Monday, September 14, 2009

Feminism actually promotes violence against women?

At least that was one theory I walked away with after reading this article:

A fair bit of warning the article, although sound from a male point of view in many ways, is loooooong.. So take a drink when ya read it.

I walked away from this article with several thoughts running through my head and there were so many relevant quotes that I finally gave up on trying to remember most of them.

The author talks about how wave two feminism brought in certain values and how women wished to change men but since men are unchangeable it lead to wave three along with the death of chivalry and several other consequences leading to what we have now which is outright war.

Because most women today are feminist-minded if not actual raging feminists, virtually any woman you run into and with whom you actually manage to communicate, especially if they’re single, young or old, will be affected and influenced by the war feminists have been waging against males for decades

This statement is true and I would add to it that even women who seem to go against the mold or deny being a feminist will still visibly get their hackles up and their panties in a wad when you make a blanket statement about disliking feminist. Which just supports the quote anyway.

Moreover, now that men know that feminist-minded women, which are the majority of all women, have declared war on men seeking their obsolescence, how much less do you suppose men will now honor or respect females? How much less will they treat women kindly as friends? If we’re at war, then there can be no kindness, respect, or friendship between the two adversaries involved in combat.

The author goes on to explain that in killing chivalry the feminist opened themselves up to violence and swept away the underlying respect men had for women. Also dressing as men and acting as men contributed to this as well. Something I am sure we are all aware of here.

There is much much more to this article and the text is small but in the end the author basically states that men will not be changed and just like during prohibition will "find a way" to act like men even if they have to break the law to do so.

At heart I think this is also correct but I think the author fails to see a few more dangerous aspects of feminism especially on American and Western society. The end of male dominance as feminist call the history of the West is basically ending what kept these countries strong and defended them. This includes weakening the white race since as a race those of Western European ancestry are the only ones suffering a division because of feminism by and large.

Chivalry which is what protected these women before feminism was completely a European institution so this may explain why feminism is not catching on in other cultures or of it does it will be radically different than what we have seen in the West.

The real question is not whether feminism will win in the end because it cannot win. Feminism can only survive inside in environment created by Western European men which is a biosphere it is killing. Yet maybe it can bring down that biosphere and for those of us who have been handed the current remains of the male portion of that "biosphere" culture, either feminist domination or racial replacement equals the end regardless.


  1. Beltain,

    I agree that feminism, by its policies fosters violence against women.

    Mechanism 1: Feminism discourages beta men from acting as their protector against other men. Let's face it, on the whole, women are much much weaker than men and this physical difference makes them more vulnerable.

    Mechanism 2: By blurring the lines between feminine and masculine behavior, some women, aping what they think "men" act like, turn violent themselves and predate upon those weaker than they. In other words, other women.

    On needs only to look at the DV rates in lesbian relationships to be convinced of this.

  2. Chivalry was not 'destroyed' by feminism.

    In fact, chivalry IS feminism, but taken to
    a sociopathic, irredeemably parasitical

    When MRAs say "chivalry is dead', what they
    really mean is that it has lost any legitimate moral traction within the culture, or any right to be taken seriously as a construct.

    They see their fight against feminism as indistinguishable from their repudiation of "chivalry", because they have understood that those two things (chivalry and feminism) are in fact ONE.

    The following, by a new blogger, is worth reading: