I hate feminazis

Post Reply New Topic

Very often, radfems have been raped and/or severely abused by men during their lives. There's a pretty strong correlation.
There's also a correlation between obesity and past sexual abuse (or there was in the past; maybe not as much now, since it's more common and I don't think that the abuse rate has gone up hat much).

Well? as a man I experienced the same treatment by a woman and by an abusive stepfather but yet you dont see me on street corners yelling hateful stuff or spitting at people and getting up in their face. Im not fat though.

Personal attacks are against the rules, but since ya made that remark you seem to agree that https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12 ... s-rape-ok/ and all men are bad and stupid and and encourage this kinda idealogy:
Allow me to introduce myself...

My name is Krista, otherwise known as "The Femitheist". I am a female, a feminist, and someone who believes strongly in True Equality.

Now, I will begin explaining this entry before I post the actual article... for your discussion, of course.

Women MUST and WILL have equality, and this is the ONLY way to achieve TRUE equality. The testicles of all males, which produce the majority of their testosterone, are the primary cause of their violent behavior. The testicles also attribute greatly to many of the health problems men experience later in life (such as prostate cancer and, of course, testicular cancer).

~:The Solution... International Castration Day.:~

It is my belief (which I consider factual based on my research) that all men SHOULD be castrated. Not only for their own safety, but for the safety of all innocent women and children.

And, to achieve this...

The entire world should have an international holiday known as: "Castration Day"

Males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror.

Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society.

It will be a free vacation for any working woman. And, young girls will be able to leave school to attend this glorious ceremony.

The males will then have one hour to get to know their Castrator. Their female "spouse" will also be able to choose whether or not they would like to milk the male in order to retain a sperm sample.

If the male is too young for a "spouse", their mother or closest female relative will decide.

After this, the men will be given anesthetics. They will be placed on a table, where their Castrator will then slice open their ball-sack, remove their testicles, and the excess skin, stitch them up and clean them up.

They will be given thirty minutes to rest after the procedure.

Once the males have all been castrated, they will be grouped together again for one last look before walking nude back to their homes.

The women will then return to their jobs, schools, et cetera, and rejoice in the completion of yet another successful ceremony.

Any man who tries to evade this holiday, "Castration Day", should be murdered wherever they
are found (treated as a criminal, as it will be a crime not to attend). Or, forced to attend.
Regardless of age.

Any woman who disagrees should be provided therapy in order to free her from misogynistic indoctrination.

This holiday should replace the day known currently as "Father's Day".

If this practice were adopted officially all across the world, all war, crime, and violence would end.

We would have a true Eutopia, where peace reigns, and men do only what they exist for...

Breed.

Labor.

SERVE.

Die.

Disclaimer, this is not against feminism its against Femnazis there is a difference and if you dissagree and support such radical misandic ideas then your no different than the KKK when it comes to Black people. Why do I hate Femnazis? Same answer to why a Black person hates the KKK.

No, you do it from behind the safety of a screen.

I remembered you've spoken of your own experiences of abuse before. No-one should face that.

This 'femnazi' stuff is obscure. It is the private fantasy of a few individuals. It will never and could never happen. There are far more sh***y things actually happening at the level of policy and social structure.

I'm trying to understand why you're so obssessed with it. Do you suspect or worry that the femnazis are right? It would not be much of a stretch for a man who has suffered abuse and has low self-esteem to, on some level, wonder if these ideas weren't actually right.

Hopper I have been following what has been happening in universities recently, general effort to get people fired for having different views, court cases, etc. I gave an example of radical feminism infuriating the Greater London Council in the 80s. It is not unprecedented for these groups to have influence.

Quite a lot of the people I have a problem don't fit nicely under the banner of "radfem". They are well meaning people but come up with ideas that violate the basic principle of rights, inadvertently or not, and these polices are reasonably popular unfortunately.

So it is not just a case about being against radicals, it is also ill thought out and bad ideas.

When people think of radical feminists, they are thinking of someone very militant. Whilst I can certainly identify people like that, these are not the main problem. It is the ones that use soft power like abusing phrases like safe space and trigger warning to control what is taught limiting the ability to critisise their ideas.

Is this a plug for sexbots? They're coming.

Not all women who have suffered such abuse turn to radical feminism, either. My point is that radical feminists are not 'rejects,' they're the female versions of MGTOW: they're rejecting the opposite gender and, at least subconsciously, using fat to prevent attraction by the opposite gender.

How about just drop the description altogether, what you don't know can't hurt you...

Trigger warning is not something born out of clinical work or supported by research on PTSD.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... -good.html
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavio ... arch-81946

Like I said before the phrase is a cue, such is the power of association, therefore even discussing the concept of trigger warning could be potentially be a trigger, as much as the words "sexual" or "abuse". The association is not removed.

Clinicians advocate a gradual approach, however they never wish to give the impression you can control the world in such a way all the time. It isn't realistic and it will not help their recovery to fixate on that.

Lost of people are using the phrase now, they are self diagnosing. If someone is saying "your triggering me now" the chances they are in the midst of a PTSD flashback is unlikely as the experience is harrowing and would take most if not all their attention.

IMO people are often using it to describe anxiety, however our behaviour pattern affect our anxiety too. Thing an people can make people anxious, but that doesn't mean those thing and people are culpable for it. The the fixation on the idea of words escalating thought, is in itself escalating the anxiety.

I know a fair bit about anxiety from personal experience.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 16 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I know

I have done forensic recovery before in such incidents successfully, but you have to be quick and careful.

However in this case I save what I want to say elsewhere as well, except it turned out I'd save just your quote becuase the sucky clouflare CDN messed up the preview. Then I left it for a day or two, none the wiser. Crap.

Still, I think I can do a better job.

That's an interesting point, and one that I haven't heard made before. I've never been diagnosed with PTSD, but I did have some PTSD-like symptoms at one point; it got progressively worse with time, to the point that I was 'triggered' (or 'reminded of the events,' as I would have said) by anything even remotely, tangentially related. It was kind of like an allergic reaction in my brain. I don't think that having people tip-toe around me would have helped, but I hesitate to extrapolate from my own experience onto the NT population at large.

I don't agree that we men are all useless worthless sex craved swine, nor that men are all scum, nor do i think that all men should be rounded up in concentration camps and killed off or castrated. I also worry one of them might snap and go too far and start a terrorist organization and recruit other radical feminists and brain wash them and train them to use guns and explosives and kill any man they see, broadcast torture videos of a man they kidnap and butcher him like a pig on live TV. Blowing up buildings and attempting to overthrow the government violently as a means to destroying the number one thing, the patriachy. This could be their kind of recruiting video and this could become a reality.

Do you think this is a rational fear to have? As in, do you really believe there is any likelihood at all that this nightmare scenario you describe could ever happen?

Now on a lighter side heres a good way to handle someone like this, stay relaxed not giving a s**t.

I have no problem with people having discussions about any subject. Have all the discussions you want. I've never once said that women should not able to have these discussions.

Obviously if it concerns men, which ultimately is what we are dealing with when people talk of "male privilege" and "patriarchy" expect men to want to have their say too.

I do have a problem when people project one narrative and rather then arguing against criticism, they try to shut it down.



This is exactly what I'm talking about: Why assume these gender norm stereotypes are automatically patriarchal?

Does your cultural anthropology not allow the possibility of women influencing gender norms for the better or worse? If not why? No matriarchal gender norms?

Lets first get some definitions of patriarchy from feminists.

Kate Millett was the first to widely use the term with regard to feminism in these essays:
https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/ ... litics.htm
https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/ ... theory.htm

Here are some other examples





Here is an intersectional feminist who criticises the use of the term "patriarchy":
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php ... patriarchy

So using these definitions I fail to see how a system where men are systematically disadvantaged is really related to this. However it have heard that argued by feminists numerous times. As they say it is the same system that enforced these roles that does both. This is a blanket conspiracy.

If women are disadvantage it is the patriarchy, if men are disadvantaged it is the patriarchy. What have we learnt...nothing. It doesn't solve diddly squat. Other than to imply masculinity or maleness being the oppressive quality and enforcer of these roles.

To assume that the origin of these roles are entirely patriarchal is beyond simplistic. It implies that is one is oppressed there are not situations you have any power or influence (such as over gender roles). Yet this is not actually true to nature.

Even in clear examples of patriarchal animal groups, female animals can have power and status.

However one of the things so often overlooked is female competition. Any biologist will attest female competition is a reality in animals such as mammals and there is no evidence to suggest female competition is always enforced by males or even more often than not.

Males don't need enforce female competition in humans, for it to happen. Just because they might, doesn't make it requirement.

Women have their own hierarchy with or without men.

One thing I know is female competition can be just as vicious as male competition or male/female competition.

Women also have their own ideas about femininity and what it is to be a woman, as individuals. This isn't always forced on them, nor can you say that their choice is any less free (even if the consequences are oppressing). Nor does it always meet the ideals of some feminists.

If you take my sister she the most conservative with regard to gender roles in my whole family. This is not as a result of my parents or me. Even if she had been influenced, she is intelligent,and educated enough choose her influences. She hasn't had these ideas forced on her.

Mothers enforce gender roles on the daughters and sons all the time. To say this because of patriarchal conspiracy is way too simplistic. However it is literally enforcing matriarchal gender roles, becuase they are the matriarch who is doing it.

People have different personalities. That is not to say they can't change their minds, just that they have a predisposition to certain modes of thinking

Regarding the FBI. The FBI are not legislative. So either they didn't follow the law or the law allowed them to do this. In any case it is poor intelligence not to record crimes. Are you saying that feminists single handily did this? Or were part of the effort? Either way it is commendable. I hope the victims had a role in it too.



Many many feminist were also pacifist so this was not a universally popular idea. I personally think there should be no draft as such. Only in the extreme case, where a tyrannical is directly occupying the country then should people be obliged to fight.

I would agree on feminists historically influencing policing, however it was the often overlooked earlier suffragists (from the labour movement), not the Suffragettes, who were the real pioneers when it came to the first women police officers. Suffragettes also weren't initially sold on full universal suffrage either, they had status hiccups in their ideology at first.

With women in the military I would argue that necessity has played a bigger role in getting women involved in he war machine than activism, especially when it comes to being on the front line.

The key examples are Israel's IDF and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters. These are patriarchal societies, or more patriarchal than western countries.

Of corse culture plays a role but patriarchy is not a single idea about gender.

You could argue that Judaism is matriarchal becuase being Jewish goes through the female line. However in reality it is Patriarchal in most aspects of life. I know this because I had a client who ran a Jewish women's network/community. The amount of rules Jewish women have to adhere to is enough to send anyone loopy. I wouldn't want it that is for sure. It is pretty extreme stuff too, look up their rules on family purity/ritual purity. Yes men have rules too, but is still harder for women IMO. If they have questions about this (including intimate matters), the person they need to consult or even show is the Patriarch or Rabbi (literally means "My Master"). You might say that reform Judaism doesn't have this, however reform very tiny in Israel. The majority are Orthodox, not to say all the women or families follow the rule that would be unrealistic, however quite a lot do partial or wholly, and there is some pressure to do it. Also arguably Israel has become less secular in recent years.

Ultra-Orthodox are actually the ones that refuse to fight. They are to pious to take time off their religious studies to fight, and certainly the women are chattel they won't allow them.

ISIS has provided some training and arms to women, albeit in a limited capacity. They don't think women can't fight at all, they are just too sex crazed to allow it.

This is related to the idea that choice doesn't always bring equality of outcome. Equity of opportunity is a different concept to outcome and some SJW and even politician just don't get this.

They have tried quite hard to get more women into engineering, the figure are still low. Go places like Russia and to have more women Engineers in the 80s it was said to be 58%. That is becuase the economy is less diverse, it is a good career choice give there aren't that many options. The economy is largely petrochemical/gas based. Russia is a deeply patriarchal society. The government enforces patriarchal ideas and so does the state sanctioned Church.

In China it is 40% although this might be for slightly different reason, mass industrialisation, cultural differences and also it is an earner when other career would have you languish in poverty. Chinese culture is also quite Patriarchal pre-Mao and after.

In the west they just aren't choosing these careers in large numbers. They have lots of choice of careers.

On the other hand technical jobs such as Vetinary Medicine is now being dominated by women (US 50.9% practicing with 78% studying), when is was once almost entirely male.

Medicine in general is very mixed (44.9% of doctors , 50.8% of GPs http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp) and in surgery it is approaching 30% of trainee with 9% of consultant surgeons currently.

We need to encourage women to be in the fields. We can't force women to be in the field not should we use affirmative action for something like surgery. However plenty of women could do it. Regardless of gender it is important that the right people are passed, so we have quality surgeons.

Whether we will get 50% of surgeons remains to be seen. If it doesn't happen it doesn't mean that they don't have the opportunity to do it necessarily.

How things will be in the future is anyone guess, however women are more and more making choices of their own (I can't make that sound less patronising sorry ), and we should support choice and freedom.



This is kind of my point, I don't deny that achievement of feminists or civil right movement, it great. But, we are in a different world now, things have changed.

I think the current generation can be confused about what it wants. Often it can be quite contradictory things, or wanting their cake and eating it too. That is fine if it is a choice with consequences, but often people want ideas enforced.

Also we have to move towards evidence based work, because the nature of discrimination is so different and dynamic we need to know in what way people are discriminated against vs. what the perception is. This is why I think terms like patriarchy aren't really helpful in this context.

Also, there is a valid argument that says if any -ism matters above al, it is equalism.

Intersectional feminism is an attempt at that but can be wishy washy at times, or even regressive such as the case of influencing university protests to support segregation, and restrictions on free speech.

Choice feminism is way of looking at women issues from the point of view of social libertarianism. It is not about classifying anyone, it is about choice an freedom so long as it doesn't harm others.



I'm not really an "MRA" but I do advocate for men's rights. MRA groups can. once you filter out the noise make some valid points. It is also disingenuous to say they haven't highlighted issues such violence against men and other men's legal issues. However a lot of them I really can't stand. They can be quite socially conservative, I'm socially libertarian, they have fixation on things which really are about choice not an issue of lost rights.

MRAs aren't on the whole influencing education policy, or dominating academia. Where they do at least they allow criticism. My problem is groups that don't allow criticism to take place, and I have seen examples of that. Often subtle but effective censoring

However men's groups have done plenty for men. Father's groups have done a lot for. Prison reform groups have done a lot. Men's domestic violence groups too. Whist feminist groups have helped with domestic violence against men, it hasn't always been done well or done in an overly ideological way, and in some cases there was outright opposition to an equal approach. I don't want to generalise too much, just pointing that out.

The pioneer of women's refuges Erin Pizzey was harassed by feminists group in UK ans US, sent death threats, had her dog killed. She has done plenty to help male victim of domestic violence. She rejects feminism outright, and reading her biography I don't blame her, even though I don't reject feminism myself despite being critical of it. The bone of contention some feminists had her was supporting evidence that domestic violence can be inter-generational and at times reciprocal. Also the idea the women abusers can be just as cruel and deprived as men.

The irony is the charity she founded Refuge is now headed by one of her fiercest critics.

Sometime anti-"victim blaming" is taken too far. We can all be conditioned into destructive behaviour, that much is true. However we still have take some responsibility for our actions and choices (especially if this involves others), and we need to be even handed in calling that out. Yes in some case there is considerably less choice than others, I'm not saying this is an easy situation to be in at all. I've heard the arguments.

I respect those that at least try to protect their children, in the difficult situation they are in. Those that deliberately expose their children or others to abuse or partake in abuse to save themselves or make themselves feel better, well even with mitigation they have "wrong think". It is not victim blaming to say that. If we we don't allow the possibility of criticism on sensitive subjects we can't explore their nature.

Some groups have been so sensitive over the discussion these difficult matters that it has become impossible to have a reasonable discussions on this. Which I suspect is often is the objective. They have theories and be damned if anyone says different, let alone what the science says. Also there has been a gender slant on this like it or not, and I don't think the patriarchy is entirely to blame in this case.



Yep it is even more concerning when student unions are voting on bad ideas like this and supporting them. I think this is becuase these students haven't been sufficiently challenged and they haven't been exposed to enough different ideas, or considered the long term consequences of any action.

It is kind of like a one party vote or a snap election with no chance for issues to be properly aired.

Any vote which destroys the principles a democracy is built on, is a vote against freedom.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 16 Jan 2016, 6:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Absolutely, like Valery Solaris who attempted murder, she was a radical feminist. Another might pop up and snap and go on a mass shooting spree or form a columbine like group. Anything radical can get driven to the point of inciting violence. It is not a matter of if it is a matter of when, and terrorism is politically motivated combine that with being mentally disturbed, they will believe that only using violence and fear as a means of trying to get their point across, then they will get dillusional and power hungry and want more and become more violent and burn down houses and establishments, and demand supramacy. They wont do it right away unless a few of them snap that is, quite a few have it all planned out and slowly going to make that happen. Massive slaughtering of men and boys, beheadings, castrations houses burned down and people in fear, both women and men afraid. Women who are afraid for their husbands brothers and sons safety, if they walk out side they might be shot or mobbed and beaten by brainwash radical extremist femnazis. I know to you it seems silly and i might be paranoid but there is always something nasty bound to be brewing and pop its ugly head. When it happens and you see it on the news with your shocked feel I will hate to be the guy who said I told you so.