Feminists Are Just Commies with Butch Haircuts

Feminism is not now, nor has it ever been, about such high-sounding abstractions as "equality," "opportunity for women," "women's rights," or even "women's health." By the way, the English translation of "women's health" is "abortion."


Rather, feminism is now, and has always been, about socialism.

This has become apparent in the recent contraception non-debate, manufactured by Barack Obama because he has no actual accomplishments on which to argue for his reelection, in which the refusal of private parties to pay for the fornicating of others is interpreted by weak-minded feminists (that is, by ALL feminists) as somehow "limiting their access to contraception."



As if the FACE of the average feminist were not birth control enough...!



During a Mitt Romney speech on 3/20/2012, some semi-retarded feminist (yes, I know, that semi-retarded and feminist are both axiomatic and tautological) says to Mitt Romney in her ever-so almost literate way (I have argued many times that feminists have a very limited vocabulary, composed only of variations of the words and phrases "patriarchy," "domestic violence," "reproductive freedom," and "Wanna scissor?")...

"You're all for like 'Yay freedom' and all this stuff and 'Yay pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."

Oddly enough, femtards can't seem to work the logic the opposite way - which is why, of course, they are called femtards. Perhaps the rest of us might also like some free stuff? Free houses would be good. And free cars, food, vacations, dogs, books, big screen tvs, and a host of other toys would make me personally happy. And I am sure that all the millions of men who have suffered under false allegations of rape, child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual harassment because of feminism would have appreciated free lawyers.

I wonder why this femtard getting free stuff is a political issue but me getting free stuff isn't?

It's because feminism is just Communism wearing hiking boots with a butch haircut. Oh, and a propensity for perjury....

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Karl Marx.

Feminism = Professional Bitchery: Will the Bitching EVER Stop?

So, yeah, I get it, chicks have a unique perspective and have been silenced by The Patriarchy and we need affirmative action to open up more channels of dialogue for chicks to give us their opinions about politics and family and the economy and strappy sandals and whatnot.

So recently, the Washington Post, in an attempt to bend over forwards for the femtard hoards, started a new blog especially for women, and featuring women, called "She the People." Clever title. If you are in fifth grade. Which is actually four grades more clever than the average Women's Studies program in grad school.

Now, of course, the dirty little secret, unknown to all except for everyone outside of politics, academia, and feminism itself, which is to say, known by almost everyone, is that feminism's only tool is bitching about this, yielding only to bitching about that, and taking breaks on rare occasion to bitch about the other thing.

So professional bitch... errrrrr.... feminist... errrrr.... bitch, Jessica Valenti, whose life is "complicated" enough to get excited about such things, posted her uncompromising approval of the idea of... affirmative action??? Who knew???

Apparently, she feels (for all feminists feel rather than think) that women should, by sheer virtue of their womanness, be given the headline on the front page, regardless of their talent. It is not enough that the Washington Post has devoted an entire blog to the inane drivel and sheer psychosis that is feminism, and it is not enough that, by virtue of such blog, several women are employed who, by virtue of their Master's Degree in Women's Studies from an Ivy League institution, are fit only to be the Assistant Manager at Burger King. No, Valenti believes that those who have talent (and trust me, we are talking about the Washington Post here, so the whole idea of "talent" is quite relative in this discussion) should simply step aside, forfeit their work and compensation, and yield to the femtard hoards. Maybe she wants femtards to take over the Washington Post, and then just devote a sub-blog to the real writers?

Who knows, maybe Valenti and the other femtard "writers" got a new set of crayons at Christmas...?

So she bitches, quite bitchingly:

Here’s the thing: I will always want more women’s (and feminist) voices in the mainstream media, particularly in politics. There’s an overwhelming byline gender gap and that needs to change. But The Washington Post’s new lady blog, “She the People,” is not a step in the right direction. In fact, I think it’s pretty terrible.*

I’m all for WaPo featuring more women covering politics, but why oh why can’t they just - I don’t know - feature more women covering politics on the main site or pages? As Steph Herold tweeted earlier today, “why do women need a separate blog to write about politics?”

The logo doesn’t exactly help things either. I mean, “she” is underlined with lipstick?

The lipstick is the only redeeming part of the blog, in my opinion. Chicks are so hot in the right color lipstick. Just sayin'....




So, let's follow the progression of femtard bitching, shall we?

1) "There are not enough women writers in the mainstream media." (YAWN)

2) "The mainstream media should devote more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues.'"

3) "Now that the mainstream media has devoted more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues,' we don't like the way in which that has been done, because our psychotic, barely-able-to-construct-an-English-sentence, vocabulary-composed-only-of-variations-of-the-words-victim-and-empowerment writers are being kept in a femtard ghetto rather than splashed all over the front page, in spite of the fact that Newsweek is quickly tanking with their experiment with femtardism we still think all media should be given to us so we can talk about ourselves and our shoes and how abortion is so hottt!, so dammit, give us the front page and all you real employees of the mainstream media go home and await further orders from the jackbooted stormtroopers of feministing."

What is the lesson here? Feminism is not about defending victims of anything, nor about obtaining equality in anything. It is about getting just a little bit more. There is nothing that you will ever say or do, and no society that could be designed in either reality or imagination that will placate the professional bitchery of the femtards.

(I won't get into the psychological or metaphysical here, but one would be tempted to speculate that the constant inability of the femtard hoards to be satisfied with anything is more reflective of an internal state typified by emptiness, rather than any outward reality of genuine denial, but I digress....)

Feminism's only tool is professional bitching. And no matter how much you give a feminist, the bitching will never stop.

Feminists truly do believe that they are entitled to whatever they feel they want, regardless of their level of ability or accomplishment or the contribution (sic) that they make to society. Notice that Valenti never attempts to establish that women are doing a job sufficient to get a "real job" with the Washington Post. Because skill doesn't matter to a femtard. They are entitled, dammit!

But does anybody actually believe that if there were ANY feminist writer with the talent to write for the mainstream media, she would be denied a job?

If you doubt the lack of talent among feminist writers, simply read Jessica Valenti. After a couple of minutes of reading Valenti, you will be craving something sensible like, "See Spot run...."

Feminism is a Mental Disorder

One of the most outrageous results of postmodern thinking is that, in an environment in which there are ultimately no standards of right and wrong, dysfunction ultimately defines normalcy. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in the widespread adoption of the mental disorder known as feminism.

Yes, I meant that. Feminism is not a "political movement," nor is it a "philosophical orientation," nor is it a "struggle for equality." Feminism is a mental disorder. Or perhaps it is a black hole into which all mental disorders feed....

It is undeniable that feminism actually shares many of the characteristics of numerous mental disorders. It features departure from reality and delusions ("Women can do whatever men can do, so go ahead and lower admissions standards to law school, medical school, and the military so that we can get busy doing it!"; "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year for women") which are diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. It has the "pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent" that is a diagnostic criteria of Paranoid Personality Disorder ("Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself.... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man... but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home." Gloria Steinem). And of course, central to feminism is the self-loathing and penis envy of Gender Identity Disorders (The DSM-IV says, "Adults with Gender Identity Disorder are preoccupied with their wish to live as a member of the other sex. This preoccupation may be manifested as an intense desire to adopt the social role of the other sex... "[emphasis added].).

But several writers have gone beyond the rather obvious observation that feminists seem to display symptoms of a mental disorder to assert that feminism itself is a mental disorder all its own.

Carey Roberts, in a June 7, 2006 article on ifeminists.com titled "Is Feminism a Mental Disorder?", argues that feminism is a "seething cauldron of delusion, phobia, and paranoia." Feminism, to Roberts, has "morphed... into [a] high-octane mass hysteria" as demonstrated by the delusional "domestic violence" hysteria, or, as Roberts renames it: FIPH - feminism induced phobic hysteria.

As has been repeatedly chronicled in the hallowed pages of Objectify Chicks!, "domestic violence" is somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek concept even under the best of circumstances, inasmuch as the demented hysterics of feminist hate-mongering seems incapable of distinguishing between actual physical violence and a woman merely not getting her way: both of these, in feminist dogma, are equally "domestic violence." When a woman says "no" to a man, she is "independent" and "strong" and is "standing up for her rights." Whereas when a man says "no" to a woman he is an "abuser" who is guilty of "domestic violence." Insert eye-rolling icon here....

But even so, Roberts captures the delusional flights of fancy prominent in feminist emoting on "domestic violence," the primary issue, Roberts asserts, that is capable of propelling "luna-chicks into a wailing convulsion of breast-beating and hair-pulling."

Roberts notes that a recent scholarly article locates severe partner violence with the female partner at a rate more than twice that with the male partner (4.6% to 2.1%). Of course, this flies in the face of the common feminist hack that goes: "Though women also engage in physical violence, severe violence is the sole domain of the much stronger and much more evil male partner!" Insert heavy breathing soundtrack here....

And while "domestic violence" is painted in the media (and in the X-rated masochistic dreams of feminists) as the exclusive domain of the male, the fact is that when men are involved in anything that appears to be actual "violence," they are generally responding to an attack by a woman. When only ONE party was involved in an act of violence, Roberts states (referring to the research of one Murray Straus), female-only violence is TWICE as common as male-only violence. And this statistic holds true for 32 nations around the world. Insert wide-eyed look of surprise icon here....

So the entire "domestic violence" hysteria, no matter from which angle it is viewed, simply points to a departure from reality that is so severe that, if it is an unwilling departure, is indicative of a severe psychosis. But if "domestic violence" hysteria is a willing departure from reality, it points to a dishonesty and manipulation of the ignorant masses so extreme as to place feminism as a movement in the same propaganda stream as that indwelt by Goebbels himself.

Dale O'Leary, author of The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, has written an article titled "Radical Feminism as a Psychological Disorder." O'Leary states that the feminism typified by an orientation that is "anti-life, anti-family, deconstructionist, [and] neo-Marxist" is composed of those who "are seriously psychologically troubled."

O'Leary's thesis as to the origins of this type of feminism is that, because both sexes (as children) need to develop a healthy relationship with both male and female parents in order to have a wholly integrated personality, that the absence of such healthy relationships - especially when such an absence stretches two generations back (i.e., to domineering, critical, and abusive women as both mother and grandmother, with the corresponding lack of a firm, devoted, and lovingly authoritative father and grandfather) - produce daughters who are paranoid about men who exist in their proper roles (i.e., as the ultimate authority in both the family and society) and who have maladaptive behavior and thought patterns that ultimately result in chaotic relationships with men which are controlled by the woman's anger rather than the male's stability and love.



O'Leary seems to genuinely believe the old saw that behind every great man stands a good woman, as she locates the lack of male virtue in the corresponding lack of strong wives "who [ought to be] able to motivate him and draw out his potential virtue." And she notes that character malformations of anger and resentment in women result in a mother's betrayal of her daughter when she "transfers her [own] anger [against] her husband and communicates it to her daughter [by teaching] her daughters that ordinary male behavior is abuse...."

Feminism enters into the already-damaged psyches of these women warped by anger, resentment, and emotional instability and persuades them to exchange their strategy of low-level chaos (passive/aggressive behavior against men) for high-level chaos (actually aggressive behavior - and this could be in the form of physical violence, false allegations, adultery, etc.). This is the feminist's baptism, as feminism christens this escalation as the moment in which a woman has her "consciousness raised."

This is, of course, a strategy for not only an escalation of the female-caused tension between the sexes, but is an assurance that the feminist will never be healed of the warped thinking and maladaptive behavior patterns which mold her twisted psyche. For if the original fractured psyche was caused by an incomplete bonding with and respect for male authority, then the escalation and encouragement of constant, active hostility toward the male will not only prevent the healing of the original character malformation, but will continue the moral and psychological twisting of the character into even greater perversions. Prescribing rebellion against "the Patriarchy" as a cure for feminist neurosis is akin to prescribing whiskey in increasing volume as a cure for the alcoholic.

O'Leary then concludes, feminists "will pull down every societal support for families, for motherhood, and for love, in order to create an impossible dream of a gender-neutral world. The only answer is forgiveness. I have seen it over and over again, if a woman caught up in Radical Feminist ideology, a woman spouting Radical Feminist nonsense, can be shown how to forgive, and is willing to forgive, the disorder is healed."

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., in his article "Why Radical Feminists Concern Us" begins by noting the schizophrenic nature of feminism - it is, at its root, a departure from reality. He states, "Feminist theory is an unstable dialectic. Truth, justice, logic, history, scientific evidence, repeatable results, reproducible research, observations of natural phenomenon, all these are simply words to radical feminists. Words that they believe are designed to cover up a monstrous oppression of women under the masks of religion, marriage, and motherhood that cloak the patriarchal family." Psychologists call this need to have reality match your preconceived notions regardless of the evidence "fantasy thinking." More down-to-earth folk call it "building castles in the air."

Therefore, says, Corry, "The only acceptable theories are those that give power to women." Of course, the question remains - once women are "empowered," what will they do with all that power? On my morning walks with my Chow, she occasionally takes off after a passing car, barking with incredible ferocity. I sometimes mildly rebuke her with the question, "What are you gonna do if you catch that car?" Feminists are left in the same predicament - because since feminism is an ideology capable only of deconstruction, chaos, and destruction, then it follows that feminists with the kind of "empowerment" encouraged by their ideology are capable only of tearing down - not rescuing, building up, or making whole.

And here is where the slope gets exceedingly slippery. If the world's problem is "patriarchy," what are the two most obvious instances of the exercise of male authority? Why, the family and society, of course. What, then, must be destroyed?

Corry quotes the aforementioned Dale O'Leary: Feminists "became convinced that the previous Marxist revolutions had failed because they had failed to target the family." And Corry himself states, "Make no mistake, we are engaged in an epic battle between two incompatible idologies with fundamentally different views of the rights of the individual and the power of the state, with the future of civilization at stake." Emphasis added. So feminism is not about equality - it is rather about warfare; a continuing, bitter battle to the death in which the enemy is the family and society. Only when the family is completely destroyed, and society with it, will feminism have accomplished its goals.

And of course, a cursory consultation of the DSM-IV-TR, the diagnostic manual of professional psychology and psychiatry, reveals in the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder such character traits as "a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others... [including] failure to conform to social norms..., deceitfulness..., irritability and aggressiveness..., reckless disregard for the safety of self and others, consistent irresponsibility... [this trait I consider to be the "holy grail" of feminism - the goal toward which feminism as a political philosophy is intended to move all women who imbibe of its teachings], [and] lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."

Further, "These individuals may blame their victims for being foolish, helpless, or deserving their fate; they may minimize the harmful consequences of their actions; or they may simply indicate complete indifference.... Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal.... These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships. They may have a history of many sexual partners and may never have sustained a monogamous relationship. They may be irresponsible as parents...."

Could a more cogent evaluation of feminism have been written if feminism were the conscious object of that evaluation? Does not feminism justify its mistreatment of men with a hearty "they deserve it" for the perceived slights of 200 years ago? Is anything more callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others than the woman who will carve a living child out of her womb or slanderously have a spouse imprisoned for mere convenience's sake? Is more arrogance possible than that contained in the glib assertion, "Women can do whatever men can do! - while simultaneously having standards lowered across the board so that women can qualify? Is anything on earth more exploitative of sexual relationships than the woman who uses the family law system to marry and then divorce - divorcing both herself from a man and a man from his wealth? And many sexual partners - is any comment needed?

And don't even get me started on Gender Identity Disorder, "A strong and persistent cross-gender identification... strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles... intense desires to participate in stereotpyical pasttimes of the other sex... preoccupation with getting rid of prmary and secondary sex characteristics leading to impairment in social and other important areas of function..." etc. etc.

Feminism is incapable of building. It is incapable of making a positive contribution to society because it is, at its root, anti-social. This is a significant principle from many different perspectives. From the political perspective, rest assured that there will never come a day when feminism will actually achieve its goals and will turn to build a better world from the strong foundation of its positive accomplishments. Feminism is ideologically unstable, emotionally erratic, and morally perverted. It is motivated by hate, bitterness, and anger - and as such, when its final "patriarchal" target is subdued it will have nothing to do but turn on itself. Hatred victorious, after all, is not hatred quelled. The same hate that might be successful (if it were ever to be so) in defeating the mythical patriarchy would not be quelled from further expression, but rather stirred to greater vehemence.

From an emotional perspective, feminists must allow themselves a willing suspension of logic and must willfully divorce themselves from truth in order to believe in feminism. This willful indulgence in fantasy thinking, paranoia, and schizophrenic replacement of reality with nonreality can only afflict the mental health of those who indulge in it, and can only undermine the stability of a society which tolerates such indulgences. Further, feminism, because it prescribes more of the disease (hate, anger, and bitterness) as a cure for the disease itself (resentment against men), will only result in a further twisting of the moral fabric of both individuals and societies which adopt its dogmas.

Feminism, though it is so common in our Western culture as to be as unnoticed as the furniture in one's own living room, is a mental disorder more deviant, more widespread, more unquestioned, and more dangerous than any ideology in all of human history. Feminism offers slander as justice, anger as wholeness, irrationality as common sense, logical incoherence as reason, the destruction of children and husbands as life, and slavery to the government as freedom. Feminism has proffered emotionalism as a principle of law, and the sacrifice of children and family as a necessity for personal fulfillment in the female. It is the very definition of personal and societal unhealth. To that extent, it may be the chosen vehicles of "progressives" to remold society, but one can honestly question as to whether its "progress" is of the nature of a psychological "regress"....

Without a doubt, feminism is a mental disorder all its own.

Feminism and Socialism

Kathleen Parker simultaneously answers the question as to why feminism's pink is so red and does a fine job of confronting the elephant in the room....

When you start talking about family values as a defense against totalitarianism, you risk being dismissed as reactionary.... As it happens, the brand of feminism that insisted equality could be achieved only by women evacuating the home and outsourcing child care found common cause with Communist ideology. Breaking up the family was not incidental but central to [Communism's] ideology and was one of the main ideas upon which Lenin insisted most strongly. Karl Marx and Frederich Engels were unsubtle, if also incoherent, when they wrote, "Abolition of the family!" as a central plank in the Communist Manifesto.

Between weak families, absent fathers, a culture that sexualizes the innocent, and government bureaucracies that are designed to grow themselves, one doesn't have to be paranoid to envision a time when freedom as we have known it will be compromised beyond recognition....

As long as [men] are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by the family courts, as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honor, and as long as [children] are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.

The Child Support Industry

Take a woman who can't afford a child and society calls her a victim or a hero and will grant her an abortion - or an endless supply of welfare checks. Find a man who can't afford a child and society calls him a deadbeat dad and tosses him into jail. At least that is the perspective of Kathleen Parker in Save The Males (Random House, 2008). She writes:

It's hard to cough up the dough [for child support] when your broke, harder still if you're behind bars.... Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2005 that 70 per cent of child support debt is owed by men who owe $10,000 a year or less or who have no earnings at all....

The child support industry has been a windfall for states and for middle-class divorcing women. Economist Robert McNeely and legal scholar Cynthia McNeely go so far as to suggest that... governmental policies [on child support] have led to destruction of the family "by creating financial incentives to divorce [and further incentives resulting in] the prevention of families by creating financial incentives not to marry upon conceiving a child."

Penalizing errant fathers has become the only form of chivalry modern woman will tolerate, but it is chivalry, based on the idea that Uncle Sam must come to the rescue of the nation's distressed damsels. The real result of the child support industry, however, has been the creation of a system that grants bureaucrats unprecedented access to private records and control over the lives of people, most of whom have committed no offense. As investigative reporter Robert O'Harrow Jr. wrote in The Washington Post, commenting on the expansion of federal child support initiatives, "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to... keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing."

Should Women Fight in Combat?

No. Women should not fight in combat missions.

Women should stay at home baking cookies and washing diapers until they can look inside someone's cubicle, see a bikini-clad woman on the screensaver, and avoid either crying or bringing a sexual harrassment lawsuit.

Until women have mastered that skill, they should not be allowed into combat. I understand it is much more stressful to be in the middle of blood, explosions, and people who want to kill you than it is to see a bikini model on a screensaver, after all.

I'm just sayin....

Item 1:
During the United States' Panama invasion, a female truck driver taking troops into a combat zone started crying. Another woman who had been performing the same job also broke into tears, and the two women were relieved of duty. After reporters learned about the incident, the Army "took pains to convey that the women had not disobeyed orders or been derelict in their duty," reports The New Republic. "On the contrary, according to an Army official quoted in the Washington Post: "They performed superbly." Since men, too, have been relieved of duty after breaking down emotionally during combat, the point is not to single these women out. The point is that the Army was less than candid about the incident. As The New Republic commented: "To call the overall performance of a soldier who breaks down and cries during combat 'superb' is ludicrous and patronizing." ("Soldier Boys, Soldier Girls," The New Republic, February 19, 1990, cited in Congressional Quarterly Supplement, February 7, 1990, p. A14.)

And for the foolish individuals who say that women are capable of anything that men are....

Item 2:
In Canada, combat training was opened to women in 1987 as part of CREW Trials (Combat Related Employment of Women). The Canadian Defense Ministry had planned to form an infantry unit with 40 men and 40 women and compare them with a unit of 80 men. The experiment was never completed because not enough females volunteered, according to Commander Judith Harper of the Canadian Defense Ministry in Ottawa. (Telephone interview with Heritage Foundation researcher on June 7, 1991.) From 1987 to February 21, 1991, some 342 women were enrolled in Canadian army combat units, and 79 graduated. More than HALF the graduates were radio operators. Of 102 women who enlisted in infantry training, only ONE (less than 1%, for any math whizzes out there) graduated. That woman served her three-year mandatory term and recently left the army. (Ibid.)

Item 3:
Following the War of Israeli Liberation in 1948, women were never allowed into combat again (unless by accident). It has been Israeli law since 1950, for a variety of reasons, including underperformance by women and overprotectiveness to the jeapordizing of combat mission goals by men, that women are still drafted, but not placed into combat.

When women have been placed into combat they have underperformed, to the danger and detriment of their units. Nations that have allowed women into combat have done so only temporarily, and even the soldier-starved Israeli army will no longer allow women to fight in their combat forces (though they still fill many support roles, as they ought to, as long as they can meet the same requirements as the men who fill those roles).

The military is a very poor place to engage in social engineering. The purpose of the military is to kill people, break things, and subjugate the enemy - not to function as a testing ground for pink and blue uniforms. The inability of feminists to admit the truth, think rationally, and place the needs of their nation above their own personal whims is disturbing in this instance, but unfortunately, for them none of that is entirely out of character.

What's Wrong With Feminism?

A very foolish attorney recently remarked to me, "Feminism died in the 80's."

If only....

In fact, feminism is very much alive today. So alive that it is pervasive. So pervasive that we do not even notice it any more, much like our own living room furniture.

And feminism can be truthfully said to either be responsible for, or to have aggravated, every single social problem in the modern Western world.

It exists as both formal and informal feminism. Formal feminism is the feminism of the pro-abortion movement, NOW, and academe. It is the feminism of fascistic legislation and of political lesbianism.

But there is also an informal feminism - a watered-down version that is simply accepted unthinkingly by the consumerist mobs. It is a feminism of Oprah Winfrey, the feminism that believes domestic violence to be a serious problem (against all evidence to the contrary) and that votes for women "because they are women" and that participates in the cult of the child.

Both types of feminism are wrong. Both are wrong, and both are wrong propositionally and morally. And because it has now become an accepted part of our cultural furniture, we do not even realize that it represents a mild toxin that is slowly poisoning every institution upon which civilization has been constructed.

1) Feminism is wrong because it lacks virtue. Feminism is simply a movement built around the cowardice and avarice of women. Men, of course, are motivated primarily by principle. A man gets up and goes to work in the morning, not because he enjoys it, but because he recognizes his responsibility to provide for a family, his responsibility to his employer and fellow employees, and because it has been drilled into him since childhood that men are to make a positive contribution - even at the cost of their own lives - to society. Men go to war because they recognize that there is something that has more value than their individual wants, even more valuable than the life of an individual - matters such as freedom, security, and country. Men are capable of going and doing battle in both wartime and the workaday world because they are possessed of courage - the willingness to take risks.

Feminism, however, is based upon the neurotic fears of women. It is certainly not all women, but as feminism is woven more deeply into the warp and woof of society, there are certainly more and more women possessed of these neurotic fears. The fear of domestic violence, for instance, is a neurotic fear of women, conjured up in illogical and irrational skulls for political gain by the leaders of the feminist movement who are equally neurotic - though driven so more by hate than by fear. I have personally sat in on more than 100 domestic violence proceedings in my state - not one of them even alleged violence in any sense that the layman would understand it. The "violence" complained of was that a woman was being "controlled" by a man (and one of my friends has noted, accurately, that a man is guilty of being "controlling" only when he refuses to yield control to a woman), of "namecalling," or of "holding to strict gender roles," as many religious people do. I saw one man separated from home, children, and bank accounts for lifting his hands to absorb the blows thrown from the fists of his wife. I have seen a dozen men arrested on evidence that would get a mere contract case thrown out of court.

And I have noticed a strange correlation between the lodging of claims of "domestic violence" and the occurrence of divorce proceedings, alimony or equitable distribution actions, and child support or custody trials. Very convenient....

Of course, women are encouraged to lie about such things. They are teased by women's groups, the media, lawyers, and the state to skip their own responsibilities by leaving their husbands - yet maintaining their home, kids, and an adequate income without working in the form of child support and alimony. Feminism appeals to that vindictiveness that is so pervasive in the human spirit that the Ninth Commandment forbids it, and to that sloth so extreme in the modern world that more than 50% of all tax revenues are spent on social welfare programs in America.

Unthinking, illogical, and hormonal women are encouraged to break their marriage vows at eternal cost to their own character, to their own children, and at the cost of justice itself, in order to repay a man for what are usually only perceived slights and to get a second chance at life and love (a second chance that the vast majority of my female clients find is only illusory - guys really are not interested in neurotic women who don't keep marriage vows and who come with the baggage of a passel of kids and a pile of false allegations in their wake).

2) Feminism is wrong because it is illogical and anti-intellectual. Travel over to Yahoo! Answers any old time and surf over to the "Gender and Women's Studies" section. About once every two days or so (sometimes far more often) some FemiFascist will post something like this:

"Why do half the people who post in G&WS always have such hateful things to say about feminism? Don't they realize that this is our safe space? After all, we feminists do not invade their WWE Wrestling Forum, do we?"

Which is again a manifestation of cowardice, and the very cowardice which begat political correctness. People who know they are wrong, after all, are not likely to willingly engage in discussion with those who can prove them wrong publicly. So there is an anti-intellectual bent toward feminism. Any disagreement with the political movement of feminism is conveniently labeled "misogyny" and dismissed. Anyone too effective in combatting feminism on the public college campus is threatened with "sexual harassment" charges and "sensitivity training."

But the desire to squelch dissent is, of course, the first sign that someone realizes that their own jig is up. After all, how is it possible to square the following two propositions, both central tenets of feminism?

a) Women are capable of doing anything that a man can do.
b) Therefore, standards for law school, medical school, the military, police departments, and fire departments must be lowered so that women can be adequately represented.

Illogic, thy name is feminist. And this is why Women's Studies programs across the country are regarded by academics as having about the same intellectual rigor as fingerpainting class in Vacation Bible School.

At its root, all virtue is true. All genuine virtue is based upon truth. And the illogic, anti-intellectualism, and indulgence in the lie that is feminism divests the movement of even a basic perception of virtue - intellectual or otherwise.

3) Feminism is wrong because it is unjust. Feminism depends upon the craven moral cowardice of men in order to thrive. And if one does not demonstrate sufficient submission to the goals of "womyn," then filing false allegations of abuse, harassment, domestic violence, or rape are a justifiable punishment for any man foolish enough to believe that truth trumps the whining, "I'm-a-victim" outrage of the hormonal woman.

An Air Force study, mentioned previously in this blog, found that 60% of all rape allegations studied were proveably false. Duke Lacrosse, anyone? Upwards of 90% of all allegations of domestic violence do not even allege anything that a layman would consider "violence" - such allegations are again based on the political resentment that FemiFascists have at the audacity of some men to behave like men, and not give in to the whims and neuroses of the women in their lives.

And let us note that the filing of false allegations is hardly an incidental development. The changes to the Violence Against Women Act made during the Clinton administration had the effect of lowering the standard of evidence for the granting of Domestic Violence Protective Orders from the "preponderance of the evidence" (a more than 50% chance that the allegations were true) to the "subjective fear of the woman" - which could mean anything, including that somebody unfortunately mixed an Effexor and a Prozac today. Such an unheard-of lowering of the standards of evidence could only have the effect of encouraging false allegations - and consequently resulting in unjust prosecutions and convictions.

When you are right, you do not have to lie in order to make your point. The Ninth Commandment, as a basic precept of both moral righteousness and of a civilized society, still forbids the lodging of false complaints - whether the issue is money, children, politics, or merely getting one's own way. I could go on about the reverse discrimination implicit in affirmative action programs pushed by women's groups, but what I've said is more than enough to demonstrate that the agenda of feminism is wholly unjust.

4) Feminism is wrong because it is untrue. Every single statement made by feminists over the years has eventually been revealed to have been hyped up, at the least, and blatantly false, at the worst. From the so-called "Wage Gap" (which does not exist - women who have worked at the same job the same number of hours and the same number of years as their male counterparts make 98 cents on the dollar - a difference that is statistically negligible) to the early-90s myth that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women in America," everything that fits the feminist agenda is either blatantly untrue, illogical, or unproven.

Duke Lacrosse, anyone?

5) Feminism is wrong because it is neurotic. Carey Roberts has written an article on ifeminists.com (see www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0607roberts.html ) titled "Is Feminism a Mental Disorder? Of course, it is, and he especially identifies a neurotic condition which he labels "Domestic Violence Hysteria," which he considers to be "highly contagious."

Mrs. Dale O'Leary has written an article titled "Radical Feminism as a psychological disorder" (www.tldm.org/News11/RadicalFeminismPsychologicalDisorder.htm ) in which she proposes that feminism is a "psychological disorder caused by two generations of unforgiveness in the maternal line."

She notes that psychological health, for women, depends on a healthy relationship with the male authority figures in their lives - particularly with one's father. Dominating grandmothers, with imitation by a girl's mother, produces such broken relationships with men that only hatred ensues and adherence to feminism is born. The hatred which is so evident in feminism is, of course, the hatred of the scorned lover, as the feminist wishes for the love of a father or father-figure (such as a powerful husband capable of supplying her with both wisdom and leadership), but because she has an irrational fear of all but the wimpiest of men (since both her grandfather and father were such), she is continually frustrated and angry.

The cure for feminism, the psychological disorder? According to O'Leary it is the forgiveness of both parents (the wimpy father and the passive-aggressive or merely aggressive mother) and the enjoyment of the leadership of a strong man.

Finally, Charles Corry, Ph.D., labels feminism as simple "misandry," and calls it an unstable philosophical framework through which to understand the world (see www.dvmen.org/dv-121.htm ). This, of course, would indicate why so many women today are - unstable.

6) Feminism is sociopathic. The basic characteristic of the sociopath is the inability to recognize any authority above his own wants and perceived needs. The sociopath is willing, for instance to deal drugs (against society's mores) and murder customers who have not paid for such or perhaps murder competing drug dealers simply because that is his job. He is a drug dealer, and he murders in the same way that the factory worker punches a time clock - without remorse or consideration of consequences.

It is undeniable that 4,400 times a day in America since Roe v. Wade, women have willingly destroyed innocent children in the womb for the mere opportunity to escape from responsibility. It is undeniable that the more feminism advances, the more social problems such as crime, psychological disorders, and welfarism explode. The social, moral, and psychological carnage is revealed in the millions of children left fatherless by feminism's attack on the family, the millions of men falsely accused of crimes by neurotic women or merely treated as ATM machines by society, by the dissolution of millions of families and the consequent personal and economic carnage that has followed in its wake.

But perhaps most sadly are the thousands of women who realize, too late, that feminism has sold them a bill of goods. Women who realize that they were a sucker play in someone else's chess game - women who no man will now have, who deal with the guilt of their attack on perhaps the one man who ever loved them and their children, and who face the future alone - cast off by those shelter workers who years ago promised them that if they left their husbands, everything would be all right.

Feminism destroys everything that it touches, because it is fully evil. Men, children, families, the very fabric of society. But because there is a force out there - call it God or Karma or whatever - in the end, those men and those children whom feminism has attempted to destroy can ultimately rise above the evil of feminism. But the women who choose the "easy" path offered by feminism end up alone, overmedicated, infertile, rejected, and with a weight of guilt almost impossible to shed.

There may well be justice in this world....