You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘exposing feminism’ category.

Google images: “Saleswoman”

Google Images: “Salesman”

I have noticed traffic coming to my blog from this link , where a blogger states that;-

If you have the stomach for it, type “misandry” into Google, and take a gander at what you’re rewarded with. The internet is chock full of self-righteous misogynists who think us “female supremacists” just need to “have some sense fucked into us” (because nothing inspires faith in your concept that sex equality already exists like your reinforcement of rape culture, and the idea that us little ladies just need a good deep dicking to set us straight).

A fine example of a straw man argument if ever I saw one! Without references, the blogger states that supporters of mens rights also advocate rape. The blogger fails to show how she reached this argument, and this ‘gap’ in reasoning is formally known as a non sequitur . After this the blogger continues in fine style;-

Yes, men are the victims of domestic violence, and yes, men get raped. As acknowledged at the start of my last post, ten percent of rape victims are male. But you know what that leaves? 90 percent who are female. Should that ten percent get ignored, should their crimes not be prosecuted? Of course not. But focusing on so few while so many suffer is not going to in any way affect the long-term problem.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the blogger is using verifiable sources for this statistic (she does not). The blogger argues that most victims are female, and also that this fact would legitimise a gynocentric focus with regard to victim support. However, this is an appeal to popularity – should we likewise ignore hunger in a small  Third World country in order to buy extra pizza for the larger population at home? The blogger continues.

How many television shows feature a conventionally unattractive, rude, obese women with her Chippendale-double husband? It’s not an insult to men that they’re told they can be as slovenly, ill-mannered, and lazy as they wish and still expect a beautiful, capable wife. It’s a statement on how we, as women, should have low standards because we should be grateful for any and all male attention that is granted to us.

However, this argument confuses a sequence of events . Advertisers tailor their products to appeal to a target audience, and will soon change if that audience does not enjoy that product. The Stupid Dad advertising phenomenon is most often designed to appeal to an audience who buy domestic products, and it is a recognised fact that most homemakers are still female . Therefore, this phenomenon is dictated by females, rather than dictated to them.

So, what can men do when confronted by this kind of faulty reasoning? It might be tempting to assail bloggers such as the one above, but I would suggest that it is better to become acquainted with some knowledge of logical fallacies . This would equip you to disassemble arguments such as the ones above, in the same way that I have.

After all.. feminists are stupid. Throw logic at them!

Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

Here is a thread with some feminist responses to the Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics .

Some selected quotes;-



I’m so mad I can’t find that cat macro that says “ya’ll don’t know what it’s like…being male middle class and white.

( Nowhere on this site do I disclose my ethnicity or social status. This is to prevent ad hominem arguments like this one. E.F. )

Whoever wrote this has very little knowledge of feminism AND is terribly afraid of women at the same time. Pathetic.

I think that after being verbally brutalized for trying to help people understand my feelings about sexism that it’s good to know that there’s a website where they can research how to do it in advance.

You’d better hope he’s gay. Else he’d fail logic yet again, having to sleep with the sex that represses him so. On second thought, I don’t want him in my sexual orientation.

Oh, the poor poor repressed men. How you’ve suffered through the centuries, what with being castrated all the time and having no power.

Get back in your cribs and suck on your binkie, little boys.

Ugh, what a bunch of wankers.
They’re whiny, impotent little douches that can’t deal with women on any level except as mute sex toys in their porn-based fantasies. And probably can’t deal with any part of society outside of their parent’s basement, to be frank.
So, a typical feminist response to a discussion of shaming language might be.. more shaming language.
Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

One of the more pervasive aspects of feminism is an absolute refusal to critically exmamine its own ideology, and an abolute insistence on maintaining and propagating its own dogma.

Recently, this has taken a bizarre twist in the manifestation of several feminist ‘churches’. Read these links at your own peril!

Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

Visit virtually any college campus and you will find “women’s studies” classes that wave the flag of victimization and promote gender warfare. They are filled with hippie-generation professors who seek to convince female students that having children is beneath them, that men are the enemy, that their fulfillment lies in wallowing in self-pity. Students are pressured to attend male-bashing plays like “The Vagina Monologues.” Oppressors of femininity also control much of the programming geared toward young women. Witness MTV and the prime-time lineup where women are taught that the only way to advance in the world is to dominate and manipulate men through “sexual power.”

More here;-

ATLANTA, September 15, 2009—The abuse of campus sexual harassment policies to punish dissenting professors has hit a new low at East Georgia College (EGC) in Swainsboro. Professor Thomas Thibeault made the mistake of pointing out—at a sexual harassment training seminar—that the school’s sexual harassment policy contained no protection for the falsely accused. Two days later, in a Kafkaesque irony, Thibeault was fired by the college president for sexual harassment without notice, without knowing his accuser or the charges against him, and without a hearing.

More here;-


“Feminist education – the feminist classroom – is and should be a place where there is a sense of struggle, where there is visible acknowledgement of the union of theory and practice, where we work together as teachers and students to overcome the estrangement and alienation that have become so much the norm in the contemporary university.”
bell hooks (1989) Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black Sheba, London, p.51

“Feminism recognizes education both as a site for struggle and as a tool for change-making.”
Linda Briskin & Rebecca Coulter (1992), Feminist Pedagogy: Challenging the Normative, Canadian Journal of Education 17/3, p. 249.

More quotes evidential of socio-political indoctrination in education here;-

Quite simply, “ad hominem” is a debating technique where one makes a personal attack on the character or credibility of the speaker instead of addressing arguments that are presented, such as these.

In other words.. a cheap shot”!

Here’s a great example of a person making “ad hominem” personal attacks in place of evaluation or discourse.


Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

Factory2590 explains why some MRAs choose to remain anonymous..

See more of his great YouTube videos here.

Details continue to emerge about the now-suspended Hofstra student’s fake allegations that she was the victim of a gang rape in a dorm bathroom. Her new boyfriend speaks with the NY Post, giving a possible (disturbing) suggested motive for why Danmell Ndonye lied: Apparently she may have wanted to protect her reputation with him and others, even if it meant accusing five other men of rape.

More here..

From ;-

I am a heterosexual man of a certain age, which obviously means one thing: I do not frequent shopping centres or shopping malls. The single exception I allow, because it is both open air and near to my home, is my annual trip to the Kildare Village.

I spent a happy hour there a year ago, most of it in the women’s underwear shop, Wolford, watching a video of German models on a catwalk, sporting not very much. And the really lovely thing about these models was the antediluvian amplitude of their bodies: breasts you would have ordered by the truckloads, large helpings of bottoms that would cause healthy men to yodel with joy, and jolly bellies that you would have happily commissioned a seamstress to make them into a very large mattress, and taken home.

That was 2008. 2009, and in my most recent visit to Wolford — my last — the buxom Teutonic mannequins were gone, and in their stead was a video of the usual gaunt skeletons tottering down the catwalk. A healthy and joyous celebration of female sexual carnality had been replaced by a death walk. Meanwhile, outside the shop, waddling down paths and gorging in the restaurants, were the new generation of Irish women: prosperous, upper middle-class and, for fully one quarter of them, massively obese. Not fat. Not overweight. Not corpulent. But massively obese. From their arms swing great folds of fat, like huge water-filled balloons. Their bellies are so vast that their owners could not have seen even their toes in years. And their bottoms constitute such an orotund object, with such a colossal circumference, that an entire school of carpentry is going to have to be invented to cope with their seating requirements.

Now, three forces arrived roughly simultaneously in western society. They were, one, feminism; two obesity; and three, anorexia. I note the coincidence: I do not say two and three are necessarily attributable to one. I am also aware of the predictable response of feminist columnists (and God, I can name them now) on this subject is to sneer: Ha! Kevin Myers wants us back at the sink, children at our knees, in the bad old days when foreplay merely meant: “Brace yourself Bridget.”

Of course, dismissing questions that are inconvenient, by a stereotyping and an ad hominem caricature of the questioner, is the standard rhetorical ploy of feminists. Yet not even the most sneering feminist can deny that when men created the cultural female iconic imagery of western civilisation (that is, through the middle ages up to the mid-1970s), from Botticelli to Rubens and to Hefner, women generally did not suffer from eating disorders. In that visual universe, women were clearly sex objects and the female form was worshipped. During this era, women might sometimes have been overweight or malnourished, but there were not the chronic conditions we now know as obesity and anorexia.

Since the political and cultural victory of feminism brought women a virtual monopoly over female image creation, by women of women for women, through American Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, and Vanity Fair, the twin plagues of death by starvation and death by over-eating have swept through the female sex. So: is there a causal relationship between the attainment of untrammelled editorial authority by a handful of powerful women, and the semi-voluntary victimhood by others?

Certainly, women’s editors have dogmatically used stick-insects as models. Their companions in this project are either other women, or homosexual men. Heterosexual men are almost entirely outside this power loop. Yet feminists still blame the traditional male “patriarchy” for the obesity/anorexia pandemic that is destroying both the bodies and lives of so many women. This is in such conflict with both logic, and all available evidence, that it simply proves how human unreason can triumph, enabling self-pitying feminists to blame their women’s woes on some mythic, still all-powerful, male chauvinist juju.

Okay. But why are one quarter of middle-class, middle aged Irishwomen obese to the point of immobility? Does the fascistic image-making of the obergruppenfuhrers of women’s magazines cause ordinary women to despair of looking like a woman at all? Do they indulge instead in the endorphin-releasing pleasures of gorging themselves? Meanwhile, their daughters are possibly immured in either of the twin purgatories of anorexia or obesity, from which a healthy, lifelong escape is almost as likely as it is from Devil’s Island.

Anorexia and obesity arrived at around the same time as feminism, and possibly on the same train. So is the unadulterated image-making power of influential women over the perception of women’s bodies a primary reason why so many dislike themselves physically? Women editors clearly prefer the unattainably epicene, the gaunt, and the chic, deathbed look, to the triumphantly alive.

Which begs the larger questions: do such powerful women actually hate real women?

And is unconscious misogyny amongst female fashionistas the real reason that so many relatively low-ranking women, even middle-class ones, are so profoundly and so desperately and, most of all, so fatly unhappy?

Original article here..–on-the-same-train-1888826.html