Saturday, June 12, 2010

How Long Can They Pin It On 'Fringe Radicals'?

Surprisingly resilient is the claim of earnest feminists, that they don't hate men at all, and that those so-called feminists who do hate men are not really feminists at all, and that we've just got it all wrong.

There are so many examples to the contrary of this, which show that the misandrists who wave the flag 'feminism' are not only the loudest voices, but the most powerful, most well-organised, most determined to affect change, and arguably the most numerical, of all those who claim the tag feminism.

That is, the feminists who most give a damn about feminism, are absolutely unrelenting man-haters!

Example #1. Gudrun Schyman, who co-founded the Swedish political party Feminist Initiative, was responsible for the idea of a 'man tax' - that is, taxes levied against men for having the gall to bear a penis.

To quote this disgusting pig, "we have to have a discussion so that men understand that they have a collective financial responsibility."

Interesting - what kind of discussion begins with its conclusion as its very premise? What kind of discussion rules out compromise altogether in favour of the other party having to simply "understand" the terms set out on their behalf?

This would be no discussion, but then Gudrun Schyman is no lady. She is a would-be petty dictator, and the word she was looking for is 'dictation'.

And by the way, a year before making this disgusting proposal, she had been charged with misleading tax authorities, for attempting to make illicit tax deductions.

You just could not make this stuff up. No matter how low you set the bar for feminists, they always manage to limbo right underneath it.

So tell me, those of you who claim that self-identified feminists like Gudrun Schyman are just 'fringe radicals' - where were the organised and powerful feminists opposing this? Schyman was a member of the Swedish parliament when she proposed the 'man tax'. That makes her pretty damn powerful in my book. So where were the other powerful feminists?

That's right - they were backing her up, nodding in agreement that all men shall pay for the crimes of a few, titillating at the thought of making men suffer even more.

If these are the fringe radicals, where were the gender-egalitarian majority?

I feel like D'Angelo Barksdale at the end of season one of The Wire when I say this.

Where the fuck are the egalitarians? Where the fuck are they? Where's the fucking 'equal rights' feminists?

That's a great show, by the way.

Example #2. Ruth Hall, from feminist organisation Women Against Rape, nearly has a hemorrhage over the new UK coalition government's plans to extend anonymity to men accused of rape. Note that's not men convicted of rape - of whom plenty are in fact innocent, as recent events have shown in sickening detail - it's men who are only accused, a large number of whom are falsely accused. That Ruth Hall could come out in opposition to such a proposal in the same week that this story ran - about a serial false accuser who ruined one life and caused another man to commit suicide - just shows how black her heart really is.

Just a 'fringe radical', is she? Well, one thing led to another, and fifty-three Members of the UK Parliament signed a motion opposing anonymity for defendants.

Let's be clear - this is radical misandry. The arguments put forward in justification of the motion are so flimsy that a child could see right through them. Of course, the language used centres around 'the victim' - meaning, 'the woman', whether she is the victim or in fact the criminal. According to the motion, defendants in rape cases should not be afforded anonymity because it will prevent women from coming forward.

Um, what? How are the two remotely connected? There is not even an attempt made at connecting cause to effect - the two are breezily conjoined without the slightest regard for the men whose lives have, and will, be torn apart by vicious lies.

When Prime Minister David Cameron broached the subject of the falsely accused during a parliamentary session, and mentioned the fact that men's lives are "blighted" by false accusations, some going so far as to kill themselves, do you know what the Opposition did?

They shook their heads and booed.

That should tell you all you need to know about the Labour Party - the party of feminism, currently led by one of the country's most spectacular misandrists Harriet Harman, and the source of most of the signatures against the extension of anonymity to rape defendants.

This all brings me back to my question - where the fuck are the feminists who "don't hate men"?

Where the fuck are they?

The support for this Bill has come from all manner of people across the political spectrum, from conservatives to liberals - but certainly not from feminists.

Example #3. The National Organisation of Women, one of the most powerful women's advocacy groups in the United States of America, has publicly celebrated Valerie Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights," and "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement." And by the way, the latter quote is taken from her trial, where NOW was defending her character after she went on a shooting spree, targeting (you guessed it) men.

Ask yourself, would gender-egalitarian feminists really support this woman? I quote her at length, from her most popular work (and, apart from her shooting spree, the only thing anybody remembers her for):

To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men’s Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Men’s Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM’s goals; faggots who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away — money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a woman’s primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd’, then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present. Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex; makers and promoters of sex books and movies, etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men.

Are NOW just 'fringe radicals'? What about the Feminist Initiative? The 53 members of Parliament in the UK opposing anonymity for rape defendants? Women Against Rape?

For fringe radicals, they certainly hold a lot of power in setting the terms of the discourse, don't they?

Useless, piddling, powerless feminists will state again and again that feminism is about equality and that any woman who so explicitly hates men is not really a feminist. Really, dear? Because you're referring to the driving force of the movement itself. The actually organised, well-funded lobby groups, who have the power to affect change, who are in government, in academia, in the legal system and in the media, all proudly working to institutionalise further abuses of men.

Nobody cares that you don't personally hate men - although I will always find that claim suspect from one labelling herself 'feminist'. Can you blame me? The actual movement is not comprised of college undergraduates who have yet to be exposed to the ways of the world. The actual movement is out there, embedded in the institutions of the state, pushing for greater punitive measures against men, all the time.

Where are the organised, well-funded 'feminist' lobby groups fighting for equality and fair treatment between the sexes?

Simple answer: there aren't any. I chose only three examples for this post, but a cursory glance around the 'manosphere' will provide you with many, many more. 'Fringe radicals', my foot - you don't get much more radical than the woman who wrote tracts about the need to exterminate all men, and subsequently attempted to murder several. How surprising that one of the most powerful feminist lobbying organisations in the world celebrated her and defended her at her trial.

That's because, like fascists, feminists don't care in the slightest about due legal process. Like fascists, they categorise all human beings according to their demographics, and like fascists, they demand collective retribution. Like fascists, they support a command state model with their own interests institutionally embedded and unbound by any kind of constitution. Like fascists, they aim to ratchet up the abuse, more and more, until their chosen scapegoats are enslaved or simply disappear from the face of the earth.

- Snark