Tag: radical feminists

Generation Y, raised on nothing but feminism, will be a nightmare for men.

“watch out for generation y, they will be a nightmare for men”.  Those feminist women who indicated Generation Y as being a nightmare for men are correct. Things have hit a tipping point in our culture by that time. Children from that generation onwards have been raised on nothing but feminism. By the time of Generation Y, feminists have taken over academia, media and the law, they control public discourse. Feminism by the time of Generation Y is more than a revolutionary movement; it is the culture itself. It is Western culture. the-spearhead.com/2010/11/02/feminists-who-cares-if-its-your-kid/#comment-50531

I repost this comment, because it is very scary and very shocking. The consequences of feminism are scary and shocking enough. It is very scary to imagine that this is just the beginning!  An entire generation grown up with feminist indoctrination from kindergarten to university. Feminist dogma, feminist thinking, feminist warped logic became part of their mind.

A scary article. Feminism has barely begun! It will take over completely. Due process will disappear even further for men.  Women will get even more power to get men evicted from their home and jailed for unproven accusations of rape and child abuse, jailed for non-payment of child support even if the child is not theirs, and worse.

Feminists think about these things. They plan generations ahead. I have heard many feminist women tell me “watch out for generation y, they will be a nightmare for men”.

Yes they do, well said. Radical feminism – the basis and instinct of all feminism – is based upon this sophisticated, long-term thinking approach. (Radical) feminism is about progressively eliminating all male power – oops, “the patriarchy”. Eliminating anything which could possibly lead to male power in any and all forms.

There’s nothing wrong with this approach per se – it’s necessary. What wrong is the group exercising this approach – feminist females – and that they are allowed free reign to do so. In the absence of masculinist men adopting a long term revolutionary radical mindset (to empower men and keep females in check), feminist females will instead adopt that approach. Life is zero sum; the battle of the sexes is real. (Christian/Enlightenment liberal philosophy about the possibility of universal equality and liberty is bunk.)

Likewise there’s nothing wrong with “social engineering” – the negative connotion it has among men’s rights types is unfounded.

Those feminist women who indicated Generation Y as being a nightmare for men are correct. Things have hit a tipping point in our culture by that time. Children from that generation onwards have been raised on nothing but feminism. By the time of Generation Y, feminists have taken over academia, media and the law, they control public discourse. Feminism by the time of Generation Y is more than a revolutionary movement; it is the culture itself. It is Western culture.

(Note that this phenomenon of feminism taking over the culture is exclusive to regions based on Liberal Democratic Capitalism.)
Source: the-spearhead.com/2010/11/02/feminists-who-cares-if-its-your-kid/#comment-50531

This comment was on Spearhead, and even on this men’s right site was voted down into invisible oblivion.  I am not sure how much I support the rest of the comment. I reposted the most interesting part.  So please go on reading the rest of the article on the-spearhead.com/2010/11/02/feminists-who-cares-if-its-your-kid/#comment-50531

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

Human-Stupidit.com has shown that feminism and its laws are a prime example of warped thinking, unconscious distortions and manipulative speech. The fact that an entire generation grew up conditioned by feminist thinking is extremely scary to everybody who thinks that feminism has already gone overboard.

The effects can already be observed. Moderate men’s rights writers get kicked out of websites and, amazingly, even get kicked off men’s rights websites. Speaking against feminism might soon be included in hate laws and totally banned. Nowadays research on issues like adolescent and child sexuality is even more taboo than research about gender and race differences.

Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step

How all due process got dismantled in rape accusations. Feminst power at its best.

Feminism overrides the constitution! Amazing! Rules of due process, presumption of innocence, “innocent until proven guilty”,  are fundamental or constitutional law in most countries. Feminists managed to override  constitutional guarantees, as they managed to change thousand year old definitions of legal terms like “rape” and “child”  (see: Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance ).

Highly recommended reading:
Domestic violence fairytales threaten constitutional protections
SPECIAL REPORT
Are Domestic Violence Policies Respecting
Our Fundamental Freedoms?

All the following content was shamelessly copied from falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-presumptively-innocent-are-given.html I could not say it any better, and shortening it is a pity.

  1. Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. The sexual grievance industry insisted that rape was underreported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. So we kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve “the problem.”
  2. First, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration, which de facto served to flip the old law on its head: now, women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys are arrested based solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girl if they can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence.
    That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that forbade almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.
  3. That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who misunderstood the acquiescence of a woman were sent to prison.
  4. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape.  Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent.  Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.
  5. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws (in the UK and a handful of US states) that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation.
  6. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence of their innocence has long disappeared.
    Wait, there is more! This article continues! That still was not enough. Keep reading and click here »
    Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step
    » continues here »

Pedophile witch hunt & underage sex law excesses: why the witch hunt and how to change it?

An ephebe kisses a man. Tondo from an Attic kylix, 5th c. BCE by the Briseis painter. At the Louvre.
Ancient Greek Pedophile art: An ephebe kisses a man. 5th c.. At the Louvre. Proof of age not available.

Isn’t it strange? For traditional feminists who want female equality, freedom and self determination, it looks amazing

  • feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females (because Muslims successfully keep women away from the eyes of the feminist’s spouses)
  • feminists successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession. that often pays lots more money then other work. Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking fat aging woman who later will take away half their property and demand half their income.
  • I got convinced that the antifeminists hypothesis is the most parsimonious explanation for these apparent contradictions.

Feminists conspire to increase their sexual value by eliminating female sexual of competition

What feminists strive for Explanation
(increasing their own sexual market value by reducing competition)
Feminists even repress women,
to foster their reproductive goal of reducing sexual options for their own men
feminists don’t oppose the burka and are quiet about Muslim repression of females because Muslim’s repression of women successfully keep women away from the eyes and hands of the feminist’s spouses
feminists don’t promote women’s right to free choice, rather they successfully restrict women’s right to choose sexual services (prostitution) as a profession Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive prostitute are less likely to marry an average looking women who later will take away half their property and demand half their income for life.
Prostitutes are non-Union picket line violators, they give away their work cheaply
decrease age of consent to eliminate competition by very young attractive women (age of consent used to be 12, is now 18 everywhere and there seem to be plans to increase it to 21 worldwide)
prohibit erotic art, photography, pornography Under the guise of protecting porn models (who did not ask to be protected and do not want to go back to menial jobs) feminists want to avoid men seeing attractive women naked, getting distracted, spending time and money.
prohibit sex dolls, sex robots, but not vibrators

Pedophile witch hunters & feminists are NOT concerned about children’s well being

If draconian child porn laws were to protect children, why then videos of real child killings are legal?
Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.

Congratulations to the antifeminist blog, they are the only ones that give a sensible explanation for this: feminists want to cut of competition to their sexual monopoly so men will continue paying high prices for sex (marriage with life long support and half of all property on divorce).

I quote the antifeminist blog, I could not say this any better.

Why do I think you are obsessed with criminilizing everything and only those things that harm your particular, selfish reproductive and sexual needs? Because that is all you seem to be interested in. What about teenage girls bullying and beating each other up on video and then having them uploaded to websites that make money from advertisements? Naahh, no sexual threat, therefore nothing to say. What about teenage girls and even 10 year old girls appearing on reality tv shows to be exploited for commercial gain by adults and clearly suffering psychological distress as a result? Nope, no specific sexual threat to your reproductive interests so you have probably never given it two seconds thought. A 17 year old who likes to screw older men? You don’t want your man running off with or even looking at a hot 17 year old, so therefore 17 year old girls can’t give meaingful consent and older men should be criminilized.[…]

Can 17 year old girls make meaningful decisions about whether or not their unborn babies should be killed? Is having sex really more complex than deciding which political party is best able to govern? Surely if an 18 year old can vote, a 17 year old can fuck? And how come she can consent to sex with another 17 year old and not a 25 year old??
http://www.theantifeminist.com/the-chilling-banality-of-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-2452

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Read the rest of this story f more provocative Devil’s Advocate Ideas »
Pedophile witch hunt & underage sex law excesses: why the witc…
» continues here »

“Child Abuse” Dogmatists Repress Scientific Research

The blog put up a very very nice listing of persecution of scientists, of repression of scientific research by dogmatic people. It is correctly called radical left. I would not sign off blindly on all their statements.

[Disclaimer: My main topic is “defense of free research”, “freedom to find the scientific true facts” without getting death threats. This is not a crusade for underage sex, it is rather about unbiased truth & freedom of research versus dogmatic preconceived ideas]

http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/6/5/1990675.html

In the only instance of a U.S. Congressional resolution against a scientific paper, the House of Representatives, with only minimal opposition, denounced a study by Dr. Bruce Rind & others, published in the scholarly review, Psychological Bulletin, in 1998.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More Child Abuse Dogmatists »
“Child Abuse” Dogmatists Repress Scientific Research
» continues here »