The Shame Project: Calling a Bulldykefemtard a Bulldykefemtard

Before there was political correctness, there was shame. And shame kept a lot of people from doing a lot of stupid things and ascribing to a lot of stupid stuff.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am in favor of everybody's right to believe all the stupid stuff they want to believe (after all, there are Jehovah's Witnesses out there!), but I also am in favor of everybody else's right to say to the idiots of the world (to find them, ask whether they voted for Barack Obama): "Your beliefs are incoherent and you act like a retard!"

And of course, prior to the 1990s, there was a very effective social mechanism in place to make sure that people didn't screw up - and if they did screw up, they were thereafter rightfully labeled as a "Screw-Up." It was called shame. Calling a spade a spade. Truth in labeling.

This was a great inconvenience to liberals, as the 1980s had thoroughly proven that every single tenet of liberalism was wrong - laughably wrong. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured the world that the Soviets could not be resisted, and had formed the ridiculous slogan (ever notice that all liberalism is built upon sloganeering rather than thinking?) "Better Red than dead!", after Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II, Bush the Senior, and others had successfully conspired to topple the Berlin wall, were now agitating to spend the "peace dividend" on pet welfare schemes. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured us of a coming Ice Age due to our use of hairspray in the 1970s, discovered that the real threat was "Global Warming" (and have since decided trying to pin the whole project down in terms of "hot" or "cold" is a vain pursuit and relabeled the whole shindig "Climate Change"). The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had warned us that without high taxes, deficit spending, and governmental hyper-regulation of the economy, there would be economic carnage, then found themselves reduced to begging to incorporate the high tax revenues gleaned from tax cuts into greater and greater social welfare schemes.

And those same semi-retarded liberal politicians who, a few years before, had been agitating for the release of the mentally ill from mental hospitals in the name of "human rights" then found themselves complaining about the horrible chaos of all the crazy homeless folks living on the street.

Now, all of these events truly happened. They happened just the way I say they happened. Everybody who was awake during the period stretching from 1970-2009 knows that they happened in exactly this way. One would think that after such catastrophic institutional failure on the part of semi-retarded liberal politicians (which have never had an idea that has worked in the history of mankind) and such astounding successes by the conservative/libertarian philosophy (which has worked in every instance it has been tried), there would be a severe crisis of credibility for semi-retarded liberal politicians.

Yet the truth is that the White House is now inhabited by a the greatest example of a semi-retarded liberal politician of all time: Barack Obama. How did this happen? How is it that, after a history of such incomprehensible failure, semi-retarded liberal politicians still have any credibility left.

Well, in the 1990s, semi-retarded liberal academics (more specifically, feminists) noticed that the world wasn't quite going the way they had intended. And it hurt them to have to face the music. Oh, it hurt them. It hurt their feelings to believe in liberalism and have to deal with all the cocky conservatives walking about reminding them of the absolute failure of their philosophy and the absolute incoherence of their positions. And we all know that the one thing that a woman can't stand is to have her feelings hurt.

Rather than face the truth with courage (impossible for a feminist or liberal, since both are ideological positions built on cowardice and the rejection of reality) and modify their positions to something coherent, feminists came up with a more excellent strategy for not getting their feelings hurt: make it illegal (and to some extent immoral) to say anything that might hurt their feelings. In 1990 there were only 75 speech codes at colleges nationally, by 1991 this number ballooned to over 400.

It is important to note that speech codes and political correctness do not, as is commonly asserted, function to put a leash on genuinely offensive speech (such as "The N-word" and other fighting words), but are rather designed as an Anti-Truth-in-Labeling-Act. The purpose of speech codes and political correctness is to keep those who are right from confronting those who are wrong. For instance...

* Texas A&M's speech code protects "personal feelings" in an attempt to prevent "indignity of any type."

* Ohio State University's speech code seeks to prevent communications which "threaten... emotional harm."

* Davidson College's Sexual Harrassment policy forbids "patronizing remarks" including "comments or inquiries about dating."

* Emory University's speech code prevents any speech or conduct that might be interpreted as "demeaning" to certain privileged groups.

* The University of Connecticut prohibits the "use of derogatory names [or] inappropriately directed laughter."

