems. Libfems are often described as sex-positive and have believe that prostitution should be legal and females in porn should be supported. Both occupations may be fulfilling and liberating. Libfems also often support BD/SM.

I believe that liberal feminism is something that a lot of us men, even masculinists, members of the Manosphere or liberal and progressive men, could get behind. What’s wrong with liberation, after all? Isn’t liberation what the Left is all about?

Sane males can reasonably say that they support liberal feminism while staunchly opposing radical feminism. That seems a lot better than out and out feminist-hating, which feels reactionary.

18 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Pornography, Racism, Radical Feminists, Sex, US Politics

Types of Genderqueer

From the famous feminist scholar Judith Butler’s website, The Social Construction of Gender.

1. Both man and woman (example: androgyne)

2. Neither man nor woman (agender, neutrois, non-gendered).

3. Moving between two or more genders (gender fluid).

4. Third gendered or other-gendered (includes those who prefer “genderqueer” or “non-binary” to describe their gender without labeling it otherwise).

5. Having an overlap or blur of gender and orientation and/or sex…(girlfags and guydykes)

6. Those who “queer” gender, in presentation or otherwise, who may or may not see themselves as non-binary or having a gender that is queer; this category may also include those who are consciously political or radical in their understanding of being genderqueer.

Excuse me, but this is sheer batshittery. The Cultural Left, in particular the Gay Lobby, has only started their Long March. Their demands will become increasingly offensive and bizarre and will probably be interminable. Society is giving way to a lot of the Gay Lobby’s demands (and some of this is correct as in gay marriage) but believe me, you haven’t seen the end of this. This is only the beginning.

I do not know Judith Butler well, but in researching a lot of famous radical feminists, I came to the conclusion that many of these women appear to be mentally ill in some way. The hatred of men is so bizarre, over the top and insane that it really seems like psychopathology. A few famous radical feminists have actually called for reducing the number of males in society through various means. How they propose to go about this, I have no idea. “Lesbian separatists” are definitely bigots and may be mentally ill. If you hate men so much that you want to live in a world that has no men in it, that seems like psychopathology to me.

I know it is a cliche, but you would be surprised how many radical feminists have praised Valerie Solanis’ SCUM Manifesto as a brilliant radical feminist classic. The Hell it is. The woman had paranoid schizophrenia, and she shot and almost killed Andy Warhol for no reason. Warhol had serious health problems for the rest of his life due to this loon. Her insane manifesto logically flows right out of her mental illness

I would go so far as to say that most “political lesbians” or “lesbian feminists” are not mentally healthy. What is really going on here is a case of women who hate men so much that they simply turn into lesbians. Nope, they weren’t born that way. They used to be straight and they turned lesbian out of fear and hatred of men, and they could turn straight again anytime they want to. They could even use the falsely discredited conversion therapy to help them become heterosexual again. After all, conversion therapy can work in motivated women.

I do not like the Religious Right very much, but they often tell the truth about homosexuality and the Gay Lobby. What is sad is that the only people who are telling the truth about homosexuality and the Gay Lobby are themselves a bunch of nuts. Once again American society is polarized between two nutty poles, the kooky Gay Lobby and the offensive Religious Right. As with race, there is no middle ground for the sane people.

Looking at the list, how can you be both a man and a woman at the same time? Forget it. You’re one or the other.

How can you be neither a man nor a woman? You mean there are males, females and “others?” What sense does that make?

How can you move between male and female? If this is Sunday, then I must be a man. If it’s Tuesday, then I must be a woman. If it’s Thursday, this must be Paris. Come on! You’re either a man or a woman. You can’t change from man to woman every other day like you change your underwear.

What the Hell is a third gender? You mean there are males, females and genderqueers? Screw that.

What in God’s name is a girlfag or a guydyke? That’s so weird.

How in the Hell can you “queer” gender? “Hi, my name is Bob and I queer gender.” What does that mean?

You know, back when I was growing up, we called these people “freaks” and “weirdos.” That’s exactly what they are.

I also suspect that many of these genderqueer “things” or “its” are actually dealing with some sort of mental illness. If you can’t figure out if you’re male or female, in a lot of cases, I would suspect that there’s something wrong with your head. Why? Because normal people know whether they are males or females. It’s not something we go round and round about. It’s as clear as air.

All of these people are insane.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

63 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Mental Illness, Political Science, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Feminists, Religion, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology