FEMINISM ~ FEMINIST AND
"ITHACA MEN'S RIGHTS": PROPAGANDA / NAZISM / COMMUNISM / FEMINISM
- FEMINISTS AS MAN-HATERS ACT AGAINST MALE INTEGRITY
SEE REAL LIES: WE
SEE IT HAPPENING IN AMERICA WITH THE
FEMINIST PARTY AND THEIR PROPAGANDA,
AND IN SOME CASES EVEN ATTEMPTING
TO REWRITE HISTORY. OF COURSE, EVERYTHING
BAD IS BLAMED ON MEN, WHO HAVE BECOME SUCH AN ACCEPTED CULTURAL
SCAPEGOAT THAT MISANDRY IS NOW A LUCRATIVE VENTURE FOR FIELDS
FROM WRITING TO T-SHIRT MANUFACTURING.
Feminism: Fascist Communism
Feminism: A Doctrine of Socialism for Women and Fascism against
Feminism ~ Feminist and Matriarchy criminality propaganda against
boys in education system
Communism/Socialism - How the "radical left" relate to the "radical
"Ithaca Men's Rights"
Ithaca Men's Rights
Link to the
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Feminism has been compared with nazism
and communism many times throughout the years. It is known,
though not popularized, that early feminist leaders held communist
beliefs or were outright communists and soviet sympathizers.
It is ironic that during the Cold War, when America was fighting
against communism, that a form of gender-communism was taking
root upon it's own soil. Indeed, this lends some insight to
feminists leading the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era,
which as we all know was a war fought to slow the spread of
The purpose of this article, then, is
to further illustrate the comparison between feminism and communism/fascism.
It is a work in progress, and as time goes on the grammar and
arguments presented will become more refined.
To really understand feminism and get
a full grasp on it's goals, it would be important for us to
study and examine critically the lives and writings of the prominent
feminist leaders and authors. Many feminists rightfully claim
that they are "not all like that", and while it is true that
the constituents of a movement may not hold to every view expressed
by the movements leaders, it is the leaders and writers of that
movement that inspire the general thoughts, views, and doctrines
of that movement. Therefore it is important for us to hold feminist
leaders in a critical light.
Here are just a few quotes
from prominent feminists, past and present. Although I admit
that the source could be viewed as biased as it belongs to the
Men's Rights sphere, the quotes contained on the page are true
and anyone can pick up any feminist literature and view it for
"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual
intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong
enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing
Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's
Studies, p. 129..
"All men are rapists and that's all
they are." Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983..
"I believe that women have a capacity
for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does
not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just
incapable of it." - Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
Feminist women are seemingly free to write
this sort of misandric drivel, indeed, to shovel it out by the
pageful in their writings, without any consequences. Even female
members of Congress are able to slander and generalize half
the population and get away with it scotch free. When criticism
of these writings are offered, it is either ignored, or the
two most common responses are "Well I'm not like that." or "Men
have oppressed women for hundreds and thousands of years, so
it's only fair."
The first argument, "I'm not like that."
or "Not all feminists are like that." is very ad hoc and while
it may stand to reason and be very true, it misses one glaring
point: As a constituent of the feminist party, it would be your
responsibility indeed duty, to stand up to this sort
of sexist hatemongering crap. If you indeed stand for equality,
if you indeed want equal treatment of men and women, and if
you indeed sympathize with men's issues and hate the idea of
sexism, then it is your very duty as a feminist of that camp
to stand up and actively and openly criticize remarks such as
"all men are rapists and that's all that they are." Here actions,
not words, are to be judged. And judging actions, we see that
yes, all feminists are like that, because there is very little
protest against misandry within the feminist literature and
blogsphere. Even such statements as "I hate men because..."
go unchallenged by fellow feminists.
The second argument is just crap, and
takes past grievances (which have been shown to be exaggerated
or wholly untrue) as a justification for current behavior. IE,
men oppressed women in the past, so it's okay for women to spread
hate-speech against men. This of course is not a valid or logical
argument and doesn't stand up against rational scrutiny.
When the sexism inherent in feminist writings
is exposed or questioned, it is either ignored or justified
by crap arguments. But if any man stands up and merely disagrees
with any tenet of feminism, however minor, he is instantly labeled
a misogynist and a sexist brute, even though he may not have
said anything at all sexist or misogynistic.
I would like to take a moment to study
some feminist leaders, past and present.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
the first well-known feminist woman, was the main author of
the Declaration of Sentiments. I have refuted much of what was
written in this intellectual refuse in the second half of a
post I wrote
here. The thing I want
to point out about Elizabeth was that she was a woman of
privilege, as you can find out for yourself if you read
about who her father was, who her mother's father was, and who
her husband was. She was obviously not a woman who was ever
in want for anything.
Later on during the first wave of feminism,
a woman named
Millicent Fawcett emerged.
She played a key role in women's suffrage in England. If you
read about her, you'll see that she, also, was a woman of privilege.
She attended University for medicine, and her friends were also
educated women of privilege. Hardly an "oppressed" woman.
Another prominent feminist author, the
woman who sparked the second wave of feminism,
Betty Friedan, was also
clearly a woman of privilege. In fact, it's reported that
she never did a day of housework
in her life, and was also a communist party member and Soviet
sympathizer. One questions her credibility given the idiosyncrasy
of being a privileged enough woman to have a maid in her service,
with enough money to go to University, but who also counted
herself amongst communists and other radical politics.
The early feminist leaders really knew
nothing of the "plight of women", having never actually
experienced it themselves. Though Friedan came from a poor background,
she didn't stay there for very long and by her 20's was traveling
the globe and studying at different colleges. These were women
of privilege who wanted even more privilege; namely, they wanted
to be equal to their male counterparts who were chiefly doctors,
There was little they could do about this,
except to appeal to the masses of women with whom they really
had nothing in common. As we can see with most political leaders,
be they democratic, fascist, communist, or anarchist, the leaders
rarely have much in common at all with their constituents, however,
the constituents sympathize with the leaders and indeed take
on many of their doctrines and theories as their own. This is
how leaders, though unrelated to their followers via socio-economic
background or education, represent the majority that follows
Feminism really gained momentum in the
1960's, after a
few middle class white women
wrote some books blaming a lot of stuff on men. Feminism, a
movement of hatred towards men, really began when women were
at their most unoppressed. Let's look at that next.
The telephone, the refrigerator, the microwave,
the vacuum cleaner, washing machines, drying machines, gas stoves,
electric stoves, chemical cleaning sprays, and a myriad of other
little inventions: these were all geared towards making life
easier for women. It was during the time that these things
were starting to make women's lives easier (and indeed, many
had been around for decades), that women started to complain
about how bad their lives were because of men (note: all these
devices were invented by men.) It is doubtful that these women,
who could now be comfortable even in lower-class situations,
would have ever blamed their husbands for buying them a dishwasher
to grant her more leisure time, for working 9-5 and sometimes
longer to provide a roof over her head, and for financially
supporting the family of a wife, a pet goldfish, and x number
of children, had it not been for the political poisoning of
a few radical upper-class women who stood to gain even more
than they already had.
It was a "capitalism of idealogy" - these
authors wanted more, more prestige, more money, more power,
more status, so they exploited the naivete and gullability of
the masses of women of lower status to gain.
Ironic, isn't it?
That is the nature of feminism: The Doctrine
of Spoiled Brats. Most of the early feminists and feminists
authors, after a little research, were middle to upper class,
if not outright rich, women. Their lives were easy, especially
compared to men of lower status. It would seem that this entitlement,
this status and prestige and being spoiled, went to their heads.
It was not enough now that they were prominent women in society,
that they had educations most men were denied, that they didn't
even have to do "woman's work" because they had others (maids,
machines) do it for them: No, they wanted to be able to do what
their husbands do, namely, work. But it was not the typical
work they wanted to do: not coal mines, factories, fishing boats,
soldiers. Nope. They wanted to be things like doctors and university
professors- you know, the top 5% of jobs, the glamorous jobs
that earn a lot of money.
If you don't believe me, look around you.
How many women do you know who do physically strenuous jobs?
Can you name five? When you go past some state workers who are
repaving a road, do you see any women? If you do, what's her
job? Directing traffic, right? Go to a school: how many of the
teachers are female? Most, right? How many firefighters are
women, and of them, how many actually rush into burning buildings?
All of the police and firefighters who died during 9/11 were
men, although female police and firefighters were present (you
can see them in the videos).
Nobody raises awareness for coal mining
or oil drilling. But these jobs are open to women. Nope, everyone
raises awareness for ENGINEERING, LAWYER, and DOCTOR... three
of the most prestigious and top-earning jobs in the nation.
There's very little talk, blogging, writing,
lobbying, or awareness campaigns to get women into active combat
roles. That subject gets almost 0 attention. However, listen
to the news, read MSNBC, or Time, or even the plethora of countless
feminist blogs, and what's it all about? Rape, rape, sexual
harassment, the debunked "wage gap", and of course how "hostile
the blogsphere is to female
So with vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens,
electric freezers, automatic car starters, cars with heaters
in the seats, AM/FM radio, people to make our clothing for us...
women lead relatively comfortable lives. They can even go to
University and get a degree in anything they want and become
successful. Yet, they still manage to complain about how shitty
it is to be a woman!
Ever notice how everything bad seems to
be men's fault? I mean, even from the
Declaration of Sentiments,
one of the first American feminist documents, all the blame
is placed on men for how "shitty" women have it. If something
bad happens to a woman, like, say, if she goes to a party full
of men she doesn't know, gets so drunk and high on drugs that
she passes out, and someone, God forbid especially if she was
taking the initiative, has sex with her sometime during that
night, it's rape. Which is, of course, men's fault and if anyone
tries to place any responsibility on her for her life (after
all, how wise it to get mentally incapacitated in a room full
of men, when "all men are rapists and that's all that the are."...?),
they get called a "rape apologist".
But if something bad ever happens to a
man, well, that's entirely his fault. Even if he's drafted and
dies in war, well, that's because men start war, even
women are the majority of voters.
(Do you know who voted the most in the
1970's? Women. Majority by 5%. Not much, you say? Doesn't matter.
If they were the majority by half a percent, they're still the
majority. What about the 1980's? Men, by only a small margine.
In the 1990's? Women, again. And the 2000's? Women, by a longshot.
So since the 1970's women, overall, have been outvoting men.
It's safe to assume that when a woman goes to the poll, she's
only thinking about herself and whether the new guy will make
her life easier.)
What if Hillary Clinton became president,
and America found itself at war with some other nation? Well,
it would be the fault of the (male) leader of that other nation,
because, after all, men start war!
Another issue to be looked at: Female
Women wanted to be sexual liberated. So
they could do stuff like
this, and be in pornography
and walk around at 15 years old in a miniskirt with no underwear
on (and kill their unborn babies).
But then another group of feminists stood
up and said this was wrong, this was sexism, this was the objectification
of women, this turned women into nameless sex symbols, etc.
And of course it was men who were at fault
for it even though modeling, porn, and being in commercials
for make-up and beauty products to wearing miniskirts and sexual
clothing is the woman's choice, not anyone elses. So
men are at fault for... women turning themselves into sex objects?
I mean what about
Natalie Dylan, who's supposedly
selling her virginity and there's some proof coming to light
that she is in fact a virgin. She's turning herself into a sex
object that you can buy, but I guess the man who gets to take
her cherry will be some "creepy perverted dude" or something.
But what we really see in the topic of
"female sexuality", and female "sexual liberation" is really
nothing more than the sexual repression of men.
Men's sexuality is shamed. When
he buys pornography, he is supporting the objectification of
men. We are told that pornography depicts violence against women
and the domination of females by males (even though there is
much pornography that depicts the same power-dynamics
in reverse- but feminists never complain about, and indeed
sometimes endorse, that sort of thing). We are told that pornography
makes men violent; correlation not proving causation is completely
thrown away as a concept and we are told that "serial killers
often possessed pornography".
When men want sex, they are shamed.
If his partner is "not in the mood", he is shamed for "coercing"
her, and shamed for fulfilling his desires elsewhere and escaping
a sexless relationship. If a man manages to escape a sexless
relationship, he is seen as a pig only after 1 thing. (But if
a woman escapes a relationship in which she is not financially
supported, she is "empowered"to be rid of the "bum"...). A man
is labelled a "rapist" if his wife or girlfriend consents to
sex with him even if she's not very excited about the idea or
not entirely in the mood.
A man who is married is sexually repressed
because he is trapped. If he cheats, he is blamed and divorced
and since the fault is his own, he can lose his house, his assets
and a portion of his income. If he stays, he is forced to endure
the repression of his sexuality vis-a-vis his wife. He
has financial incentive to stay and sexual incentive to leave-
imagine the frustration that goes along with being trapped in
All these situations and dynamics in society
point to an alarming conclusion:
Feminism: A Doctrine of Socialism for Women and Fascism
The Points of Fascism
Point One: At Once Victim and
Fascist ideology always asserts that they
are at once oppressed and superior. For instance, Nazi's didn't
believe the Germans lost WII — they couldn't, because they are
superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. Who stabbed
them in the back? Their scapegoat- the German Jews who did not
do their part to support the war as German citizens.
Feminists will at once assert that women
are superior: better communicators, more loving, more intuitive,
and in some cases
outright divine (see also
the myths of matriarchal societies
here). When the question
arises "If women are so superior, how come...", feminists attempt
to explain how they are the victims of male oppression in a
"patriarchal" society. Men "betrayed" women millenia ago and
siezed power, and then men are the ones who rewrote history
to hide this fact from women.
Feminism is a conspiracy theory against
men just as German Nazism was a conspiracy theory against the
Also interesting to note that feminist
will often deny the general instinct or behavior of men to protect
women ("all men are rapists") but at the same time use that
behavior to their advantage (victim-feminism and "men are responsible
for stopping rape.").
Point Two: Rewrite or Reinterpret
Part of the Nazi tactics was burning books
that explained history contrary to the Party's tagline. New
literature, inspired and written by the
Thule Society, was introduced
that gave a skewed and often fabricated version of history.
The Nazis literally rewrote history and explained that the German
people were the descendents of Atlantis, and that "inferior
people's" such as the early Hebrew tribes contributed to the
destruction of Atlantis. Here, their scapegoat is rewritten
into a a psuedo-history. This is only a minor point, but worth
noting, as many radical feminists and female chauvanists attempt
to reinterpret history and in some cases rewrite history; depicting
peaceful and superior matriarchal societies, claiming that God
was originally refered to as a "She" and that God is indeed
a female entity, etc. Like the Nazi writings and propaganda,
there is 0 archealogical evidence and 0 recorded historical
evidence for these claims.
Also notice the Nazi conspiracy theory
that the "Jews were oppressing them", just like the feminist
conspiracy theory of the "patriarchy" that took roots millenia
ago and has sought to oppress women for men's benefit. We see
here that a paranoid conspiracy theory runs throughout all of
the major points of fascism, and is, indeed, the foundation
Point Three: Blame their
The Nazi regime blamed their economic
troubles, lower education, and just about every malady they
could on the Jews, turning them into villians, criminals, and
a scapegoat. Indeed, every fascist regime has a scapegoat. The
purpose is to villianize and create animosity towards a group
of people, so sympathies towards them are low, setting them
up for injustices, slavery, and genocide without public intervention
in said policies. Here, when someone is "guilty", it's okay
to exploit them, which moves us onto the second point:
Point Four: Theft and Exploitation
The Nazi regime siezed Jewish assets,
transfering the wealth of Jewish businesses and families to
Germans. Jews were inducted into concentration and forced labor
camps, where they were starved, forced to labor, and then systematically
exterminated when they were no longer useful. Minimum input,
maximized output, and discard the components of the system that
have run down to minimize upkeep expenses. When the Jews were
gassed, the expoitation continued when the Nazis began removing
gold teeth and jewelry from the bodies.
Feminists have state sanctioned wealth
tansfer systems: namely, no-fault divorce, alimony, and child
support. They also have the option of killing their husband,
either descretely through poison and indescretely through direct
violence while he is sleeping, and then claim a "battered woman
syndrome" defense and still recieve his life insurance policy.
When the man becomes obsolete and his life insurance policy
(his metaphoric "gold teeth") exceeds his yearly income, a wife
has the option of disposing of him and then seeking a new man
The Nazi's were famous for their propaganda,
twisting the facts, rewriting history, and blaming everyone
else for the economic crisis in Germany. Through scapegoating
a group of people, they were able to exploit them economically
and become a world power once more.
We see this happening in America with
the feminist party and their propaganda, twisted facts, dirty
statistics, and in some cases even attempting to rewrite history.
Of course, everything bad is blamed on men, who have become
such an accepted cultural scapegoat that misandry is now a lucrative
venture for fields from writing to t-shirt manufacturing.
criminality propaganda against boys in education system
- How the "radical left" relate to the "radical right"
Interesting to note that despite it's
similarities to fascism, feminism also has components of communism
and socialism, namely social welfare and egalitarianism. This
should not be surprising, however, when the similarities of
radical politics are highlighted.
Indeed, the word "Nazi" dervies from the
German word "Nationalsozialismus", which translates into "National
Socialism". The Nazi party's full name was the "National Socialist
German Workers’ Party". In other words, they preached German
superiority to their target group: the working class. So the
Nazi party was left wing in function, and right wing in idealogy.
This gets overlooked and rarely mentioned, as lefties would
never tolerate a comparison between themselves and the "fascist
right", although the comparison has been made many times and
with more credibility than liberals condemning conservatives
as "right-wing fascists!"
Nazism, communism, and socialism all seek
to target workers (or another economic minority of appreciable
population size; a "bio-mass majority" but "monetary minority",
the mass of exploited peasants, serfs, proletariat, etc) to
instigate social reform. It is in this way that these radical
political groups gain their power; by targeting the mass of
workers and convincing them that they are being exploited and
oppressed by a group; in fascism, namely the rich members of
a minority group, in communism and socialism namely the rich
entreprenuers, or "bourgeoisie".
In feminism, the bourgeoisie or exploiter-class
can be equated to men. It is men who have "the power", therefore,
women who don't have "the power" are oppressed by men. A woman's
labor was "exploited" (unpaid for) by her husband, in the same
way that the proletarian's labor was exploited (underpaid) by
the bourgeoisie. (However, feminism rears it's ignorance: the
housewife's labor is not unpaid: the man supports her financially).
Feminism can be described as
fascist communism, "one
law for them, one law for us", or "a socialist network for women,
based upon the oppression of men."
The socialism for women are the options
she is granted at the expense of men: affirmative action programs
that get even underqualified women positions in whichever field
they desire, the state subsidized support of childcare at the
expense of men (men pay the majority of taxes) or privately
through enforced child-support (a woman also has the option
to recieve both welfare and WIC as well as child support). At
the same time, she has the option to be directly financed by
her husband and, should he change his mind (or, more likely,
she changes her mind about him), the state can strip the man
of his assetts and grant them to who for, really, no good reason
since the woman still has the option of entering the work-force,
indeed, any field she desires.
There is state subsidized school loan
programs for women, private funding for women's education, welfare
programs for women, outreach compaigns for women, shelters for
"battered" women, organizations trying to stop all forms of
violence against women, birth control, etc etc.
Men, relatively, have very little options
except to support themselves through direct labor, while at
the same time supporting women through his taxes whether he
recieves the benefit of sex and children, and when married to
still support a woman who can legally steal everything away
from him while at the same time supporting women he recieves
no sex or children from.
Women seem to have a seperate society,
a socialist society, that is built upon the backs of men's labor,
reputation, and sexuality.
While I will most certainly be labeled
a misogynist, a rape apologist, a paranoid conspiracy theorizer,
a male supremacist and many other allegations up to and including
erectile disfunction and homosexuality, it is important to note
that all such reaction to this document will only confirm my
supposition: that feminism is a radical political idealogy of
fanatic gender-fascist communists, and that anyone who questions
this current status quo must be shamed and humiliated into silence.
While I do not proport that men and women
are inherently inferior or superior to one another, I do posit
that there are real, scientifically measurably differences in
the physiology, psychology, brain structuring, and roles that
men and women ought to play in society. These roles had one
purpose: To bear children and bring them to adulthood.
The roles that men and women play have
been tampered with. The family is being destroyed, and social
havok is ensuring. Some places see it worse than others; in
England, there is a whole generation of fatherless children
running around like feral primitives, stabbing and shooting
one another and forming youth gangs. In America, there is a
gender-war in which men are only now beginning to see the implications
Feminism, from the beginning, has had
insideous intentions. Though there have been positive gains
made from feminism, one could also argue that positive gains
were made through Nazism. Do the ends justify the means? I do
not think so.
It is obviously time for men to stand
up, men who have had their communication networks, their clubs,
their families taken away from them now have an important resource:
The Internet. We must guard this resource jealously and be vigilant
against any attempts to impair our freedom in this medium of
communication, the Last Bastion of Free Speech.