Speech codes have been used to prevent the showing of Mel Gibson's Christian epic, The Passion of the Christ. Let not your heart be troubled, though, dear reader. For at one college, the same faculty that forbade The Passion of the Christ was nevertheless reasonable enough to allow - during the same time period! - a skit titled "F*cking for Jesus" which glorified masturbation to an oil painting of Jesus Christ.

The purpose, then, of speech codes has nothing to do with preventing genuinely offensive speech (else any production containing the word "F*cking," whether or not it had anything to do with blasphemy, would be barred). It is rather a tool of the socialist left designed to foster...

the growing dominance of the left in higher education, and to [enable them to act upon] their belief that it was their function to reengineer society, starting with students’ interior beliefs and moving outward.

Speech codes are, then, instruments of social engineering - and a peculiar type of social engineering. It is an attempt to feminize the world.

What? asks the Dear Reader, how is it that females or feminists get the blame for all the horrific speech codes of the world?

First, as a historical phenomenon, note that speech codes, by those who favor them, are said to have originated, at least partly, to the increased and open presence of females and gays (who generally share a female outlook) in the university.

Secondly, which gender warbles on endlessly about "feelings?" See the speech code snippets above.

Thirdly, who has a proven record of being willing to sacrifice truth for tolerance - as long as the "tolerance" in question is of their own beliefs, and not the factual statements of others?

Note the connection, now, between shame as a social force restraining stupidity and the presence of speech codes. Speech codes were enacted, largely at the behest of women who were tired of having their beliefs mocked in academe, to protect their own feelings - not as a means of seeking truth or even of preventing genuine offense. Feminists would simply rather not be confronted with the truth because the truth doesn't support any of their positions. Therefore, they have made the truth expendable - indeed, in a sense, they have made it illegal.

Think this is all a stretch, Dear Reader? Consider...

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are fit to fight on the front lines in combat and that placing a bikini calendar on one's cubicle wall at the office creates a "hostile work environment." I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if you can't endure the hostility of a bikini calendar on the wall, then enduring the hostility of exploding shells and a bayonet fight may be asking a bit much.

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are capable of doing anything that a man can do while asking that admissions and promotion standards be lowered (only for women, mind you!) in police departments, fire departments, the military, law schools, medical schools, and business schools so that women can attain representation equal to that of men. I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if women are, in fact, capable of doing everything that a man can do, then all that needs to be done is for women to live up to the standards that men are already attaining.

* Feminists maintain, in the wake of overwhelming evidence (including Duke Lacrosse, Hofstra, the statements of professional statisticians, studies conducted by the U.S. Air Force, and legal practitioners generally) that women do not lie about rape, sexual harassment, abuse, and domestic violence. In fact, individual studies show that the false allegation rate extends anywhere from 20% to 60% or more (see the above studies) for these feminist-favored allegations - whereas the rate of false reporting for all other crimes is between 2% and 4% per annum.

* Feminists maintain that men and women are the same in every way, except that women are more nurturing, more cooperative, more peaceful, more wise, more....

You get the idea. Add to the above that feminism's assertions of men and women's sameness are called "mindless" by scholars and that even feminist "scholars" [sic] themselves admit that the Domestic Violence Hysteria is junk science, and you have a pretty thick soup of mental retardation. It is starting to make sense why feminists (and other liberals, certainly) would not want their beliefs scrutinized and challenged.

Now, of course, these speech codes originate on campus. But remember that the real purpose of speech codes was not to regulate genuinely offensive speech (remember "F*cking Jesus"?) but to keep semi-retarded liberals and feminists particularly from being shown to be the utter and complete fools that they are - and by that means, to fashion a "safe place" for femtards to prosper and brainwash a generation of children into believing that there actually might be something to their incoherent and already-disproven political positions. It was, as quoted above, a process designed to change "students' interior beliefs and move outward."

And of course, this plan has succeeded, because now speech codes not only dominate campus, but they dominate the thinking of the marketplace. How many times have you found yourself relating a story, discussing evidence, or relating a truth to someone only to be met with a condemnatory sigh and something muttered containing the word "stereotypical"? Note that one can now be accused of "hate speech" at a party or joshing around with friends.

Those who are wrong have seized control of the language at the expense of all truth.

Meanwhile, what is the truth about feminists?

* Though they assert that they are more nurturing than men, they are, in fact, murderers. Four thousand times a day since Roe v. Wade, the feminist project has focused on maintaining the right to abort a fetus (the Latin term for "baby," I bet no feminist was ever honest with you about that!) - often in the most macabre ways, at any time during a pregnancy, and with government funding!

* Though they assert that they have higher conceptions of justice than society at large, they tolerate and encourage the leveling of false allegations against men, resulting in thousands of men each year being charged with acts of violence of which they are not guilty. Conveniently, rape shield laws prevent all necessary information from being presented that might be exculpatory to the accused, domestic violence laws lower the standard of evidence to the ridiculous level of "the subjective fear of the woman," and over and over again we are told that the prosecution of those who make false allegations will "prevent other victims from coming forward." Oddly, we do not seem to believe that prosecuting people for insurance fraud will prevent the filing of genuine insurance claims, nor do we seem to believe that prosecuting people for perjury will prevent people from testifying in court generally.

* Though they assert that they love children, they not only murder them by the multiplied millions but their entire program has the goal of placing children in the most dangerous place on earth for a child to be - in a home headed by a single mother.

* Though they assert that they do not press a radical homosexual agenda, they foster ridiculous fears of men in the mind of emotionally and intellectually weak women, they present divorce as the first (and necessary) solution to a woman's problems, and they foster an entire industry (the Domestic Violence Industry) devoted to severing women from men and making those same women dependent upon radical feminism, psychiatrists, and the state. And of course, it is a common feminist project of the day to "reclaim" such words as "queer" and to agitate in favor of gay marriage and gay rights generally.

* And following closely behind the above, while feminists promise a better society, and on that ensures equality for all, in fact they have destroyed the very foundations of society in destroying the family, destroying academia (through the perpetration of ignorance as education), destroying the media, and destroying the legal system. The time for moderation is long past. It is time to put the NOW harpies back in their place.

So the truth about feminism is somewhat different than what would produce high esteem - in fact, the truth about feminism (and all liberals, of course) is what might be considered to be "demeaning": Feminists are intellectually vacant, slandering, murdering Bull Dykes.

See why they have a vested interest in controlling the language? Any truth uttered against a feminist would certainly hurt their feelings!

So here is my somewhat modest proposal. Every person on earth who believes and respects the truth should simply refuse to participate in anything that smacks of speech codes anymore. Now, I am not suggesting that you get yourself kicked out of school or fired from your job. Let's face it, there are lots of things you don't have perfect freedom to do in life - if you work for Ross Perot you can't have facial hair. Hey, it's his business, he can run it the way he wants.

But there are thousands of social interactions and venues that we each inhabit each day in which free speech is theoretically guaranteed, from the local church to the local mall to Twitter and Facebook. In every place in which one is legitimately free to talk, I propose that those who respect the truth begin to respond to feminists in the only way that is fitting: harshly.

It is time that their emotional tomfoolery be identified as intellectually vacant: I suggest the judicious use of the term femtard. It is time that their murderous self-centeredness be called what it is: Refuse to use the term Pro-Choice, they are Pro-Abortion and Murderers (though I think an interesting "twofer" could be had in feminizing that label as Murderesses - a politically incorrect coup d'etat!). They are not feminists, they are Bull Dykes.

The point I am making is certainly not the adoption of a certain list of labels - there is much room for creativity. My point is really this: We who know the facts and respect the truth often believe that if we meet feminists on the ground of facts, logic, and gentility that we can persuade them to embrace the truth (of which there is only one, and they don't have it). But this project of trying to treat feminists as if they are intellectually capable of responding to the truth has failed.

And to say that it has failed is not merely to discuss an academic topic. While we have been busy treating feminists with respect and responding defensively to their accusations of being "demeaning" in our truth-telling, they have been busy murdering the unborn, tossing innocent men in jail, ripping up the foundations of society, and destroying men, women, and children at every turn.

My question to those who believe the truth is this: Which is worse, to "demean" a feminist, or to kill 4,000 children per day and to toss thousands of innocent men per year into jail?

It is time for us to realize that we have enabled the wholesale slaughter of children and the corruption of our culture and the legal system by showing moderation in dealing with that which is pure evil. We have enabled pure evil by allowing it to masquerade behind a cloak of respectability. No more. Every time we are in the presence of pure evil (and all feminists are evil, in the same way that a guy who joins the Nazi party because he appreciates the job opportunities, even though he doesn't agree with all that Jew-hating and world-domination stuff, is evil in that he associates with evil and in that he empowers evil with his mere presence), we should simply mock it. We should attack it intellectually, label it, demean it, and mock it until we make it afraid to ever show its vicious head in public again.

It is time for us to reclaim the powerful corrective of shame. It is time for us to emblazon the foolishness and immorality of all feminists in sky and proclaim it from the housetops. It is time for civil society to stop treating those who are wrong as if their position matters. Sure, they have a right to be wrong... but we have a right, and a responsibility, to insidiously and consistently mock them for being willfully ignorant.

It is time for truth to be restored to the language and the culture. It is time to once again return to the judicious use of shame.

They are, after all, only Bull Dyke Femtards, and should be treated as such.

Why Feminists Do Not Answer Questions

Have you ever noticed that when you ask questions which challenge feminist dogma, there is never any genuine attempt on the part of feminists to actually answer those questions?

There is plenty of screaming "Sexism!" "Harassment!" Even "Domestic Violence!"

But there is never any attempt to actually answer the question. So I was wondering, why do feminists never attempt to answer the perfectly legitimate questions or dialogue with the perfectly logical points of those who (rightly) oppose feminism?

I think I have come up with a few ideas:

1) Because they already know the answer, and they know the answer does not support feminism.

2) Because they only teach you 14 vocabulary words in a "Women's Studies" program, four of which are some version of the word "Empowerment."

3) Because, when utterly flummoxed by the truth, it is easier to just scream "Sexism!"

4) Because they are too busy trying to figure out of the "i" comes before or after the "e" in "Glass Ceiling" to put additional effort into forming a real argument.

5) Because YOU are obviously under the bigoted, androcentrist misperception that truth trumps politics.

6) Because thinking can give you a headache and make you have crow's feet. It is much easier to simply drink the Kool-Aid and shout, "Yay for the sisterhood."

Women Are Far Crazier Than Men!

Check out a document on the World Health Organization's website called "Gender and Mental Health" (http://www.who.int/gender/other_health/en/genderMH.pdf). You have to really scour this document to come up with anything that is a) reasonable and b) understandable - after all, it is authored by UN-type international bureaucrats and therefore they can't really say anything that is politically incorrect (like for instance, "women are crazier than men"), but once you wade through the attempts to normalize mental health between the sexes by counting things (such as criminal acts) that do not directly relate to mental health as if they are in fact, directly related to mental health - here is what you come up with.

1) The primary purpose of the document is to argue that, internationally, more money needs to be spent by non-governmental organizations to improve the availability of mental health treatments for women.

It is difficult to justify this as anything other than raw sexism unless it is in fact true that women NEED mental health treatment more than men. In other words, ask yourself, why exactly do we need international initiatives that specifically target women for mental health treatment if it is men who are the more emotionally imbalanced "species" (as the OP phrased it) to begin with?

2) There is a diagram at the end of the document that shows a study of the use of psychotropic drugs as a ratio. Where men and women consume psychotropic drugs at exactly the same rate, there would be a reading of "1" on the diagram. Where men consume more psychotropic drugs than women, there would be a reading of less than "1" on the diagram.

Across sixteen countries, EVERY reading is greater than "1" - indicating that in every country surveyed, women consume psychotropic drugs more than men. And in many countries, women consume psychotropic drugs FAR more than men. In Brazil, France, and Spain, women are under drug treatment for psychiatric reasons at a rate of around THREE TIMES that of men. In the US, Canada, and the UK, the ratio is around twice as high for women.

It is interesting that the argument cannot be made that this situation prevails only in Western countries (perhaps for some perceived slight such as patriarchy, capitalism, or what have you). One arguably second-world country (Brazil) and one arguably third-world country (Nigeria) were included in the study and showed the same imbalance. Further, in arguably the most liberal nation represented in the study, France, the imbalance was highest, approaching four times more consumption by women as men.

I am often asked whether the increase in the number of broken families is the fault of one sex or the other. It is hardly a coincidence that the sex most likely to need psychiatric medication is also responsible for initiating 67% of all divorces in the United States. Of course, a culture in which feminism leavens all thought and convinces women that they really can do anything men can do is also to blame, as such philosophical nonsense sets women up for lives of failure and frustration - compounding the apparently innate emotional brittleness.

Feminism And Subjective Irrationality

Objectivity - i.e., an ability to make decisions and be informed by facts outside of one's self, has been replaced by subjectivity - i.e., an inability to be moved by anything other than one's own personal prejudices and feelings - in modern politically-correct society. This is why feminism prospers.

Feminism, and all identity-politics, depends on the irrationality of its audience in order to survive. There are literally NO assertions of feminism that are intellectually defensible. Facts disprove all of them, from the so-called "wage gap" that does not exist (when wages are normalized for the actual amount of time a person has spent on the job rather than by the mere age of the persons surveyed, women earn as much as men) to the silly contradictions of feminist dogma (How is it that women are as capable as men, yet need entrance and promotion standards LOWERED so that there can be more women in the military, police, and fire departments?).

This is the psychological/spiritual Catch-22 of feminism. Feminism is easily disproved by facts, but women have been taught by Oprah that facts do not matter - only feelings. So women are not likely to be moved from their feminist stance by disproving feminism's claims, which again, is easily done.

Sadly, our culture has divorced women from the only thing likely to redeem them - wisdom. No amount of logic, fact, or reasoning is likely to destroy the lie that is feminism. Only an individual woman looking at the ruins of a life that could have been - and feeling bad about it - is likely to lead to her redemption.

Unfortunately, by that time, younger women than she will have been captured by feminism's lies.... And the cycle of irrationality, self-centeredness, and destruction will begin again.

Why Do Some Believe There Is No Wage Gap?

In any discussion with a feminist, after she has been proven wrong on every other issue, her position will eventually devolve to the trump card: "Well, I just believe women ought to get paid the same amount for doing the same work, don't you?"

This is the appeal to the "wage gap," that amount that women don't get paid for doing a man's work. The wage gap is, of course, buttressed by hundreds of newspaper stories, conferences, and senile legislators every year who go about warbling about the unfairness of it all.

But people who are responsive to truth and facts do not believe in the wage gap.

Because, the fact is, there is no wage gap. Any rational human being (which excludes everyone affiliated with NOW in any way) can dispassionately look at the evidence and see that there is no wage gap. However, feminists run to the supposed "wage gap" when they lose all other arguments concerning justice, morality, and the supposed "equality" of men and women, as if the one final, irrefutable reason why everyone should agree that feminism should still exist is because women are being abused by underpaying employers.

In fact, women have achieved parity with men in terms of pay. It is a continuing feminist myth that there is a so-called "wage gap," but once you dispense with simplistic feminist thinking on this issue, it is apparent that no "wage gap" exists.

One way of determining job performance is promotion - but since the positions which folks are talking about are very few and tend to be highly selective, I think a better means of discussing the performance of women as a group (and whether their performance is adequately rewarded) is by peering into the so-called "wage gap." Wages, of course, is the reward given to women as a group - so it is the most direct means of determining how women as a group are treated.

In any survey of men and women aged 35, there will be a stark difference in the median wages of the respective groups - men will always be anywhere from 8 cents to 15 cents on the dollar higher, according to the studies that I have seen. Feminists take this as an evidence of a glass ceiling, reasoning, "Every 35 year old should be making roughly the same amount of money in the same job. Since that is not so, the cause is necessarily that we live in a patriarchal society that discriminates against women."

Of course, this is politically convenient - but as with everything that feminists say, it is not true.

Because, in any grouping of 35 year old people, the males will have worked, on average, 10 years longer than the females in the group. This is because men begin working sooner (or, at least among the current crop of 35 year olds, they did - it seems like kids never work at all today, but that's another discussion), and tend not to have childbearing, sickness, and moving gaps in their work careers.

When the two groups are normalized, i.e., only women who have never had children remain in the group, then the discrepency in the wages drops to a mere 2 cents - which is a reasonable risk premium on the part of an employer that the female MIGHT get pregnant and drop out for 5 years, might move, etc. Of course, such a minor variation could also be explained by imbalances in performance, sickness or other absenteeism - but on the whole 2 cents is statistically insignificant.

The same could be said of the so-called "glass ceiling" issue with promotions of women. If the average woman has worked less and performed less effectively than the men in her peer group by age 35, she is not likely to ever be invited to become a CEO (or any senior officer) of a corporation, simply because she is far behind the curve as far as the experience level of her peer group.

There is no wage gap and no glass ceiling. There is only underperformance by women.

An excellent source on the wage gap myth is Carrie Lukas in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

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....