5 Ways Feminists Are Literally Like Nazis

14 Jan

 

nazis

 

So this post went up at Thought Catalog yesterday, and the most interesting thing about it is how Femitheist reacted on Twitter. Femitheist, if you recall, is the woman who wants to reduce the male population by 90%.

 

Charming woman.

 

She now claims that she was just trolling, lol – she didn’t really mean it. Is that true, or is she finding out just how little people appreciate psychopaths in their midst?

 

femitheist

 

Either way, RadFems celebrated her video and ideas, and even if Femitheist really was trolling, her followers more certainly were not. Hence the comparison to Nazis.

 

1. Feminists have killed millions of people
Ha ha. Okay, not really, but there is this chick. She calls herself Femitheist.

She wants to reduce the male population by 90%, keeping a few prime specimens around for sperm farming. She claims to understand the precise mathematics required to maintain human genetic diversity, even after 90% of men have been …. eliminated. The elimination phase will presumably be slightly more environmentally friendly than dousing men with Zyklon B and burning the corpses, but who knows? It might have been crass, but gassing and burning did work for the Nazis.

Read the other four reasons feminists are literally like Nazis here. The comments section is a riot!

 

Enjoy!

23 Responses to “5 Ways Feminists Are Literally Like Nazis”

  1. that1susan January 14, 2015 at 15:58 #

    J.B., do you have links to evidence that any radical feminist organizations — or even any radical feminists willing to name themselves — openly support Femitheist’s agenda? Or are you just saying that some people anonymously identifying as RadFems expressed enthusiasm for her idea? For the purpose of this question, “anonymous” people are people not giving their actual names. I.E., as That1Susan, I’m anonymous because I’m not giving my full name or location when I post on the Internet. Although I know I’m honest, for all anyone else really knows, I could be male or any number of other things that are different from how I’m presenting myself.

    I tend to believe her when she said she had a really bad day and was just kind of venting or trolling, and she’s young enough to be my daughter so I tend to feel as much compassion as I do for my own daughter when she goes on a rant about something based on her current level of experience of life — but for those who think she really had some sort of an agenda, an alternate interpretation could be that she’s a female MRA seeking to make feminists look even worse than they’ve already made themselves look in many cases. Following that train of thought, people posting as RadFems about how cool her ideas were could actually be either male or female MRAs. It’s possible.

    Like

  2. judgybitch January 14, 2015 at 16:01 #

    It’s all possible for sure Susan, but if you search this site for an article called “Is David Futrelle covering for violent feminists” you will see screen caps from a private chatroom we infiltrated. Those caps calling for men to be boiled and used as glue are not a joke. That’s not trolling. The chatroom was private.

    Like

  3. farkennel January 14, 2015 at 16:14 #

    My patience is running out.Either Valenti or Ford will take up the task of debating Judgy Bitch or Karen Straughan or I am left with no choice.I dont want it to come to this(yes I do)but I will make this a personal vendetta.

    Like

  4. Dave January 14, 2015 at 17:59 #

    The easiest way is the oldest way — infanticide! People do it all the time in societies where girls are seen as a burden. Adult pigs, chickens, sheep, and cattle are about 90% female for the same reason.

    Femitheist’s system would break down over time because the urge to cheat would be too strong. Any woman who concealed her pregnancy from the Gyno Police and raised a son in secret could score a stupendous number of grandchildren.

    More likely, the gynocracy would invite male “guest workers” from barbarian lands to do the heavy lifting, and these men would quickly take over and end the gynocracy.

    Like

  5. Spaniard January 14, 2015 at 18:23 #

    That is why they are called “feminazis”.

    Zionists are NaZionist, too.
    I knew today that some charming Zio intelectuals recently demanded to the German government to destroy the sculptures by Arno Breker, who was one of the main artists of the III Reich.

    My countryman Salvador Dalí said: “God is beauty and Arno Breker is his prophet”. I agree.

    Who the hell are these bloody Zios to tell the Germans what to do with their artistic heritage?

    I live in the “Judería” (Jewish quarter) of Alcalá de Henares, Spain. No Jews anymore since the end of the Middle Ages, but still the taste and the background of the former neighbours. And I love it. I always say it: the Sephardian culture is fascinating and overwhelming.

    Nothing against the Jews, all against the Zios.

    Like

  6. Jason Wexler January 14, 2015 at 18:47 #

    When I was a student (and still identifying as a feminist) I made a tepid defense of the use of “feminazi” on the grounds that 1. it allowed a way to distinguish genial, equality minded, “real” feminism from hateful, stupid, violent and misandristic “feminism”; and 2. the suffix of nazi was apropriate on phonological grounds because it fits syllable wise where “nism” is in feminism, in a way that doesn’t work phonologically for extremists in other social justice and civil rights movements, i.e. “homonazi” would probably be understood even outside the context of the conversation, but would still be linguistically awkward. However, given the distress the word caused my friends, I acquiesced and agreed not to use the word anymore, a promise I have kept for close to 18 years now.

    That said, my exposure to Janet and feminist questioning youtubers like Karen Straughn and Sargon of Akaad and the Amazing Atheist, have caused me to reconsider how I look at media and news portrayals of feminism, which in turn led me to recently reexamine the argument for “feminazi”. It seems Janet and I had many of the same conclusions regarding the applicability of the term to feminist extremists, although I hadn’t considered feminism genocidal and generally reject that argument at present. While I have come to accept that the extremist and perhaps general activist form of feminism is genuinely comparable to nazi style authoritarianism, in a way that is immune from Godwin’s law, I also think it’s important to reject the tendency to hold moderates accountable for extremists, or to claim as Sam Harris does vis-a-vis religion that moderates insulate extremists from valid criticism. We may legitimately criticize “moderates” for their failings, notably being useful idiots or not critically thinking/fully researching their positions, but I think if we ever hope to defeat “feminaziism” we need to withhold approbation from those who call themselves feminists, but unequivocally reject the hate and stupidity of authoritarian extremism calling itself feminism.

    Finally to those who picked up on the phonological argument I made in my youth, yes I recognize it was flawed. I recognize that the existence of the phrase “grammar nazi” acts as a counter to that particular point, and that the real reason “feminazi” and “grammar nazi” aren’t awkward but “homonazi” and “racenazi” are is because of familiarity bias.

    Like

  7. slacker January 14, 2015 at 18:53 #

    I really don’t think the Femitheist is trolling or secretly a female MRA. Vice, who I wouldn’t exactly call a good source of news but are likely the biggest media focus that loon will ever receive interviewed her in 2014. http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems

    In that interview she advocates genetic engineering and forcing men to live on reservations…sure she may have been joking when she proposed national castration day( I really fucking doubt it) but the ideas that she puts forward in an interview that will likely be her high water mark for media attention don’t sound too far removed genocide to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. that1susan January 14, 2015 at 20:17 #

    Okay, it looks like she’s definitely a weirdo. It’s too bad, because just based on her pretty, feminine looks, voice, and mannerisms, she seems like she’d be the ideal gal for the ROK guys.

    Like

  9. Spaniard January 14, 2015 at 21:17 #

    “Feminazi” is a term which has succeed, so It is here to stay. But I do not like it so much, either. I found it very funny and very euphonic but to me is not the perfect term to describe Gender Feminism.

    When I thin about a “feminazi” I think in a woman who is the right opposite of a gender feminist. I think in a tall, blonde, blue eyed hooker dress like a Gestapo agent and with a whip in her hand. And that is a turn on to me.

    I am big fan of fascist aesthetics in all grounds. In clothing as well. In Spain we had our own form of fascism in the 30s and 40s called “falangismo”. And they had a female section. I think the uniform was so cool: dark blue shirt, black pants, boots, red hat, belt with gun… That women they were real viragos, but at the same time very anti feminist and traditional.

    Like

  10. Spaniard January 14, 2015 at 21:18 #

    Erratum:

    “neither”, “think”,.

    Like

  11. Jax January 15, 2015 at 00:24 #

    And everybody you meet on the internet could actually be a super-intelligent genetically altered lab monkey. I think Occam’s Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that she actually was serious, but isn’t really fond of the backlash anymore. Furthermore, I’m not really willing to cut her any slack because I suspect (bordering on ‘know’) that a man who made multiple videos and posts over several *years* about how women were worthless and should be mutilated and killed would not be able to get away with “lol just joking guise!” And I suspect, again bordering on know, the reason people are willing to cut her slack is that she’s a pretty young blonde white girl.

