Great article - this is the key phrase: "We can control them in the offices, schools, and in life. We can break up the family structure and the government becomes the family structure.” This is also whats behind the trans movement - getting rid of families
Excellent piece. The video is important to watch because it contextualised how their feminism construct plays into their overall playbook. The Elite know full well that poisoning the culture enviserates Political argumentation.
Making men the enemy has always been at the core of feminism, just as hate for Jews was at the core of Nazism. There are 10 offices for women's health, but zero offices for men's health. There is only the violence against women act, despite the fact that women batter men as often as the converse, and men are violent crime victims two times more often than women are. Many colleges have women-only programs, but zero men-only programs. These issues need to be considered, as well.
Feminism has gone so far off the deep end that “feminists” now support literal men wearing wigs to enter women’s safe spaces. That’s all we really need to know about that movement now.
I made it through the first paragraph but everything in it was so profoundly ignorant I couldn't go on. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
This strikes me as a lot of cherry picked evidence manipulated to get a pre formulated conclusion. First of all, the fact that capitalism exploits people in the workforce, both men and women, is true. Why is it able to do so? Because in a capitalistic society, needs are met primarily through finances. Capitalism is only able to exploit people who are desperate, so if you remove the desperation through social support systems, the power dynamic changes and people have more freedom. Men are also victims of this "9-5 slavery" but your conclusions are directed solely at women. For the same reason of financial dependence, women in relationships who don't work are at higher risk of abuse. Any evidence that women are happier in relationships, or that single parents are less happy, again, disappears when you account for financial resources.
For an article about feminism, you don't speak at all about actual feminism at all, and I'm sure that is intentional. Feminism is simply about women being full human beings with their own thoughts and ambitions that are worthy of respect. Your hyperbole that it is some radical movement with blind adherence is inaccurate. There is a lot of research to back up the ongoing problems that women face due to sexism. If you don't believe that bias against women exists, you are not a heretic, you are just wrong. Likely your adherence to your belief system prevents you from acknowledging the clear evidence that thousands of years of sexism didn't just disappear when feminism came to be. With the growing loudness of the red pill community and their open and overt hatred of women, you really have to be willfully ignorant at this point to believe that misogyny is not alive and well. (Side note- don't you think that the treatment of men towards women might have something to do with that stat you shared about women being happier when they don't have casual sex?)
Regardless of how you try to sugarcoat it, relegating women to the home implies that they are not full people. You cannot have an equal society where one gender can be artists, performers, doctors, lawyers, and are respected as capable of making decisions about their lives (and consequently make all societal decisions) while the other gender is relegated to only one service role. It's also incredibly demeaning to imply that women aren't fully capable of making the decision to work outside the home based on their own needs and goals. I imagine that when you make decisions about your career, you do so without the pressure of needing to stay home to clean the house or homeschool your kids, even though you would be just as capable of doing those things as a woman is.
If a man is so ignorant that he associates feminism with hating men, why would any woman care what he thinks of her? You don't seem to understand that who you are attracted to is completely irrelevant.
You realize congress is majority men, right? Do you see the right prioritizing men's health? No, they just put out these feminist hating sound bites and you all repeat them word for word. You learn about feminism from misogynist propaganda, the same place you get all of your beliefs, and never bother to look into what feminism actually is. Again, your attraction to women is worthless. I'm not sure why you keep acting as if it's a problem if misogynists stay far away.
You have a point that men on the right compete to be the saviors of women, and throw subordinate men under the bus.
But feminists are of course, even worse. The Democratic Party states on their website that they serve women, but not men. Feminist Democrats also made sure that there are 10 offices for women’s health, and zero offices for men’s health.
The silver lining is that there are a growing number of women that reject feminism, and respect and value men. Those are the only women that men want. Feminists will grow old alone.
Right wing men do not want to be women's saviors. Men as saviors and providers is a fantasy created for males, not women. Hating feminism is just thinly veiled hatred of women. Feminism is the reason women can vote, have bank accounts, and make decisions about their lives. If you don't respect this, you don't respect women. You keep repeating this thing about feminists growing old and alone, but fail to realize that this doesn't work on women who aren't being fed your propaganda. A woman's value doesn't depend on your worthless assessment. Women are fine "alone", or with partners that see them as full human beings. Right wing men offer nothing of value. They are married to their indoctrination, are emotionally inept, morally depraved, willfully ignorant and treat women with disdain. It's a benefit if these men stay away. It's right wing men who are suffering without partners, but they continue to blame women instead of bettering themselves.
I loved this piece. I'm one of those who never wanted children, or even wanted to get married. My weirdness came from being shamed and teased as a kid when I talked about boys. My dad had some sort of thing where he teased me unmercifully about it from a very young age—that, and having red hair. The first thing I did at 15 was dye my hair. I had boyfriends but kept them secret. I didn't bring anyone home in high school. I was out of the house for years before my parents met my SO. I was encouraged and rewarded for working hard, the feminine side of me was discouraged, even if subliminally.
My parents encouraged me to work, strive for the top, and do my best.
The relationship side of me was seriously screwed up for years.
Today, I'm happily married, I don't regret having kids... but there is a little something still missing, so maybe that was it, maybe.
Isn't it weird how our thinking and navigating the world is formed by society and family dynamics? Some stuff can be changed but if society screams loudly enough we conform. Fucking Rockefeller's.
"It’s too much freedom to decide whether or not to have casual sex, climb the corporate ladder, take birth control, or have an abortion," Is it also too much freedom for men to decide who to sleep with, what career to pursue, and whether to have children? These seem like fundamental decisions that humans get to make. Again, your view of women as one dimensional Scarlet Ohara type characters just waiting with baited breath for a capable man to make all her decisions is really apparent.
First, thanks for the article. I googled "government funding feminism" and your article surfaced.
I have a comment on one point. You wrote "it's too much freedom to decided whether or not to have casual sex..." It's really an issue of boundaries, not freedom. A large part of "feminism" was indoctrinating women to have no sexual boundaries with men.
If you look even for a moment at feminist discussion, you would see that your comment is incredibly ignorant. Boundaries are a huge topic of conversation in feminist and progressive circles. In contrast, conservatives consistently push against women being allowed to have boundaries. What feminism pushed back against, was the societal expectation of women to be virginal as a sign of their value.
You get your information on feminism from propaganda that you blindly believe and have never bothered to research feminist thought. Feminism is simply the radical idea that women are full human beings and are worthy of respect. Men that want to continue to see women as inferior call this "man-hate" and then use this as justification to fuel their open hatred of women.
Feminists in Congress made sure that vastly more taxopayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. That is hating men. So is making sure there are 10 offices for women's health and zero offices for men's health.
If you can't or won't grasp these realities, you are the one that hates men
Again, you just blindly repeat right wing talking points and have no idea what feminism is or how congress works, for that matter. Healthcare for women is not hating men. Prostate cancer has a 98% survival rate, so I'm not sure it's a target issue for funding. Men have more seats in congress than women, so if they had any reason to prioritize men's health they would. The reality is that the right actively fought against healthcare access for all people in addition to all other support because angry ignorant men are easily indoctrinated. They will take everything from you, but as long as they keep you hating the evil feminists you will eat it up.
Great article - this is the key phrase: "We can control them in the offices, schools, and in life. We can break up the family structure and the government becomes the family structure.” This is also whats behind the trans movement - getting rid of families
Excellent piece. The video is important to watch because it contextualised how their feminism construct plays into their overall playbook. The Elite know full well that poisoning the culture enviserates Political argumentation.
Making men the enemy has always been at the core of feminism, just as hate for Jews was at the core of Nazism. There are 10 offices for women's health, but zero offices for men's health. There is only the violence against women act, despite the fact that women batter men as often as the converse, and men are violent crime victims two times more often than women are. Many colleges have women-only programs, but zero men-only programs. These issues need to be considered, as well.
Feminism has gone so far off the deep end that “feminists” now support literal men wearing wigs to enter women’s safe spaces. That’s all we really need to know about that movement now.
I made it through the first paragraph but everything in it was so profoundly ignorant I couldn't go on. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
This strikes me as a lot of cherry picked evidence manipulated to get a pre formulated conclusion. First of all, the fact that capitalism exploits people in the workforce, both men and women, is true. Why is it able to do so? Because in a capitalistic society, needs are met primarily through finances. Capitalism is only able to exploit people who are desperate, so if you remove the desperation through social support systems, the power dynamic changes and people have more freedom. Men are also victims of this "9-5 slavery" but your conclusions are directed solely at women. For the same reason of financial dependence, women in relationships who don't work are at higher risk of abuse. Any evidence that women are happier in relationships, or that single parents are less happy, again, disappears when you account for financial resources.
For an article about feminism, you don't speak at all about actual feminism at all, and I'm sure that is intentional. Feminism is simply about women being full human beings with their own thoughts and ambitions that are worthy of respect. Your hyperbole that it is some radical movement with blind adherence is inaccurate. There is a lot of research to back up the ongoing problems that women face due to sexism. If you don't believe that bias against women exists, you are not a heretic, you are just wrong. Likely your adherence to your belief system prevents you from acknowledging the clear evidence that thousands of years of sexism didn't just disappear when feminism came to be. With the growing loudness of the red pill community and their open and overt hatred of women, you really have to be willfully ignorant at this point to believe that misogyny is not alive and well. (Side note- don't you think that the treatment of men towards women might have something to do with that stat you shared about women being happier when they don't have casual sex?)
Regardless of how you try to sugarcoat it, relegating women to the home implies that they are not full people. You cannot have an equal society where one gender can be artists, performers, doctors, lawyers, and are respected as capable of making decisions about their lives (and consequently make all societal decisions) while the other gender is relegated to only one service role. It's also incredibly demeaning to imply that women aren't fully capable of making the decision to work outside the home based on their own needs and goals. I imagine that when you make decisions about your career, you do so without the pressure of needing to stay home to clean the house or homeschool your kids, even though you would be just as capable of doing those things as a woman is.
Always amused to read another article from a man explaining how women are doing feminism wrong. Keep it up guys
Feminists will grow old alone. Men are attracted to the non-feminist women that value and respect men - which is the antidote to misandric feminism
If a man is so ignorant that he associates feminism with hating men, why would any woman care what he thinks of her? You don't seem to understand that who you are attracted to is completely irrelevant.
LOL feminists in Congress made sure that there are 10 offices for women’s health, and zero offices for men’s health. That is hating men.
If women are so ignorant that they are unwilling or unable to grasp the realities about feminism, so man will go near them.
You realize congress is majority men, right? Do you see the right prioritizing men's health? No, they just put out these feminist hating sound bites and you all repeat them word for word. You learn about feminism from misogynist propaganda, the same place you get all of your beliefs, and never bother to look into what feminism actually is. Again, your attraction to women is worthless. I'm not sure why you keep acting as if it's a problem if misogynists stay far away.
You have a point that men on the right compete to be the saviors of women, and throw subordinate men under the bus.
But feminists are of course, even worse. The Democratic Party states on their website that they serve women, but not men. Feminist Democrats also made sure that there are 10 offices for women’s health, and zero offices for men’s health.
The silver lining is that there are a growing number of women that reject feminism, and respect and value men. Those are the only women that men want. Feminists will grow old alone.
Right wing men do not want to be women's saviors. Men as saviors and providers is a fantasy created for males, not women. Hating feminism is just thinly veiled hatred of women. Feminism is the reason women can vote, have bank accounts, and make decisions about their lives. If you don't respect this, you don't respect women. You keep repeating this thing about feminists growing old and alone, but fail to realize that this doesn't work on women who aren't being fed your propaganda. A woman's value doesn't depend on your worthless assessment. Women are fine "alone", or with partners that see them as full human beings. Right wing men offer nothing of value. They are married to their indoctrination, are emotionally inept, morally depraved, willfully ignorant and treat women with disdain. It's a benefit if these men stay away. It's right wing men who are suffering without partners, but they continue to blame women instead of bettering themselves.
It is so condescending.
I loved this piece. I'm one of those who never wanted children, or even wanted to get married. My weirdness came from being shamed and teased as a kid when I talked about boys. My dad had some sort of thing where he teased me unmercifully about it from a very young age—that, and having red hair. The first thing I did at 15 was dye my hair. I had boyfriends but kept them secret. I didn't bring anyone home in high school. I was out of the house for years before my parents met my SO. I was encouraged and rewarded for working hard, the feminine side of me was discouraged, even if subliminally.
My parents encouraged me to work, strive for the top, and do my best.
The relationship side of me was seriously screwed up for years.
Today, I'm happily married, I don't regret having kids... but there is a little something still missing, so maybe that was it, maybe.
Isn't it weird how our thinking and navigating the world is formed by society and family dynamics? Some stuff can be changed but if society screams loudly enough we conform. Fucking Rockefeller's.
It's always been a hate movement, since they wrote that cursed document the so called declaration of grievances.
"It’s too much freedom to decide whether or not to have casual sex, climb the corporate ladder, take birth control, or have an abortion," Is it also too much freedom for men to decide who to sleep with, what career to pursue, and whether to have children? These seem like fundamental decisions that humans get to make. Again, your view of women as one dimensional Scarlet Ohara type characters just waiting with baited breath for a capable man to make all her decisions is really apparent.
First, thanks for the article. I googled "government funding feminism" and your article surfaced.
I have a comment on one point. You wrote "it's too much freedom to decided whether or not to have casual sex..." It's really an issue of boundaries, not freedom. A large part of "feminism" was indoctrinating women to have no sexual boundaries with men.
If you look even for a moment at feminist discussion, you would see that your comment is incredibly ignorant. Boundaries are a huge topic of conversation in feminist and progressive circles. In contrast, conservatives consistently push against women being allowed to have boundaries. What feminism pushed back against, was the societal expectation of women to be virginal as a sign of their value.
Speaking of ignorance, the Democratic Party states on their website that they serve women, but not men. Hate for men was always a part of feminism.
You get your information on feminism from propaganda that you blindly believe and have never bothered to research feminist thought. Feminism is simply the radical idea that women are full human beings and are worthy of respect. Men that want to continue to see women as inferior call this "man-hate" and then use this as justification to fuel their open hatred of women.
Feminists in Congress made sure that vastly more taxopayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. That is hating men. So is making sure there are 10 offices for women's health and zero offices for men's health.
If you can't or won't grasp these realities, you are the one that hates men
Again, you just blindly repeat right wing talking points and have no idea what feminism is or how congress works, for that matter. Healthcare for women is not hating men. Prostate cancer has a 98% survival rate, so I'm not sure it's a target issue for funding. Men have more seats in congress than women, so if they had any reason to prioritize men's health they would. The reality is that the right actively fought against healthcare access for all people in addition to all other support because angry ignorant men are easily indoctrinated. They will take everything from you, but as long as they keep you hating the evil feminists you will eat it up.
Just like every other feminist, you justify the deliberate underfunding of prostate cancer.