Alcatraz Island Federal Penitentiary Jail Cells

Our Respected Philosophical Opponents

I recently visited a website where I saw a T-shirt in their online store which said: “Feminists are stupid. Throw facts at them!” The slogan is an obvious parody of a feminist inspired T-shirt design calling for violence against children: “Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them!”

That offensive feminist slogan is commonly excused as harmless humour. The problem is glaringly obvious. Violence against males, notably that committed by women, is often seen as acceptable. While men and boys are already at least 75% of the victims of violent crime, feminists openly promote more violence.

Increasingly, feminists appear to be psychopathic, fraudulent, or defiant of simple logic. Then we come to the question of motivation.

Are feminists actually insane? The feminist approach to domestic violence is to class all violence and abuse as male perpetrated. In female perpetrated violence, they claim it to be defensive against male aggression. But we have known for decades that men and women commit intimate partner violence at the same rates. In fact, non-reciprocal (one directional) violence is committed more by women than men. Objectively peer reviewed research has shown this for decades but the feminist endorsed models for DV start from that basic premise that domestic violence is male only.

All efforts at reducing domestic violence based on false models are doomed to either fail or to increase violence. Yet feminists seem to not care. Is this not insane?

It is only not-insane if the unstated goal is to perpetuate domestic violence using continued human carnage as a fund-seeking tool.

This persistent fraud in the DV grievance industry is replicated in other almost all other feminist activism and rhetoric.

One example is the so-called “rule of thumb” claimed to be an historical law allowing wife assault as long as the stick used was no thicker than a man’s thumb. This myth pops up in almost all feminist literature. It’s fraud. No such law ever existed. The phrase has its actual origin in medieval trade when the knuckle of the thumb was used as a not too accurate measure of one inch. The modern use of “rule of thumb” as a loose guideline reflects the usefulness but inaccuracy of that old, non-scientific measure. You’ll notice a complete lack of hitting with sticks.

Another example of seeming insanity comes from feminist censorship of non-feminist opinion. Just as we recognize the urge to censor as being totalitarian in nature, the feminist defence of censorship crosses into madness. The justification employs the bizarre claim that the silencing of a non-feminist point of view is, itself, free speech which must be protected. Meanwhile, the speech a feminist silences is somehow excluded from protection from censorship. Is your head spinning yet? Despite obvious self contradiction, this continues to excuse the corruption and totalitarian policing of our media, academies, and public policies.

So, are feminists confused about basic reality via indoctrination into the ideology? Are they ignorant of the meanings and importance of concepts such as censorship, freedom of expression, or violence? Perhaps, alternatively, they are simply stupid. It is easy to fall into the belief that those who attack us are evil but we have to allow that, despite the violent, illegal and seemingly hateful behaviour of objectors, feminists are merely acting on what they believe.

Having said that, we’re still left with the fact that a gangster also believes strongly in his right to rob you at gunpoint.

The successful advancing of gender ideology behind so much public policy argues against “they are stupid” as an explanation. Feminists are not stupid. Similarly, throwing facts at them won’t be effective. Feminists are experts in dismissing and disregarding data which doesn’t confirm their bias.

Examples? Men die younger than women in every western nation in the world. Men die in the workplace at 20 times the rate of women. Men commit suicide 4 to 5 times more often than women. After divorce, men commit suicide at 11 times the rate of women. When directly challenged by these facts, the feminist response is “cry me a river”.

Facts don’t matter, and it’s not because feminists are stupid. They are not stupid. They are also not insane.

The recycled lies and the logical disparity of gender doctrine is no hindrance at all to advancing the movement’s goals. The feminist definition of equality is easily recognizable as the opposite of equality.

Substantive equality has to take into account um historic patterns of discrimination, and seek to allow the law to benefit everybody equally. So it doesn’t necessarily mean everybody is going to get the same thing.

This is what a spokeswoman for the West coast offices of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) told me in a phone interview in April of 2014.

To confirm I understood what I was being told, I said: “So it’s sort of like applying quotas or a handicap to certain groups, sort of like, it’s a legal golf handicap is what it is?”

Her reply? “Yeah, you could call it that.”

As insane as it appears to re-define the concept of equality to mean inequality, I reiterate: Feminists are not insane. What feminists have done is secure income and influence in an organized campaign incrementally for over more than 60 years. They are not stupid, and not insane.

They are also not simply confused, or ideologically muddled in their thinking. Elizabeth Sheehy, a Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa, is the current forerunner and champion of a three decade long project of the radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon.

This plan, adopted by psychologists, authors, activists lobbyists and lawyers is, essentially, legalized murder of men by women.

Sheehy’s 2013 book Defending Battered Women on Trial prematurely gave away this intention. She likely published it early out of her own vanity and desire for status within the feminist enterprise.

But, in the larger picture, feminists are definitely not stupid. They are highly intelligent. As contradictory as their claims and actions may be, the enterprise of feminism has been, and continues to remain, powerfully effective. Feminism drives public policy and commands vast amounts of public funds.

Feminists are also not ideologically confused. The rhetoric of feminist academics and activists indicates a powerful network of consultants and analysts. These are not campus idiots. They are mature professionals with sophisticated political acumen.

What feminists really are then, is as obvious as it is challenging to address.

For those who oppose the dishonesty, the fraud, and the cultivated human harm of the feminist enterprise, it is necessary to address its actors for what they actually are.

Feminism is organized crime.

Feminists are criminals.

4 thoughts on “Our Respected Philosophical Opponents”

  1. Yes feminists are criminals but the question is what is the solution? They have the power of mob, muscles of establishment, mouth of mainstream media and eyes of intelligence agencies. Women generally think as a group and they will never give up any sexual, legal or social advantages. On the other hand men always need women to fulfill their biological and emotional needs. I think the survival of men now depends on Science and Technology and Robotics can make women obsolete(to some extent). Please don’t mind I m not saying that I will prefer a robot over a woman I am just saying that since all men are rapist and potential predators we don’t deserve “good” women. I can see why Hollywood hate robots!

  2. Yes, this is a very good point.

    Women understand that the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. They prefer a different kind of force than pure physical.

    As soon as the rest of the MALE population comes around to viewing women as THUGs they will treat them as such. In victory one must totally annihilate their opponent. Women are counting on men not having the courage to do this .. because they feel men have a self-interest in women to not destroy them completely. In this belief they are finding that they may have erred. Hence, the scramble to avoid a true WAR, on their THUG’ger, that would provide us with a complete victory.

    Men know how to win. MGTOW, marry foreigners and PUA (aka pump and dump).

    All three will break their backs.

  3. I forgot the quote .. that was a very good point.

    “Having said that, we’re still left with the fact that a gangster also believes strongly in his right to rob you at gunpoint.”

  4. Here comes the thought police …

    http://news.yahoo.com/britain-threatens-internet-trolls-two-years-jail-110001348.html

    quote:
    “and last month a man was jailed for 18 weeks for what prosecutors described as “a campaign of hatred” against a female lawmaker.

    “These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No-one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media,” Grayling said.

    “That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence.”

    Victims have long been calling for police and prosecutors to take online abuse more seriously and lawyers had anticipated an increase in sentences for those convicted of trolling.

    “There is a public interest in having people put away for a long time,” Chris Holder, of London law firm Bristows, told AFP earlier this month.

    “It is putting someone in fear of their life and fear of physical harm. I think the law will develop and the sentences will go up and up.”

    So, if you disagree in the future with a feminist or a protected class or government darling you to will see how we don’t tolerate dissent in our future tyranny. First, it was jail time for men not loving their kids enough (ie abuse). Second, the UK is trying to provide men with jail time for abuse of your spouse (along with a complete change in our english language of what is and is not abuse). And, now jail time for not being a protected class of citizen when opposing stupid government laws or women ideas.

    Get ready for an expansion of jails / prisons.

Join the conversation