    Like

  12. Mark January 15, 2015 at 01:38 #

    Related to the topic, almost nothing irks me more than how much hate speech (‘end of men’, ‘men are obsolete,’ ‘I hate men’, ‘men should die’) feminists get away with in mainstream sources by using cheap cop-outs like “I was joking”, “I was being metaphorical”, “oh, but I’m sure you’re one of the good ones”, “I was having a bad day.”

    Even the Nazis were nuanced enough to know how to cop out like that. Heinrich Himmler gave a speech in which he admitted that there were ‘good Jews’, but that they weren’t waging war on particular jews, but on the abstraction of ‘jewry.’ Exact same reasoning as when they say ‘it’s no men per se’, but some abstraction of men, the idea of men. It’s “jewish ideas”, “Judaeo-Bolshevism”, and “Judaeo-capitalism.” Every time a feminist “vents” her bigotry, out come the exact same sort of rationalizations.

    Suppose a white guy tries to rationalize saying the N-word all the time because he was assaulted once by a black guy? Is bigotry understandable then? Anger, bad experience with the maligned group, etc. are how all bigots justify their bigotry. Few people ever just hate someone, there’s always an excuse for it. Feminists who hate men are no different, imo, no more understandable, no more justified, no less worthy of my disdain.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Jack Strawb January 15, 2015 at 05:09 #

    I’m familiar with the youtube page where she had her video. She sounded entirely serious, and allowed arguments and condemnation on her page to go on, for all I know, indefinitely. I know that the notifications I got about live threads there went on for at least two months.

    That’s not someone having a bad day, or even a bad fortnight.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Mark January 15, 2015 at 06:22 #

    Mel Gibson was drunk and having a bad day when he made those anti-Semitic remarks. The ADL didn’t just let it slide for him, so I don’t think we should let it slide for feminists. Personally, I think anger, like alcohol, brings out some well-concealed truth in people. If someone’s a bigot when they’re angry, they’re likely just a more reserved bigot when they’re calm.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. KiloRomeo January 15, 2015 at 10:16 #

    No worries JB, even if they were capable of deploying such sophisticated machine of mass killings it would still be just another crazy thing to fix in this world. But eliminating 90% of men (or even one for that matter) requires more than Facebook and Twitter account. Worst case scenario, it will be survival of the fittest – aka those offline Web 2.0. 😉

    Thanks for Your blog. It is refreshing and fun to read. Just don’t engage in debate with idiots too much, because Your ideas are definitely a better part of Your blog’s content.

    Like

  16. that1susan January 15, 2015 at 15:49 #

    Very true. And Hitler only got away with as much as he did because he capitalized on all the anti-Semitism that was already flowing through society. There was already a lot of resentment over Jews’ success, so it must have been very appealing to the common people to believe Hitler’s lie that their own lack of success had nothing to do with any lack of hard work, intelligence, skill, or collaboration on their part, and that they were all victims of some hidden agenda cooked up by the Jews.

    Thinking of it this way, we could definitely be at risk of another Holocaust. Though I don’t believe it’s likely to happen in the way that Femitheist is advocating, I think boys and men already have to deal with very negative attitudes about maleness and masculinity. For example, high testosterone frequently gets associated with aggression and criminal behavior, and not with a person’s ability to keep continually assessing his environment and selecting the behavior that’s likely to bring about the best outcome in any given situation.

    Negative attitudes about masculinity tend to obliterate maleness by pressuring boys and men to adopt more feminine-seeming behaviors. It’s similar to how women used to be (and sometimes still are) encouraged to wear power-suits, go through assertiveness training, and adopt more masculine-seeming traits to succeed in business.

    I really believe it’s essential for us to embrace both masculinity and femininity and realize that BOTH are valuable in EVERY aspect of life. For example, BOTH masculinity and femininity have a place in business, in world politics, in the care of babies and young children, and so on. And of course, each individual is a unique mixture of masculine and feminine traits. While most men lean more towards the masculine side and most women lean more towards the feminine, variations exist and these variations are not a sign of sin or dysfunction — but of the beauty of Mother and Father nature, who are always surprising us with exquisitely beautiful paradoxes.

    So yes, I think there is an agenda to wipe out maleness, and I think the only way to fight it is by falling in love with EVERY aspect of ourselves and our humanness. It’s kind of like that saying coined by Jonathon Larson: “The opposite of war isn’t peace… It’s creation!” (from his musical “Rent”). And what can be more creative than love?

    Like

  17. Greg Allan January 15, 2015 at 22:32 #

    Look up the “Agent Orange” files.

    Like

  18. Mark January 16, 2015 at 03:11 #

    I think the saving grace of radical feminism it that the radfems are usually incompetent and far lazier and lacking in organizational skills than the Nazis were.

    I am more worried that if some trends continue, men will simply become more or less an underclass, in being the vast majority of the poor, incarcerated, mentally ill, but also being a minority in positions of power and wealth, should women come to predominate the highest strata of society. My worry is, at that point, rather than looking and seeing the disproportionate underporfmance and misbehavior of men as evidence that society has run afoul of them, but will rather see these failures as evidence that men are inferior, and therefore be used to justify treating them as such.

    That’s what worries me I think. If someone today alludes to the male rapist or murderer, one can allude to the male scientist or male philanthropist as examples of some of the disproportionate contributions men have made; but some day in the West we may have a world in which there may be fewer male scientists and philanthropists than female ones, but there will still be more male rapists and murderers. Then, people’s experiences will confirm their prejudices rather than challenge them. Or, as we scientists call it, there will be a positive feedback loop.

    But we’ll see, I guess. Maybe things will even out eventually. Time will tell.

    Like

  19. pukeko60 January 16, 2015 at 12:42 #

    Janet or Karen would win without breaking into a sweat if the standard rules of debating apply: the need for logic, data to back assertions, etc.

    But Valenti and Ford would say this is sexist or something, confirming the stupid in them is strong.

    Like

  20. that1susan January 16, 2015 at 13:00 #

    Well, when men greatly outnumbered women in the higher strata, and I think they actually do still outnumber women somewhat at the very top, there certainly were some who saw this as evidence of female inferiority, so I suppose the attitude might be the same if the positions were reversed. And it could indeed be even worse, because annoying as it must have been to deal with some (not all) men who saw women as weak, silly, and incompetent creatures in need of protection, there was at least that protective impulse towards women, and very few women seem to feel any corresponding protective impulse towards men.

    Like

  21. Jack Strawb January 17, 2015 at 04:51 #

    It’s not stupidity, but rather a low-cunning form of necessity.

    Take “microaggressions,” for example. When statistics measuring violence and of the kind consistently used for centuries fail to support feminist contentions, entirely new categories of pseudoviolence had to be invented in order to justify claims that women were singularly oppressed and victimized. It was no accident that “microaggressions” have no specific, verifiable, objective definition. Like our new definitions of “rape,” “microaggressions” are defined exclusively by the purported victim.

    When straightforward logic and reason similarly fail to support feminist contentions, then the very legitimacy of logic and reason must be called into question.

    At this point, in order to retain power, feminists must be able to hang onto the support they currently have. If that means inventing a new language through which to maintain the fiction that women compared to men are oppressed and subjugated, so be it. The right behaved similarly after Obama was elected, by inventing the bizarre fiction (believed at its peak by nearly half of all registered Republicans) that he had been born in Africa in a desperate attempt to subvert his legitimacy. It further invented a fictional character whose behavior and actions paralleled that of the actual President just enough to sustain the hatred of those on the right comparable to the worst feminists.

    What’s singularly bizarre in these two examples is that women are, by most measures, doing significantly better than men. Obama, by most measures, is a Republican President. He is no less a foreign policy hawk than Bush, and is more than centrist enough wrt domestic matters (the unprecedented deportations, the miniscule tax increases most similar among all Presidents to those of G.H.W. Bush, the health insurance program to the right of Romney’s program in Massachusetts, the failure to prosecute big business for its part in the Great Recession) to satisfy all but the most deranged expectations by the right of a Democratic President.

    Like

  22. Mark January 17, 2015 at 07:14 #

    Unfortunately, the key to winning a debate in the eyes of a typical audience is not refuting your opponent’s case, but rather convincing them that their case was refuted before the debate even began. Feminists are quite adept at convincing people that to even consider the opponent’s argument before dismissing it is to give quarter to unspeakable evil. “There is no debate” as Valenti put it.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 5 Ways Feminists Are Literally Like Nazis | Manosphere.com - January 14, 2015

    […] 5 Ways Feminists Are Literally Like Nazis […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: