The real face of domestic terrorism? Radical white feminists. It’s not about equality and they’re not afraid to say it.

6 May


Damn.  I am in the middle of editing a very technically complicated 250 page document and it is sucking my time like crazy!




Not so much that I can’t cruise around and read my favorite retards though, and look what I found!


Well ain’t this just a little peach of an article?


Here is Louise Pennington, writing for the HuffPo UK version.


You’re gonna need some brain bleach after this one.


I have always been a feminist. It is a label I chose for myself as a teenager, back before girl power was invented and when New Kids on the Block were cool.


Louise, Louise, Louise.  You give new meaning to the phrase “start as you mean to go on”.  Honeypie, you CANNOT have “always been a feminist” if it is a label you chose as a teenager, unless your mother had the longest pregnancy in the history of the universe and gestated you for 13 years.

At some point in your sad little existence, you were a human.  Just like the rest of us.  You probably understood that humans are all different from one another, some with talents and abilities that others do not share and that despite these differences, we were all equal.


My original feminism was about equality: women were equal to men and all we needed was the laws to force misogynists to stop being misogynists.



There.  You see?  Equality.

Here’s where you go off the rails, lovey. Women are equal as human beings.  We are not equal to men.  And until your wrap your little mind around that, you will never understand how to “solve” the problem of inequality.


An apple is equal to an apple.  It is not equal to an orange, although they are both fruits.  An Austin mini Cooper is equal to an Austin Mini Cooper. It is not equal to a Peterbilt, although they are both vehicles and both can be used to transport apples and oranges from one place to another.




See how that works?  You are confusing equity with equality.  Equity has to do with fairness, and equality is more about measurement.  Equality is removing gendered sports from the Olympics.  You wanna run? Run bitch.  You won’t win a single race.


Equity is about making sure that men and women have equal opportunities to run against competitors of equal skill.




That’s why there are ladies out there with gold medals.  If the competition was thrown wide open, there would be no women athletes at all.


On average, men are stronger than women. They’re faster, smarter, and more willing to take risks. Deal with it.  Screaming that it isn’t true because it violates your sense of equality only means you need to take another look at your world and pick a different word.


Also, the earth is not flat and there be no dragons.


The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women. Equality before the law means nothing when violence is endemic; when women are most likely to live in poverty; when no one bothers to actually enforce the existing equality legislation. I grew up in an area of Canada where misogyny, race and class should have been impossible to miss but I did. We grew up with serious cases of cognitive dissonance; where hyper-masculinity was the norm and feminism didn’t exist. It was a great place to learn that as a middle class white woman my chances of being a victim of sexual violence were a lot lower than Aboriginal women but that was seen as normal, not something to be upset about. I may have labelled myself a feminist but I wasn’t a real feminist.


Let’s take these points one by one, shall we?


Violence is endemic.  Really?  Did you mean violence against women?  Or just violence in general?


You are, of course, aware that men are far more likely to be the victims of violent assault?




In 2010, males (9.5 victimizations per 1,000 males) experienced violence by strangers at nearly twice the rate of females (4.7 per 1,000).


They are also much more likely to be murdered and when the murderer is a SHE, she is more likely to pick a male victim than a female one.


Males are most often the victims and the perpetrators in homicides: males were more than nine times more likely than women to commit murder, and male and female offenders are more likely to target male than female victims.


And god help young black men.  They are the most likely to be victimized of all. In 2005, 49% of all the people murdered in the US were black men.  Almost half.


But you know what?  This violence that you seem to think is endemic is actually not.  Violent assaults and murders and crime overall has been declining for decades.  The scary world you think you live in?  It doesn’t exist anywhere but in your mind.


Violent crime has declined to rates not seen for forty years.


Did I mention that the earth is not flat?




Let’s look at poverty rates now.  Women are NOT more likely to live in poverty. The poverty rates for men and women are fairly equally distributed.


You are likely basing that statement on research like this:


In 2010, the gender distribution of people in poverty was


45% of people in poverty were male; males accounted for 49% of the total population

55% of the people in poverty were female; females accounted for 51% of the total population


The poverty rate by gender were


14.0% for males

16.2% for females


According to 2010 US Census, the population hit 308,745,538.


49% of those people are male: 151,285,314

51% of those people are female: 157, 460, 224


So 25,508,556 women and 21,179,943 men live in poverty.


Those numbers leave out a few important variables:


Women live longer than men

The prisoner population is not included in the count of men who live in poverty

The homeless population is not included in the count of men who live in poverty




Let’s account for those variables.  The male prisoner population in 2010 was  1,499,573.  That brings our count of men living in poverty to 22,679,516.




The estimated homeless population in 2012 is 633,782, 62% of whom are men.   Add another 392,944 to the count for men, bringing us up to 23,072,460.


Life expectancy for men is 76 years and for women it’s 81 years.  So when Think Progress reports that women over 75 are three times more likely to be living in poverty as men it’s because THE MEN ARE DEAD ALREADY.


The gross number of men and women living in poverty is more or less equal (23 million vs 25.5 million), but that doesn’t take into account the fact that women live, on average, five years longer than men.  While there are more numbers of women living in poverty (because there are more women than men), the RISK of ending up in poverty is actually higher for males.


Although poverty increased for all race-gender groups (except for nonwhite males in their 60s and nonwhite females in their 20s, 50s, and 60s), the largest increases occurred for white males as a whole and for nonwhite males in their 30s, 40s and 50s.


So this scary world full of poor ladies eating cat food out of a tin?  That world doesn’t exist either.


No one bothers to enforce existing equality legislation?  You mean legislation like forcing corporate boards to hire women?


Or legislation eradicating gender from language?


Or legislation  creating human rights and equality tribunals and offices?


We spend a shit ton of taxpayer money enforcing these kind of stupid laws in the name of equality.  Mostly because someone, at some point, thought a mouthy broad like you had something important to say.


Don’t worry.  That oversight will be corrected.  Just give us time.


duct tape


I was a feminist who lacked any kind of analysis of women as a class. I didn’t understand that feminism was a political theory. I knew I couldn’t have gotten through university as a teenage single mother without the benefit of a, still flawed, welfare system but I didn’t realise just how privileged I was; even with a student loan debt that would make British students cry! It wasn’t until the Canadian federal and provincial governments started slashing these programs that I started thinking about feminism as a political theory. I started self-defining as a socialist-feminist, but I still didn’t think about women in terms of an oppressed class. Instead, I focused on the idea of class, in Marxist terms, as a barrier for ‘some’ women. I assumed that equal access to education and equality before the law would solve all women’s problems.


