The origin of feminism and the importance of female MRAs


Response to nightrunner:

Honey Badgers Radio broadcast on October 3, 2013: “Honey Badger Radio: Femservatives Oh My!”

The topic of discussion was whether or not feminism was born out of traditionalism. I think nightrunner’s correct in that feminism was helped by traditionalism, and I also agree with him that it was not born out of traditionalism but is a product of it. I’m a big-picture kind of guy; I have a mind adept at seeing a chain of events and identifying causality.

Traditionalism created specific gender roles and discouraged women from doing other things than what were acceptable, and that created a deep undercurrent of resentment from women toward men, who they saw as being a truly patriarchal society.

There’s no better example of this dynamic than “The Seven-Stage Hate Model: The Psychopathology of Hate” by John R. “Jack” Schafer, PhD, who wrote the following:

Stage 1: The Haters Gather
Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself
Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target
Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target
Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons
Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons
Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target

Right now we’re still at Stage 6: you only need to look at domestic violence between men and women to see it. An example of Stage 5 is when that young feminist pushed her breasts up against the pro-life protester to gain what she figured would have been a justifiable legal defense given her vocalizations before pushing him off the podium. Had there not been someone recording her, it would have been her side’s word against their side’s word in the court system.

First wave feminism covered Stages 1 to 3. Second wave feminism instituted Stage 4; onward from there is where we saw more and more “justified” violence come into play, eventually reaching Stages 5 and 6.

So while feminism does not come from traditionalism, it originated as a byproduct of. And even though the cultural landscape has UTTERLY changed, they’re still floating the propaganda and rhetoric that was ever only partially true from 80 to 100 years ago. In today’s society, feminism as a whole has no true purpose except to continue to feed itself on hate and attempt to destroy its intended target either physically, symbolically, or culturally.

Female hatred of men is not what came about as a result of feminism—it was there from the beginning. Female hatred of males is what supports feminism. While that may sound harsh to say, if questioned or challenged on the concept that most women hate men, I could provide unabashed empirical evidence to the fact that most women in the United States at least hate men. It’s vehement but not overtly observable and it’s pathological in nature. They don’t think they’re man-haters, but in fact they are.

Feminists are simply the radical example of that misandry, and what we refer to as “radical feminists” are actually “feminist extremists.”

When women see a T-shirt saying, “I drink male tears” or “If he puts his hands on you cut them off”—this being a double entendre castration reference—I’d estimate that 50% of women laugh, about 40% think it’s distasteful, and only about 10% are deeply offended by seeing it. If the majority of women didn’t hate men, they’d read something like the above and be absolutely repulsed, vocalizing their disgust at the person wearing it. If most women in America didn’t hate men, then Sharon Osbourne laughing at a man who was emasculated would have been booed off stage—instead of the female audience roaring with laughter.

If a man were to wear a shirt saying, “I drink women’s tears” or “If she won’t put out tell her to shut up”—this being a double entendre rape reference—he’d be accosted by the first man he passed by. Probably gang-beaten to near death as soon as the first guy saw the T-shirt and yelled out to other men nearby: “Hey! This guy thinks rape is funny!”

Earlier you spoke about how men instinctively love women, but women don’t love men, and even the ones who do love men still harbor a pathological hatred for them 90% of the time. So the female hatred of males is there, it’s commonplace. Feminists are simply the ones who are radical about it. And that hatred is deeply ingrained in the culture having been caused by traditionalism. The reason things have become as bad as they are is also simple: feminism feeds off hatred and feeds into hatred.

In “The Science of Hatred” by Jen Robinson, she notes:

Professor of Psychology Ervin Staub has been studying hatred and violence for almost 30 years. In a recent article entitled The Origins and Evolution of Hate, he extends Penguin’s definition, pointing out that hate is more likely to occur when we view another person as having either equal or greater social or economic value rather than less. Humans may feel things like pity or disdain for people they view as inferior to them, but true hatred typically comes about when the other is seen as equal or superior. Often, the hated person or group is seen as having more than they deserve, and that these fortunes have been acquired at the expense of the hater.

This is why feminists make up so many fake studies, they ignore data, they alter the meaning of terms and definitions, they ignore what women say about having been raped, they alter legal code to exclude male victims, they alter legal code to extend the definitions of terms: it’s all to create propaganda and rhetoric. To constantly drum the idea of the patriarchy because it no longer actually exists. As you Honey Badgers have so often said, men are not privileged, men do not have power over women and haven’t for some time. However, if feminists can’t constantly play the powerless victim and portray men as the dark overlords of evil, they become irrelevant because the non-feminist women would lose the primary mechanism of their hate.

Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, professor emeritus at Stanford University, in “Dehumanization” writes:

At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.

Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a “cortical cataract” that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.

The observed perception is that men are privileged with more than what they are due and that everything they do is harmful or hurtful to women in some way. Feminists absolutely have to resort to unscrupulous methods in order to control, manipulate, and even FAKE as many sources of information as possible in order to uphold their world construct of men as always evil and women as always good.

So feminism was born out of the misandry created by traditionalism. It’s a byproduct of traditionalism, an indirect result of and not a direct result of.

If you want some anecdotal evidence of the concept, listen to many of the callers to the show. When they thank you Honey Badgers for all that you do, their voices have such humility and gratitude and pain. Can you imagine why? It’s because so many of the women in their lives have consistently treated them like garbage: starting with their mothers, the kids they grew up with, their first girlfriends, each of their relationships, failed marriages. From birth until they start thinking about suicide, the women they’ve encountered have treated them horribly. When they hear your group (female MRAs) standing up for them, talking about the disparity they face, and treating them with even an ounce of humanity, it makes their lives bearable again.

Karen talked about how many men approached her on her trip: they couldn’t thank her enough and they talked about how they were in a bad place and that seeing her videos literally changed their lives. I would bet anything that every single MRA member who is a woman and is also published in multiple places and has a high subscriber list on YouTube gets the exact same messages.

These guys spend their lives in perpetual emotional and psychological abuse at the hands of poisonous and toxic women, being shamed and humiliated by society around them until they feel like the Elephant Man. They’re deeply depressed, deeply disturbed, and deeply starved of any kind of affection. They live life wanting to scream, “I am not an animal, I am a man”—and even being a man makes them an animal. To live life like that—and then to see a girlwriteswhat video in which Karen, a woman, treats them with decency and kindness and sticks up for them saying what’s been done to them was wrong—it saves lives.

Now if misandry wasn’t the commonplace rule of thumb, if it wasn’t the norm most of the time, then these guys would have, at some point before seeing Karen’s videos, had someone come into their life and treat them like human beings. The simple fact that it didn’t happen for however many years old they are and that the first woman to treat them with an ounce of dignity was some unknown person on YouTube speaks volumes to how rare women like you female MRAs are.

I think you Honey Badgery bunch woefully—and I do mean woefully—underestimate how important you are. I sincerely think you have no idea how many men you save from putting a bullet in their head.

Consider “Maternal Deprivation,” written by Harry Harlow, PhD, former head of the Primate Research Center at the University of Wisconsin:

 … John Bowlby, who studied World War II infants who died in orphanages despite adequate nutrition and health, had already informed the world (years before Harlow’s cruel research) of the literally life-saving need that infants have for contact. His observations of war orphans proved that without some form of warm, physical contact and comfort, the infants died despite adequate care of physical needs….

… Psychologists like the infamous Harry Harlow inflicted unimaginable emotional suffering on hundreds of primates by separating them from their mothers at various early ages.

After separating infants from their mothers, researchers like Harlow and his protégés left the infants with “surrogate mothers” including devilish man-made devices that ejected barbed spikes, or had freezing temperatures, or rocked so violently the young infants’ teeth chattered as they desperately clung to “her.”

Harlow’s research led to the conclusion that infants will cling to the one thing they identify as their source of contact comfort—the one thing they identify as “mother.” They will cling to their surrogate mother at all costs rather than be left completely alone and separated from this physical contact.

I strongly think the same thing happens slowly to full-grown adults deprived of affection and human contact. When the only opportunity for contact for these guys is with toxic women, they still cling to that contact. It does, however, take a toll. Now if most women didn’t hate men on a pathological level in spite of what they may say, then some woman in their lives at some point would have treated them with just an ounce of humanity.

When they log on to the Honey Badgers site and listen to your broadcasts, or they search your YouTube channels and watch your videos, or they search you out on A Voice for Men and read your articles—all the various activities of the female members of the MRA movement—it gives them some measure of affection by proxy simply because you’re treating them with decency and kindness and compassion and like they’re human beings. Even through this wonderful thing we call the internet, just to have someone stick up for you on your behalf, the importance of that for these men simply cannot be overstated.

“Honey Badger Radio: Femservatives Oh My!” ( )

An official reply from Observing Libertarian

Observing Libertarian
Latest posts by Observing Libertarian (see all)
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy, and have only recently joined the MHRM.

By Observing Libertarian

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather