Feminism Sucks Part 6: Anti-Male

All my posts up to now have been addressed to general feminism as it exists today. I presented a case against feminists in those posts, with exception of my fifth one, the one on the psychology of a feminist. That post was based on my own observations on feminists, it does not really have so much of a rational defense as did my others. During that post I was more playing a role of a psychologist than a philosopher. Nonetheless, I think my psychological evaluation of feminists has truth in it and that is why I decided to put it into my series on feminism. This post will also be devoted to feminist psychology. But this post shall be different from my last one. My last one was to feminists in general, this one will only be applicable to more radical feminists. My claim is that the more radical feminists have a deep hatred towards men.

These feminists that I am referring to wish to dissolve the family structure as it currently is. This immediately raises a question to any thinking person. Why would feminists want to dissolve family structure? What does this have anything to do with feminism? They would claim that the family structure is sexist, the main house figure is the husband, not the mother, it is clearly opposed to women and so the feminists oppose normal family structures. But we should ask another question. If what these feminists are angry about is that the father is the dominant figure then they should speak out against the practice of family not the establishment of family itself, why do they not do that? It would make a lot more sense to say that neither men nor women should be the dominant figures in a family, rather family should be structured in a different way. Indeed, in our times, it can be different. In some families the mother can be the dominant figure in the house and the husband the secondary figure. My mother, for example, is the dominant one in my family, she has always done more of the work. I have no problem with my mother being in charge. Nor do I have a problem with a woman being the dominant figure with her family. I am fine with both situations that exist. What I would encourage is for people to be open-minded and consider different family structures from as they existed in the past, rather than trying to abolish the entire structure. I will give an example to illustrate my point. Consider voting. Voting at one point was against women. Women did not say to abolish voting. They said to change its structure and allow women to vote. This is my question. Why would these feminists rather prefer to abolish family structure than to change our perspective to family into a new modern and equal way to looking? The answer, which seems apparent to me, is that these radical feminists hate men. They do not like men. They despise them. They do not want women to live together with men. So they wish to abolish family, for if there is no traditional family anymore then it would mean that men have no married relationship with women. This is what these radical feminists want.

I realize that what I said about feminist men-hating was a heavy claim. One can ask me how do I know this? Every aspect of my reason points me to this inevitable conclusion that even surprises myself. But I have my reasons and I will show them to you. I never heard a feminist agree to my claim, but that is irrelevant, they can say one thing and believe another, what is relevant is what they believe. I gave you my first reason above, now I will give another. Much of radical feminism also focuses on what is known as lesbian feminism. That is, as the name suggests, feminism that encourages women to give up straight lives in place of lesbian lifestyles. The question I must ask, of course, is, what does this have anything to do with feminism?! What does scissoring with another women have anything to do with equality? I do not understand. Do not misunderstand me, I have no problem with gay or lesbian people, let them have fun, I am a bisexual myself, it would seem really strange and hypocritical if I opposed gay people if I am one-half gay myself. But what I have a problem with is that advocacy of lesbians is connected to feminism. It is like as if I was a mathematics teacher and I instructed my class to become gay, it would make no sense to the subject. Indeed, it does not make sense if we think of feminism as a movement that is for equality of women (I have busted this myth already in my other posts). It only begins to make more sense once you understand the purpose of radical feminism, and that is an excuse to hate men. Then it is clear why lesbian lifestyles are promoted within this feminism, because they hate men. Even straight girls are encouraged to be lesbians, why? Because they despise men, they want to stay away from them as much as they can. They do not want to depend on men for sexual satisfication but rather on themselves.

The question should be asked is why do these feminists hate men? What is the motive? If I had to guess into their psychology I would guess that they have a victim mentality. In my previous post I have explained that feminists see the world as a chess game, and when there is unfairness or inequality it must be that it was socially constructed. The radical feminists see the men as the source of inequality and unjustice. Thus, they see themselves as victims of the evils that the men do. In some cases, I would guess, these feminists become jealous towards men, they see that there are more men in one area of the economy than women and hence they develop jealously. But they cannot simply say they are jealous, they need to find an excuse to the inequality that exists in the world. Their excuse, like always, is that it must be the result of discrimination. Once they start to believe that men discriminate against women then they see themselves as victims, therefore it is clear why they hate men. They see men as their oppresors and develop resentment towards them. Thus, it should become clear at this point why these feminists encourage the break up of traditional families and how they can even encourage other women to become lesbians.

I will post some quotations that come from well known feminists today as futher justification for my claim that radical feminism is concentrated around man-hating.

1)Elizabeth Stanton, "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men".

2)Marilyn French, "All men are rapists, and that is all they are".

3)Judith Levine, "A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, even if she does not feel forced."

4)Catharine MacKinnon, "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

5)Catharine MacKinnon, "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."

6)Catherine Comins, "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

7)Linda Gordon, "The nuclear family must be destroyed. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process."

8)Robin Morgan, "We cannot destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

9)Robin Morgan, "I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

10)Valerie Solanas, "To call a man an animal is to flatter him, he is a machine, a walking dildo."

11)Sheila Cronin, "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

12)Ti Grace Atkinson, "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."

13)Andrea Dworkin, "In my own life, I don not have intercourse. That is my choice."

14)Andrea Dworkin, "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice."

15)Ti Grace Atkinson, "If feminism has any logic at all, it must be working for a sexless society."

16)Andrea Dworkin, "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."

17)Sheila Jeffreys, "When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression."

18)Sally Gearhart, "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race."

19)Marilyn French, "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women, he can sexually molest his daughters. The vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above."

20)Simone de Beauvoir, "No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women would make it."


That is twenty quotations I picked up from the internet. I found them on Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, and other various places. If I tried some more I could have collected a hundred of these if I really wanted to but I have other things to do with my time. I want you to look at these quotations and realize what radical feminism is about. My claim that feminism is based on the hatred of men is apparent in these quoations, some actually openly admit to man hating.

I want to make it very clear again, I do not have a problem with all of these quotations. For example, take Andrea Dworkin admitting that she does not have sex in quotation thirteen (I think the real reason is not that it is her choice, but rather that feminists are way too ugly for any man to give up their penis for them). I have no problem if a woman is to say that. What I have a problem with is a woman saying that she is for "equality" and then to come along and start to say these things, that is just hypocritical, the man hatred is apparently.

I am also curios to found out, if it is possible, how many of these feminist movements are funded by tax money. Maybe I am wrong and they are all private, but I seriously doubt that. I doubt it because feminists have a love affair with the government, so it seems quite reasonable that they get government money for what they do. The thought is so terrible to imagine feminists stealing money from normal citizens so they can sponsor their male hating campaigns!

Notice the huge double standard that exists between what men say and what women say. In my fifth post on feminist psychology I said that "sexist" is use as a word today to silence opposition, it is the modern day equivalent of "heretic". The double standard is that you never see women being accused of "sexism". If a man is to get on TV, mention that men earn more money in construction than women because men have stronger body strength, he would be called a "sexist" on the news channels. He would be called a sexist for making a truthful statement. But these feminists, they can make up lies, they can openly admit their hatred of men, yet they never get called "sexist". Why not? That is what I want to know. I want an answer to why this double standard exists.

Perhaps the reader can now understand better why I do not like to refer to feminism as a 'philosophy'. A philosophy should be based on human intelligence, not human emotions. Radical feminism is clearly based on passions. Evil passions. It is not a surprise then why so many things that the radical feminists preach is completely non-sense as I have explained in my previous posts.

If one is not a radical feminist as the feminists mentioned above then she should ask herself the following question. Consider a radical form of religion, say Orthodox Judaism. One can still be a Jewish believer without being part of Orthodox Judaism. However, the ideas that are derived in the watered down Jewish religion come from Orthodox Judaism itself. Thus, the ideas are derived from radical ones, it may be the case that the non-radical ideas are taken out of Orthodox Judaism and the radical ones are ignored, however, the fact still remains that ideas were taken out of a radical religion. One should therefore be skeptical. Ask herself why that if she does not accept radical concepts of feminism but only the moderates ones then why should they be correct? If radical feminism is based on dark passions then it would not be a surprise why the movement is stupid, for it is not based on intelligence but on passion. Therefore, if from radical feminism more moderate ideas are extracted one should ask herself why these ideas are correct. Radical feminism reminds me of a fundamentalist religion, and feminism reminds me of a moderate religion. Take something like the Bible and Christianity (or Judaism). You might not believe in the Bible completely if you happen to be a more moderate religious person, but you need to remember that your religion is derived from a radical extreme text. As a moderate religious believer in Christinaity or Judaism you need to justify the terrible verses that the Bible or Torah speak about. Likewise, with radical feminism. You need to justify how these feminists that I mentioned above can say what they say. If you do not agree with them then it is your responsibility to condemn them for what they say and completely disassociate yourself from them.

Finally, look at quotation number twenty. Feminism, as I will show in my next post, is anti-freedom. Here you have a feminist who openly wishes to deny the women a choice in being a housewive. If feminism, as it claims, is to be for the equality of women, then it should follow that feminists support as many options open to women as possible. However, this is just not the case, someone like the feminist Beauvoir is willing to take away choices from women because she does not agree with them. This is contrary to freedom. This is a prelude to my next post which will be based on demonstrating that feminism is contrary to freedom.

I just want to end with an ending quotation from Robin Morgan, that has nothing to do with this post but it is a stupid quotation, that nicely illustrates the stupidity of this woman.

"My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free." - Robin Morgan