Oh no!  Did you lose all your special privileges?  Well now.  That sucks, doesn’t it?  It took the loss of your heavily subsidized education to get you to think about women as an oppressed class because student loan programs don’t affect men, right?  The welfare system doesn’t have an impact on men, right?  Those entitlements belong only to women, and the loss of them constitutes oppression?


I was wrong.


You got that right.



Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence.


What “male violence?”  What the fuck are you talking about?




Look at this article, just for illustration.  Read the comments.  Seriously.  ALL OF THESE WOMEN are “liberated from male violence” because the men they decided to beat up let them walk away.  I’m guessing that pretty much every man Louise has ever met wanted to punch her in the big fat mouth, but they didn’t.  You’re already liberated, sweetheart.


Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend Because Uh We Have


Until two years ago, I would have still identified as a socialist-feminist, although my awareness of the structural oppression of women was growing. The unrelenting misogyny and rape apologism on the left made me reconsider my political stance as did the creation of the Feminist/Women’s Rights board on Mumsnet. The more I read on Mumsnet, the more radical my feminism became. I started reading Andrea Dworkin, Natasha Walters, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Susan Maushart, Ariel Levy, Gail Dines, Germaine Greer, and Audre Lorde. I learned about cultural femicide and I started reading only fiction books written by women: Isabel Allende, Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Kate Mosse, Margaret Atwood, Kris Radish, Barbara Kingsolver, and Andrea Levy amongst many others. I started reading about women’s lives and the power of real sisterhood.


Really? You’re really going to say that?  I refuse to read any book written by a man BECAUSE it was written by a man.


I refuse to read any book written by a Jew. Ew. Jews.

I refuse to read any book written by a black person.  Ew. Black people.

I refuse to read any book written by a gay person.  Ew. Gay people.

I refuse to read any book written by a fat person.  Ew. Fat people.

I refuse to read any book written by a …. man?


My feminism, both the definition and activism, has changed dramatically over the past 18 years. Now, I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy. The Patriarchy may predate capitalism but we cannot destroy it without destroying capitalism too. I don’t always feel a ‘real feminist’ or a ‘good enough’ feminist. All I know is that I am a feminist who truly believes that women have the power to liberate all women from male violence; that feminism is fundamentally about the power of sisterhood.


Oh good.  You don’t want to destroy our culture, but our economy, too.  Excellent plan.  Hope you know how to make a good fire and set a snare because without capitalism, you will be back living in the dark ages before you know it.



Communism:  150 million people dead




Socialism: 62 million people dead



Fascism:  70 million people dead



My feminist activism involves privileging women’s voices over men’s voices. I now only read books written by women. I try to get my main news from women’s news sites and women journalists like Soraya Chemaly, Samira Ahmed, Bidisha, Helen Lewis, Bim Adewunmi, and Sarah Smith. I follow only women journalists on Twitter and Facebook. I support organisations which are placing women’s experiences at the centre of public debate: Women Under Siege, The Everyday Sexism Project, and The Women’s Room UK.




And there you have it.  Not women equal to men.  Women OVER men.


Could it be any more clear?


My feminism acknowledges the realities of intersectionality and, whilst I’m not perfect, I am more aware now of how disparate women’s experiences are from one another. I still believe that women, as a political class, have the ability to liberate ourselves from the Capitalist-Patriarchy but I do so with the knowledge that I do not yet fully understand the full impact of the multiple oppressions in women’s lives. My feminism is a journey. The destination is the full liberation of women but we are all on different paths and at different points. My feminism requires I listen to my sisters and support them in the ways they deem best. My feminism is women-centered.


Women at the center.  Men at the margins.


Feminists have the power to change the world. It requires listening and respect but we have the power to save each other; after all the largest study on global violence against women has conclusively proved that feminists hold the key to positive change for women.


Feminism doesn’t care what happens to men and boys.  They are not interested in humanity.  They are not interested in fairness.  They are not interested in justice.  They are not interested in peace.  They are not interested in equality.


They want women at the center, women’s voices and experiences privileged over all others and women saving each other.




We shall continue the jihad journey no matter how long the way, until the last breath and the last beat of the pulse – or until we see the Islamic Feminist state established.


Who said it?  Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, mentor to Osama Bin Laden?

Or Louise Pennington?


Doesn’t matter.

They’re both terrorists.

And they aren’t going to win.


Lots of love,





100 Responses to “The real face of domestic terrorism? Radical white feminists. It’s not about equality and they’re not afraid to say it.”

  1. Alex May 6, 2013 at 21:07 #

    it’s going to take most of these dumb bitches being dropped in a 3rd world country where they would have to depend on men for their survival to get this bug out of their asses. i would start slapping every one i came across if i thought it would accomplish anything


  2. someguy May 6, 2013 at 21:08 #

    Well JB, you just showed how a feminist mind works. First they think equality then they realize they need more because even after attaining said equality, their pathetic insecurities are still not settled. This is why I don’t take feminists seriously unless they in top positions in media, gov’t, business etc and are using their positions of power to force their bullshit on others.


  3. wtfwtf13 May 6, 2013 at 21:41 #

    There appear to be quite a few of these loonies around with their twisted world views.
    Have lunatic asylums become extinct ?
    A culture that doesn’t marginalize and defang its psychos is asking for big trouble.


  4. driversuz May 6, 2013 at 21:58 #


    Oh wait. I’d slap them too. Never mind, carry on.


  5. sqt May 6, 2013 at 22:06 #

    You are absolutely right that these feminists embody the worst impulses of human nature. Which is ironic since they are the first ones to yell “fascist” at anyone who dares to disagree with them.

    I don’t know how you slog through the archives at Jezabel. Reading that garbage makes me ashamed to be a woman. If it wasn’t for sites like this, and the women who come here, I’d have lost all hope a long time ago.


  6. LostSailor May 6, 2013 at 22:13 #

    This brand of Radical Feminism has been part of the movement from the beginning (see: S.C.U.M. Manifesto) but was pretty quickly marginalized in the 70s because most feminists knew that the radicals would scare the ever-loving shit out of most women. Hence the writer’s soft-peddled early feminism, the kind that was just looking for “equality.”

    But the thing to understand is that feminism is indeed a movement, and sort of by definition, movements never end in-and-of-themselves. Movements can never reach–or never admit reaching–their goals. So the goal-posts have to be moved. And the more success a movement has, the greater the need to raise the stakes to keep people interested and the cash and benefits flowing in.

    This writer’s “journey” is emblematic of how the feminist movement has metastasized to it’s natural more radical form while moving closer to its Marxist roots.

    JB, you’re correct to note that the statistics on violent crime have been going down for some time now. Particularly rape statistics. Looking at the data from which the most flogged rape statistics comes from reveals part of the slight-of-hand going on. In a 2011 US DOJ study, the reported incidence of rape/sexual assault (so, not just rape) was 0.7 per 1000 people. But the feminist claim even higher figures by including other forms of assault, such as verbal assault (“I’m going to rape you!”) as actual rape.

    It’s no coincidence that in a era of declining violence in general and against women in particular, the feminist movement has ratcheted up the rhetoric as well as stretching definitions. Domestic violence isn’t just physical violence anymore, but verbal and “emotional” violence. In other words, if you have an argument and her feelings are hurt, that can be criminal domestic violence. It’s also not coincidence that in an era of declining rape (see above) that the rhetoric over “Rape Culture” has been ramped up to the point where society is just oozing rape out of every pore like booze from an alcoholic after a bender.

    The movement can’t stop. The momentum must be maintained. Movements don’t cease on their own until they kill the host society, finally implode under the weight of their own inherent contradictions as they grow more radical, or until they’re stopped from the outside. The first two usually leave a lot of damage and smoking ruins. The third usually involves much more blood.

    But make no mistake: feminism will become more and more radical, pushing more extreme narratives to hold as cudgels over the heads of men, cudgels that will definitely be used.

    Unless they are stopped. Fortunately, the logical absurdities of their own arguments are useful weapons against them that will dissuade more and more women. I fear, though, it might already be too late…


  7. David Sutton May 6, 2013 at 22:16 #

    In the immortal words of a wise, brilliant, and imminently qualified philosopher of the western world, “What a maroon!” B. Bunny, ca 1960


  8. Days of Broken Arrows May 6, 2013 at 22:39 #

    Next time the power goes out or the hurricane hits, let’s see if she’ll call for an equal number of women to be on the repair crews before they can start working to turn her electricity back on. There are no feminists in natural disasters.


  9. billm May 7, 2013 at 00:38 #

    I find it interesting that in her ‘journey” she has decided to forgo independent thought and immerse herself in the echo chamber and group think. Feminists remind me so much of a cult. Any thought that does not confirm the pre-conceived ideal is to be ignored or shouted down.


  10. culdesachero May 7, 2013 at 00:41 #

    #NAFALT There are feminists that understand its hateful, subversive goals and still advocate for it and those that don’t understand its hateful and subversive goals and still advocate for it. The former is using the latter to further their hateful, subversive and destructive goals.


  11. Red Pill Theory May 7, 2013 at 00:56 #

    What a twit. And thanks for introducing me to the term “cultural femicide.” What a fascinating concept.


  12. Keen Observer May 7, 2013 at 01:01 #

    I’m sure she thinks she’s a great intellect and wit for having reasoned all this out. At best she’s half-right. But if getting knocked up in high school doesn’t teach you that men and women are intrinsically different, nothing will.


  13. Exfernal May 7, 2013 at 01:38 #

    A comprehensive and straightforward analysis, JB.

    Compare it with Gender Studies mumbo-jumbo:

    Her Mistress’s Voice: Gynophonocentrism in Feminist Discourses

    resembling strongly products of Postmodernism Generator.


  14. TMG May 7, 2013 at 01:53 #

    JB, they are winning. They have been for years, mostly because women silently approve of what they are doing and shame men into keeping with the program.

    You have to realize for every JB of the world there are about 3 women who are contemptuous (or worse) of men and 5 who mainly like us as useful utilities.

    Women don’t care about men, they only care about what we can provide for them.


  15. Mik May 7, 2013 at 01:57 #

    “Here’s where you go off the rails, lovey. Women are equal as human beings. We are not equal to men. And until your wrap your little mind around that, you will never understand how to “solve” the problem of inequality.”

    Hear hear.


  16. gwallan May 7, 2013 at 02:04 #

    “There are no feminists in natural disasters.”

    Yes there are.

    In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake/tsunami global aid agencies were refusing food aid to boys and men. Who knows? Next similar event it might be medical aid too.

    The World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap Report” a couple of years back told us that women, and only women, are disadvantaged in every respect everywhere. Where disadvantage was measurable for men it was balanced against some other factor and negated in every instance. Rather than hide this the report goes to some lengths to justify it in it’s first few pages.

    Several years ago the World Health Organisation released news that women now have longer life expectancies than men in every nation state in the world. Their tone was celebratory.

    As well as being the victims of three quarters of all violence globally boys and men are also three quarters of those subjected to forced labour. As with violence the only time we are allowed to know or care is when it happens to women.

    All the trappings of a quiet gendercide from the highest levels.


  17. Mik May 7, 2013 at 02:11 #

    I think Roosh said it once, but part of the reason Feminism thrives is because men allow it. The judges and lawmakers who approve of gender biased rulings. If today the men of the world stood together and said “fuck it, we’re not taking this anymore”, what are the women gonna do?

    Feminism thrives cos its backed up by poweful men.


  18. Z May 7, 2013 at 02:32 #

    The problem a lot of people seem to have with “equality” is that they want it to mean “sameness” instead of equal in value. No one would say an apple was empirically “better” than an orange or vice versa. Some people might have a preference but we would think someone was just looney if they decided full stop that one of those types of fruit was “superior” empirically and in all ways to the other type of fruit. But people don’t seem to grasp that when talking about human beings.

    If women are not “equal” to men… then they aren’t “as good”. But that’s BS the feminists sold. It’s the feminists who want to be men and… failing that… want to force culture as a whole to pretend it’s so. I happen to LIKE being female and think I’ve got it pretty good AS a female. I would personally never want to trade places and be male. I don’t think women are “better” than men, either. But feminists really have to get over their penis envy. It’s just unhealthy.


  19. Z May 7, 2013 at 02:34 #



  20. Z May 7, 2013 at 02:41 #

    Also… duct tape works for everything (re: picture above). Mr. Z and I watched a Mythbusters the other night where they made a rope BRIDGE out of duct tape that they walked across, and it was suspended I think either 50 or 100 feet off the ground.


  21. TMG May 7, 2013 at 02:48 #

    I agree in part, but we mustn’t underestimate minimizing the colossal amount of pull women have on the direction of society. It could be said women ARE society and men just make it work.


  22. gwallan May 7, 2013 at 02:52 #

    Much recent criticism of Monash Uni but it is also the point of origin for POMO.

    Good to see others pointing that direction and highlighting the vapid nature of “postmodernism”.

    The journal article is a “masterpiece”.


  23. Z May 7, 2013 at 02:56 #

    Agreed. It was painful just reading all those excerpts. What the F does she MEAN capitalism is evil. Dude, capitalism is why I live in such damn comfort. If that little witch would actually take the time and initiative to create something of value that people are willing to pay for, she’d start reaping the benefits of capitalism, too. As for the benefits of patriarchy… I don’t think that’s in question… but apparently the crazy feminist does. She doesn’t seem to grasp with patriarchy comes a civilization that (up until very recently) is largely concerned with “protecting the women and the children”. yeah… that’s oppressive. *eye roll*


  24. Z May 7, 2013 at 03:04 #

    Good stuff, LostSailor. Incidentally this is what worries me about MRA. While I wholeheartedly agree with about 95% of what they stand for and are fighting for… the very issues with having a somewhat gendered ‘movement’ means that if they achieve most of their goals, it will just keep going to more and more extremes.

    And MRA is just as gendered as feminism… the agenda is in the name. “Men’s”, “Fem”… when we should be concerned with HUMAN rights and any place it’s not ethical, we fix it.

    This type of behavior is not just a “female problem”, it’s a human problem. People in movements can’t admit they won and go home… they have to keep pushing because the meaning of their lives became based upon their cause, and without it they are lost.

    Re: too late… probably so. Even though most women do not identify as feminist and refuse to accept that label… we’ve been marinating in so much cultural feminism and man hate that a lot of women have many of these attitudes even though they vocally deny feminism. i.e. listen to almost any group of “normal women” bitch about their husbands/boyfriends like their disrespect is totally “normal”. It’s not normal, but it’s been normalized, and that’s part of the problem.


  25. Z May 7, 2013 at 03:06 #

    The more radical ones are also using the more moderate as a shield to hide behind to make the rest of us seem crazy for being against them and their “movement”.


  26. Z May 7, 2013 at 03:09 #

    Well, men ARE incredibly useful, and I for one, am thankful for that. A part of the genders being actually different is that there are some things you guys can do that we just aren’t very great at. The problem is the disrespect and the treating men like slaves who “owe women things” instead of being grateful and decent and giving something back. i.e. there was a time when a man fixed the dishwasher and his wife made him a nice dinner and kept the house clean. They had different roles and different places they each excelled but each was GIVING something of value to the other. Now women are encouraged to just take and not only to just take without giving anything (since apparently what women have to give is demeaning), but to take without gratitude. IMO that is the problem, not that men are super useful and women get that.


  27. Z May 7, 2013 at 03:10 #

    Women in general have been using their powers for evil for a little too long now.


  28. TMG May 7, 2013 at 03:12 #

    Well, I’m still not impressed because men love and cherish women for who they are, not because they can jump through various hoops.


  29. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 03:29 #

    Well, Z, I’m not an MRA. And while I generally agree with the issues, I don’t agree with the MRA tactics, including blogging tactics. I can appreciate some of what’s post, for example, at AVfM, but I’m not going to join them. Because you’re right, it’s activism based on feminist activism.

    I prefer the Red Pill way of teaching men to act like men. It’s a much better way of changing the playing field on the ground, which is the way that change really happens.

    My “it’s too late” is only slightly tongue-in-cheek. There is a lot of work to do, but there are a lot of women who like the preference, but still want traditional relationships. It’s only too late if those of us who want to be real are real.

    I don’t really support “activism,” I support spreading the Red Pill both underground and above ground. It’s just that a lot of women and men aren’t really ready to hear it.

    Maybe we’ll have a Red Pill enclave with which to rebuild civilization if necessary…


  30. Odysseus May 7, 2013 at 03:56 #

    I fail to historically recall the communist state that resulted in better lives for women.


  31. Keanu May 7, 2013 at 04:10 #

    Wonderful deconstruction, as usual. I love to see your readership rising. Keep up the good work JB.


  32. Z May 7, 2013 at 04:29 #

    I didn’t assume you were MRA. I wasn’t sure one way or the other. And I read AVfM sometimes, too. Some of the posts I really agree with, some I think are just going to alienate women who would otherwise be sympathetic and on their side. (Maybe they don’t care, but feminism has been so successful because they were able to get a lot of men on their side. MRA would do well to learn from that.)

    I get that many of them have been hurt and they’re angry, but on the Internet if you are creating a movement and not putting your best foot forward, you’re going to alienate people who would otherwise join you in your fight. So it’s completely counter-productive to let emotions rule. (And by ‘you’ I mean the general third person you here, not you personally.)

    Is red pill male the same as the zeta male concept? Basically opting out of all the games and manipulation meant to control you?

    The biggest issues feminism has caused for the average woman is turning romantic relationships into battlegrounds as if this is “normal”.


  33. Z May 7, 2013 at 04:35 #

    But how do you define women for who they are? And if men love women for specifically feminine traits, how is that not the same thing? Again, I think you’re allowing abusive behavior taint your view of how this is supposed to work when it’s not based on callous using.

    It’s not supposed to be about one gender using the other but about both helping each other in the ways they excel at… complementing each other. Of course I prefer a man who can fix stuff and/or lead. That doesn’t make him a tool like a drill. And a lot of men like women who are feminine and pretty and cook things… it doesn’t mean you want to enslave us. Feminism has turned something that in my opinion started out pretty beautiful into something very ugly. It started with the women being all defensive about everything, and now the men are becoming defensive. And nobody will be happy that way.

    Somebody has to allow themselves to be a little vulnerable. Or intimacy can’t happen. And yeah, I think it should be the women, since in general women (even though it was lead by a small minority), are the ones who broke trust first.


  34. Z May 7, 2013 at 04:36 #

    Good point.


  35. sqt May 7, 2013 at 05:47 #

    I’m very much like you– a huge fan of capitalism. It’s been very good to me and I damn well know it.


  36. sqt May 7, 2013 at 05:53 #

    I’ve always felt that attaching oneself to an ideology, be it a fundamentalist religion, feminism or environmentalism, is really just a means to acting out certain behaviors and using a cause to absolve oneself of guilt.

    I think incorporating certain ideals and morals into one’s life can be very useful and I know some very good people who do good works through their church or charitable organizations. But it’s always the extremes that cause problems and there’s always an ideology that calls to the would-be extremist.


  37. Ter May 7, 2013 at 06:44 #

    Interesting point re ‘equality’ and non-gendered Olympic sports. I actually think that the people who are pushing for women to serve in front-line combat roles should first push for non-gendered sports – everything from athletics to martial arts – and see how that works out. At least this way no-one will get killed in the experiment (hopefully) .


  38. Z May 7, 2013 at 07:11 #

    Those who hate capitalism must have extremely low expectations for their odds in life, so why shouldn’t everyone else suffer, too? Misery loves company I guess.


  39. Nergal May 7, 2013 at 08:30 #

    “I still believe that women, as a political class, have the ability to liberate ourselves from the Capitalist-Patriarchy but I do so with the knowledge that I do not yet fully understand the full impact of the multiple oppressions in women’s lives. ”

    As well as economics,jurisprudence,ethics,morality,just about anything necessary to running the all-encompassing feminist state you wish to foist upon us,really.

    Maybe if you read a few books by men,Plato,Aristotle,Nietzsche,Machiavelli,Orwell,etc,you might be able to grasp the concepts,but I doubt it.You can’t fix stupid,even with the best education.

    Incidentally, how do you reconcile your fondness for Marxism with the fact that a man came up with it? Just draw a little “a” on the end of Karl’s name and pretend he’s a female?

    If this “sisterhood” is so powerful and smart, how come it has to filch all its ideas from the very dregs of masculinity? You’re not even stealing from the GREAT minds of our sex,but the most imbecilic and homicidal scumbags our sex produces. THEY’RE intellectual “bottom-feeders”,YOU’RE….even lower than that. You’re worm shit-eaters.


  40. Gem May 7, 2013 at 11:55 #

    Those who would abolish capitalism (usually in favour of socialism) are generally middle class academics (for whom it’s more of an abstract experiment of an idea) and people who are very poor or on welfare (who just like the idea of all the ‘evil rich’ people putting their money in a pot to be shared out).



  41. Gem May 7, 2013 at 12:03 #

    “Domestic violence isn’t just physical violence anymore, but verbal and “emotional” violence. In other words, if you have an argument and her feelings are hurt, that can be criminal domestic violence.”

    I was listening to BBC Women’s Hour the other day, because sometimes I’m a little masochistic, and there was an activist on there (always weary when a person has nothing better to self identify as than ‘activist’) who stated quite clearly that there is a “new form of domestic abuse” called “financial abuse”. This is apparently when a man who goes out to work and earns all the money and pays all the bills, forgets to leave his wife cash for groceries, pocket money etc. That’s FORGET, by the way, not refuse. There’s no malicious intent required. Took half an hour for my eyes to stop rolling.


  42. Master Beta May 7, 2013 at 13:10 #

    This person is clearly stupid.

    You do her a great compliment by actually paying any attention anything she says, I know I wouldn’t.

    Oh, and I don’t think she’s stupid because she’s a woman, I think she’s stupid because she says stupid things.


  43. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 13:15 #

    Didn’t mean to imply you assumed I was an MRA. But I agree that the hurt and anger tend to make a lot of MRA postings a bit too whiny, which defeats their purpose.

    I’ve only read a little bit about this “zeta male” concept, but don’t really think much of it. It seems an attempt by MRA to re-brand and claim Red Pill theory, which doesn’t need re-branding. Red Pill isn’t about opting out (well, the MGTOW guys aside) as it is understanding the current social dynamics wrought by feminism and the female imperative and using that knowledge to our advantage (which applies to both men and women). It’s about being better men, living our lives for ourselves (and our loved ones) and knowing the rest will follow. It’s not so much being against feminism as it is being wryly amused by feminism.

    When I first took the Red Pill (and there’s been enough written about the process that my reaction seems common) there was a period of anger, not at women but at myself for having swallowed the lies. But part of the process is getting beyond and letting go of anger, which MRA seems to hold on to.

    Righteous anger is good in a man; butt-hurt anger is much less masculine…


  44. Z May 7, 2013 at 13:30 #

    LOL good point… academics love thought experiments but don’t seem to grasp that sometimes living them out is a really bad idea.

    Re: the evil rich people… it’s kind of like Atlas Shrugged… eventually the “evil rich people” (translation: the non-mediocre, productive people), get fed up with others leeching off them and they go some place else that appreciates their talents and won’t tax them to death, leaving the society they left to crumble in on itself.

    Additionally, rich people create jobs. Given that many people refuse to start their own businesses and think somebody “owes them a job” (if they even want to work at all), it’s curious that they should drive off the few actually pro-active enough to have jobs available to give them.


  45. Z May 7, 2013 at 13:38 #

    bwahahahaha I somehow knew we were going to have the “didn’t mean to imply that you thought that i thought that…” hahahahahahahaha. Dude, sometimes the internet is hard. 🙂

    Who is the MGTOW guys? I see that a lot but I don’t know what it means or where it’s from.

    I consider being “wryly amused by feminism” to be the more mature and strong place to be at. I mean obviously feminists can F your shit up, but they can F my shit up, too. But at some point we have to not let rage at stupid, crazy people run our lives.

    I agree butthurt anger doesn’t really come across as extremely in control of one’s life. Where did you find out about red pill stuff? I’d be very interested in reading something that is a little less screechy and a little more sane on this topic than some of the MRA stuff.

    Also, I never said it, but I apologize for lashing out at you that day I think it was a few weeks ago now. I think we really got our wires crossed and maybe you assumed things about me I wasn’t trying to say but obviously sounded like I was saying (about the slut stuff). Since I don’t have your email I couldn’t say that to you privately but wanted you to know I think I was a little too bitchy with you. You’re okay and an interesting person to talk to. I didn’t feel I deserved to be lashed out at, but you didn’t deserve it from me, either. That’s way water under the bridge, but still I wanted to say it.


  46. danny May 7, 2013 at 13:46 #

    Thank you Gloria Steinam, CIA, and Wall street bankers for blessing us with these idiotic feminists and the rectal-cranial inversions they enlighten us with.


  47. Z May 7, 2013 at 13:47 #

    WHO are you talking to, Nergal? You did this crap on my blog, too. Judgy Bitch is NOT a feminist. She’s not for Marxism. Do you just skim posts and not read them for context?

    That quote was a quote Judgy Bitch made of another person, it’s not something she said. It’s something she’s arguing against. Maybe you are not addressing Judgy Bitch directly with your comments, maybe you’re just saying “you”, somehow addressing the comment itself. But the person who said that quote is someone named Louise Pennington, who JB is simply quoting. Louise Pennington isn’t here to read your views, so when you say these things you’re saying with so much anger and vitriol and saying “you” this and “you” that and name-calling, (i.e. you’re worm shit-eaters) it’s confusing and comes off like you’re attacking JB.


  48. EMMA May 7, 2013 at 14:25 #

    No, sports and choosing to serve your country are two completely different things. People who are pushing for women to serve in combat oriented roles should first push for the basic PT military standards to be equal across the board regardless of MOS. Start there…

    Combat readiness is not singularly physical and even if women could prove physical aptitude in sports, the Military would not care because it’s not the same thing.


  49. sqt May 7, 2013 at 14:49 #

    The way I read it Nergal was “talking” to the woman JB was quoting in the original article- not JB herself.


  50. Erudite Knight May 7, 2013 at 15:46 #

    ‘Equality is removing gendered sports from the Olympics. You wanna run? Run bitch. You won’t win a single race.’

    Feminists love to state how badass they are…but lord do they resist females racing against males at olympics.


  51. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 16:30 #

    MGTOW=”Men Going Their Own Way.” These are guys that have basically said “screw it” and want nothing to do with feminist society or women in general. Sometimes called “going ghost.”

    And no need for apologies, I never take things posted in an anonymous internet forum to heart.

    As for reading up on the Red Pill, I came here via The Private Man blog, but a) that’s a blog focused on dating advice for older men and b) he’s blogging less now because of a new business focus. But the archives can be interesting.

    Most of the Red Pill (Game) manosphere isn’t MRA; there’s some overlap, but the non-MRA part is much more widespread and diverse. There are a number of sub-sets ranging from just pick-up blogs to relationship and marriage blogs to christian blogs.

    For overall perspective, I’d start with Rollo Tomasi at

    For a christian perspective, I’d recommend Dalrock ( or SunshineMary (

    And check out the links in their blogrolls.

    I first came to it years ago via Roissy (now Heartiste), who is more pick-up oriented and a purveyor of scathing prose. This is the hardcore and not for the faint of heart, but the older archives might be worth a visit once you get your feet wet.

    Vox Day’s Alpha Game ( is often worth a look, but again, not necessarily for the faint of heart.

    Start with Rollo…


  52. TMG May 7, 2013 at 16:30 #

    I mostly agree with you, but think about this: Imagine a loving couple. They both work full-time jobs making relatively equal salary. If the woman quit to stay home with the kids, would the man continue to love and respect her as he had before? If the man quit, would the woman love and respect him as before? In most (not all) cases the woman is very likely to begin to “fall out of love” with her husband.

    Next, imagine one loving couple. Because of depression issues, the man has to quit his full-time job and go on disability. The wife has to work full-time to make up the difference. Now, imagine the same couple, but this time, the woman is depressed. She stops showing any affection to her husband, including sex or hugs or kind words. How much more likely is the woman to divorce the man in the first situation, as compared to the reverse in the second situation.

    Women do not love men like men love women.


  53. Cassandra May 7, 2013 at 16:33 #

    is there a particular source you’d recommend to start with re: red pill.

    i find both mra and feminism with valid points and lacking. i’ve been looking for many years for a conversation beyond, around, in spite – whatever you like around those two.

    i did google red pill on my own – one of the first hits was “reddit” so i thought i’d ask; if you’re interested in sharing. if you aren’t fair enough.

    jb – sorry to interrupt your thread for this – i clicked on lost sailor’s name to try and ask the question off thread but couldn’t find a contact.

    since i’m here – something you might find interesting:


  54. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 16:47 #

    I’m going to beg to differ. (And I detest Atlas Shrugged, complete and utter rot.)

    The very wealthy, the so-called 1%, aren’t evil, but they’re not necessarily the deserving, productive people who are rich by the sweat of their brow that they’d like you to believe. The 1% got there on large parts of luck (i.e., they were born there to start), and the kind of old-school networking that keeps them there and the riff-raff out. Sure, many of the 1% work hard and contribute to society while earning their wealth, but many more don’t. Investing in the stock market, hedge funds, derivatives, etc. does actually very little to create jobs or benefit society but does much to create more wealth for the 1% by what is essentially rigged gambling.

    Rich people don’t really create jobs; that’s just propaganda. Middle-class businesses and small to medium corporations create jobs. Sometimes they get help in terms of capital investment, but not always. So what creates jobs? Demand. Consumer demand. Where there’s growing demand for goods and services, there will be growing demand for labor.

    The very rich and the very large corporations they run are doing just fine. Their taxes are low or assets sheltered and are pulling in profits and sitting on piles of cash. By conventional theory, jobs should be booming. But they’re not. High debt loads and stagnating or decreasing income has stifled demand. Hence not many jobs.

    I don’t demonize the wealthy. but I don’t lionize them either…


  55. sqt May 7, 2013 at 16:55 #

    My view of academia is a bit jaundiced because of their irrational love of communism/socialism. I think what they *really* like about the idea is that we (the taxpayer) pay for their pensions. I know more than a few teachers that are totally freaked out by the fact that the state education budgets (especially pensions) have been cut in states that are going broke.

    What really gets me though are the people I know who are busily getting PhD’s in liberal arts subjects under the assumption that they can be absorbed back into a college system that has no more room to keep hiring teachers. I’ve never seen so many “smart” people shocked by their inability to get a job after wasting so many years on their education. I’m guessing that they’re also going to face a shortage of openings at Starbucks too- the world only needs so many barristas.


  56. sqt May 7, 2013 at 16:57 #

    I read Heartiste, but I’m way too afraid to comment. Interesting stuff though.


  57. RadicalCentrist May 7, 2013 at 17:03 #

    “The biggest issues feminism has caused for the average woman is turning romantic relationships into battlegrounds as if this is “normal”.”

    One of the recurring questions I have re: the manosphere is with respect to this ^^. I agree that the bizarro cultural concept of men and women being ‘at war’ in a relationship (and the notion that it is usually because men need a ‘mommy figure’ or that they are emotionally immature, etc.) is despicable and wildly irritating, but I don’t necessarily agree that one can view it in an ‘it’s all feminism’s fault’ vacuum. While some gripes from the manosphere seem to have more concrete connectivity to unintended consequences of second wave feminism (or perhaps intended consequences of radical feminism), I’d be interested to hear someone elaborate on the notion that animosity and manipulation in relationships is a direct result of feminism.


  58. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 17:06 #

    I don’t bother with the Chateau’s comment section anymore. It’s rarely informative and with hundreds of comments on each post, too much to wade through and often a cesspit. If you follow him on Twitter, he’ll often highlight interesting comments.


  59. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 17:09 #


    I agree that this probably isn’t the place for this discussion, but if you’re interested, I’d be happy continue with you–and Z–via email. JB should hereby feel free to give you and Z my email address if you’d like more a a Red Pill primer


  60. Oscar Calme May 7, 2013 at 17:25 #

    Spot on. The truth is for over 40 years, and I remember them as I grew up during and was a man through most of them, there has been very little objection to the feminist agenda from most women. You could say the defeat of the ERA in the US but other than this I can honestly say that I never heard any woman move away from support of team woman. Got to say a bit suspicious of where all these women are coming from now bearing red pill messages. No offence JB, love your work but as a single dad raising my son on my own have been fighting this on the ground for 20+ years.


