Did you know that feminists think zero reported rapes mean there is a tremendous amount of rape on campus? Or that low rates of military rape prove racism? Why do feminists think in such a bizarre, illogical and even juvenile fashion? Why do they even seem to cultivate and promote such lunacy? Can anything be done to stop the cancerous spread of their inanity?
In this article, I’ll open by reducing you to a child-like state of confusion and dependence. I will then use nonsequitur in the form of accusations to convince you that you are guilty of something you are innocent of. As you flail against your false anagnorisis, I will then offer you the tiniest sliver of hope, available only as long as you adhere to my poorly specified guidelines for your salvation.
Sounds like fun, right? Welcome to feminism 101. Welcome to the Kafka trap.
You can read more about feminist Kafka-trapping here and here. Because you are a sexist, I know you will want to read more about it. That is what sexists do. That is what you will do.
Oh, amusing – you think you are not guilty of sexism. The very fact that you deny your sexism is proof that you are a sexist. Why don’t you just admit it? Why can’t you check your privilege? Eliminate your toxic masculinity? What kind of a monster are you?
The patriarchy created a culture of rape used to oppress women, and all men benefit from this at the expense of women as a class. If you disagree with this, you are violent. I’m not going to say that “you are a part of it” and “you suck” because I want you to draw this conclusion for yourself. Internalize it. Surrender yourself to my loving forgiveness and instruction, if only you are man enough to admit it.
We don’t hate men despite all the horrible things we claim they have done to us. We just need men to teach themselves and each other how to be better men, better allies to feminism. You know, good little slaves to our every whim.
Almost every article you will read by feminists writing to men follows that same script. They are trying to break you down so that they can build you up again in their image. This is a plan taken from the perversion of the growth of normal human intelligence.
Human social growth is marked by transitions and recapitulation of various ways of understanding the world. Like children in a new, confusing world we learn to seek and trust the love and instruction of parents. As we grow, we start to seek the approval of our peers. Eventually, men become more individualistic, seeking to distinguish themselves from others through achievement. At each new stage, we rebel a little or a lot at the authorities – parents, peers, etc. – from the earlier stages.
With each new life experience, we regress a bit to reiterate these steps to build new understandings of the new experience. The first few days of one’s experience in, say, a new school are marked by awe and confusion as we seek approval and our place in a new world. Once we become familiar and then comfortable in our new digs, we rebuild our base of peer support or reassert our individuality.
Feminists are aware of the natural human cycle of using a child’s perspective as a base to build understanding. They maliciously exploit it to spread and regulate their ideology. Ironically, they are caught in this trap, a trap constructed carefully and maintained by their ideological peers.
That is why they cannot tolerate challenges to their claims. Santa Claus must live forever, and the walls of the crib must not be breached.
Rather than empowering women, feminists keep them in child-like confusion with both their fear of men and their “safe spaces” designed to enforce immature mental states of weakness. For example, after Milo Yiannopoulos tried to speak at DePaul University, feminists scrambled to build a safe space to rebuild their damaged mental crib. While censorship and safe spaces seem like bizarre ways to show the empowerment of women, they make perfect sense for a flimsy cult that is trying to box out competing viewpoints that have objective facts on their side.
Almost every facet of today’s feminism can be explained by the Kafka trap:
- “Privilege checking” is a way to keep one in a state of shame, which disables your ability to protest that you are innocent of their false accusations.
- “Mansplaining” and “manspreading” are terms designed to make you feel guilty about imaginary slights against women.
- Like “political correctness”, the term “microaggression” is intended to keep you wary, if not paranoid, about everything you might do. Walking on the sidewalk toward a woman is a microaggression – you are colonizing her space. Avoiding walking on the sidewalk toward a woman is also a microaggression – you are implying she is too unclean for you to be around.
- “Sexism” is a crime so broad and poorly defined that everything can be called sexist except when a woman does it – even though this is not the dictionary definition of sexism.
Destroying the Kafka trap
Prevention in the best way to thwart the trap. Articles like this one serve as a sort of inoculation – if you know about the Kafka trap and can recognize when someone is using it on you, you are naturally less vulnerable to it. Regular booster shots of both reason and invective against feminism are necessary to keep one’s guard up, which is why I write no many articles engaging feminism’s foibles.
Even though I support legal gender equality, I successfully resisted the Kafka trap by repeatedly denying the accusation that I was sexist. When they shouted that my denial was proof of my sexism, I then denied that I was a butterfly, and asked if that made me a butterfly. This made my feminist accusers increasingly furious to the point of their becoming physically abusive. I remained unmoved. I was finally cast out from their midst – a recalcitrant man who supported equality was too big a threat to their paradigm.
The presidential campaign of Donald Trump shows another way to destroy the trap – when someone tries to shame him by accusing him of some malign misogyny, he lashes out with double the vigor of his attackers, often in ways that are even more bizarre than the attacks against him. The crowds cheer – they’ve felt the tendrils of the trap and are impressed at the power of a man who fights back with such violent skill. THAT is the man I want for my President, they think.
Can a feminist caught in the Kafka trap ever escape? It is rare, but it does happen. Childbirth, particularly the birth of a son, can give a feminist a new perspective that makes her former hatred of men ring hollow. (This is why feminists are so keen on abortion, and even celebrating abortions – killing babies defends and rebuilds the walls of the trap.)
Can a counter-trap to the Kafka trap be created? I’m not sure, but I imagine it is possible. We already know that a feminist is vulnerable to bizarre, circular, non-falsifiable arguments. Pushing such arguments even further down the absurdity black hole into highly emotional territory could, I think, shatter them.
For example, last fall the Twitter hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion gave feminists the chance to crow about killing their kids. Celebrating such a horrible decision is crazy enough, so imagine a man trying to convince a female feminist that they should have sex so that she can shout her abortion, too. If she declines, he turns on the Kafka trap and asks her to check her privilege. Is she really a feminist? She has the chance to become a rape victim and a first person abortion booster. What real feminist could resist that chance to champion women’s issues?
It is absurd, of course, and that is the point: the hope is that at some point the feminist’s willful suspension of disbelief will collapse, and he or she will experience anagnorisis – sometimes called a “red pill moment” – all on their own.
