Feminist End Game: The Final Solution


I see feminism as being more than simple politics: I see it as a systematic political entity that seeps in through an open crack and eventually infests entire facets of society with systemic bigotry. I also see the organization through the perspective of historical events. Whenever one group of people resorts to fear-mongering threat narratives reaffirmed with dehumanization of a targeted group, reducing that group to an enemy image, they’re headed in a very particular direction. Rwanda had its “cockroaches,” Germany had its “juden.” The first time I saw the “Don’t be that guy” posters, they reminded me of the der jude posters of 1930s Germany.

Before I proceed, you (readers) should know that I have autism. A while back I read a fantastic examination of how autistic people function and process information. It’s critical that my functionality be understood, as it plays a central role in how I’ve come about the conclusion of this article.

People on the Autism spectrum look at the world in a truly unique manner. What the rest of the world labels as “a disability” is, to those of us on the spectrum, a creative, neurological diversity in how we process information and adjust our “lenses” in viewing the world: Many people on the spectrum can “zoom in” to see miniscule yet crucial details of a situation. I can also pull back the lens and see the extreme whole of a situation, connecting groups of facts across disciplines and fields that may seem to have no apparent relationships. I can do both of these “lens adjustment” feats simultaneously.Laurie A. Couture

I see causality in events based on data and I study issues through the perspective of history. As a result, I am not capable of hyperbole. It is not within the realm of my mental functionality to think of things to say for the purpose of being “over the top.” It is not how my brain functions; when I make a determination, it’s based on facts and information. Including history. When I see a trend, I state it as being exactly what it is or exactly what it’s most similar to in a historical framework.

So if you become upset by the end of this article, or perceive me to be using a popular trope found in arguments, I quite specifically am not resorting to exaggeration, hyperbole, rhetoric, overstatement, or embellishment. When I make a statement or determination, it is based purely on facts, information, and data gathered through historical investigation, sociological examination, and psychology study: keep that in mind.

I have heard, more than a few times, discussions asking the question “What is feminism’s ultimate goal”? They’ve won equal pay, as even other feminists have pointed out the wage gap is a myth presented by misleading information. Rape is highly illegal everywhere in the Western world. The Western world has anti-discrimination laws in every developed nation. There are no rights, in the Western world, that men have and women do not have. Yet, they find other things to complain about, such as catcalling or men sitting wide-legged on buses. Feminists in Sweden and Germany are now trying to make it illegal for men to urinate standing up.

What is the end game, what is the end result, when will feminism be completed and finished? Now, having studied at length first- through fourth-wave feminism’s activities, leading voices, and literature, I have long since determined the most likely eventuality. So, let me walk you through a detailed examination of some of these individuals, along with some perspectives on the topic of dehumanization—both how dehumanization functions and what it achieves—in order that you may see and understand what the process is, followed by examples of this process in action.

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.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”—Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

“And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism–the lie that there can be such a thing as ‘men’s liberation groups.’ Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a ‘threatening’ characteristic shared by the latter group–skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed ****ED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism–the oppressed have no alternative–for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men–but in the short run it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women–kill your fathers, not your mothers”.—Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine editor

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”—Andrea Dworkin

“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”—Andrea Dworkin

“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it ‘Her’. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.”—Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”—Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.”—Sheila Jeffrys

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”—Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime

“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … he can sexually molest his daughters … THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.”—Marilyn French, author and adviser to Al Gore’s presidential campaign (her emphasis)

“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.”—Marilyn French, The Woman’s Room

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”—Marilyn French

“The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations … obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign.”—Marilyn French

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”—Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, ‘hate in love,’ for the men women share their lives with–husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers.”—Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love

“All men are good for is ****ing, and running over with a truck.”Statement made by a University of Maine feminist administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the university in the amount of $600,000.Dinsmore had protested the quote, was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment, and responded by bringing suit against the university.

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.”—Elizabeth Cady Stanton

From A Feminist Dictionary, edited by Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE: … represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants … the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN: … an obsolete life form … an ordinary creature who needs to be watched … a contradictory baby-man…

Keep in mind here:

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.

A Voice for Men wrote at length about the femitheist divine, Krista Jane Heflin. What no one mentioned is that she was a ripoff of the woman who founded one of the first “women’s studies” courses in America, and taught in university for almost two decades.

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. From her book The Future, If There Is One, Is Female:

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.

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.

She’s written nine books, most of which are required reading in gender studies, even her works of fiction and fantasy.

Her last speaking engagement was November 9, 2013:

“Sally Miller Gearhart “Worlds Beyond World” Symposium: Feminist Utopian Thought,” sponsored by: Sally Miller Gearhart Fund, Center for the Study of Women in Society, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, ASUO Women’s Center, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oregon Libraries, Oregon Humanities Center, School of Architecture and Allied Arts, Robert D. Clark Honors College, Office of Equity and Inclusion, Office for Research, Innovation and Graduate Education, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Center for Latino/a and Latin American Studies, Center on Diversity and Community, Department of English, School of Journalism and Communication, Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, Department of Ethnic Studies, Department of Romance Languages, Department of Anthropology, Department of Sociology, Department of International Studies, Department of Political Science, Department of Psychology, and the Comparative Literature journal (American Comparative Literature Association).

All those people and groups and organizations and universities not only showed up but sponsored an event to host her and other like-minded women. A woman who has publicly stated and continues to state that 90% of men should be killed off. She openly advocates for mass genocide and she’s welcomed to speaking engagements at major universities sponsored and attended by Ivy League college departments.

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.

These two women were not simply radicals on the fringe of feminism. They wrote the literature that is still studied in gender studies master courses to this day in major universities all over the world. Daly wrote her last book in 2006 and over her lifetime wrote eight books in all that are studied today in gender studies/women’s studies.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Daly continued to lecture to audiences around the world. She was an outspoken critic of popular phenomena such as the Christian men’s movement as personified by an organization called the Promise Keepers. Answering a reporter who asked, “Who has hurt women?” Daly responded, “These creeps, the Promise Keepers, rightwing Christians. It’s not just the ancient fathers of the church and it’s not just the church. It’s all the major religions.”

These people are not the radical fringe—they’re the driving force behind academic feminism and gender feminism. They’re the ones who know what real feminism is about. That’s the true face of feminism. Puppets like Emma Watson know nothing of these people: she has a liberal arts degree in English literature—not gender studies or women’s studies. She’s a public figure, not someone with influence.

Also, leaders in feminism like Daly and Gearhart are not alone.

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.

Rebecca Carter published “Proposition 777″ online and quickly removed it, claiming it was a joke. Genocide is always such a comical topic after all.

Susan Brownmiller in Against our Will, denouncing and justifying in the same paragraph the torture, mutilation and murder of 15-year-old Emmett Till for whistling at a white woman:

We are rightly aghast that a whistle could be cause for murder, but we must also accept that Emmett Till and J. W. Milam shared something in common. They both understood that the whistle was no small twee t. . . it was a deliberate insult, just short of physical assault, a last reminder to Carolyn Bryant that this black boy, Till, had in mind to possess her.

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.

Now that you’ve read about dehumanization, enemy image, deindividualization, and you’ve read about the people who lead gender feminism and academic feminism OPENLY advocating for mass genocide, what do you THINK the end result is going to be?



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.

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="93088 https://www.honeybadgerbrigade.com/?p=93088">68 comments</span>

  • I have just finished reading “Hitler’s Justice-The Courts of the Third Reich” (Ingo Muller 1992) and the analogies with the feminist corruption of the courts seemed to shout out at me.

  • The whole “stop rape” would lead to that as well. If you want to *stop* all (male-on-female) rape you’d have to kill or castrate all men. I’ve always thought “reduce rape” would make more sense, but that doesn’t sound as catchy and it would force use of actual statistics.

    The quotes about all men using rape to keep women in intimidation… Have you come across a paper called “Libertarian Feminism: Can this marriage be saved?” I only skimmed a bit once but there was a part where they compared it to libertarians viewing the state keeping citizens in a state of fear, and occasionally killing or arresting one person or two to maintain control.

    Personally, I find it to be just an extreme of the whole ‘patriarchal’ norm that women are to be more suspicious of men, to the point of building up wild conspiracies that all men are in cohorts with each other, like the state.

    • “If you want to *stop* all (male-on-female) rape you’d have to kill or castrate all men.” – Other countries have used physical castration as punishment for rape for centuries. Didn’t work. Mary P Koss’s famous “1 in 4 women will be raped” study funded by Ms Magazine determined that less than 5% of the male population commit rape. Also, studies done on convicted serial rapists, they’ve found across the board that between 60% and 80% of serial rapists were they themselves victimized as children.

      Even if you were to castrate all males at young puberty after harvesting usable semen samples (as many radfems have suggested), the victimization experienced in childhood would likely lead to object rape. More over: it would truly become wide spread due to the volume of males victimized as children. So not only would be an egregious violation of human rights, it would actually accomplish the opposite effect.

      I’ve written about Koss’s study and the study of serial rapists victimized as children by women in my article “Rape Culture” ( https://www.honeybadgerbrigade.com/2014/10/08/rape-culture/ ), studies are cited in said article.

      Important to note: rape and sexual violence in relationships is *HIGHEST* amongst Lesbians relationships, and lowest amongst gay male relationships. Women are actually more prone, than man, to the behaviors feminists are continually defining in ever wider margins as being rape. Including forcible rape. I provide credible sources for that information as well.

      • A feature of Nazi corruption of the legal system was the flagrant denial of due process to Jewish people and opponents of the Nazism, and the removal of anyone in the judiciary that resisted, and at the same time a carte blanche to any German who offended against Jews etc. I see this in the investigation of campus sexual assault allegations, the police and courts attitude to domestic violence, and the disgusting gender bias of the Family Court.

        • A very acute observation. Here’s a -very- recent example.


          “A former Arizona nurse was convicted this week of injecting her husband with fecal matter through his IV line. According to AZ Central, 66-year-old Rose Mary Vogel pleaded guilty to vulnerable-adult abuse two months ago, she was sentenced on Tuesday. Vogel will sit behind bars for one year and when released, she will serve four years’ probation.”

          She was a former nurse, she’s completely aware of the fact that fecal matter would have been fatal. The Viet Cong used to dip punji sticks in feces because the infections caused by that are horrendous and often caused the need to amputate the limb. Fed directly into the I.V. of even a healthy person would likely be fatal. let alone an old man in a weakened state after he’d undergone surgery. In spite of this: she was permitted to plead guilty to “vulnerable-adult abuse”.

          “The Prosecutor on the case said he thought Vogel was trying “to take charge in the relationship by debilitating her husband,” instead of actually wanting to kill him. This is why the attempted murder charges were dropped.”