  61. sowerofsalt May 7, 2013 at 17:48 #

    Thanks for sharing that link:

    I’m struggling to believe that’s how some people think.

    One girl calls her ‘ex’ a wimp for needing a restraining order on her.

    I’d advise any casual observer, any man, and indeed, any sane person, who’s interested in seeing the beating, blackened heart of radical feminism to check out the comments on that thread.

    They’ve got so little insight into their own behaviour that when they attack their significant others physically, they justify and rationalise it, and still claim they’re the oppressed class.

    Disgusting humans.


  62. Z May 7, 2013 at 17:57 #

    So Red Pill is = to Game? I know what Game is. I’ll add those to my bookmarks.


  63. Z May 7, 2013 at 18:00 #

    If JB doesn’t email me with an addy, you can just comment on my blog (linked with my name this time), and leave your email addy in the spot and I’ll email you. I don’t normally link to my blog because I don’t know, it just felt weird to. I don’t come here to horn in on JB’s traffic. I come here because I like the blog.


  64. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 18:03 #

    They are closely related, yes. Some people use them as being equal, but I’d say that the Red Pill is a process of seeing and understanding and Game is what you do with that knowledge…


  65. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 18:04 #

    Will do.


  66. Z May 7, 2013 at 18:57 #

    Well, I didn’t necessarily say that the 1% all earned their money by the sweat of their brow. A lot is inheritance and has been kept in families. When you inherit the family business and the family business is… oh look we’re oil tycoons… that’s hardly doing much. At the same time, a lot of wealthy people DO things… at the very least they create jobs (no not all of them, but a lot of rich people are big business owners and there are a lot of jobs there. Could we really argue that Jeff Bezos hasn’t created jobs? Amazon employs TONS of people). And if you are wealthy but don’t LEARN to do things… some things… you may very well piss away all your wealth by just being plain stupid.

    I agree with you regarding the job creation by the small and mid-sized businesses.

    I have never actually READ Atlas Shrugged because it’s too damn long. I saw the first part of the movie and liked it. I see some of what she was trying to say and agree with some parts of it. Like I agree that we don’t live in a meritocracy because people always want what they didn’t earn to be given to them to keep things “fair”. And government keeps giving in and creating this or that program and higher taxes.

    We do have a system that seems to want to penalize the wealthy out of jealousy and basic lameness. IMO. And yeah, I do think after awhile, those who do produce and work and earn and make something of themselves start looking for an escape hatch.

    I don’t think the wealthy are “awesome”, but I don’t demonize them because I intend to be them.

    I don’t think money makes you evil, necessarily. It makes you what you are, only louder.


  67. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:00 #

    I don’t know. I have a hardcore frappaccino habit. I can keep them employed on my habit alone.


  68. sqt May 7, 2013 at 19:07 #

    My husband has a unique view of the 1% as a financial consultant and he’s definitely in the pro-wealth category– and not just because it pays our bills.

    I think a lot of his respect boils down to risk. Many wealthy people get that way because they’re willing to invest a lot of money in companies that do employ a lot of people with no guarantee of return. He could explain it much better than I do- but that’s the gist of it from my point of view.

    But most of the people he works for are self made. Inherited wealth, unless vast, tends to whittle away over time. He has some legacy clients that will likely spend themselves into insolvency before they reach retirement age. He does not like those people at all.


  69. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:10 #

    Game is using your powers for evil, LOL


  70. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:14 #

    We’re coming from seeing the massive destruction of feminism and seeing that NO the feminists are NOT on our side. The thing is… a lot of us are pretty much brainwashed with this nonsense but it’s part of the background in the way that AIR is part of the background or water if you’re a fish. In my teens and early twenties I bought into a lot of this crap, but it almost wrecked my marriage to Mr. Z early on. I grew the hell up in a hurry and realized that OMG men have FEELINGS. (This was seriously a revelation to me, I’m ashamed to say.) Bottom line is… with feminism I was barreling down spinster avenue where I would be greeted by some cats and some bitterness. I corrected course before I ruined my marriage and now, 11 years into that marriage, we’re both really happy. I love him I respect him. He loves and respects me. And it’s largely because I ditched the feminist garbage and actively basically did everything the opposite of what feminism told me to do.


  71. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:16 #

    Yes, the rich that I respect are the ones who got their on their own. Even ones who were given a boost from rich daddy who actually did something smart with it, I can respect to some degree. Of course one’s business acumen is a completely separate issue from one’s goodness or badness as a human being.


  72. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:16 #

    Ugh. There. Not Their. I should never tell anybody I write if I’m going to make blog comments without proofreading.


  73. TMG May 7, 2013 at 19:21 #


    With all due respect, you realize that women like you are outnumbered 20 to 1 by all the other women. I’m not saying they are all radical feminists, but I am saying that they simply do not care about their husbands, fathers, sons, and male friends in the same way they care about other women and themselves.

    I appreciate your perspective, and that you are willing to speak out, but I have been speaking on these issues for almost 2 decades now and it was only 15 minutes ago that ANY women came along.

    Most women do not have a capacity for loving and caring men that matches the way men care for and love women. And yes, that includes fathers, husbands, and sons.


  74. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:28 #

    To a large degree I agree with you. I think, though, that the secret to reversing that is for women to come to understand how deeply men love them. Once you understand how much a man loves you it changes how you see him. At least it did for me. (but maybe I’m not typical) And money arguments don’t really work on me because I make a lot more than Mr. Z. I was scared it was going to affect us, but mostly because so many men seem to be threatened by a wife that makes more (though I’ve got some theories that include other factors so it may not really be “just the money” when it’s a factor for a man). Either way, I don’t love Mr. Z less. We’ve gotten much closer in the past few years, and that’s when I’ve been doing so well. He’s proud of me. I don’t see him as “less”. It’s ludicrous in my kind of field to expect salaries to “match up”.

    But I get that Mr. Z and I are probably not typical in a lot of ways. Maybe we are just generally weird people, lol. I do think you’re right that a lot of women do tend to fall out of love if the husband stays home and stops earning. I think a lot of that is hardwired into DNA, an evolutionary survival thing that isn’t necessarily valid now from a logical standpoint but a lot of people still default to it. It doesn’t make it “right”, but I don’t think most women do this crap out of the evilness of their hearts.


  75. sqt May 7, 2013 at 19:32 #

    Typos are a bitch aren’t they?

    I read somewhere that most inherited wealth is spent, on average, in three generations. But I’m not sure that’s true. I have also heard the theory that if you redistributed all the wealth in the world it would eventually find itself back in the same hands it started with. In other words, the people who earned the wealth in the first place are the same ones who would earn it back if they had to start all over again. And the mooches would still be mooches. That rings true to me.


  76. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:43 #

    That’s what confused me because by saying “you” and commenting on JB’s blog, it makes it seem like he’s yelling at JB like he thinks SHE said that.


  77. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:47 #

    At the risk of being a total Bobble-head with you, I agree. Just because it sounds right doesn’t mean it is right… but damn it sounds right lol. I’m willing to entertain it’s highly probable.


  78. Z May 7, 2013 at 19:55 #

    I think they have a capacity. I think they are taught that capacity is weak and demeaning and will put them at risk of pain. Women USED to have good qualities. ALL of those qualities have been socially engineered out of women to be replaced by some hideous frankenstein thing.

    When you’re taught to believe that men will hurt you and you have to be on guard all the time, you can never deeply love. Loving someone deeply is about allowing yourself to be vulnerable with them. Feminists have so scared women about the ‘evils of men’ that most women can never be that vulnerable. It’s defensiveness. re: no women saying anything until just recently… I think just recently a lot of us have finally just hit our breaking point. The louder and screechier feminism gets and the more everything becomes a battle of the sexes, the more we’re just fed up.

    I don’t know if I’m just noticing it more or in the US if it was more about the 2012 election cycle but all the gendered crap got REALLY loud and suddenly it was EVERYWHERE on facebook and Twitter, and it continues to be loud. And I’m to the point where I unfriend and unfollow people based on their feminism.


  79. Z May 7, 2013 at 20:06 #



  80. LostSailor May 7, 2013 at 20:48 #

    I think with this, plus some other links I’ve sent her, Z isn’t going to be getting much sleep for a while.

    Don’t forget to feed Mr. Z!


  81. feeriker May 7, 2013 at 21:00 #

    ERA was only defeated because women realized that if it became law, they’d be encumbered with actual responsibilities as well as rights.


  82. feeriker May 7, 2013 at 21:06 #

    A very simple, objectively provable concept that for some reason seems to confound so many people.


  83. TMG May 7, 2013 at 21:09 #

    I don’t believe women are evil, I just believe they have an extreme empathy deficit to men.

    But I disagree that “women need to realize how much men love them.” LOTS of women will gladly choose heartless, rapacious thugs over men who love and take care of them.


  84. feeriker May 7, 2013 at 21:10 #

    About the only thing any quasi-honest historian can point to is the fact that both men and women in communist societies suffered equally in misery.


  85. feeriker May 7, 2013 at 21:15 #

    I confess that I’ve long fantasized about some loud-mouthed feminista being encouraged to suit up and play as an NFL quarterback “along with the boys.” Just to see how many seconds elapse before every bone in her body is broken.


  86. MaMu1977 May 7, 2013 at 21:28 #

    I’ve got you beat on that score.
    A few years back, I met a woman who divorced due to financial abuse. Her husband’s “crime”? Not buying her a fur coat. Adding insult to injury: they were a single-income military family stationed in Florida (yes, he couldn’t afford the expense and the item wasn’t even a necessity for survival.) She received her cash and prizes, bought her precious fur coat, and is now living in poverty in central Florida with a useless lump of fur.


  87. Z May 8, 2013 at 00:56 #

    I think that’s because they confuse alpha/dominant with abusive/asshole. Nobody taught them better. And I agree about the empathy deficit… I just do not believe it is something naturally “inborn” in most women, but something they came to by way of all this toxic bullshit they were fed.


  88. sqt May 8, 2013 at 02:53 #

    Heck, I could be wrong. It’s so hard sometimes to understand where someone is coming from when the conversation is in print. A lot of subtleties are lost along the way.


  89. sqt May 8, 2013 at 02:57 #

    Oh I disagree. My father-in-law is career military and they are as much a political organization as anything you’ve ever seen. Politics is pushing women onto the front line, not suitability or ability. I’ve heard this from many, many people (not just men) who have first hand experience with this. I married into a military family and my FIL retired at a 2-star General rank. I heard a lot about politics over the years.


  90. Z May 8, 2013 at 12:55 #

    Trust me, Mr. Z will not allow me to neglect any of my duties to his care and feeding!


  91. Z May 8, 2013 at 12:56 #

    No, you’re right. He posted on my blog to explain, and I felt SO much better about the whole thing. I was just really confused and didn’t understand why he was “attacking” me on my blog and JB on hers… turns out… that’s because he wasn’t lol.


  92. Ed May 8, 2013 at 20:05 #

    Thank you for this.


  93. Anon Ymus August 10, 2013 at 14:50 #

    Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are not all that different. Socialism and Communism are clearly left-wing phenomena. In addition, Socialism and Communism are pretty inseparable, as one inevitably leads to the other (hence the oxymoronic nature of “Democratic Socialism”). Fascism, however, is also left wing. It borrows heavily from Socialism (Mussolini was himself a Socialist before WWI). Mussolini based the system off of “the Socialism of the trenches,” in which the nation-state was elevated above all and was used as the collective, rather than some sort of global class-based collective. All three systems belong under the label of Leftism.


  94. iankiddy May 13, 2014 at 23:04 #

    Jesus, they really are completely batshit nuts, aren’t they?



  1. ‘The real face of domestic violence? Radical white feminists. It’s not about equality, and they’re not afraid to say it.’ | - May 6, 2013

    […]… […]


  2. The real face of domestic violence? Radical white feminists. It’s not about equality, and they’re not afraid to say it. | Fighting Feminism - May 6, 2013

    […]… […]


  3. The real face of domestic terrorism? Radical white feminists. It’s not about equality and they’re not afraid to say it. | Men's Human Rights - May 7, 2013

    […] The real face of domestic terrorism? Radical white feminists. It’s not about equality and they’r…. […]


  4. Judgy Bitch Does Some Heavy Lifting Because Jezebel Makes Me Want to Jump Off a Bridge | missannethropez - May 7, 2013

    […] Judgy Bitch wrote a great post today after a few days off (I was starting to have withdrawals), about just how insane radical feminism is, and how they pretty much blatantly admit to it. […]


  5. Why not read Barth? | My Blog - September 3, 2013

    […] reasoning about patriarchy is similar to when this lady (whose internet name may offend some of my readers) quoted a comment directed to this other […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: