Oh, relax...

Feminism, on its face, seems like a fair and rational thing: granting women the same opportunities (and risks) allowed men in society. Of course, like all initiatives of the left, this is only the innocuous-looking sheep’s clothing disguising the deadly wolf within.

For feminism proper, especially after its [complete] radicalization in the 1960s, is not really about “fairness” and “equal opportunity”. It’s about the denial of the biological realities of human sexual dimorphism; the eradication of the societal gender roles that stem from those sexual dimorphisms; and ultimately it is about the vilification and total annihilation of any and all masculine virtues (and some feminine virtues).

One example of a gender role that stems from biological sexual differences is that of women rearing children (i.e., the “motherly instincts”). I am constantly amazed how many women are constantly amazed to see their two-year-old daughters wanting to play with dolls, play “house”, and take care of the newest baby in town while their sons’ only concern is smashing things. It is a sign of how effective feminist brainwashing is when so many women don’t even recognize that their own fantastic mothering and home-making skills are the work not of some [“evil”] “patriarchal society”, but of their double X chromosomes.

It is perhaps why this most obvious of the innate sexual differences is one of the chief “feminine virtues” targeted by feminists. For what is the demand placed upon women to pursue professional careers at the expense of getting married and raising a family if nothing but an assault on the ability of women to do what they do best in the prime years of their lives? (And don’t get me started on abortion.)

And what of the “masculine virtues” in the crosshairs of the feminist? Well, here are a few:

Leadership. From what I remember, leadership was about barking out orders and having your troops follow. Leaders were laconic—the strong, silent types—with that ineffable “charisma” that made fellow men want to go to war for them. Now, leadership seems to be all about “inclusiveness” and “buy-in”; it’s all touchy-feely nonsense like “team-building” and “dialogue.” You know what a “team” is? A “team” is a bunch of heterosexual men singularly focused on a difficult goal as articulated by a bold leader in no uncertain terms. (Notice what’s missing here? That would be all the distractions caused by sexual tension.) You want “inclusiveness” and “dialogue” and all that happy horsesh*t? That’s called a sewing circle.

Logic. Ah, logic—remember thee? Now before anyone gets her panties in a twist, let me be clear that I’m not saying women aren’t logical. What I’m saying is that one of the traditional “masculine virtues” is the preeminence of logic above all else. For women, I’d argue that feelings tend to be preeminent—and for good reason (as I believe this is an essential part of the “motherly instincts”). So this is not to denigrate the importance of being guided by one’s emotions, but to reiterate the notion that the male/female dichotomy yields critical counterparts, and one such counterpart is that men are generally more coldly logical while women are generally more warmly emotional. And these counterparts serve to balance each other out. But feminists can’t countenance logic ever reigning supreme over emotion, heavens no. So they seek to ensure that everything is guided by feelings, never by logic. Witness political correctness. Witness college “education”. Witness all this “gun control” hysteria. Witness pretty much anything going on in our society over the past 50 years.

Feats of strength. In the past, when brawn was more important, this was to be taken literally. In our more automated society, this more often than not means mental strength and career/financial aggressiveness. I.e., the striving of man was not to make everyone feel good about themselves (spirit awards!); it was to dominate. To be alpha male. To achieve; to conquer; to reign supreme. Yes, this leads to all sorts of little counter-productive things like world wars and genocide, but it is also responsible for pretty much everything—technologies, economies, nations, etc.—that we take for granted today. So, naturally, we can’t have any of it.

A few years back, Maureen Dowd wrote a book, “Are Men Necessary?” (to which she happily noted that her “research” came to the “conclusion” that, yes, we’re still needed…how kind and generous of her). The title of the book, despite its ultimate “conclusion”, hearkens back to feminist Valerie Solanas (of “I Shot Andy Warhol” fame) who famously wrote in her “SCUM Manifesto” (emphasis mine):

“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 eliminate the male sex.
– Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifest

When I was growing up, you got a big trophy for coming in first, a little trophy for coming in second or third, and you got squat for coming in anywhere after that. Second-stringers sat on the bench unless there was a comfortable-enough lead to let them play; they didn’t get to play just because the coach wanted to make them feel “included.” And coach was a bastard who didn’t give us “candy asses” a moment’s peace until we had achieved maximum potential; who accepted no excuses; and who pushed us to our limits without trying to get “buy-in” or having a “dialogue”.

Now, we have confused beta males whacked out on prescription psychotropics who kill little children by the dozen.

Progress indeed.

Sweden Then, Now

True dat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




    Sweeden was once a real nation of real men now its a nation of pussietards and whimps and liberals want america to be just like them

  2. In answer to your original question: Yes times 1,000!!!

  3. I think the love of money is still the root of all evil. Radical feminism ignores a basic human truth and therefore will only work at the point of a gun, which is the ultimate goal of the power crazed godless sociopaths. That basic truth is that men need to be loved and women need to be wanted.

  4. #24.Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. Rush Limbaugh

    True when Rush first published it, and its true today, all else is chaff or subterfuge.

  5. bluffcreek1967 says:

    Feminism isn’t the root of all evil, but it’s certainly a major symptom of an ideology that, at its core, is pure evil – namely, liberalism/Marxism. Everywhere liberalism reigns, it destroys the natural order, reverses established and wholesome norms, and leads to the most insane of policies. Under the guise of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness,’ it seeks to rectify what it views as unbalanced in society – yet it always leads to disruption of what is known to be proper, confusion among the sexes, and totalitarianism.

    With Dear Leader at the helm of our 50 year social experiment in America, we are beginning to see the end result of what happens when you tinker with the natural order, true and tried American traditions, and common sense.

    If humans survive that long, I think many years in the future they will look back at these times and shake their heads in disgust at how confused we were. Our era will be held up as the example of what occurs when humans place foolish ideologies above the collective wisdom of history and what humans know instinctively about gender and the natural order of creation.


    Radical feminists want all boys to play dumb liberal games and they want ZERO TOLLRENCE in the privacy of the home

  7. Well said, NYC Red!

    I don’t know if feminism is the root of all evil, but it certainly typifies the Progressive movement’s child-like urge to dismiss anything potentially beneficial about tradition.

    My observation has been that women are less comfortable making executive-type decisions than men. That’s certainly not to say that the decisions men make are necessarily better ones, but men do seem more comfortable taking the risk of making them.

    I’ve also observed that men are less comfortable with process than women and have a stronger need to keep moving toward accomplishing the task. I think men view mistakes as inevitable and something that can be corrected and learned from, whereas women view mistakes as something that must be avoided – and view process as the means to avoiding mistakes. Sometimes a man’s mistakes earn a Darwin award and sometimes they create a company like Apple.

    Vive la différence!

  8. yeah true and all but it’s nice i don’t have to get my husband or father’s permission to buy myself a washing machine anymore

  9. You can smell the fear of estrogen here

  10. Cinnamon Girl says:

    Growing up I was proud to call myself a feminist, not realizing what I was saying.

    It is one thing to take pride in yourself. It’s also noble to fight for equal treatment, such as the vote and property ownership, and countless other things men used to enjoy alone.

    However, once I became an adult I realized that feminism has caused women to be distrustful, overworked, and alone. Women today are, because of adjustments to the pay that men, the traditional breadwinners used to earn, generally required to work even if they’re married or in a domestic partnership. Men were paid less so that women could make more and while I know I might get some arguments against my statement I still stand behind it.

    Once women entered the workplace, they found they had to continue to cook, clean, shop, and raise the children ON TOP OF working full time. To be honest, this is one of the major reasons I never bore children. With all due respect to men, it is true that most women possess more of the nurturing qualities for childcare than do men. Also, they are, in general and in my experience in life, more apt to wish to perform the cooking, cleaning, and shopping. Call me sexist or whatever, but it’s generally true.

    This stress placed on women has, again, in my opinion, caused many divorces that otherwise could possibly have been avoided. Families are torn apart. The overall effect of more extreme feminism has been to destroy the fabric of families and even child-free relationships because of the strain on both partners (male and female) who are either confused or frustrated about their roles.

    Now, while I don’t believe for a second that there is anything wrong with a couple and family who can work it out that the husband stays home with the kids and the wife works, or if both work, that split their duties equally. But, they’re rare, as we are finding. And some women and men have different natures than their genders would traditionally suggest. But again, that’s rare. And even couples who stay together are becoming rarer because of the breakdown of society and the fact that women are being painted, especially when they are overtly feminist, as difficult, illogical, and hysterical. It is funny how the more feminists try to fight these assumptions, some of which are fair and some of which are not, the more tenacious the assumptions become. Heck, these days I see and hear a lot of men saying that women are basically impossible to live with anymore because they’re so demanding and insecure. That’s a step back, not a step forward!

    As much as I have observed in many men: their tendencies toward violence, their less-than-warm sensibilities, their inabilities to deal with failure, I would never dream in a million years of such prattle as Dowd’s or Solana’s. It does no good at all to be at odds with half the population. In fact, I love men. They, like you said, RedStater, serve to balance us, protect us, lead us.

    We are not equal because apples are not oranges. “Equal” is an overused word. I’d prefer “fair” but that’s also been abused and redefined. I’ll just stick with my eastern philosophy of yin-yang.

    • I’m proud of your courage to call out the wrongs of feminism,even as a girl.Anyone calling u a sexist is a sexist themselves.I was once called that too despite arguments all being in the effort towards greater balance between both sides.Feminists and spineless pro-feminist men,aka slaves of feminists themselves,are experts at name-calling,believe me
      Yes u are obsolutely right,u thought feminism was about equality and thus supported,and that is what it was supposed to be.The only part feminists left out was the part of how totally untrue that is,and how the equality advocacy is just a sugarcoat for a much more selfish cause.I’m glad u are not only able to see through it but also stand up against what is wrong.Shame on those men who still delude themselves into thinking its chivalrous to support feminism and violates the rights of other men n hence themselves.The idea of chivalry is not only distorted but outdated as well.Check up the original meaning of chivalry in the knight ages n u’d see it differs vastly from what is assumed today.

  11. I agree with Cinnamon.
    Having graduated in 1979, my age group is that of the kids that witnesses all the feminism of the late 60s & early 70s.
    While is was a good thing that women could obtain their own credit & get mostly equal pay….
    My age group was also at the forefront of the “Single motherhood is a good thing movement” and the “Don’t worry son, you don’t have to marry that pregnant girl” syndrome.
    It was glamorized on TV & everywhere. We were also the teens & young 20-something group of chicks that were told: 1 night stands are good & healthy for you, now dear… that that positive pregnancy is just mass of cells – like a clueless blob – Just ABORT it, the guys started giving ultimatums of, “Get an abortion or I’ll leave you.”, most of those guys skipped out on helping us pay for the abortion or providing us a ride to get it, we looked for love in all the wrong places – all the while we were telling ourselves.. this was FUN. We were EMPOWERED, right?
    So in the early 80s, my 1st birth was as a single mom is a major SW US city…. I was 20. This was “cool”, right ?
    I had already had a few abortions…I was an empowered chick with a baby with a father that ran out on me due to the new way of thinking for guys….
    For he had an empowered PhD mother that was recently divorced.
    *Oh yeah, my parents divorced when I was 13 – 1 of those no-fault divorces that feminists fought for.. My parents were non practicing (for the last 15 yrs) Catholics. My decided he needed to live like Hefner (gee thanks Playboy) & my Mom didn’t. Before you get your boxers in a bunch, I’m very open “That” way.
    So with single motherhood being the most common bunch of chicks in the nightclubs, the unspoken trophy was scoring the guy that became the long term boyfriend. If a gal was really lucky, that long term boyfriend became the *gasp*… prized husband. Whoa, aren’t we modern girls? >>>

    • Trixee, I believe your story is all too common. You’re a year older than I. Maybe our grandparents did know better after all. Roles between men and women have changed over the past 40 years.

      AWD has written about my distaste for the controlling, spoiled American woman more than once. I know there are some bad guys out there but American culture has been very bad to men. Especially white men. The poison of feminism holds much of the blame.


  12. Feminism was one more attack on Christian values.
    Now infanticide is ‘blessed’ by them and kept legal by obongo.

    Doubt me? read ‘Obama Nation’ by Corsi.


  13. Pingback: Troll of the Week: Biffy the Paleo Slayer | Angry White Dude

  14. Who’s the most hated in the world? White, straight, Christian, male with money.

  15. The man has spoken says:

    “Who’s the most hated in the world? White, straight, Christian, male with money”

    And the most wanted.

    In my country, all these liberal teachers want whity to send their kids to their schools because they pay the school fees. and overwhelmly the students are brown. Now whitey good enough they want him back. – we’ve become the world’s free meal ticket.

  16. One aspect of this feminism is inadvertently the extension of the definition of freedom.Collaborating with fashion starters,they developed a hosts of clothes unsuited for girls and women but insist the society that they be accepted,or be labeled as women haters.They have developed hotpants,or worse ones like extreme cutoff and ripped ones,and perhaps once only deemed acceptable at the beach,now deeming it as acceptable common streetwear.Logic dictates that boys and men should also share in such indulgence,but no,they refuse to extend such ‘freedom’ to us,instead subtlely allowing the labels of ‘gay’ spread across the globe towards men who attempt such a fashion statement,and to finish it all off,denying the male section of any hotpants.
    Miniskirts,once an article that only bar hostesses,or at most worn at casual moments,are finding their way increasingly among young working women in the office.Blouses have also undergone much alteration,becoming sleeveless,thinner or even totally reduced to look no different than a tank top,some in fact are comprised of incomplete multiple pieces(one of which would also serve as the bra) which when put together leave ugly overlaps and holes on parts of the body.Yet this same “empowerment of women” craze has also led companies to close both eyes to the women’s dresscode infringement,that some women on top of that,have even begun to wear flipflops to work.But have u ever heard of men allowed to wear tank tops,shorts(as close a male version to miniskirt as u can get) and flipflops?No.Even if there were any office allowing it,it’d be insignificant compared to the companies allowing the women to do that which they deny the men of.Not even formal shorts are being allowed for men at work,let alone tank tops or flipflops.I for one think to allow formal shorts would open a great degree of freedom in men’s officewear while still allowing us to look smart,abeit less constricted,not to mention boast our masculinity.Why are young men disallowed to indulge even a little,allowed to reveal even less than an older more senior woman collegue?
    All this ‘freedom of dress’ as a means of women gaining their human rights is nonsense,as they are gaining “rights” which the men have never possessed before,so either society have been denying men of their rightful rights and is still continuing to do so,or the women are purposely distorting indulgence as rights.In any case it’s the men who lose of in this aspect,but does feminism care?Have those who spoke out for women or human rights even addressed this?
    Feminism is a vindictive and self serving move.They seek to socially manipulate how both men n women should live their lives,even amidst the claim of opening more channels of freedom for women.How any men could even be in favor,support or protective of their cause is stupid beyond all reason,they do not deserve the dignity of a debate.

  17. Pingback: Rip Van Whitey - Angry White Dude