          The reality of the situation is, she’s a former nurse – she knows exactly how lethal this would have been. She harvested the fecal matter, put it in a syringe, hid that syringe on her person to smuggle it into the hospital, waited till no one was around, stuck it into the IV and injected it. The man was saved when a nurse went to check on him, and noticed brown substance in his IV. then immediately removed the IV before much of it was able to enter his blood stream. This is unabashedly an act of premeditated attempted murder in the First Degree.

        • If I may make a geek analogy here, I rather see radical feminists as being somewhat akin to the Sith in the years leading up to the Star Wars prequels. They were too weak and too few in numbers to directly influence events in great force so they worked behind the scenes. Feminist strategists seem to follow a similar path. I’m not sure how well that strategy is owrking for them now, though. Earthlings have at least one piece of technology the Old Republic appeared to lack: readily available smartphones. Always be recording, baby! And may The Force be with you…

      • They always say “if it stops just one woman from being raped, it’s worth it.” I believe that’s what Ezra Klein or someone said about doing away with due process on california campuses. Why stop there? Why not do away with trials, summarily execute any man accuse of rape? Even if he’s accused on twitter. Why not? “If it stops just one woman from being raped, it’s worth it.”

        • Funnily enough, that’s pretty much what Cath Comins said before she went on to help draft Vawa.

  • I’m afraid.

    I’m on the autism spectrum.

    I’ll be first in the gas chamber.


    What did I do wrong?

  • The Feminazi final solution awaits. Or did I just insult the Nazis who only wanted to be rid of 5% of their population?

  • What does Autism have to do with any of this? I made all of these or similar connections and came to all the same conclusions about modern feminism without being autistic.. All I had to do was dig beneath the surface a little and trust my instincts.. WTF?

  • To be honest, this information is rather dated. These horrible HORRIBLE people being referenced are what’s called “Second Wave” feminists. Basically, they were the ones between the 1960 and the 1990s, the ones filled with anger and violent intent, projecting their hatefulness onto men. Note how Mary Daley and Sally Gearheart were active during that period; these people are increasingly irrelevant, ineffectual, and indisposed (as in they’re mostly dead at this point).

    They’re still an influence, but a waning one – more and more “Third Wave” feminists are realizing that men are not “the enemy,” but merely co-victims. Men are their fathers, their brothers, their sons, their lovers, their friends. To them, feminism means freedom from gender roles (whether it’s a woman being told her only true worth is to be found in her reproductive equipment, or a man being told he has to behave like an emotionally stunted barbarian or have his “man card” revoked), not making men feel ashamed for sexual desires or for the same aggressive energies that create magnificent developments more often then they do destructive acts.

    Think of it like the conflict between black civil activists and Jewish civil activists. While some odious folks such as Al Sharpton have emphasized anti-semitism in their speech, the Reverend King noted that both racism and anti-semitism were connected, and could only be defeated together. Same thing here – what true feminists REALLY want is liberation. Not merely for women, but also for men. And for transgenders, and the intersexed. For PEOPLE, regardless of their genital arrangements.

    • Yeah, I can feel the love from the third-wavers. When they aren’t ‘bathing in male tears’, that is.

  • A bit alarmist, wouldn’t you say? I mean, on the one hand you have what appears to be the bastardization -by some women- of the very honorable efforts to level the playing field for ALL women in many areas of their lives. Why did the feminist movement come about in the first place, and how has it evolved over the years?
    On the other hand, you have some men (and women) who look at those noble efforts (and let’s be sure to denounce what we see as the fringe elements in our movement, just like we should denounce the fringe elements in ANY honorable movement) and extrapolate. You’re formulating a worst-case scenario and superimposing it onto the entire movement.
    I’m reminded of the old-guard generations, many of whom had passed on by the time American women won the right to vote. Reading back over history, they, too, reached impasses with the methods & aims of the younger generations who took up the baton of women’s suffrage. All while men denounced women gaining the vote as tantamount to women taking over the world. Alarmist much? Yes, when one group has held sway over collective destinies for so long -you bet they’ll sound the alarm(ist) when they perceive they are losing their stranglehold grip on their supremacy.
    I’m reminded of a young friend who said in such a matter-of-fact way to me about 10 yrs ago: “But you know, gay people are no longer discriminated against, now are they?” Instead of vehemently disagreeing with her, I simply culled news clippings from that point on in time which amply demonstrated that gay people were, and indeed STILL ARE, discriminated against.
    Saying that “women have now achieved all they set out to accomplish, and therefore feminism is no longer needed, nor valid” negates everything we see, hear, read about, and experience first-hand which tends to blow irrefutable holes in the contention. There are still inequalities to be overcome in many areas of our lives -regardless of what some others may believe.
    I’m also reminded of the LGBTQ community’s steadfast agenda of using the courts, and also educating the public on just how far we’ve come, but how far we have yet to go. Instead of taking the streets in justifiably angry -yet potentially dangerous & violent- protest against the myriad ways in which we have been and continue to be mistreated, LGBTQ activists put their noses to the grindstones. They keep the stories of discrimination, abuse, and murder out there so some people remain aware that some prejudices are not washed away so easily. It takes time, and can take many generations to bring civility to an otherwise (un)civilized society. And they use the courts because we, as a nation, look to the courts and higher-minded individuals to cut through the shrill voices and render justice.
    If you sincerely perceive, and can demonstrate that you are, in fact, now victims of discrimination at the hands of those who have cried discrimination all these decades, then use the courts and our legal system to rebalance the scales. That is your duty, and your right.

    • PLEASE, are you REALLY so blind? Can’t you see that the feminism movement as a whole is DRIVEN by these retards, NOT by people like you, who are obviously naive and don’t have the faintest idea what feminism is really about. You can write as much as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that the whole feminist sister hood machine is driven by the radicals. The sooner you wake up and realise this,t he better for all humanity!

      To think you unaware of male suffering and oppression speaks volumes for where your head’s been too!

      • Oh please, do mansplain to me what feminism is all about -I mean, from a purely male POV. I can’t wait to hear it.
        I’m aware of male suffering & oppression, but not exclusively at the hands of females (mostly other males), and certainly not to the extent that women have been oppressed by men. Get a grip, get a clue.

        • You, like most feminists, seem to hold to both premises: that men benefit other men at the expense of women, but also men oppress other men.

          Whereas I’d say that those men in power benefit women at the expense of other men. Men are not a singular entity.

          You likely also think that the bottom 99% men should be feminists in order to fight against the top 1% men. But you forget that the top 1% of men have always protected and benefited women (hence why women’s issues get millions of funding and attention while men’s get none), so all feminism has done is exaggerate this gynocentrism, and screw over the bottom men more than ever.

          Even ‘ideal’ feminism cannot help men because it falsely teaches that women are the primary victims of traditional roles (because having someone pay your rent, food, etc. for your entire life, allowing you to live indoors and escape being a capitalist tool, is oppression – and no, almost everything feminists teach you about rape and and abuse and rights has been soundly debunked over and over). So all feminism results in is women demanding more resources and protection, while the men at the top continue to hand it all over, and, well, who do you think pays for all that? The men at the bottom, even more than ever.

          • You don’t know me, but you sure do an awful lot of supposing about me. And until you live life as a woman, please refrain from telling me what being a woman is all about.

          • I think it’s fair enough for me to assume the basics of what the average online feminist believes, though if I’m wrong I’ll revise my assumptions.

            Certainly a lot fairer an assumption that it was a man you were responding to, on a blog where the title is a term for female MRAs. Not all commenters here are women, but I am.

            So there goes your sexist assumption that only a man can say the things I say. Want more? Look up Karen Straughan, Alison Tieman, Erin Pizzey, Hannah Wallen, Theryn Meyer, Blaire White, Tara Palmatier, or any of the other hordes of women online that say the same.

            PS: A vagina does not give you magical access to knowledge. If you think it does, stay out of science and evidence-based fields.

          • I’m not trying to patronise you here, Noor, but I’ve got to say how excellent the above response you gave was, truly it was. I also honestly didn’t see your replies before I responded to FaintCry…., but you’ve also mentioned (or rather I have also mentioned) Erin Pizzey. But you’ve listed a whole load more women who support men in very public ways, most of whom I also follow. However, even as avid a reader and contributor as I am, I admit to know having come across Theryn Meyer, Blaire White nor Tara Palatier. Thanks for listing them though, except I know it was for FaintCry’s benefit, but this is a beneficial side effect I suppose 🙂

            I don’t want to teach you to suck eggs, but Janice Fiamengo, Lauren Southern and Christine Hoff-Sommers (spelling?) are also worth mentioning. I’m guessing you already know them and are more than familiar, as you weren’t going to necessarily list ALL the women supporters of men, but just in case you hadn’t I thought I’d mention them anyway (much as in your own case, where I got to hear of 3 I hadn’t come across).

            There is another lady I have great respect for, who doesn’t proactively present in the media, but does contribute extremely well to debate in commentary, and that’s Samantha Stephens. She might even be on here (sadly I can’t keep up with it all, I’m working on business stuff too). Boy does she write well.

            Thanks again and nice to make your acquaintance.

          • IanC: Thank you. I never comment to actually convince the other person, but rather to provide information and arguments for any third parties reading. Nice to make your acquaintance too.

            You didn’t come off as patronizing at all, so don’t worry. I know of all the other women you mentioned, except for Stephens. Fiamengo is brilliant, can’t believe I forgot her. Sommers is good, but she still believes in the mythical ideal feminism. And Southern is too conservative for my liking, and like the rest of the Milo/Breitbart crowd, buys the “pendulum swung too far” narrative also.

          • “I never comment to actually convince the other person, but rather to provide information and arguments for any third parties reading. Nice to make your acquaintance too.”
            Ah, look at the love-fest between you two. I will add that you, Noor, don’t just “provide information and arguments”, you’re also keen on telling (some of us luckier ones) how smug, patronizing, and not too bright we are. Informational, you say? Nope. Argumentative? Not even close. Just bad manners, but hey -you can dress it up anyway you like.

          • I’ve provided quite some arguments and alternative explanations, and if my information is lacking at all it’s because you haven’t been able to say anything that I can respond to with sources contradicting your claims. You’ve almost entirely just ignored both of our arguments, focusing on Ian’s style of writing and claiming I’m mental.

          • Oh, so that’s a “style of writing”? More like rambling, patronizing, and certainly condescending. And I said “bad manners” -not the same as being mental, but hey, your distillation/misread. Not mine.

          • “And I said “bad manners” -not the same as being mental, but hey, your distillation/misread. Not mine.”

            I was referring to this, which is all you wrote before you edited to add more: “Honestly, it’s like someone let the lunatic fringe out on this one.”

            Bad manners? This isn’t a dinner table for you to shake your finger at, especially when your meatiest comments are appeals to vagina.

          • And just so we’re on the same page, I was initially responding to IanC’s comment(s), not necessarily looking at yours, as I indicated in one of my responses. That I mistook you for a man is understandable (we don’t necessarily use avatars which indicate our genders) -but I apologized. You came at me out of nowhere, and expected that I have read any of your comments, which is not the case. Not only that, but you insulted me, which means I will be less likely to engage with you on ANY level except the level at which you approached me. We can stop trading barbs, it’s uncalled for, and diminishes us both.

          • “And just so we’re on the same page, I was initially responding to IanC’s comment(s), not necessarily looking at yours, as I indicated in one of my responses. That I mistook you for a man is understandable (we don’t necessarily use avatars which indicate our genders) -but I apologized.”

            I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on the “his comment” part. Disqus isn’t very good on ordering at this point.

            “You came at me out of nowhere, and expected that I have read any of your comments, which is not the case.”

            Maybe so, but you can’t blame me for thinking you read my comments when you respond to someone’s comments after mine.

            “Not only that, but you insulted me, which means I will be less likely to engage with you on ANY level except the level at which you approached me. We can stop trading barbs, it’s uncalled for, and diminishes us both.”

            I was polite with you. I still haven’t accused you of being mental instead of responding to your points, I have questioned your premises and provided alternative explanations, without having to accuse you of femsplaining. (And IanC only called you out on womansplaining in response to you calling him for ‘mansplaining.’)

            The closest I’ve come to insulting you is calling you out on your sexist assumption that only a man could say what I said (assuming I was a man would be a bit fairer on some sites, but not so much on a primarily-female MRA blog.) I also told you that your gender is not a trump card, and if you think it is, you’re reinforcing sexist notions of women unable to work from evidence. I could maybe see my “You know what’s funny? Here’s how your argument falls apart” remarks as only vaguely insulting, but that’s about it.

            You have, on the other hand, insulted both of us at least half a dozen times. Compared me to a lunatic fringe let loose, accused us of having a love-fest, acted like we’re idiots by explaining your sarcasm, accused Ian of being on his meds or a male chauvinist and on a testosterone high, and insulted men in general by asserting that men just lose their minds upon a word.

          • Please -you’re not blunt. Like IanC, you’re arguing simply for the sake of arguing, with no real points to make, save purporting to seem like you know than I. My comments were directed at him. You chose to get in the middle of what is inarguably an exercise in futility.

          • “Please -you’re not blunt. Like IanC, you’re arguing simply for the sake of arguing, with no real points to make, save purporting to seem like you know than I.”

            My points:
            – The premise that women had it worse off than men in history is questionable.
            – It’s more accurate to view men in power as benefiting women, not other men.
            – ‘Ideal’ feminism inherently cannot help men because the premises are faulty.

            Ian’s points:
            – You don’t know much about feminism if you think it’s a force for good. Look up Pizzey and others.
            – The end goal of feminism is, in practice, ensuring women can never be held responsible for their actions.
            – There are no legal rights men have in the west that women don’t. Feminism plays on traditional feminine victimhood.
            – Lots of women oppose feminism, and the number is growing, so it’s not a male thing.

            Your “points”:
            – You’re a woman.
            – We’re patronizing, insulting, mental, and need to grow up. Ian rambles.

            “My comments were directed at him.”
            It’s a comment section, open for discussion. Where anyone can comment and reply to anyone, preferably understanding the context of the thread.

            “You chose to get in the middle of what is inarguably an exercise in futility.”
            You’re right on that last bit, but like I said, I’m not interested in trying to convince you, and my (and Ian’s) arguments and points have been ignored repeatedly, so now it’s down to just watching your antics.

          • The main point is that at this point, you’re blathering to someone who doesn’t care what you have to say. I would have thought you would have gotten this much, but apparently your self-help books haven’t taught you when to just give it up.

          • “The main point is that at this point, you’re blathering to someone who doesn’t care what you have to say. I would have thought you would have gotten this much, but apparently your self-help books haven’t taught you when to just give it up.”

            As anyone with half a brain can see while reading this, your comments have been 100% blathering with no arguments at all, while both of us have tried to engage in an actual debate quite a few times.

            It hasn’t been entirely fruitless for me, because like I said, it’s been amusing to watch you dance like anything around, flinging whatever turds you can instead of addressing a single point like a rational adult.

            But for you? Why comment on here in the first place? Did you really think you’re going to change the minds of what are to you mansplaining paternalizing men? Those same patriarchal men that wouldn’t care what a woman says?

            Come on, Cupcake. We all know you “don’t care what I have to say” because you have no argument, or the ability to think a little about any of our points. That was made clear a very long time ago.

          • Thank goodness for it. There was no debate or discussion here. Just a lot of posturing. As in, all sound & fury -signifying nothing.

          • ‘Thank goodness’? Dear oh dear. There is nothing stopping YOU giving up is there? Or are you feeling like you’re powerless, as you do under the matriarchy – err sorry, ‘patriarchy’ in your eyes? That you have no will of your pretty own, and you’re just ‘stuck’ with no authority whatsoever? Poor little thing, you!

          • Well, Noor, you’ve nicely summed everything up here, and doubtless will send her little brain into a spin, but all points well made, especially with regards to your summary of my own points which the little dear didn’t (couldn’t) deal with and answer. I take my hat off to you for nevertheless sticking to you more polite tone (comparatively speaking) than mine. I gave up trying to ‘debate’, and just began responding in the style she is obviously using. So I admire you still putting time and effort into your replies, knowing that very likely she won’t be able to respond logically or like the adult she claims to be (I don’t believe it for a minute, truly I don’t)…..But I did have to laugh our loud when, ironically, she said ‘there is no debate here’!!! It certainly wasn’t from lack of want and trying on our part, but more her inability to engage or think properly. So yes, the failing is hers, and only hers, as anyone can deduce this themselves seeing what’s been said thus far.

            I rest my case here, and just refuse to waste any more time on someone like her who just cannot back up her assertions. Just hot air, entitlement and indoctrination from the get go.

          • If you consider Noor blathering, then I hate to think what you think your responses are? Also, if you DON’T care, then why the hell are you even on here, commenting like a demented kid? And what makes you think we care about what YOU think, other than you just proving (as ALL feminists seem to) that you’re just plainly incapable of having a rational debate with anyone who doesn’t hold your limited world view?….You’re pretty much a hypocrite if you think we should have given up, when the exact same is true for you, kid.

            Take a leaf out of your own book and give up. You’re out of your depth anyway……

          • No, but it certainly qualifies me as a feminist. I am a woman, therefore, I naturally claim to be a feminist, and advocate for my gender. Now ask yourself WHY.

          • Why? Because you hold to the belief that women have been oppressed by men – a premise that most of us here are skeptical of. You also believe that holding to the attached ideology is the only way to support women.

          • Defensive reply!!!!!! NOTHING of value. NOTHING to address what Noor has said. TYPICAL feminist. Skirt giving an answer, just ‘respond’.

            ADDRESS Noor’s points, don’t be such a child! It makes you look weak and without intelligence (though doesn’t surprise me at all).

          • I did not see his comment when I made mine, and I don’t need to explain anything to you, since you seem to believe you’re the almighty man, and know everything there is to know about feminism. Btw -my sarcasm should be duly noted, unless you’re too thick-headed to “get it”.

          • Stop referring to me as “his”…or do you believe, like any good misogynist, that women all hold the same views and are devoid of individuality? And only men can argue using evidence and logic, just like your male chauvinist strawmen?

            Considering that IanC hasn’t once referred to me as ‘dear’, I’m pretty certain he reserves that for only smug, patronizing, and not-too-bright women like you, not all women.

            And, if you don’t want the fact you’re a woman to be used against you, don’t use it to your favor either, much less as your only basis.

            You know what’s also funny? One of the women he recommended has always called herself a feminist, and her media presence consists of a video series with ‘feminist’ in the title, so there goes your claim he goes into gyrations over the label alone.

          • ‘His’ comment. Are you that thick? The ‘he’ you think is actually a ‘she’, and she has said so. You’re just going to ignore that too, aren’t you? For all we know, YOU might be a mangina/white knight; but clearly you are deluded in your take and defence of feminism. But yes, I DO know everything there is to know about feminism, that’s why I’m explaining it to you. Whether or not you listen is your choice, but I’ve a right to say so, and am. I just don’t have respect for anyone who speaks the way you do, and hence my less than cordial replies. You have lost and don’t deserve respect, you really don’t.

            But yes, you have, yet AGAIN, totally failed: You don’t (can’t!) address or deal with what both I and Noor have said, as you’re clearly out of your depth here. But it’s a good place for you to LEARN what feminism’s real agenda is, instead of the naive dictionary definition that the brainwashed retards think it is.

            PLEASE, kid/girl just wake up and smell the roses. Get out of your idealogical BS bubble! But DO start to educate yourself on what feminism is a bout, from those w ho know better than you; even women (and men) who WERE feminists until they could SEE what a cancerous, evil terrorist organisation is actually is and so turned AGAINST it, when they could see the monster behind the facade, the smoke and mirrors, the HYPOCRISY and DOUBE STANDARDS it upholds and practices.

          • Like I said, I did not see THE comment made by Noor when I made mine. Stop rambling. Your defensive, over-the-top posturing is wearing thin.

          • Feminazi definitely. You can’t answer a SINGLE point that eitherI or Noor have made, can you. Pretty pathetic I’d say. You’re in denial, dear, BIG denial.

          • And you’re an argumentative troll who believes he’s entitled to a discussion when your attitude screams patronizing condescension.

          • That’s the pot calling the kettle black! Of course I’m entitled to a discussion, but you don’t seem able to hold your own, as you haven’t addressed a SINGLE point I’ve raised – because you can’t, can you? So no point in having ANY debate with you. I throw a few questions your way, and you get defensive and fail to answer, so it’s not looking like you’re going to persuade ANYone to your position with such a defeatist attitude.

          • [Reposting comment for sake of continuity, since I wanted to remove the picture for privacy reasons.]

            Stop referring to me as “his”…or do you believe, like any good misogynist, that women all hold the same views and are devoid of individuality? And only men can argue using evidence and logic, just like your male chauvinist strawmen?

            Considering that IanC hasn’t once referred to me as ‘dear’, I’m pretty certain he reserves that for only smug, patronizing, and not-too-bright women like you, not all women.

            And, if you don’t want the fact you’re a woman to be used against you, don’t use it to your favor either, much less as your only basis.

            You know what’s also funny? One of the women he recommended has always called herself a feminist, and her media presence consists of a video series with ‘feminist’ in the title, so there goes your claim he goes into gyrations over the label alone.

          • Wow, Noor, I’ve just read your reply, and you have said much the same sort of thing that I just have, but in a different way, to this FaintCryofFreedom girl. You have been a little more ‘polite’, shall we say – but I’ve been battling with feminists for a LONG time, and sadly just cut tot he chase and given them what I really think, as I’m done with politeness to quite the level you’re at – though I respect you for it and applaud you. What you’ve said is wholly and utterly true. I just hope your considered reply meets willing ears – sadly feminist don’t even know what ‘listening and thinking’ is.

            A good response though!

        • Well, this, coming from a ‘womansplain’ is a bit rich, not to say hugely naive, dear.

          So, WOW, you’re ‘aware or male suffering & oppression’ but then go on to dow hat all feminists/feminazi do, which is to divert attention BACK to the menz, LOL! As if everything and anything is men’s fault. Dear oh dear, you have daddy issues, don’t you?

          Women, don’t you know, abuse more than men, but because it’s culturally unacceptable to criticise women (and hence you being so easily offended, as you’ve been so mollycoddled) as men have traditionally shouldered so M UCH, and complain very little compared to women – who, ironically, are complaining forever more, now that they can can see that feminism hasn’t delivered what their social studies and conditioning had led them to believe.

          Look, dear, you clearly haven’t been around for very long, for clearly you haven’t REALLY suffered, or you’d be thankful for what you have and counting your blessings rather than seeing your glass as half empty all the time.

          Men have given up their lives for women and save their families, and GIVEN you the chance to say as you feel; but you’re abusing it, just like you abuse the rights the ‘patriarchy’ is now giving women in the west, right across the board.

          Tell me (I know you’ll NOT be able to answer this question, though you may TRY and you might also attempt to counter with something else, but you will NOT answer it): What legal rights do men have in ANY area of western life that women don’t? ……… So, by default there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing stopping you whiners from achieving whatever you want, JUST as any man chooses to do or not, as the case may be. You see feminazi like to blame men for THEIR failure, as they do with anything and everything. Feminists NEVER take responsibility for their own actions, how they get on (or not) in life, and just admit that they have failed themselves. No, you just push your own failings onto men, full stop!

          So stop being a ‘victim’ (or do you ADMIT you are indeed weaker?) and take responsibility for yourself in life. Now THAT is empowering! Sadly feminists ARE weaker as they forever campaign to get AHEAD of men. They can’t compete very well, so rather than admit they’ve failed or are in some way weaker, they go to the state, instead of ‘men’. Funny that….for people who consider themselves every bit as strong and capable, you always bleat and moan that you’re operating under patriarchy, the illusive force that oppresses you. Well WAKE UP GIRL! Women have PLAYED on their ‘traditional’ femininity to appeal to authority, and while doing so IGNORED the plight of men, and now you have a MINORITY (the rad fems) running the show, while keeping the naive ‘dictionary definition’ feminists supporting the cause, which clearly they know very little about as they’ve been indoctrinated by feminists. Can’t you see this, even a LITTLE?

          Go onto YouTube and search for Erin Pizzey. She’s way older than you, obviously, a veteran ‘former’ women’s campaigner, and SHE will educate you as to what feminism IS, not what you THINK it is. SHe’s a lovely, lovely old lady, and if you DON’T know of her, then you are even more ignorant than I thought; and if you do know of her and have HEARD what she has to say, then you’re arrogant for denying what she says. Either way, you are deeply misinformed and deluded.

          I just WONDER what you’ll come back with (if you do) for you run the risk of digging yourself a pretty big hole, dear. Sorry to burst your bubble! What you’ve said leads me to believe you’re one entitled, shameful girl. I’m sure your parents are really proud of you (shakes head).

          Welcome to reality!

          • Honestly, you ramble so badly. Are you on meds, or just a typical male chauvinist? Don’t call me dear -it’s patronizing & you’re really just showing your true disdain for females generally. It’s getting so anytime the word “feminist” is uttered, you males go into gyrations & just lose your minds. Come down off your testosterone high. I feel sorry for the women in your lives.

          • Typical!!!! My ‘true disdain for females generally’?. THAT is again a typical generalisation that only a feminist could make! You, as a group, really cannot distinguish the finer points, the many hues of opinion, can you? No, everything’s in black and white for you simpletons.

            Get this: I reserve ‘dear’ or ‘kid’ even for FEMINISTS, not ‘females generally’. I reserve that language for simple females that are feminists, not women in general, deary. If you come to the front of the class, maybe you’ll be able to see and hear me better, girl. Your grey matter is quite lacking.

            The women in MY life are well cared for and DESERVE it, 100%. I’ve been married for probably longer than you’ve lived on this planet: 23 years in fact, and I’ve 2 daughters, and we hardly EVER row or have bad words to say to each other. We understand each other perfectly and are HAPPY. Something you could never be, with your attitude – your glass half empty mindset. I do hope the light in your head comes on before you one day pop your clogs.

            I’ll also say that ALL the women I know, apart from my mother, who’s got mental issues of her own, and like you refuses to even admit she’s not well (but is a feminist in some ares and not others – cherry picking as she does and feminists do!), are NOT feminists at ALL. I was speaking with a really lovely lady-friend only a couple of months back, who without provocation from me, said how she would would HATE to be male now, with all t he hatred and animosity thrown at them and how unjust it all is. My jaw dropped to the floor when she said that, as to have that much empathy and freely offer it, without provocation, I thought was impressive. Impressive because she’s had to fight the indoctrination of the whole media and educational establishment and to step out, into male shoes, before realising for HERSELF just how dreadfully biased and misandric much of society is nowadays, with the drip drip effect of feminism for 6 decades of more!

            So, more and more women ARE waking up and realising what’s happening, but only the more intelligent, independently minded ones at first, as it needs certain scruples to understand the bigger picture and to REALISE that they have been brainwashed in the past. But eventually, even misandric people like you, will come to wake up and realise that you’ve been sold a lemon. But women generally are more acquiescent, as has been scientifically shown and proven. It’ll be for biological reasons, but it is a fact.

            As I say, you do need to WAKE UP though, you’re SO far up yourself and you ideologies. You’re just a brainwashed clone and don’t realise it! You’re the perfect mug and mouthpiece.

            Good day!

          • Good for you, IanC. And again, you assign an age to me that is way off the mark. As for the rest, you’re shouting in a wind storm. Feminists have provided the impetus for change & sociopolitical inclusion for women across the globe. There is more to be accomplished, and it will benefit all women -including those in your life.

          • Bla bla bla, the usual utter drivel! Trying to come across as a knowledgeable, when trying to be a smart arse is only showing you up to be the gullible kid you are. This pseudo-intellectual stance makes me laugh, it really does. You STILL haven’t addressed even ONE issue I raised, as I thought. So I guess it puts you out of the ring.

          • Something for you to ponder. May be uncomfortable for you, but hey, it might just make you throw your rattle out the pram!

            The end game of feminism is to make it impossible for a female to do any wrong, absolving her from all responsibility for her actions, no matter how reprehensible. The fact that a human being has a vagina will soon mean that she can not make a bad decision about anything. Punishing or criticizing a woman for her life choices will be abolished.

            Name one thing right now that a feminist would criticize their gender for doing. I’ll save you the mental effort: there’s nothing. There is absolutely nothing that a girl can do that would get hate from feminists. For example:

            Girl has no willpower and is 50 pounds overweight? Not her fault. She’s beautiful. Social constructs need to be changed.
            Girl sluts around with 100 guys without condoms? Not her fault. She’s empowered and strong.
            Girl is irresponsible with sex and has five abortions in her 20s? It’s her body and she can do whatever she wants. A fetus inside her is not a living entity.
            Girl is making less money than men? The patriarchy is holding her down.
            Girl gets drunk in a guy’s house and has sex with him? He took advantage of her. She was raped.
            Girl studies stupid major in college and can’t get a job? The 1% owes her a marketing manager position.
            Girl sleeps with her college professor in exchange for a better grade? She was a victim. The professor took advantage of her.
            Girl likes dating guys much younger than her? You go girl! Rob that cradle!
            Girl experiences an uncomfortable moment of any kind? She’s being harassed. Men are creeps.
            Girl travels to Italy or Spain to bang hot European men? She’s romantic.
            Wife gets slapped by husband after she pushed him first? Call the police and send him to jail.
            Wife cheated on her faithful husband? He wasn’t attending to her needs. She wasn’t happy. Give her the kids and half his money.
            Mother runs over her own kid in an accident? The SUV wasn’t safe. It’s the auto industry’s fault.
            Mother kills all of her kids? She was mentally sick. We must give her love instead of severe punishment.
            On the flip side, almost anything a man does is wrong:

            Guy is nice to girl in hopes of getting sex one day? He’s dishonest. He’s the polar opposite of nice.
            Guy approaches girls in the bar in hopes of getting sex? He’s a rando creep loser.
            Guy on OK Cupid says he wants a girl who doesn’t play games? Let’s publicly mock him on Tumblr.
            Guy graduates from college in field that uses math? He’s privileged. We must create expensive programs to push girls into math while excluding boys.
            Guy makes a joke about fat girls? Hate speech.
            Guys says he doesn’t date black girls with ghetto attitude? Racist.
            Guy likes working out to have strong muscles? Narcissist.
            Guy spends his money on a fast sports car? He’s overcompensating for a small penis.
            Guy doesn’t want to date girls because he’s tired of flakes? He needs to stop being a boy and man up.
            Guy says he wants his wife to stay at home and raise the kids? Slaver.
            Guy believes in limited government without welfare? Right wing whacko.
            Guy believes hard work is eventually rewarded? Wants poor people in Africa to suffer and starve.
            Guy calls girls on the internet ugly? Whole internet comes pounding on his door.
            Guy hits on a girl on the street? Street harassment. Disturbing the peace.
            Guy travels to Ukraine to get laid? Sex tourist.
            Guy likes dating girls much younger than him? Sexual predator.
            Guy likes dating girls just a little bit younger than him? Immature and irresponsible.
            Hairy man says he likes to raw dog? Disgusting and foul.
            Promiscuous gay man spreads HIV through raw dogging? It’s okay since he’s gay. Give more taxpayer money to fund HIV research.
            The most mundane male behavior is quickly attacked, while the most egregious female behavior is rewarded or ignored.

            Sincerely yours…..

          • LOL! Seriously, is that all you have to say? LOL! And you saying that to ME, kid? Really, if that’s your best response (as you have nothing of value or to refute) than I consider it a done and dusted job. Thanks for the entertainment, dear.

  • Julie Bindel and her quote about putting all men in concentration camps really needs to be added to the list. Her position as a columnist for what is regarded by many to be a prestigious newspaper, that circulates globally due to the wonder of the internet, allows feminists to spread their hate to anybody who will listen.

By Observing Libertarian

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather