Then there is her sexist view of the “tone argument.” “However, when men use it against women it is especially pernicious.” Why? Because somehow this becomes the use of “male privilege” to silence women and win the argument.
I don’t steer around the word to present a polite face to the public. I do not use an unwieldy alternative to disguise my contempt for men who collaborate in legal marginalization of male identity.
After the gruesome political suicide of Thomas Ball, feminist ideologues openly mocked the decade of pain and abuse which drove him to self immolate. But even this triumphal crowing over a man’s burned corpse lacked the open sadism demonstrated by Abdullah’s recent commentary. And this is where I must admit confusion.
As reported on 30th June, three young British men were tragically killed in a bus crash in Thailand while on gap year from university.
One would think that the feminist sector might remain silent on the issue, since the accidental death of men has no obvious bearing upon issues of women’s rights or sexual equality – which, I am assured, is all feminism is really about. But then, feminists haven’t been particularly good at holding their tongues just lately, have they?
Policies that allow women to commit violence-by-proxy do not target only conservative men, or redneck men, or men who own firearms. They target all men, from the farm labourer to the army cadet to the sociology student. The resistance to feminism, naturally, comes from all sections of society, from the bottom rungs to the upper echelons. How else do we imagine a man – of any political persuasion – to respond, when he witnesses self-identified feminists cackling over their power to deprive men utterly of everything that makes life worth living? (And then, without pausing for breath, reaffirming their preferred metanarrative of female victimhood and male privilege.)
You have been trashing men for a long time now. And then you come on YouTube with this video taunting men as cowards for how they react to it.
People with common sense can deduce that humans fell into their roles because of the human instinct for survival. Evolution or god, whatever you want to believe, gave men and women natural biological abilities and instincts with which to use these abilities. This is why when men were building and leading a medieval society in England, men were also building and leading a society in feudal Japan. Simply put, men were given the natural physical strength, ability, and aggressive nature needed to do these things. Were there weak, lazy, unmotivated men in these times? Yes no one denies that but if you can show me a civilization built primarily by female labor, defended primarily by female warriors, and technologically advanced primarily by female inventions then I’ll buy your poorly written comic book for a dollar.
Conclusions and statistics generated by bad science and pseudoscience die hard, if at all. They seem to find their way into research years after being exposed. An example of this is the Super Bowl Hoax of 1993 that alleged that more women are abused on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year.
Yup. You spent all that time meticulously crafting those wonderful, beautiful apologies. You spent cumulative weeks in front of your webcam, stressing over which particular hat most sensitively expresses your spiritual unity with the divine feminine. And did the mortal Goddesses even acknowledge your strenuous efforts to absolve yourselves of original sin (i.e. the crime of being born male)?
It also calls into question whether the concept of “consent,” where it relates to sexual activity, is antiquated. Indeed it calls into question whether the concept of “rape,” in the literal definition, is just a cultural misconception for a male tendency to fulfill women’s desire for sexual excitement and thrills and women’s collective desire to see this accomplished.
