Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Are feminists really that oppressed?

This is an excerpt from a forum where I was discussing this. While I thought about modifying and adding to it, it isn't a bad piece by any means and a bit edgy, so why not run with it . . . .

The irony is that the ones who perceive themselves as "oppressed," generally snotty, upper-class white female feminists, are the ones that make the rules for everyone else and expect us to abide by them---all the while breaking them when it's convenient or because "that's different" because they are perpetual victims that can justify anything, including nefarious crimes against men and children. It's the hallmark of the mind of a fascist.

The oppressed, in a real world situation, would have little or no power. That includes no VAWA 2.0, no ERA, no right to vote and skip out on the draft, no reproductive choice, no Title IX, no sexual harassment law, no CS, no alimony, no nothing. Not to mention they would not be able to dictate this shit and push it so much as lobbyists and control-mongers would make it public policy.

Seems to me that the "not-so privileged" feminists have more choice and power then they are willing to admit; by offering this admission, it would mean that their ultimate goal of fashioning a world with maximum choice with minimum responsibility would have a serious flaws in that approach. It would reveal that's exactly what it is, alongside the hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and female supremacy that is inherent in its manifestation. With freedom comes responsibility, and these women want the former without the latter, all the while men paying for the tab one way or another.

By saying they still have no real power, they mask their intentions and the fact they do have power, and that it's never enough for them until they have complete and utter control. Which is largely unearned power, because they are too myopic, abusive, and untrustworthy with it.

Not to mention that with all the talk about "we don't need men," they still do. They need men as protectors, men to make the gears of society run, from anything from paving the roads to picking up the garbage. Women, by in large, still refuse to do it. Feminists are so full of shit in this regard---with all the talk about benevolent sexism, which is another term for chivalry, they still whine and cry for it at the end of the day.

An 80s heavy metal song from Dio contained the line, "Protection, I never needed none . . . " and I think many men pride themselves in the fact they don't need to call upon someone 24/7 in order to thrive and survive. Not to say we don't need people, but on the converse, feminists demands for needing men and helping women at any cost----there's that social obligation thing again---is tantamount to a kind of fixated insanity. And it turns men off. You cannot force men to give and give without giving back. It's human nature; even all but the most generous manginas will eventually burn out and feel like a sucker in the end. Which in most cases is true---they have been exploited.

After years of feminists stating they don't need us men, reigning judgment on us and acting like we are second class citizens at best, now that they are playing the victim card and bitching about us not wanting to be their valiant knights, they can permanently and implacably fuck off.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Yep, that's me . . .

Feminists often complain that us "anti-feminists" don't show ourselves.

I walk the walk, not just talk the talk, Virginia.

I think look a little pissed off, but I was actually having fun with my camera. I thought it wasn't the best in the world, but there is neat software for editing not just shots, but film and audio as well.

Who knows. I may just start reading a few of my writings, and quote works I find significant one day on audio. You never know.