All Blog Entries

25.12.11

Feminism Will Destroy Everyone..

The Men's Movement has only ever and will only ever work for the good of society as greater minds and everyone involved in it over the centuries has determined it to be. The only problem with society is what radical feminists and feminists as a whole, determine those problems to be..

They are just delusional..

The entire problem with society is that feminism has been allowed to fester and infect society to try and destroy our normal existence and turn it into some loathing cauldron, which it is not. Radical feminism is the by product of marxism and their rampant hate for all is now coming to light. This is what they are teaching your children, they are teaching your children to hate everything and everyone..

Is this the world that you want to raise your children in ?

December 24, 2011Kyle Lovett<small style="color: rgb(56, 56, 56); font: normal normal bold 0.71em/normal Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; ">FEMINISM, SEXUAL POLITICS</small>

The destructive logic of radical feminism

I decided that before I got really deep into the long breadcrumb trail of radical feminists working towards changing laws and policies inside Australia, I wanted to take a moment to discuss radical and mainstream feminism at its base level. At the bottom of the page, I’ll list out several popular books by radical feminists that discuss what their ideology is all about. But I’ve noticed a lot of discussion here on AVFM and other sites questioning just what radical feminism is and if there is any difference to mainstream feminism. I thought it important to give at least my take on feminist and radical feminist theory, as I think it is important to understand what exactly these people are talking about, and what they are so motivated to accomplish.

And, please don’t take my word for it, if you have the stomach, I suggest that you read what this movement’s ideology is, and the very bizarre thought process behind it.

Before I address the condensed list of radical feminist bullet points, I think it is important to touch on leading rad-fem writers position on individual choice. The quick and dirty is that the overwhelming majority of radical feminists don’t believe women have true individual choice. Instead, they think that women who are uneducated on radical feminist theory have no agency over themselves or their actions. According to doctrine, the individual choices of a woman regarding her own body and sexual practices, and even her own actions in life, are a tool of oppression and the patriarchy. No, seriously, they really believe this.

Shelia Jeffreys in her book Beauty and Misogyny (2005 2nd ed) explains this concept in detail:

“I suggest that beauty practices are not about women’s individual choice or a “discursive space” for women’s creative expression but, as other radical feminist theorists have argued before me, a most important aspect of women’s oppression. The feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye has written incisively of what makes a theory feminist, and why it is not enough to rely on women’s individual assurances that a practice is OK with them and in their interests” (p2)

Radical feminist Denise Thompson, in her 2001 book “Radical Feminism Today” expands on this idea of the harm of individualism a bit more:

“The ideology of individualism depicts ‘humanity’ as a set of isolated selves […] Desires, needs, interests, beliefs, actions, feelings, attitudes and behaviours, are perceived as personal properties intrinsic to each individual […] If relations of domination and subordination are interpreted as nothing but properties of individuals, they cannot be seen as relations of ruling at all. They become simply a matter of preferences and choices engaged in by discrete individuals who have no responsibilities beyond their own immediate pleasures and satisfactions. In this libertarian discourse, politics vanishes. If only individuals exist, political critique can only be seen as personal insult or annihilation of the self, and disagreement becomes assertion of the self against threatening and hostile others. ‘Freedom’ is reduced to the absence of constraint, either on the part of the self or of others.”(p43-44)

In other words, Thompson is saying that she believes individualism and individual choices of women are part of the collective oppression of the patriarchy. In Janice Raymond’s 1995 book, “Women as wombs: reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom,” she takes it a step further; that a women’s body is the reproductive agent of the patriarchy.

“The assumption that any reproductive means should be a constitutionally protected

...

Another "women are not Violent" Example..



The lies that feminists tell always get exposed, one way or the other. It is akin to that saying "Sit on a river bank and watch the bodies of your enemies float by".
Feminist lies are those bodies and here we have an example on how much they lie about women not being violent..

This guys cannot even defend himself against this monster even if he had the guts to do it. He would be arrested and jailed. That they way it goes these days. Thanks to feminists like Harman and her male hating ilk..

If this does not convince you, then I suggest you just bugger off and live your ignorant life somewhere else..

As reality just does not do it for you..

<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid<img src=" http:="" antimisandry.com="" images="" smilies="" biggrin.png"="" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="3" width="520" height="266"><embed width="520" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ab2b-k_ZaEM&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></object>

PIV, RADFEM Hub, Hugo and Other Nefarious Deeds..

Womyn's Stuff apparently..

On numerous occasions, the RADFEM Hub feminist members speak of a festival called the 'Michigan Womyn's Music Festival', a popular occasion, their Mecca, amongst lesbian feminists and strictly off limits to transvestites ofcourse, as they hate them with a passion, as they are not "real" women as far as they are concerned..

As a matter of fact, even being (or have been at any time in the past) in a heterosexual relationship has your browny marks reduced to zero. That would be contamination as far as they are concerned. Those radical feminists, who is part of the Feminist Movement, are really just an inevitable response of a movement that promotes hate and malice to anyone outside their own sex..

In order to witness the sickening loathing and hate they generate, one would not have to look long at their endless rantings. Part of their mindless programs begin with the total annihilation of an entire sex which one wonders if that is not self-destroying and self defeating, but that has escaped their mindless raging as they continually discuss methods of completing that task..

Bare in mind too, that Pamela O'Shaughnessy is a member of this group under the guise of Karma. Her maniacal lecturing and support for the extermination of all males is not restricted to adults as she includes the introduction of eugenics (just like that dictator did) into her many and varied recommendations and long term goals..

There would not be a site or forum on the net that would surpass the deep seated hate and maniacal loathing of these women, these feminist females have for the opposite sex..
Here is a sample of the deep seated loathing that "pretend" feminists ignore and deny..

Disrespect is crucial. Disrespect for the cultures, values and institutions of male domination is the very foundation and sine qua non of feminism. Since religion is crucial to the construction of cultural norms in every culture, disrespect for it should be the natural amniotic fluid of feminist thought and activism.Sheila Jeffreys is an academic and writer, originally from London, who teaches in Australia. She has been a rad fem activist for 38 years.

So moving on, we have Hugo Schwyzer organising "Slutwalk LA" for the simple reason of having plenty of young, nubile, willing females on hand, for him to practise (as the feminist call it, PIV- penis in vagina) sex with them. An accusation he has not only verified himself but blatantly brags about on his blog. What a great example for an almost "human being"..
Here is an article penned by one of the lunatic fringe members at RADFEM Hub called " Steering the Sluts", apply named I thought..

Steering the Sluts: Prof. Hugo Schwyzer Organizes Los Angeles SlutWalk
self-identified feminist man and fun-fem darling hugo schwyzer reports on his blog that he is ”proud to be a part” of the steering committee organizing the los angeles SlutWalk, scheduled to take place june 4, 2011.
according to professor schwyzer, “We’re marching to reclaim a word, we’re marching to declare zero tolerance for harassment and sexual abuse, we’re marching in defense of the basic notion that whatever women wear and whomever they sleep with,

And for those who are of the opinion that Schwyzer has any scruples at all..

FCM (Hello Mindy).... hugo admits on his blog that he “used to” have PIV with female students (including on his professorial-office desk) during what he euphemistically refers to as his “acting out years.” what a rebel! a college professor, teaching womens studies and womens history to women, acting out his aggressions and dysfunctions on the bodies of his female students by having PIV with them,

A great example of pure hypocrisy. Schwyzer is in it for the sex (PIV) and female attention, just like most feminist men are..


Lesbian separatist feminism at Michigan Womyn’s music festival

• Kath Browne
  
  • <address style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width:

...

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011

The Facts behind the SCUM Manifesto Conference..



Agent Orange Special Report no 2.

With the exposure of the RADFEM Hub information, their discussions about gendercide (the killing of all men) and the SCUM Manifesto, one does wonder who those guest speakers were , who were involved in the three day SCUM Manifesto conference..


Agent Orange, our Net Investigator appear to have hit on the identities of the speakers involved and also the organisers of the conference as well. Those who attended to discuss the annihilation of men and boys are listed below..

As you can see the object of that conference is listed as above and also in the poster. One would have to question also as to who financed this conference and where was it held.

Perth SCUM Conference and it's connection to Australian Academia


Between September 23-25th, 2011, two members of the radical feminist hub and radfem forum, Danielle Elina Pynnonen (Allecto) and her partner, Big Brother UK 5 contestant Kat "Kitten Pinder (Amazon Mancrusher) organized and hosted a three day feminist conference in Perth Australia that they called the 'SCUM Conference'. They billed it as:


"THRILL SEEKING FEMALES UNITE! Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore, this THREE DAY RADICAL FEMINIST CONFERENCE is for civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females who want to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. Workshops, guest presenters and social activities, plus a space to celebrate and re-member the life and work of Valerie Solanas and other radical feminists."
As you've seen in pervious articles, the people that frequent the Radfemhub and forum have often contemplated and discussed gendercide, male genital mutilation and advocating the abortion of male fetuses, among many other very disturbing activities. Valerie Solanas, the woman who this group has almost worship like admiration for, was the author of the SCUM Manifesto, never made it a secret about her feelings towards men. She wrote:
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."
In another passage she writes:
"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) chromosome is an incomplete x(female) chromosome, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
Her writing seems to be in lock step with the very disturbing writings we have witnessed recently on the Radfem Hub and forum. And many would dismiss these people as wack-jobs, or insane or even the disturbed rantings of a few no-name sadistic people. Of course this isn't the case, as many of these women as we have seen are in positions of responsibility in the real world. But what about the guest speakers for the conference, the one's who also celebrated the life and work of Valerie Solanas? The sad, yet ugly truth is, that not only are these lecturers well known professors, authors and activists, but they also run in the same online circles with the very same women that advocate a desire for violence and death towards men.


While many of those who spoke have been smart enough to not talk about such ugly things as we have seen here online, (at least nothing that can be traced back to them) they are friends with these same groups of women on Facebook, guest post articles on the Radfem Hub and even comment on some of these women's individual blogs. Julie Anne LeComte on Canberra, Australia, the owner and administrator of the forum where most of the worst hate is espoused, goes by the online name Rain Lewis/Rainsinger/Raindancer.


A quick look at her Facebook page, as well as online forum discussions, that she, as well as Danielle Pynnonen(Allecto) and Kat Pinder(Amazon Mancrusher) personally know many of these professors, authors and activists. Just look at the speakers and some of the attendees of the 2008 Brisbane Feminist Conference. So just who were these speakers at the 2011 Perth SCUM conference that would openly associate with ...

Exposing the AW's Radical Feminist Core..

It is as if, automatically on cue. State the most obnoxious, absurd, the most outlandish remark you can think of about most American Women and they will go out of their way to not only prove it to be correct but also back it up with something even worse..

Wow, and you guys actually live in the same country and probably take them out to lunch. Tell me I am wrong..

From The Counter-Feminist blog of Fidelbogen. He would not have to search too far and nor does anyone else to find this bit of usual misandry..
Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Speaks For Itself

The accompanying is a screen capture from a larger screen capture which one of "our people" (wink, wink!) gathered from a secret, members-only feminist web forum.

What you see here is the quintessential, inner truth about feminism-as-a-whole. Yes, yes. We all know that Not All Feminists Are Like That.

NAFALT!

Unfortunately, the ones who are "not like that" are merely irrelevant. They have little to do with the actual center of power, and they are of scant interest to those who are fighting said power. These earnest ones frankly bore us, and we frankly wish they would shut the hell up and disappear. They are a nuisance and a distraction which obsures feminism's rotten core from the world's gaze. But that is their purpose -- camouflage.

So, what you see in the screen capture is the TRUTH about feminism. Those people are not what insipid folk so politely called the "radical fringe". No, they are the radical core. Without their living presence on planet earth, feminism would simply not exist in a meaningful or viable form. Lacking the ardent nucleus of unbridled animosity toward all things male, it would have long ago spent itself and faded away.

Click on the pic to get a larger (more readable) view.

Please note that the opposite animosity, expressed toward women by men (as it occasionally is) is not the "core" of non-feminism, since non-feminism has no core. It is not even analogous to feminism, being simply the rest of the world, the world beyond feminism. Non-feminism is not an ideology, not a doctrine, not a religion, not a system of thought, not a political party, but only a vast, loose collection of things that vary wildly. As the wise saying goes, the world is full of a number of things.
In parting, here is an inspirational article which promises us that even though "men may be dogs", we still love them.
Well. That's good hearing!Men May Be Dogs but We Love Them Anyway - MSN Relationships - article

Quote from Lady Catherine

In my very Heathen worldview, there is no such thing as "Good vs. Evil" it is rather "Order vs. Chaos." Heathen morality is often considered grey morality, things are never black and white, which is something that I agree with in the case of gender politics, though I will note that I believe that one side is more justified than the other. There are some feminists that I respect, and I certainly think they are fair and honorable people, but for the most part feminists are like, forces of chaos and destruction that do more harm than good. MRAs, on the other hand, are mostly decent people, but there are a couple of bad seeds, which is able to be weeded out by the community at large.

I have been discussing the moral nature of feminism lately, and I am compelled to give a more Heathen outlook about it's nature and to give a more reasonable take on the pros and cons of feminism, which I will then give my conclusions about what kinds of concepts are salvageable and are worthy concepts in my personal ideology. If we take feminism at it's dictionary definition(which I suggest that we refute as Adam does in that superb article), it becomes painfully obvious that there is something wrong with the definition, it certainly doesn't reflect reality and all of the different kinds of feminism.

Feminism is at its very core, a female advocacy movement. That on it's own isn't a bad thing, but it's female advocacy at the expense of men is not a good thing in fact it's a terrible thing. Certainly it's possible to be female positive while being male positive at the same time. When I look at history as I see it and I look at the here and now, I see a reoccurring pattern of oppression towards both men and women, it is ignorant and one-sided to claim otherwise. It does not matter who was/is more oppressed, but it certainly matters that we don't become drunk on ideology.

There are two ideas I appreciate from feminism, one is female empowerment and the other is gender liberation.

Female empowerment to me is the power of choice, and I am not talking about a certain sticky topic, I'm talking about ethical choice and the ability to go beyond stereotypes about women and become something great. Gender liberation on the other hand is the ability to transcend gender stereotypes and become more than what's in between your legs. Both are concepts that we should strive for. Yes, I said we should strive for female empowerment, but I also believe we should strive for male empowerment.

This leads to actual purpose of this article- the MRM or men's rights movement. There are plenty of things to like about the causes they promote as someone who is involved in issues unrelated and yet...related to men's rights. Allow me to explain the general philosophical positions of most MRAs. They lean towards libertarian and conservative political philosophies, oppose tradtionalism, and consist of a multitude of ideologies much like feminism is.

This is natural for any socio-political movement, the group's core ideology is going to be the same(removal of misandry and anti-male discrimination) but there are also peripheral side movements that should be considered, which often have different solutions to the problems facing men.

There are a number of things that I happen to disagree with the MRM on, but I do accept that there is discrimination against men in society, and the need to create a new identity for men of all flavors. That to me is the essence of male empowerment. This is a core idea in the MGTOW(Men Going Their Own Way) branch/submovement of the MRM, which strives to define masculinity on their terms, well... at least how I understand it.

 As Fidelbogen notes in his article which is a response to my article about moral dissonance and morality, he states essentially that all is fair in war, which in the comment section I noted that was in line with Heathen morality: "Loddfafnir, listen to my counsel: You will fare well if you follow it, It will help you much if you heed it. If aware that another is wicked, say so: Make no truce or treaty with foes." - Hávamál, 127

I do not apologize for my line of thinking towards those I consider my enemies, and I don't expect any less from those I consider my foes.

I would love it if there wasn't a gender war and men and women would live in love and frith, but that is not the current reality. The reality is that people of both sexes are at war, and I think my prediction will be accurate.

However, I also note that while I think the issues are greyer than what is portrayed by the MRM and feminism and are multi-faceted, but I do not think feminism addresses these issues in an adequate manner or fair manner. The MRM is finally gaining steam and I do predict that things will become a bit more messy and what is coming is a bit more chaotic than

...

My Parents’ failed experiment in Gender Neutrality
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235300?gt1=43002

Courtesy Jesse Ellison
The author, in her overalls, with her cousins in Maine
My Name Is Jesse

But I am not a boy. Inside my parents' failed experiment with gender neutrality.
By Jesse Ellison | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 23, 2010
When I was 2 years old, my father started building a big house behind our tiny starter house. For days leading up to the arrival of the giant trucks and backhoes coming to dig out the foundation, my mother tried to get me excited. "Don't you want to watch the big trucks?!" she'd tease. When they finally arrived, the neighborhood boys parked themselves on our property, transfixed. I glanced out the window and immediately turned back to my toys, ignoring the commotion. As my mother recalls, "It was really a wake-up for me."
This now-infamous family anecdote wasn't the first time my parents tried to shake off gender stereotypes. As a toddler, they dressed me in overalls and cut my hair in an androgynous bowl cut. I didn't have Barbies; I had wooden blocks. Even my first name is evidence of their experiment in gender neutrality. You can't imagine how many times I've had to explain, "No, not Jessica, just Jesse. Like a boy."
In 1978, the year I was born, feminists like my mother were embracing the notion that gender roles were entirely rooted in the way that you were raised. In the 1970s, the feminist fringe was giving up bras, shaving, and diets; they were lighting their own cigarettes and opening their own doors. It was the "new feminism," and where the first movement was concerned with legal equality, like the right to vote, these women were focused on de facto equality: asserting that it was nurture, not nature, that made women and men different. To bust out of gender oppression also meant to assert that there was absolutely nothing different about our biological makeup.
My family, by and large, was removed from societal pressure. We lived in rural Maine, we didn't have a television, and my mom and dad had matching short haircuts. (A few years before that, they'd had matching braids that went all the way down their backs.) But my parents' little project in gender neutrality (namely, me) was, from the get-go, a total failure. As soon as I could speak, I demanded they replace my overalls with a long, pink, lacy dress. Far from gender-neutral, I was emphatically, defiantly a "girl."
"We all thought that the differences had to do with how you were brought up in a sexist culture, and if you gave children the same chances, it would equalize," my mom says. "It took a while to think, 'Maybe men and women really are different from each other, and they're both equally valuable.' "
Since then, of course, countless studies have shown that men and women think and behave differently—to the point that it's not the existence of these differences, but the source of them, that is the subject of any debate. By the time my generation came of age, women could call themselves feminists and also embrace the standard trappings of femininity. We could wear pink, spend money on fancy shoes, and simultaneously expect—no, demand—the same success as men. Femininity and feminism were no longer a contradiction.
But maybe my generation is evidence of our having swung too far in the other direction. In the last decade, the reigning role models for young girls included Paris Hilton, swathed in pink and practically bedazzled. "There's so much emphasis on appearance that is part of what women have to do [today]," says gender-studies professor Susan Brownmiller. "You have to be a babe, in addition to everything else. Looking like a sex object but also claiming the rights of women who are not sex objects—that's tricky." By turning our back on our mothers' gender-neutral principles, all while taking it for granted that they had fought the great fight and won, we were unprepared for the fact that sexism still exists.
My generation is different from my mother's, in countless ways. But just because we chose high heels over Birkenstocks, it doesn't mean our commitment to equality should be any less than ardent. Now that I'm older, and a little bit wiser, I love that my parents were so consciously trying to foster androgyny. Ultimately, the whole point was to ensure that I had the freedom, and choice, to be whoever I wanted—which is, after all, what feminism is all about. And even though it's still cause for confusion, I even like my name. Actually, given that the alternatives included—true story—Oyster and Wing, I love it.

I often wondered where she got the anti-male, male-hating, male-bashing and downright obnoxious behaviour from..

It was her Mother...

Now I understand why Germaine Greer hates men

"Germaine Greer: "My father had decided pretty early on that life at home was pretty unbearable...it gave my mother an opportunity to tyrannize the children and enlist their aid to disenfranchise my father completely." (From Susan Mitchell. /Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World/, New York: Harper Collins, 1997.)"

Marinko..
Basically she hates men as a projection of her hate for her father who she says abandoned her and as such was not there to protect her from her tyrannical mother

simple really