Using Women to Destroy Men via Leftist Feminism and Liberalism

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Feminists who do not value the traditional family unit seek to ruin todays boys


Posted: 13 Aug 2018 09:19 AM PDT


The amount of damage that modern day social justice warriors and feminists are causing today is astonishing. It shouldn’t surprise any of us to see the kind of damage that these people would cause in the modern world. There was an article in the New York Times not too long ago called “What Feminists Can Do For Boys.” I will tell any of you who have not wasted your time reading the New York Times article the words of feminists author Jessica Valenti are barely worthy of lining your bird cage with. Right underneath her name on the New York Times article you can see that she is the author of six books on feminism. For those who have not wasted their time reading the New York Times article I will tell you up front that the words of Valenti are barely worthy of lining a bird cage with. However, seeing that she has written six books on the topic of feminism and I never know when I’ll need some extra toilet paper they might be an interested investment, or perhaps I’ll just pull out a hundred dollar bill and use a match to light it on fire.
I can only hope that not all feminists are as bad as the writer of the article, because if they are then someone really needs to encourage them to stop and think before they speak. In her article she tries to present the argument that feminists can help boys become good men, but lets be completely honest. Feminism is the cause of a lot of the problems that men have to deal with today. Feminists don’t want to help boys become men. They want to dilute and weaken the next generation of men so that they can completely send everything that is considered traditional masculinity into a state of extinction. A large number of the modern feminists have declare war on men as much as social justice warriors have declared war on the statues and everything else that represents white history and culture.

In a Dana Carvey stand up comedy called “Squatting dogs tell no lies” while speaking about scientology he once asked what would it take to make a scientologist say, “whoa man, now, THAT Is whack?!” I personally found this question funny as hell at the moment when I heard it. In the year 2018 I have an answer for that question. Point them in the direction of Valenti and other feminists who share her thoughts. I believe that the women who share these views have got to be brain washed, because no woman worth any respect could really be this far out of her mind. I’m not speaking as a man who hates women, because I don’t hate women. One of my publishers, Stefanie Nicholas is a woman who I hold a lot of respect for. I am also the father of a 16 year old daughter who is sometimes going on 30 and I honestly believe that my daughter can do anything that she sets her mind to. But for me to say that I respect feminists? I won’t say that I could never respect a feminist. I will just say that I have not met one yet who I respect, but like the little kid in Angels in the Outfield once said, “it could happen.”

Some how these women have this insane notion that men in our natural state are prone to oppress women. They believe that our natural god given instincts to protect and provide is evidence of a desire that we as men feel to keep women pushed down and held under the weight of oppression. In her article Valenti wrote that while young women and girls have resources that they can turn to in order to seek support and an escape from restrictive cultural influences, boys do not have this escape. She feels that the lack of an “escape” makes young boys who will be tomorrows men more susceptible to misogynist hucksters peddling get manly quick platitudes and dangerous online extremist communities.

The words of Jessica Valenti completely blow my mind, because they make me ask myself was this woman thinking at all before she spoke? Instead of pointing to a weak man or a criminal with a bad history of spouse abuse for an example of the truth of her words she points her finger at the Canadian psychology professor, Jordan Peterson. There is just one major problem with trying to use Peterson as an example that supports her words. That problem is Jordan Peterson completely disproves everything that she claimed in her article. Peterson did not rise to fame by being a woman hating misogynist. He rose to fame because he is a prime example of what it means to be a good man while being someone who is responsible and strong enough to think for themselves. He is an example of what it means to be the kind of man who is committed to their family and kids. The kind of man I am willing to bet that Jessica Valenti has no experience in dealing with or she may have a different view when it comes to men.

There is only one reason for a feminist to believe that Jordan Peterson is a misogynist woman hater and that is because his very existence goes against everything that they wish to promote. No real feminist wants people, let alone other women to be strong enough to think for themselves. Instead feminist want to tell people what to think and feel and if you disagree with them then you must be a sexist misogynistic woman hater. Unless of course you’re a woman. If you’re a woman who disagrees with feminist then they see you as weak and an example of everything that they feel women shouldn’t be. But if you are a woman who is weak enough to let a feminist tell you what to think and feel then they like you. Feminists do not believe in the power and advantage that comes from the traditional family unit. Instead they promote things like family and the institution of marriage as being oppressive to women.

There is only one thing that Jessica Valenti got right in her whole article. Young boys need someone. They need someone who cares enough to intervene and help mold them while teaching them how to grow up to be the men of tomorrow so that they can hopefully have families of their own and mold the next generation. But the person that todays boys need are not feminists. If we leave todays boys in the hands of feminists they are going to be worse off than they would be if they had been left to fend for themselves. What todays boys need is their father or a father figure. They need strong honorable men in their lives. It was a strong honorable man who inspired me to stay in high school and helped teach me lessons that I carry with me today. I am so grateful for everything that my ROTC instructor taught me. He taught me things like loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Seven values that I still carry with me nearly twenty years later. These are just some of the lessons that a good man can teach a boy and no where in these values are women oppressed. The problem is that when boys don’t have that strong male presence in their life then they will turn anywhere that they can get what it is they are missing from not having a father. They will turn to things like drugs, they will turn to gangs, worse they will turn to these feminists who will ruin them for the rest of their life.

The true modern day feminists wants to promote the idea that the traditional family unit with traditional values is a toxic environment and something that should be seen as bad. The truth is that real feminists hate anything that is remotely traditional. They believe that the traditional family unit teaches boys to suppress their emotions and that this suppression of emotion is what leads todays boys to become tomorrows toxic men. I personally can not remember a time when I have ever told my son that it is wrong to cry. In fact when I have heard other family members get onto him about his crying I have been quick to come to his defense and let it be known that I will not allow my son to be taught that he shouldn’t express how he feels placing myself between him and other members of my family. I don’t know any parent who taught their son to play with guns. But crying and playing with guns are second nature to most boys. That is where the father figure comes in. A strong father figure can harness these natural instincts that boys are prone to have, train them, mold them, and teach boys that these natural instincts are okay while being dealt with in a proper healthy way.

So if the traditional family unit does not teach boys to become toxic woman haters and violent what does? The lack of a good father. Not every man who sticks around is a good father. A man who will call his wife a b*tch in front of their children and anywhere near where there is a chance that the children can hear him is not a good father. What that does is show an example that the woman is not worthy of respect. If a husband doesn’t respect his wife, the children have no reason to either. The son will likely grow up and do the same in the future when he has a woman of his own. If you are a father who has a daughter what you are doing is teaching your daughter that this kind of toxic behavior is normal to expect in a man and you are setting her up to end up in a toxic relationship herself. Then when that little girl becomes a woman and finds herself in an abusive relationship or the boy grows up and abuses the woman who he ends up with, when it comes time to blame someone all you have to do is look in the mirror. It is important not to confuse a man who just chose not to leave and chose to pay the bills for being the same as a good father. They are not the same. That is why I am not saying that the lack of a mans presence in his life is what causes a boy to grow up and become violent. I am saying that the lack of a strong and good fatherly figure is what leads boys to become violent later on in life.

The modern day feminists contribute a lot to the fatherlessness in America. They have taken the good men in the world and demoted them from being seen as providers and protectors of the family that is worthy of the respect of their wife and kids to being nothing more than primitive. Feminists encourage todays girls and daughters across America to not depend upon men and to see the institution of marriage as something that is very much like a form of slavery. They have rejected everything that makes a good man, a good man, and continually encourage all of America to do the same. If feminists genuinely want to help todays boys become the good men of tomorrow then the best thing they can do is leave our sons alone.
 
So if the traditional family unit does not teach boys to become toxic woman haters and violent what does? The lack of a good father. Not every man who sticks around is a good father. […] It is important not to confuse a man who just chose not to leave and chose to pay the bills for being the same as a good father. They are not the same. That is why I am not saying that the lack of a mans presence in his life is what causes a boy to grow up and become violent. I am saying that the lack of a strong and good fatherly figure is what leads boys to become violent later on in life.

That's a crucial point, I think. I've often wondered what was worse: the absence of a father, or the lack of a good one (or at least of a good father figure). I'd say it's the latter, but I might be wrong. Because on the other hand, having a bad example while growing up can teach you what is NOT a good father, and encourage you to find out what IS a good father. For boys, it can give them the impetus to become the opposite of the negative role model they grew up with.
But when you have no frame of reference, how can you learn anything? That's why men like Jordan Peterson are so important, they can provide that frame of reference that is lacking, and act as good surrogate fathers for a lot of boys (and girls).
 
Great article - thanks for posting. Just publishing it on to my FB group.

Only one point I disagree - there seem to be good feminists around, the older "first-wave" feminists - Camille Paglia comes to mind. Her take was more to free women from archaic roles and to give them the same opportunity as men. I don't think that their push was mainly geared AGAINST men, more FOR women.
 
There's some good information here on a father's involvement in a child's life, although it's a "coffee chat" type discussion so it's a little long.


Only one point I disagree - there seem to be good feminists around, the older "first-wave" feminists - Camille Paglia comes to mind. Her take was more to free women from archaic roles and to give them the same opportunity as men. I don't think that their push was mainly geared AGAINST men, more FOR women.

I always thought feminists were driven by animosity to some degree. To me it didn't make sense to blame an oppressive patriarchy if you're all in it together. Perhaps there may have been more of the well-meaning feminists around in the early days, although there certainly was a negative orientation towards men from at least some of them.
 
But when you have no frame of reference, how can you learn anything?
Now consider if your frame of reference are transgender, lesbian or gay men as "parents". I bet any studies on this subject are not going to be out in the open (I hope I am wrong).
 
Great article - thanks for posting. Just publishing it on to my FB group.

Only one point I disagree - there seem to be good feminists around, the older "first-wave" feminists - Camille Paglia comes to mind. Her take was more to free women from archaic roles and to give them the same opportunity as men. I don't think that their push was mainly geared AGAINST men, more FOR women.

I would argue that even that, taking away traditional gender roles from women by focusing on women in the workplace, was not actually beneficial for women. Do women actually find more happiness there? I would say that they don't, and the gender wage gap seems to be proof of that IMO. Women leave the workforce to do what comes naturally to them - rearing children and nurturing a family. Even first wave feminism just seemed to be about a minority group of women angry about not wanting to do that, so they foisted feminism upon the rest of women who were perfectly happy raising a family and staying at home. Also, I'd say getting women in the workplace, those "same opportunities", was less about equality and more about getting what they felt men had - power and control. That seems to be what feminism has been about from the start. I'm perfectly willing to have my mind changed on that though.
 
The Wall Street Journal had an article a few weeks back saying that daughters of masculine fathers grow up to have more confidence. That is true from what I have seen in life as well. I couldn't get past the paywall, but here is the link: Masculine Dads Raise Confident Daughters

That's a crucial point, I think. I've often wondered what was worse: the absence of a father, or the lack of a good one (or at least of a good father figure). I'd say it's the latter, but I might be wrong. Because on the other hand, having a bad example while growing up can teach you what is NOT a good father, and encourage you to find out what IS a good father. For boys, it can give them the impetus to become the opposite of the negative role model they grew up with.
But when you have no frame of reference, how can you learn anything? That's why men like Jordan Peterson are so important, they can provide that frame of reference that is lacking, and act as good surrogate fathers for a lot of boys (and girls).

I read a comment on another forum a while back that I thought was very sad. The guy was ruing the lack of father figures in TV programs, where all husbands are portrayed as incompetents and mom knows best. He said that he was glad he'd at least grown up in the 80s when there were real fathers on television sitcoms; he was raised by a single mom & said that at least that influence still helped him a lot.

Now consider if your frame of reference are transgender, lesbian or gay men as "parents". I bet any studies on this subject are not going to be out in the open (I hope I am wrong).

There was this one a while back: Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but research draws fire from experts
There are also higher rates of domestic violence. Domestic violence rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples

Not to say there aren't functional families headed by a gay couple, and severely dysfunctional nuclear families, but the ideal family unit is still an ideal for good reason.
 
Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately at least in the US our media is so ingrained in this mindset that any woman that feels victimized will jump on the band wagon of this spewing of insanity and get the most news attention. I stand amazed yet again at this article and the whole concept has infuriated me especially when the powers that be "Hillary Clintons of the world" will use this as their platforms and then begins the domino effect. I think the electromagnetic fields in the big cities has diluted brain thoughts immeasurably. My hope is that good family values will succeed and little boys and little girls will be able to grow up in a world not so divided and confused by what these feminists are trying to create for them.
 
Thanks for sharing Laura, this whole feminist, postmodern, libtard way of thinking had/has a HUGE influence on modern day men and women, it has created a colossal division between both sexes, i'm embarrassed to confess that i'm almost afraid in engaging with someone in a serious relationship fo the simple reason that i won't want to end up with the type of partner with whom i'm not able to be even remotely close on the same wave length...
 
Women leave the workforce to do what comes naturally to them - rearing children and nurturing a family.
Well, this is what the nannies are there for, or grannies. No problem. Women like to get busy and work, you know. I'd like to see the source of your stats of how many women leave the workforce once they start a family. Sit-home-moms today are either on well fare, or they've secured their spot in life by engaging with wealthy men. The good thing in today's world is that there are plentiful of options to accommodate their unique needs. So many women would love to sell their youth to the highest bidder. Older men with handful of cash seek young meat. If women belong to the kitchen, then the pressure falls on men to keep up with the house expenses without seeking financial assistance from the taxpayer. The bad news is we live in the 21st century and the indebtedness of the single family home is so high that both parents need to work full time to pay the bills. It is one of the major reasons families fall apart. Nobody wants to move to a trailer park in Arizona where the rent is 200$ a month. Sure, it is a perfect place to raise kids, right?
But good luck finding a rich husband. Young women don't realize that once they get a little older (30+ is very old already in some cultures), their husbands will just dump them in the ditch. The consistent flow of refreshments is very potent of youth and juicy meat. It's reality for billions of people.
 
Whoa, dude, Stefan. You are doing a whole lot of fast, sloppy painting with a very broad brush dipped into a massive can labeled "Assumptions and Stereotypes".

Or so it seems to me

Yes you make some valid points, but....the crassness is repugnant to my delicate sensibilities! 🙀

Or maybe I am just a Pollyanna with higher aspirations for humanity than is warranted.
 
Well, this is what the nannies are there for, or grannies. No problem. Women like to get busy and work, you know. I'd like to see the source of your stats of how many women leave the workforce once they start a family. Sit-home-moms today are either on well fare, or they've secured their spot in life by engaging with wealthy men. The good thing in today's world is that there are plentiful of options to accommodate their unique needs. So many women would love to sell their youth to the highest bidder. Older men with handful of cash seek young meat. If women belong to the kitchen, then the pressure falls on men to keep up with the house expenses without seeking financial assistance from the taxpayer. The bad news is we live in the 21st century and the indebtedness of the single family home is so high that both parents need to work full time to pay the bills. It is one of the major reasons families fall apart. Nobody wants to move to a trailer park in Arizona where the rent is 200$ a month. Sure, it is a perfect place to raise kids, right?
But good luck finding a rich husband. Young women don't realize that once they get a little older (30+ is very old already in some cultures), their husbands will just dump them in the ditch. The consistent flow of refreshments is very potent of youth and juicy meat. It's reality for billions of people.
Life is tough, and from the view that old stereotypes still prevail in keeping the roles in a family for men and women, what you say has facts behind that cannot be ignored. So if a woman wants to raise a family by herself, the society nowdays has created the ideological frame for her not to be labelled negatively for her actions. The point, however is that in establishing the ‘new common understanding in society’ Men are portrayed as either villans or opressors, or as men changing genders to become women, or in as any and every other way than the man as the kight in shining armor or as the wise father or, or. Imho that is as bad as previous stance of society, and it will pass as the initial matriarchal societies have vanished. As long as women can use guns,men can also wash dishes. But make that the result of their choice, passion or dedication and not as prescribed by society.
 
If you remember my previous comments about my partner when we were in dispute, I was a bit on this path because of my mom's nazi behaviour (she can't help herself, her dad really was a nazi collaborator in WWII), talking about mild version of all men are bastards:nuts:, but that is not my real oppinion and I treat all men and women with respect and I'm not that paranoid anymore. Huh:-[
 
Well, this is what the nannies are there for, or grannies

I personally don't think it's good for a child to be raised by a nanny or anyone else other than their mother and father. So no, this is not "what nannies and grannies are for". Children need to be around their parents, especially in the first four years as those are very important stages in the development of the child's psychology which will shape their decisions and mindset into adulthood. Plenty of people think it's fine to just shunt off the role of parenting to someone else, for reasons that escape me, but I think that's a big reason why there are so many damaged people in society.

As for your jab at "gold-digging" women, the psychology has shown that women are attracted to men that they feel can provide the security for, and needs of, a family. So women marry at or above their own socioeconomic level. They aren't so much as selling their youth to the highest bidder as they are looking for a mate that will provide them with a stable environment from which to raise a family. That's born into them from thousands of years of evolutionary biology. Same reason why men go for younger women: they are more likely to be fertile so as to provide the man with offspring, which is hardwired into his biology. Many people want to go the crass route like you have when explaining human behavior, but it's a lot deeper than just women are gold diggers and men are superficial creatures IMO.
 
Well, this is what the nannies are there for, or grannies.

Paying another woman to do what another woman, being the mother, should naturally do - is completely stupid.

As for grannies, unfortunately, if you have a child at 25 or even 30, it's highly unlikely that the granny will be able to take care of your kid(s) while you're "busy at work", because guess what? She, too, will still be working.

No problem. Women like to get busy and work, you know.

Sadly, a lot of women are brainwashed to think that personal fulfillment can only happen in the workplace, through a "carrier". As for women liking to get busy, women have always worked and have always been busy (***see below). I think it's more about being given the opportunity to have a "high professional status", "climb the ladder" and become as "powerful" (whatever that means!) as men.

I don't get it that some people think that "in the past", women stayed at home to raise the kids, that their world revolved around the stove and the nappies. Working-class women in cities had to work just like everybody else. Only well-off women from the bourgeoisie or the aristocracy enjoyed the luxury of staying home, and even then, most of the time, the kids were taken care of by nannies!

In rural areas, women worked in the fields, tended to the garden and the cattle, took care of the parents and step-parents, all the while raising their kids.

Many of them don't have a pension today because they never had an official professional status, though they significantly contributed to the workdload along with their husband.

I guess there's no perfect system. Yes, mothers staying at home to raise kids (at least during their first years of life) and the husband providing for the family is an ideal, a perfect solution, but it was never a reality for most people, except among the aristocracy/the wealthy, or the middle-class in the 60's-70's.

The current epidemic of divorce and the propaganda against men is a serious problem. Some propose that a potential way to tackle that epidemic (along with the issue of single parenting) would be a tightening of divorce laws, but I think it's taking the problem backwards. A more commonsense solution would be to tighten marriage and parenting laws (as in, comprehensive background check before allowing people to marry and have kids, as is proposed by Adrain Raine in a futuristic scenario, in his book The Anatomy of Violence). That's a controversial issue, but it gives food for thought!

*** Below is an interesting extract from Graham Robb's book The Discovery of France:

To judge by the reactions of contemporary travellers, the biggest surprise would be the preponderance of women in the fields. Until the mid-to-late nineteenth century, almost everywhere in France, apart from the Provencal coast (but not the hinterland), the North East and a narrow region from Poitou to Burgundy, at least half the people working in the open air were women. In many parts, women appeared to do the lion’s share of the work.

This simple fact was soon erased from histories of France by writers who either never saw the countryside or thought it futile to make distinctions between the potatoes in a sack.

From the Loire valley to the Alps and Corsica, women ploughed, sowed, reaped, winnowed, threshed, gleaned and gathered firewood, tended the animals, baked bread, fed it to the men and children, kept house … and gave birth to more hungry mouths. …

All along the Atlantic coast, women were seen ploughing the fields, slaughtering animals and sawing wood while the men stretched out on piles of heather in the sun. In the Auvergne, in order to clear the snow, milk the cows, feed the pig, fetch the water, make the cheese, peel and boil the chestnuts and spin the cloth, women rose earlier and went to bed later than men.

Some tasks, like fetch the water, were considered exclusively female. Very little was considered exclusively male. At Granville on the Cotentin peninsula, women fished, repaired boats and worked as stevedores and carpenters; In the Alps, they were yoked to asses and hitched to ploughs, and sometimes lent to other farmers. Before the snow had melted, they could be seen scattering black earth on the thaw, and lugging baskets of soil up to fields so steep that the animals sometimes toppled over in a strong wind.

The report on Southern Normandy cruelly suggested that women were treated as beasts of burden because hard work had robbed them of their beauty: a sun-baked, arthritic creature was hardly an ornament and might as well be put to work. In parts like the Southern Auvergne, where society was patriarchal, women seemed to belong to a different caste. Tribal justice has left little trace in official records, but anecdotical evidence suggests that a woman born in the Velay, the Vivarais or the Gévaudan was more likely than women elsewhere to be beaten and raped with impunity, and more likely to be sold into marital slavery for the sake of consolidating farmland.

Further north, women’s status was reflected in address – the husband called his animals, chilren and wife “tu”, while she addressed him formally as “vous”. In many parts, while guns were fired and church bells tolled for the birth of a baby boy, the appearance of a girl was considered an embarrassing non-event.

Hundreds of misogynistic proverbs from all parts of France seemed to confirm the impression that this was a barbaric society of sarcastic, sponging bullies:

Oats to goats and wine to women is wasted wealth. (Vosges)

Marry your daughter far away and keep your dung heap close to home. (Vexin, Normandy)

A dead wife, a living horse, a wealthy man. (Brittany)

A man has but two good days in his life: The day of his wedding and the day he buries his wife. (Provence, Languedoc, Gascony, Basque country)

No female equivalent of those misogynistic sayings have survived. However, given the fact that nearly all of them were recorded by men, this is hardly surprising. And there are other proverbs that imply a certain unease at female solidarity : “At the well, the mill, the oven and the wash-house, women leave nothing unsaid”; “When a woman comes back from the stream (where the laundry is done), she could eat her man alive”.

Any of those women in the fields might have explained that none of this exactly matched the truth. The women worked because the men were in the high summer pastures, or out at sea, or on a seven-month tour of France, selling trinkets from a wicker basket. When the men returned to the harbour or the mountains, the women were naturally in charge. They organized the farms, repaired the buildings, negotiated with landowners and officials and strucked deals with traders. Often, the women were the first to migrate to the city or the plain, and the first to create an industrial economy by selling their wares to travelling marchants. Many of them had no particular reason to wait for the men’s return. Women in France are still automatically associated, in magazines, advertisements and casual conversation, with husbands and children. Yet nineteenth century censuses show that over a third of all women were single, and that 12 per cent of women over fifty had never married.

The casual use of “les hommes” to refer to the whole population is blatantly inappropriate. It is no exaggeration to say that the predominantly rural economy of France was supported and to a large extent run by women. This might explain why, despite earning half a man’s wages for the same work, women in France were often thought to have too much power and why the anti-feminist reforms of Napoleon and the Restoration government were so draconian. The Code Civil of 1804 denied married women the right to control their own property. The Code Pénal of 1811 effectively made a wife’s adultary an excuse for murder.
 
Back
Top Bottom