Misogyny Is Like Racism

The Angry Face of the Feminist - Not that their vaginas are worth anything

One of the sad facts of this “woke” world is that Misogyny is like Racism; certain sorts, for their own purposes, “Humpty Dumpty” the term. I.e., those sorts will and do ignore any normative, objective definition of “Misogyny” in favor of their own agenda-driven interpretation of it. Anything is else is rejected.

You see, in the minds of feminists, you don’t have to hate or dislike women to be a misogynist.

All it takes for these sorts to label you as a misogynist is for you to fail to fully agree with whatever the current “point” is that any feminist is trying to make at that moment. It doesn’t even take any act – by word, deed, or facial expression/body language – to be labeled as such. It only takes not making it perfectly clear that you wholeheartedly and with guilt and shame in your heart agree with the point being made.

My initial question was “Is misogyny simply hatred toward women?” The answer is a loud and clear “no.” A misogynist is not simply a person who hates women, it’s a person who does, or would, hate women who are not subordinate, women with power and status, women who can stand up for themselves and make their own decisions.

Berit Brogaard D.M.Sci., Ph.D
“What is Misogyny, Anyway?”

And yes, this womyn isn’t really a crackpot. She’s a regular contributor to Psychology Today, which is generally considered a respectable professional outlet. Hence, since she’s so published, one can’t claim that hers is an outlier position at all. This is the mainstream feminist position.

And, of course, it’s Dr. Broggard’s sort who are the sole arbiters of what hating women who are not subordinate, women with power and status, women who can stand up for themselves and make their own decisions looks like. Indeed, they only accept their own definitions for: hate, power, status, standing up for themselves, and making their own decisions.

As in all such “Social Justice” matters, Humpty Dumpty reigns supreme.

And They Do Say It’s All Men

Yes, You can forget any idea of claiming to any of this sort that you’re not one of the minority of men who behaves badly towards women. Just being a man is enough to taint you with misogyny. You’re only “out” is to prove to them that you’re ashamed of yourself, your gender, and society; agree with all their points; and are taking concrete steps to further womyn’s success at the cost of your own and other men’s.

Manne tosses out the common thinking that misogyny is equivalent to despising all women, and instead offers that it’s a way to keep women in their place. Misogyny, she writes, is “the system that operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women’s subordination and to uphold male dominance.” Like a shock collar used to keep dogs behind an invisible fence, misogyny, she argues, aims to keep women—those who are well trained as well as those who are unruly—in line. The power of Manne’s definition comes from its ability to bring together various behaviors and events under one umbrella.

— “Kate Manne: The Shock Collar That Is Misogyny

Yes, it’s another call to action to end the “Patriarchy.” So, of course, #YesAllMen are guilty of being complicit in it just by the very fact that they’re men. In their minds, all men were born and raised as misogynists, meaning that all men are complicit but no man can be innocent.

Some evidence of this from Everyday Feminism:

Dear Well-Meaning Men Who Believe Themselves to Be Safe, Thereby Legitimizing the “Not All Men” Argument,

Let’s start here, even though this should go without saying: We don’t think that all men are inherently abusive or dangerous. Plenty of men aren’t. There are men that we love very much – men around whom we feel mostly safe and unthreatened; men who, in fact, support, respect, and take care of us on familial, platonic, romantic, and sexual levels. Not every man has violated us individually; for most of us, there are plenty of men that we trust. We know what you mean by “not all men” – because, on a basic level, we agree with you.

But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

Of course, in most cases, it’s not a conscious thing. We don’t think that most men move through the world thinking about how they can hurt us. We don’t believe The Patriarchy™ to be a boardroom full of men posing the question “How can we fuck over gender minorities today?” You would be hard-pressed to find a feminist who actively believes that.

But what makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalized violating behaviors that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.

Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

In truth, the only thing approaching defiance against this kind of violence is to constantly check and question your own learned entitlement – and that of other men. But you can’t do that if you’re stuck in the space of believing that “not all men” is a valid argument.

So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning men, to talk about these four points that you’re missing when you claim “not all men” as a way to eschew responsibility for patriarchal oppression.

Because it is all men, actually.

Aaminah Khan & Melissa A. Fabello
Think It’s #NotAllMen? These 4 Facts Prove You’re Just Plain Wrong

It’s really just an example of how exactly misogyny is like racism. It’s a nebulous thing, defined solely by those who feel that they’re victims of it or who are those people’s “allies,” and is set up specifically and deliberately as a inherent, endemic, and profound systemic problem that labels huge groups of individuals as being complicit while allow none to escape it taint.

Men don’t even have to do anything to be treated as oppressors. We always carry with us the “threat of harm.”

Oh yeah! And don’t – as I been doing the whole post-issue forth any dissent whatsoever from the feminists’ doctrine and dogma. As the 1st Extrapolation (moving it out of internet comments) of Lewis’ Law states: comments about feminism justify feminism.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

Abortive Reasoning

Abortive Reasoning Among Feminists
Abortive Reasoning Among Feminists

Now, it’s true that we’ve only one  reported case so far of a feminist aborting their baby because it was a boy and that case is unconfirmed. Yet, the important part of that is “reported.” We’ve no real idea how many feminists have killed off their own unborn children because they were going to have a son and they believe all men are sexual predators.

Frankly, I wouldn’t be that surprised if this were far more common than we’ve been given evidence of.  Given the reasoning of Feminists, it even makes a sick sort of sense that they’d prefer to kill their unborn sons – future predators – in an effort to end the “Patriarchy.”

And it’s not as if sex-selection wasn’t a disturbingly common reason for abortion in the first place, at least outside the Civilized World.  It’s certainly not unreasonable or illogical to posit that Feminists, who do not value men, would act in similar, if converse, manner to those cultures who do not value women. There’s little behavioral difference, after all, between misogyny and misandry.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

#BelieveAllWomen

#BelieveAllWomen, Untermensch! Your kind have no rights
#BelieveAllWomen, Untermensch!

Remember that Kavanaugh is just the latest and to-date most cynical and potentially destructive example of the Gyno-Fascism of the Feminazis that make up this toxic wave of Feminism we’re dealing with. The very idea behind #BelieveAllWomen is that the mere accusation of a man by a womyn is proof of guilt and all better get on board persecuting that man unless they too wish to be decried as Untermensch.

It must become clear to everybody in America, even to the last barista, that Masculinity is equal to subhumanity. This must be clearly outlined until every womyn of America has it encoded in her subconsciousness that every Man, whether a worker or intellectual, should be treated like vermin.

Gyn-Reich Ministry of Female Enlightment, Dir #1306 (2019)

Now, they’re not quite ready to declare us as being Unnütze Esser or Lebensunwertes Leben and I doubt that any of the Gyno-Fascists would that far. No, the Feminazis will probably satisfy themselves with declaring men to be Untermensch because, whether they like it and us or not, we’re too useful to them. Hence, their Generalplan Amerika (GPA) will be very unlikely to include gender-cleansing. Their doctrine of Sichersraum will, in all reasonable likelihood, just include the subjugation and re-education of men rather than their extermination.

And yes, it not only can happen here, it is already happening here.  Whenever it is demanded that certain classes’ allegations or accusations are, in and of themselves, enough for verdict of guilt and subsequent punishment, one is creating an Ubermensch and Untermensch paradigm. And that is exactly what the braunröcke of #MeToo, #IBelieveHer, and #BelieveAllWomen are doing.


Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Gaaaaa! [Kavanaugh]!

Feminazi Shrieking over Kavanaugh
Gaaaaa! [Kavanaugh]!

President Trump has selected outgoing Justice Kennedy’s replacement. Hence, Brett Kavanaugh will soon become the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. This, of course has the Left up in arms and screaming and crying in the streets…again.

Frankly, what is most interesting about this is the same thing that caused me to put Kavanaugh’s name in crotchets (Square Braces) as if it were a variable of some sort. Our domestic enemies didn’t even wait to find out who our President was nominating before starting their tantrums. Indeed, some were quite sloppy about it. 😉

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

The Boy Scouts

Scouts
The Boy Scouts Of^In America

So..The Boy Scouts are “removing” boys in favor of being gender neutral. They’re now calling themselves Scouts BSA and are allowing girls entrance and membership. Many Americans are worried about the Scouts making other fundamental changes.

A New Scout Oath?

On my honor I will do my best to be politically correct, to establish safe spaces, to fill all gender-diversity quotas, and to check my toxic micro-aggressive make privilege, so help me Whatever.

Well, The Old One Was “Offensive”

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Yeah, let’s me see. The actual Scout Oath invokes God, Country, references Morality, and uses the word “Straight.” So…Christofascist, Nationalist, Intolerant, and a dog-whistle / trigger for Homophobic.

Honestly, given how many changes in core organizations of America have been forced through political correctness and other expressions of oikophobia, misandry, and anti-White racism, I can understand the concern. I just think it’s misplaced this time.

Boy Scouts Then and Now

BSA’s Venturing, Sea Scouting, and Exploring programs – all for the problematical ages of 14-20 – have been coed for some time with no newsworthy issues. Venturing and Exploring have been coed since 1971.

Also, Cub Scout “dens” will be single-gender, with separate groups for boys and girls, allowing the organization “to maintain the integrity of the single-gender model while also meeting the needs of today’s families.” Or, as like to put it, to minimize the exposure to- and exchange of “cooties.” 😉

I just can’t see where the addition of the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will suddenly cause an issue for the BSA or for concerned Americans. Sure, they could suddenly go all PC but, as they haven’t really bowed to most of that so far, I’m not worried about it much at all.

No, the only ones who are having and going to have more of a problem with the Boy Scouts going coed is the Girl Scouts. They’re already incensed because they’re staunch advocates of single-gender scouting, believing that only in a male-less organization can girls be safe and thrive.

Girl Scouts is the best girl leadership organization in the world, created with and for girls. We believe strongly in the importance of the all-girl, girl-led, and girl-friendly environment that Girl Scouts provides, which creates a free space for girls to learn and thrive.

The benefit of the single-gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, other girl- and youth-serving organizations, and Girl Scouts and their families. Girl Scouts offers a one-of-a-kind experience for girls with a program tailored specifically to their unique developmental needs.

GSBlog

So, the Girl Scout are still a She-Woman Man Haters Club, to riff on a staple of Our Gang, with boys not being allowed to join – except for case-by-case exceptions for full lifestyle T-Girls, and men only allowed in troop leadership positions with heavy restrictions, e.g., never being allowed to be in the presence of the troop’s girls with at least one non-related woman present at all times. So, just the all-to-normal anti-male prejudices and double standards once again at play in society.

And, of course, there are no great, or even noticeable, numbers of people who want the Girl Scouts to change the sexually exclusive policies…though many wanted the Boy Scouts to change theirs. Yet, I don’t believe this is political correctness winning over Boy Scouts’ traditions or anti-male ideology trumping fairness in the case of the Girl Scouts.

Pragmatism Over Ideology

Simply put, I firmly believe that both the Boy Scouts’ choosing to allow girls to join the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts’ anger and strident vitriol over it are primarily rooted is pure pragmatism and the organizations’ respective existential realities.

Scouting, much like youth sports, is in sharp decline. The Boys Scouts are down to about 2.3 million scouts from a peak of more than 4 million, and the Girl Scouts have dwindled to 1.8 million members from a high of 3.8 million. So, in my opinion, this is just the Boy Scouts taking a deliberate step to increase its odds of surviving into the next generation.

Similarly, the Girl Scouts’ complaints, while couched in the terms of special privileges, special “needs,” and misandry, are more than likely fueled by the fear of their organizations’ demise due to no longer seeming to have a monopoly on girls’ scouting.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |