Keep in mind that feminism has always been about hatred for men; feminists simply “claim” otherwise. They even claim that feminists don’t hate men—it’s a myth perpetuated by the MRA community …
Adolf Hitler said in volume 1, chapter 6, of Mein Kampf (1925):
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
Considering how many second-wave feminists and “radical” third-wave feminists think it’s a swell idea to use eugenics to genetically modify men—or to wipe out 90% of them entirely—is it any wonder the feminist modus operandi would be word for word what Hitler said in Mein Kampf?
Is it any wonder then that feminists would be using propaganda to dehumanize men the way the Nazis did the Jews?
Philip George Zimbardo, psychologist, professor emeritus at Stanford University, from “The Lucifer Effect”:
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.
Michelle Maiese, research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium, from “What it Means to Dehumanize”:
Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated. It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one’s opponents.
She goes on to say:
Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.
Many of the suffragettes were criminals. The suffragettes attempted to block votes by splashing voter boxes with acid, attacking men on the street whom they didn’t agree with, advocating for castration laws, and I’ve also seen one instance where some number of them attempted to bomb a water works facility. The bomb went off but did little damage and didn’t halt the flow of water to the city. Right from the beginning, Western feminism was poison. A great many of the leading voices of second-wave feminism, including the women who started the first “women’s studies” courses in colleges, advocated that 90% of men be either killed off or selectively aborted or killed at birth.
Sally Miller Gearhart, who taught women’s studies at San Francisco State University from 1973 until 1992, created one of the first women and gender studies programs in the United States. She is quoted in her own writing as saying:
Such a prospect is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons no amount of love and care and nonsexist training will save those sons from a culture where male violence is institutionalized and revered. These are women saying, “No more sons. We will not spend twenty years of our lives raising a potential rapist, a potential batterer, a potential Big Man.”
Mary Daly taught women’s studies at the University of Boston for 19 years. In a 1999 EnlightenNext Magazine article titled “No Man’s Land,” Susan Bridle quoted Daly as saying:
If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.
Joanna Russ, a full professor at the University of Washington and a noted author in the feminist community, documents in her book The Female Man how a group of women from a planet called “While-away” butchered all the men like cattle in the quest for their lesbian utopia. As for misrepresenting feminism, this same feminist makes threats against men in her own work.
Valerie Solanas, creator of SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), wrote a manifesto that—by the way—is common reading in most women’s studies courses. She’s the one who shot Andy Warhol, for no reason. From her SCUM Manifesto:
It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
Those are literally some of the most influential voices of second-wave feminism. A few of them taught women’s studies for almost two decades—or longer. These are the women who brainwashed and/or indoctrinated the leading members of third-wave feminism. Is it any wonder the real power structure in third-wave feminism are radicals? Or how someone like Krista Jane Heflin could come along?
Rebecca Carter published “Proposition 777” online and quickly removed it, claiming it was a joke. Genocide is always such a comical topic after all.
Pamela O’Shaughnessy is a self-identified radical feminist blogger whose writings suggest a desire to promote extralegal efforts to genetically modify the male half of the human race.
Krista Jane Heflin, also known as “femitheist divine,” first advocated for the harvesting of sperm from males at age 13, then castrating them all in a yearly holiday that would serve as a festival for women. Then she decided that wouldn’t work, so she advocating reducing the male population by 90% and locking the rest in secured reservations where they’d only be permitted out under supervision.
The femitheist, however, was sssooooo adorable while speaking merrily about targeted infanticide. To say nothing of the previous generation of her plan: International Castration Day, which she thought could be held once a year, where all males guiltless of any crime at all would be mutilated at the age of 13, to the delight of female onlookers. Meaning, not even a proper orchidectomy—a medical procedure. No, she proposed that the boys would simply stand naked, holding hands in a circle, while a woman, “the castrator” (her words), would revolve around the group with a knife, committing crimes against humanity. Children, guiltless of any crime … children. Very nice.
At least the Nazis usually killed by gunfire or gas, and it was only the war doctors who performed torture via inhuman experiments.
No, the femitheist literally proposed that 13-year-old children, guiltless of any crime whatsoever, would be molested/raped in order to harvest sperm, to propagate the species. Then they’d be sent off to have a selected woman of the community simply walk one to the next, with the same weapon, and mutilate them like cattle where they stood naked, holding hands in the town square. To the cheer of female spectators, no less. International Castration Day. A yearly festival, you know—for equality.
Even more so, part of her logic was that it be done for the protection of, you betcha, children. Apparently not all children, nooooo. Just girls, of course. Any woman who has a son should have been screaming for blood. However, she’s cute, and neoteny is a powerful thing. So she got away with advocating worse acts of inhumanity than the Nazis. She’s not like a Nazi, she’s worse.
Karen Straughan details present-day prominent members of the feminist society on the radfem blogs who openly discuss—not in comments but in publications—eugenics being used to either kill off all men, or genetically modify them. Yes, eugenics, and they wonder why we coined the term feminazi? And if you’d like to claim you’re not a radical feminist, you’re some kind of non-man-hating variety of feminist, well, Karen, in her ridiculous enjoyable usual fashion, debunks that too. The intro speech to this interview is beyond gratifying. In another video she addresses NAFALT directly as well, exclaiming what prominent feminists past and present have said.
There is a bill that’s been attempted to be passed several times: the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA would promote broad equal rights according women as being equal to men. It was supported by some feminists and opposed by others because it would strip various privileges and protections women had by treating them as if they were men. Figures. Feminists on both sides of the issue: one set saying they should earn their way and be equal to men; the others not wanting to give up their privileged and protected status.
I’ve posted a few times, though not on this page, about my view of how to guarantee actual equality. It’s based on my political position, I’m a humanist small-L libertarian minarchist. Long-term, boils down to some simple but profound concepts. The simplest way to put it is: “The law should be blind and have no qualifiers or identifiers is law that is truly blind.” I’ll post the whole spiel though, just for the sake of clarity. I think it would add something useful to the topic of discussion.
Observing Libertarian …
Humanist small-L libertarian minarchist. I support women’s rights, men’s rights, Christians’ rights, Muslims’ rights, Blacks’ rights, Whites’ rights, Asians’ rights: in no particular order and with no bias involved. I support and believe in the Rule of Law—and those laws should be absolutely neutral of all IDENTITY CLASSIFICATIONS.
That means no gender, no race, no religion should be given preferential or detrimental treatment, at all: EVER.
Equal pay for equal job; equal prison sentence for equal crime. Across the board: Rule of Law with no classifications of individual identifiers. We are all equal under the law, and we are all protected BY the law against the misdeeds of others. No patriarchy, no matriarchy, no oligarchy, no aristocracy, no monarchy. AT ALL.
Anyone who truly wants equality should want equal protections and equal consequences under the rule of law: a law that observes no identity classifications.
Beat your wife: assault. Beat your husband: assault. Kill your husband: murder. Kill your wife: murder. You have sex with a woman who’s passed out: rape. You have sex with a man who’s passed out: rape. Have sex with a 14-year-old child: molestation—life sentence. None of this Debra LeFave house arrest s***.
Equal protection = equal consequences. You want equality, I’ll give you equality.
Rule of Law with the absence of identity classification. No double standards.
Now that’s some god****** EQUALITY.
Now, this also ties in some views as the only role of government being unified defense, ensuring organized trade, ensuring unified legal standards, and strictly upholding civil liberties for all citizenship. It also requires that government be small—and limited to those roles. That trails off in another direction away from the topic of discussion, so I’ll get back on point.
I can separate pretend feminists from genuine feminists instantly with that rant. The pretend feminists will cheer and the genuine feminists will start talking about patriarchy theory. *Smile,* you can always spot ’em. Real feminists aren’t truly interested in equality, they never have been. They’re interested in kicking man off the top of the ladder and taking over. Then they can remake society how they think it should run. Real feminists aren’t egalitarian—they’re totalitarian. That’s why “HeForShe” is so transparent.
Emma Watson’s speech literally says that men should help women, and when women’s problems are solved, they’ll be able to deal with all of men’s issues too. Meaning that after society as a whole has been completely feminized how feminists see fit, then they’ll also simply change men to act, think, and behave how they approve (1)—and there will be no issues for men. Feminist theory pathologizes everything man does, no matter how inane or innocuous (2). That’s why they view patriarchy as being responsible for all men’s problems.
The numbers inserted are reference marks during the speech.
“Patriarchy hurts men too.” They think men are broken because everything about men is wrong, and they operate under the guise that man is broken because the patriarchy forces them into gender roles (3). Once those gender roles are exterminated and men are taught to be women (4), they won’t have any problems. Their entire societal construct revolves around the singular goal of creating a totalitarian matriarchal society (5). The reason they think this equates to “equality” is because they’re convinced this would be in everyone’s best interest (6).
Feminism isn’t for equality, never has been. Real feminists aren’t interested in equality. They’re interested in domination.
Let me apply this working model to Emma Watson’s speech. My comments are bracketed to distinguish them from Emma’s.
Today we are launching a campaign called “HeForShe.”
I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality—and to do that we need everyone to be involved. [5. Which sounds identical to every other Marxist speech ever written. “blah blah blah of the world unite!”]
This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. [5. She wants as many men and boys to be brainwashed as possible to support women’s rights over their own.] And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible. [5. She doesn’t just want to talk about creating a feminized matriarchal society—she wants to really build it.]
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. [I think the feminists above would probably have something to do with that. Also, in Western society women literally have more rights and protections than men—and here you are trying to insist on expanding that discrepancy even further.] If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. [1, 2. Yes the view of feminism as man-hating has to stop, not the actual man-hating. She’s wearing “I drink male tears” undies right now.]
For the record, feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.” [1, 2, 5. Yet in practice there’s not one feminist organization that has ever supported any bill or legislation that helped men. Feminists have even lobbied to have men’s shelters shut down or prevent them from opening, even though men are at least 50% of the domestic abuse victims and have less than 1% of the protective safe places of women.]
I started questioning gender-based assumptions when at eight I was confused at being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for our parents—but the boys were not. [1, 2. You wanted to make the decisions that would affect everyone else instead of wanting to, say, take a vote and participate in a group decision using the democratic process. You were attempting to make the decisions for everyone else, the way any dictator does. You were insisting on making decisions FOR everyone else, not making decisions WITH everyone else. You were being more than just “bossy,” and they were being polite. What you were being was a self-important, narcissistic prat.]
When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press. [1, 2. You were a pretty and young actress who was in the starring role, a role in which you volunteered to play, the role that made you rich and famous, and the role in which your character had a budding love interest in another primary character. The role you played sexualized you, and had you not been attractive you wouldn’t have gotten the role, you wouldn’t be famous now, and you certainly wouldn’t be rich. At 24 you’d be making ends meet working at a Starbucks. Would you like to trade?]
When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.” [Don’t blame men for what women consider attractive or not. That’s an obvious projection.]
When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings. [1, 2. Expressing their feelings would have required they inform you that they were interested in you and they didn’t want to risk losing that friendship and the opportunity to be near you. They didn’t express themselves because of the consequences, not because they were “unable.”]
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. [1. It represents sexist ideologues who often express the opinion that 90% of men should be killed off.]
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive. [No, we think you haven’t done your homework and are convinced of the flowery words of feminism without having studied the ugly truth of what feminism’s most influential voices have stated. Like the viewpoint that 90% of men should be murdered despite whether they’re innocent of any crime.]
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one? [Once again, it conjures images of Andrea Dworkin talking about wanting to “see a man beaten to a bloody pulp and a high heel shoved in his mouth like that of a pig.” She didn’t stipulate if the man in question was guilty of any crime, just that he was guilty of being born.]
I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights. [Actually, in Western culture, if you ask men whether or not they think women should have those rights as described, the overwhelming vast majority agree.]
No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality. [The United States has. So have almost every other Western and First World nation on the planet. Feminists just pretend otherwise with perpetuated myths like the wage gap, something even specific feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers have debunked time and time again.]
These rights I consider to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones. My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn’t assume I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influences were the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists who are changing the world today. And we need more of those. [2. That’s the whole of Western society today.]
And if you still hate the word—it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it. [1, 2. Yes, people are very squeamish about a group of ideologues proclaiming that all men are potential rapists.] Because not all women have been afforded the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been. [You need to study statistics a little better. The First World nations account for a large chunk of the population of the globe. The main factor in its lower percentile count is actually China. They have so many people that they alone literally diminish the percentile value of the women to which you refer, Emma.]
In 1995, Hillary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly many of the things she wanted to change are still a reality today. [5. You’re trying to bring about “women’s rights” by essentially telling them to adopt Western culture.]
But what stood out for me the most was that only 30 per cent of her audience were male. How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? [1, 2, 5, 6. Tell your feminist cohorts to stop advocating that half the population be murdered in genocide … ]
Men—I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too. [1, 3, 4, 5, 6. No, your house may be welcoming, but the entire rest of feminism doesn’t even like male feminists to call themselves feminists. They insist male feminists call themselves “feminist allies.”]
Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s. [5, 6. Blame that on your Marxist counterparts in the feminist movements. They’ve been admittedly attempting to destroy the nuclear family model for the past 50 years—and, once again, have admitted to this.]
I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49 years of age; [1, 4, 6. And who do you think is responsible for that? Feminist legislature. More to the point: they’re not refusing to ask for help because they’re macho; there’s no help available. YOUR feminist cohorts have literally shut down men’s shelters and LITERALLY protested the building of others in order to prevent their being built.] eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either. [5, 6. This is absurdity. It’s feminists who’ve been dehumanizing men and attempting to “smash the patriarchy,” exclaiming women weren’t equal to men. You can’t claim women aren’t equal to men and then turn around and say men don’t have equality either. Equality means that one is equal to another. 3+2 is equal to 2+3. If you’re trying to say that everyone should be endowed with rights and protections for the simple fact that they are human, then you’re not a feminist, you’re a humanist. Get it right or get off the podium.]
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Hot damn, she hit em all with this statement. Yet you create “HeForShe” and start by saying, “I am reaching out to you because I need your help.” Meaning women can’t do something without men, and men must step up to help women. You can’t “free” men from gender roles while ADHERING TO THEM, ENCOURAGING THEM AND ADVOCATING FOR THOSE SAME GENDER ROLES!]
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted [1, 2, 4] women won’t feel compelled to be submissive [5,6]. If men don’t have to control [1,2,4], women won’t have to be controlled. [5,6]
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Both men and women should feel free to be strong.… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.[1,2,3,4,5,6]
If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer [3,6] and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom.
I want men to take up this mantle [1, gender role, hypocrisy]. So their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice [1, no one’s free from prejudice, no one. It’s human nature to be xenophobic of others unlike ourselves.] but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too [4. Then men aren’t human? “I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating.” Yes well, it would be statements like that, from feminists, like you, which give the impression that “feminism” is “synonymous with man-hating.” The hypocrisy in this is astonishing.]—reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned [1, 4] and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves.[1, 4]
You might be thinking who is this Harry Potter girl? [2, Yes, we all know who you are.] And what is she doing up on stage at the UN. It’s a good question and trust me, I have been asking myself the same thing. I don’t know if I am qualified to be here. [2, Important to note, she’s not. Emma is making assertions about gender roles and identity. She has not one class in psychology, sociology, or gender studies. She has a bachelors in English literature. She’s not qualified to speak authoritatively on anything she’s talked about this entire speech. If she were presenting an article, a treatise a study with cited resources, now that would be acceptable. So far she’s only offered anecdotal evidence with no cross examination of these events from any professional in the field. Nor cited any examples of those behaviors having been examined by a professional who is qualified to make researched, educated, informed assessments of the behavior examined in those events.] All I know is that I care about this problem. And I want to make it better.
And having seen what I’ve seen—and given the chance—I feel it is my duty to say something. English Statesman Edmund Burke said: “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men and women to do nothing.”[You just altered what he said. He said men, he didn’t mention women. You just misquoted him and told a direct lie in front of the entire UN. Congratulations…. You’re officially a politician. ]
In my nervousness for this speech and in my moments of doubt I’ve told myself firmly—if not me, who, if not now, when. If you have similar doubts when opportunities are presented to you I hope those words might be helpful. [I have to call bull on this: as you’re an actress, you’re acting. It’s what you do. You’ve made the act, of acting, your career of choice. Also, being a fan of the harry potter series, I personally think you’re a very good actress in fact. Therefore, it’s kind of pointless to try and tell me you’re not acting.]
Because the reality is that if we do nothing it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. [Actually, in America, they already do and have for some time. The wage gap, as mentioned, is a myth. Even other feminists have debunked it. More homework for you, Miss Watson.] 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. [1,5, 6. Once again, not in Western society. You’re insisting that entire other cultures should change because you think so.] And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls will be able to receive a secondary education. [That’s not a feminist issue, that’s a humanist issue. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the inequality of wealth.]
If you believe in equality, you might be one of those inadvertent feminists I spoke of earlier. [5,6]
And for this I applaud you.
We are struggling for a uniting word  but the good news is we have a uniting movement. It is called HeForShe. I am inviting you to step forward, to be seen to speak up, to be the “he” for “she” [1, gender roles, once agains enforced upon men in a speech that talks about freeing men from gender roles. The hypocrisy just never ends.]. And to ask yourself if not me, who? If not now, when? 
And I’d really like to point something out:
I want men to take up this mantle. So their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too—reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves.—Emma Watson, “HeForShe”campaign speech
The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.—Valarie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto
If you read the boldface text, you couldn’t possibly tell me they don’t share a striking resemblance.
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.—Emma Watson, “HeForShe”campaign speech
Yeah, Emma, that would probably be easier IF:
- you didn’t say men weren’t human;
- parts of your speech didn’t sound suspiciously like quotations from the “society for cutting up men” manifesto; and
- so many other feminists didn’t propose killing off 90% of men.
This woman? This woman is the new mouthpiece of feminism? She’s the one who’s supposed to convince us that feminism isn’t about man-hating? She’s the cute and cuddly spokesperson who’s going to clean up feminism’s image? In her own speech she says men aren’t human: but if they completely change and start thinking like women, THEN they “can be human too.” I’m not misquoting … I’m not even misrepresenting what she said. This woman’s supposed to be convincing us that feminism is anything but the misandric, Marxist, totalitarian regime that it is. Alas, in her own speech, she couldn’t help or resist telling men to accept traditional gender roles in order to serve women. She literally states that men aren’t human, and says things that sound like they were written by Valerie Solanas. I would request that someone tell me this was a bad joke; however, unfortunately, I am well aware that it is not.