I was whined at by some petulant feminist on another forum for comparing feminism with religion. She is a “skeptic” and a “rationalist” she told me. It is the first time I have come across a “rationalist” who also identifies as a believer in one of the most dogmatic creeds the human race has ever dreamed up. So I was thinking of the many ways in which feminism is very much like a religion.
Feminism is very much like a religion. It is based on faith not reason, and faith is generally defined as belief without reason.
Feminism believes in the concept of original sin. All males are born with the shameful stain of masculinity and must seek redemption by proving that they are “good men;” perpetually prostrating themselves before the altar of gynocentrism. Inherent guilt is something that feminism is obsessed with.
What religion would be complete without its places of worship? The feminist temples are the schools and universities where the young must go to be indoctrinated, and where those who refuse to comply or who blaspheme against the dogma are callously rooted out by the feminist inquisition.
The inquisition comes in different guises depending on the country. In the USA it is called the VAWA and it spawns witch-hunting initiatives like Title IX to guarantee itself a never ending supply of fresh fuel for the feminist stake. Like any religion, feminism revels in punishing heretics. The mobs of brainwashed followers who join in these witch-hunts revel in their own sense of righteousness, while proving to their superiors and to each other how wonderfully pure and “enlightened” they are.
Every religion also needs a devil, and feminism menaces its followers with one of the most evil and insidious satans of all. The patriarchy is an invisible but ever present evil that is constantly trying to tempt the pure of heart away from the salvation of the faith. The patriarchy is responsible for everything
Updated 9th-October-2014 at 10:25 PM by Lanavor22
Young men's guide to campus secessionism, part 2 by Ron Collins @framersqool
August 31, 2014
What exactly is campus secessionism? The term as used here describes a legal and jurisdictional conflict, between the laws of the United States as a whole, the laws of the several States & their local powers to enforce and adjudicate them, and the question (THE question) of under what authority a given educational institution may or may not create, imagine or seek to apply its own jurisdictional powers of law, irrespective of any existing authority of federal or State laws. “Under what authority?” is the query which summarizes the entire matter, of college and university administrations taking upon themselves plenipotentiary powers to adjudicate allegations involving any of a number of forms of sexual misconduct against individual students. These powers are exercised, under whatever authority that might be, whether or not charges of criminal acts have been brought against an alleged offender under the law of whichever State the institution is in. The issue at hand under this current condition of campus secession is: whether the several States may adjudicate their own laws within their own jurisdictions, or rather that on college campuses this power has been taken away from the States, under whatever authority each college and university claims it rightful to do so. To the extent that schools now choose to make the laws of their host States inapplicable and turn their campuses into separate territories ruled separately, to that extent each school has made a conscious choice to SECEDE in effect and in practice from the rule of the United States Constitution, and has named itself as being a separate authority, a law unto itself.
Updated 1st-September-2014 at 03:23 PM by Rof L Mao Esq
For anyone following the #womenagainstfeminism hashtag on Twitter, or the other online venues where this is trending, one will readily observe just how often the charge is made (or is it a defense?) that the W.A.F.s and friends simply "don't understand" feminism. Actually, I think they're right. After a lifetime of being told, going back to the sixties, that my kind (the dread White Man) were responsible for pretty much everything bad that ever happened to anyone else not like us, I decided to check it out myself. I read Brownmiller, Ehrenreich, Friedan, and Caldicott, to name but a few. I hung out with, worked with, listened to, and attended public events with, self-identifying feminists, for years. I saw women in the 80s wearing running shoes to work to "Take Back the Night" and went on to wonder if they had, as heels got higher and higher until anatomically self-immolating footwear had become the new symbol of "empowerment." I married a feminist with a feminist mother. I watched my more intellectual, urbane male friends, one after another, go from being interesting, funny and spontaneous young men to being diaper-bag-toting stepnfetchits who could barely begin a sentence without the words "let me check with..." I worked with redneck manly men whose wives actually (wait for it) MADE THEM SANDWICHES, and who also in absolute seriousness called the little lady The Boss and meant it. And all this time, in college towns and tourist towns, as well as cow towns, I kept thinking that, sooner or later, I would run into this Patriarchy that had all these gals stirred up. Ol' Pat must have done something REAL bad to these women, 'cause they just never seemed to stop looking for him behind every corner and in every action, thought, attitude or perceived slight on the part of men. And still, I guess I just didn't "understand" feminism, hard as I'd tried. I remember the
Updated 30th-July-2014 at 03:10 PM by Rof L Mao Esq
Quote from Daveyone PLEASE HELP US TO ACHIEVE A FULL PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO ALL ASPECTS CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF OUR CHILDREN IN THE UK. (Those above need to know) Parental Alienation Child ‘Stealing’ by Social Services Family Courts
Sentencing of Sex Offenders
Legal Aid for Family matters
to name a few.. We will be passing these guys en route, as they will not give us the voice to tell all on child abuse, child stealing and parental alienation mums dads lets all unite; SOUTH MIMMS SERVICES 24th July 2014 10:00 to 13:00 Starbucks South Mimms Services South Mimms Services, M25 Junction 23, Bignells Corner, EN6 3QQ Potters Bar Choose to get behind the blockading of all major highways in the UK; The M25, M4, M5, M1, M23, M6 etc this would cause major disruption around the country, from Lands End to John O’ Groats. MEETING AT M25 SOUTH MIMMS ONLY PLEASE, 10am Tell YOUR MP before they clear off on holiday! The Rt Hon Chris Grayling
Across the western world, feminists decry the existence of a 'wage gap' as an excuse for all kinds of discrimination against men, from spending initiatives of millions on educating females even though males are already doing worse, to legislation denying men the opportunity of advancing on merit. The 'wage gap' or 'pay gap' shows that when you total all of the gross pay to men who work full time (typically, 35 hours a week or more) and all of the gross pay to women who work full time, it shows that men are higher earners. This fact is then used to pretend that for the same job, or doing the same work, women are paid less even though there has been legislation against doing so for almost everyone's working life (and such legislation is used but not much).
When you take any two demographics and compare their incomes, you are almost certainly going to find a difference. The demographics could be Young people compared to old people;Coloured people compared to colourless people;Religious people compared to atheists;Women compared to men;Children of single parents compared to those from two-parent families.Or just about anything else you think of. There will almost certainly be a difference.
There is then a choice. Do you want to take a political/ideological position and pretend that the difference is 'obviously' due to discrimination against those earning more? Or do you want to take a scientific view and look into the reasons for why there is a difference.
Obviously, if you don't take into account the hours worked by the two groups (including overtime), you don't have a proper comparison. Likewise the average occupational danger (reflected in the proportion of workplace deaths, for example); or the average time in the same company; or whether one group tends to look for flexible working hours while the other tends to go for higher-paid but less flexible jobs; or a comparison of job risk
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Just stop right there and read that last line again. It's a formal phrase addressing a mixed group, so embedded in our culture that it is easy to miss the misandry that has been there all along.
It is almost as though a feminist travelled back in time, to around the late 16th century, and messed around with the English language. The phrase used to be "gentlemen and gentlewomen."
'Lady' has always been the feminine equivalent of 'Lord.' 'Gentleman' has always been associated with a lower social class than 'Lady'.
So every time a room full of men and women has been addressed formally with that easy phraseLadies and gentlemennot only is it notable that the females are always addressed first but they are accorded the honorary highest title, while the males come in second as a lower class of person.
There is so much more that is important for the men's movement to address in the world than stuff like this, which is why I am posting this piece in my personal blog rather than on the forum. Yet language says a great deal about a society and for many centuries it has been quite acceptable to address men as lower-class than women.
So, Men and women,
Think before you use a misandric phrase too freely!
As part of the experiment, participants also had to rate the content on a questionnaire to say how it made them feel. As expected, women said they felt more emotional in response to the content compared to the men. However, even though men reported feeling less emotion than women, their physiological changes showed that in fact they felt emotion more strongly.
“This study suggests that men feel emotion just as much as women, sometimes more strongly, but are less willing to express these emotions openly due to expectations put on them by society.”
I've always enjoyed how studies by non-feminist groups that clearly don't have a hateful agenda manage to actually say something nice about men once in a while.. and women too, I'm sure. Every time there's a feminist 'study' you can bet your last dollar that the findings will be along the lines of "women are victims", "men are to blame" or "women are better than men". Always. Guaranteed. Without fail. Try it - place a bet and watch as your winnings come rolling in.
And to finish off with a high, watch this heart-warming video by Dove... about time too, Dove have spent years telling society how only women matter - thanks Dove for finally acknowledging men. New research shows men are more emotional than women
(submitted to A Voice for Men verbatim as below)
Cultural Misandry, Institutional Misandry, and Feminism: One man's views By Ron Collins (aka Rof L Mao Esq. @ antimisandry.com) May 2014 (earlier version & discussion at http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/cultural-misandry-institutional-misandry-feminism-55171.html)
Preface: First off, let me say I have very much enjoyed the reception I've met with in my first four articles published here at A Voice for Men. Each of them has its roots in posts, threads or blogs I have placed on the Antimisandry forums, and I have come over (thanks, Dean) to AVFM these past few months in search of a different and possibly wider audience, primarily to see how well my ideas hold up in that larger purview. I must say I am pleased with the results. Comments, good ones, have been about the topics and not the writer, which may be the best compliment a readership can pay an author on this sort of material. Some of my views on gender politics and interpersonal gender relations both may be controversial, here within the M(H)RM confines of men’s websites and certainly in the larger world. So be it. I look for clarity of thought within ideas, rather than ideological or political advantage that may be gained by chanting facsimiles of ideas. This does not often sit well within movement environments, and I accept that. But in these writings I seek to elaborate on, and hopefully clarify, just how it is I see these issues. According to (presumably) Dean’s blurb about me, pretty well my only credential here, is that I have “been an observer”, which is about right. I'm not a big fan of credentials and resumes anyway: if what I write makes sense, it is self-endorsing. If not, hey, a guy tries. Born in 1960 and arriving at manhood during the chaotic, amoral, revolutionary 70s, yes, I have had my chances (suffice it to say) to observe what is happening
Do any of you know TheAmazingAtheist? I love this guy's channel, it's an interesting way to see the world in a much clearer light. He primarily takes issue with Religion, but he does do a few videos on Feminism or feminist-related issues.
If you know him, I would like to hear your opinion. I personally like him.
HI WMP, I wondered if you could explain something that has confused me a little.. I recently spent some time at my Sister's & Niece's home for a coffee. Whilst there, my Niece showed me her certificate with your logo (and thus affiliation & support) as linked: (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...7649453&type=1).
My Niece explained to me how it was a girls-only event, boys were banned for what, as far as she could tell, was no good reason aside from blatant discrimination. How does the Cognitive Dissonance work with that, doing away with discrimination - by discriminating against half the population? Could you explain why you condone sexism & misandry? And perhaps you could explain other issues too, such as your poster campaigns always pretending only women are victims of DV (when it's an established fact that women initiate DV some 70% of the time) and why you only portray men negatively in most other poster campaigns? Am I to assume the Police are either too scared to credit women for their own crimes & behaviours or is it that the police simply feel it's acceptable to attack the silent victims (i.e. men don't have groups akin to feminists who scream & cry everytime something offends a man)? Which is it? I look forward to your excuses.. I mean, answers. Regards,
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.