Latest Posts
Showing posts with label feminist bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminist bigotry. Show all posts



One can only nod in affirmation after reading the article beneath. This is precisely the technique that slut-feminists use to distort and manipulate the general consensus that has now been promoted about men in society. They have the barefaced temerity to deny this. Their hypocrisy and double standards are glaringly obvious as one can learn, if you ever have a look at the range of books they push at those nasty, misandric "Women's/Gender Studies" courses. All are led by sexist, misandric females and male members of that hate movement to ensure that consensus stays in place..

The only way it will be removed or changed would be to remove those courses off campus in every college or University in the western world and begin promoting harmony and trust, instead of endless malice, lies, misinformation and exaggerations, that movement is known to foment and spread on a daily basis..

How feminists define gender traits

The ever so common feminist mantra in our misandric society is “men bad, women good.” To put it another way: men are inherently bad by nature, and women are inherently good by nature. If a man or boy ever displays a positive trait, or if a woman or girl ever displays a negative trait, it’s then identified as a social construct. In the mind of a feminist, and someone who believes feminism, women are the embodiment of everything good about the human species, and men are the embodiment of everything bad.

MaleFemale
Positive TraitLearnedInnate
Negative TraitInnateLearned
Feminists switch between believing that all human behaviour is socially constructed, and believing that there is innate human behaviour, depending on whether the belief will support the “men bad, women good” mantra. They deny that there may be any innate positivity in males, or any innate negativity in females, by psychologically projecting any negative female traits onto males, and any positive male traits onto females. This way, they can continue to take down males.
How traits become male traits
Whenever someone who possesses male genitalia (that is quite literally the one and only requirement, a male personality isn’t even needed) displays a negative trait – it is a male trait. When someone with that same genitalia gets angry, it is “male aggression.” When a male does something stupid, it is because males are stupid.
This does not just apply to traits that are actually associated with maleness. The trait does not even have to actually be masculine for it to be seen as a typical male trait. As long as it is negative, and the person is male, it is a male trait. Even if it is equally likely to be displayed by females, it is still viewed as male behaviour. In fact, it could even be a typical female trait that is rarely displayed by a male, and feminists and other gynocentrics will still view it as a male trait, simply because it is something they don’t like.
The negative trait, whether it is typical male behaviour or not, gets attributed to the male gender. Even if it is only one person who has displayed it.
Of course, it is a common mistake for someone to attribute traits to someone’s gender, age, race, religion or other group, even if it is not a typical trait of that group, and this is a mistake that most people, regardless of their own gender, age, race, religion or other group, make. However, feminists and other gynocentrics not only go overboard with shaming the male gender in any way possible, but they even institutionalized their beliefs as the norm that men are bad and women are good.
Phrases such as “men are stupid”, “boys will be boys”, “*sigh* boys”, “all men are jerks” and many others can be used for any purpose, as long as the person they are used on has male genitalia.
Another thing worth mentioning is how male-on-male conflict is viewed in regards to gender. In a negative situation where both the perpetrator and the victim are male, it is often that both are blamed, even if the victim does everything he possibly can to avoid the situation. If a male so much as explains a lie that’s been told about him by another male, he is accused of retaliating, as a result of his maleness of course. The term “boys fighting” can be used even if only one boy is actually doing any fighting, though a male being a victim of male-on-male violence can be viewed as violent.
What they say about females who display negative traits
When a woman or girl displays a negative trait, unlike a man or boy, it is viewed as a social construct. For example, if a female ever perpetrates any kind of violence, it is always because a man wound her up (even if it is something stupid like not getting her the right gift, it is still the man’s fault.) Some feminists even blindly blame negative traits displayed by females on patriarchal discrimination. Negative traits displayed by females can also be portrayed positively. For example, when a female attacks a male, even for a stupid reason, it is sometimes considered perfectly acceptable, and in our society where everyone has been poisoned with misandric views, it is assumed that the male deserved it.
When a male and female are in an argument, the female is usually the one believed by default. Why? Because according to feminists, females are never wrong, only males are. If the female is reacting negatively, it must have been because the male did something very bad, whereas if a male is reacting negatively, it’s his nature. Some feminists even consider any male who dares say no to a female to be a misogynistic woman-hater.
Some people make jokes about how women and girls who do show negative traits or do stupid things are acting “like men/boys.” This label can be applied whether the behaviour is masculine, neutral, or feminine. It just has to be negative to be seen as a male trait.
In situations where both the perpetrator and victim are female, unlike where both are male (which was mentioned above,) it is seen as a social construct and that both parties have suffered problems in their life. Many feminists try to label this as a result of the so-called patriarchy. Generally, neither are really “blamed” for the situation.
So, an outline on who is by default blamed for problems…
  • Male problem: It is a result of his male stupidity.
  • Female problem: It is a result of the patriarchy oppressing her.
  • Male-on-male conflict: Both are to blame.
  • Male-on-female conflict: The male is to blame.
  • Female-on-male conflict: The male is to blame.
  • Female-on-female conflict: It’s a social construct forced by the patriarchy.
So remember, the feminist mentality is that there are no positive male traits or negative female traits, and anything that contradicts the “men good, women bad” mantra is a social construct. That, folks, is how feminists define gender traits. Anyone who dares to question it will be labelled a misogynist by feminists.

Written by Zerbu


3 Posts in Total See Them »
Zerbu is an AVfM reader and MRA who has stepped up to plate to offer articles to the site.



You know how those radical feminists imagine their Utopian dream consists of a world without a male around, except for breeding purposes and you know how they imagine life will be that great and all so wonderful, that they just about wet themselves thinking about it..

You also are well aware of the fact that those nasty feminists have been claiming that they "don't need no damn man" rants and actually believe that without even bothering to further that claim by finding some island to escape to and put that claim into practice, you know, THOSE hollow claims..

Here is a little description of what happens when the privileged princesses are left to their own devices,  encouraged to create, work together and compete with the lads to show how things are really done, you know that "Grrrlpower" thing. You know, like in real life..

If you are wondering where any examples would be regarding the harmonious living that the opposite sex enjoys when they live together, have a look here, but be warned, it's not for the faint hearted..

I must say that I can vaguely remember something being mentioned about it in the past but did not see it.

Survivor (US TV Series) had a season of men versus women

This was about 7 or 8 years ago, but Survivor (the reality TV series where 16-20 people are dropped in the middle of nowhere for 39 days and have to survive without modern comforts) had a series where the two tribes were separated into all female and all male tribes in the Amazon jungle.

It's hilarious to watch because the women start off saying it's going to be great, the men do too, but the women prove to be utterly incapable of surviving on their own. Some examples of what happens:

Electing/appointing a tribe leader: Men, day 1. Women, day 10
Build a shelter for the tribe: Men, finished on day 2. Women, still unfinished and sleeping on the ground on day 10.
Number of tribe members who refuse to do work and sleep/talk all day: Men 2 out of 8. Women 5 out of 8.
Morale after losing a challenge: Men, dented but still united - no big fights. Women, distraught and degenerate into a shouting match with one woman literally wailing for two days that people aren't "respecting" how upset she was.
Camp atmosphere: Men: friendly, relaxed, jovial and upbeat. Women: tense, anxious, negative and bitchy.
Treatment of the deaf person: All but one woman ignores and excludes her, all the men change their habits and behaviour to make sure the deaf woman doesn't feel left out.

It's full of many other great moments like three girls deciding they weren't going to do any work at all because... well they weren't too clear on why they shouldn't have to work, but dammit, they were sure it wasn't right that people were expecting them to do things. Others saying they have no idea what to do because their strategy in playing the game was to use their bodies to manipulate the men and it just won't work on the other women! Also a whole tribe of women freaking out over what to do about a spider (and no men to save them!) while the male tribe never had an issue with spiders worth mentioning.

Considering how pathetic the women were at actually surviving I can understand why they've never done this again. But it makes you wonder how the fairer sex would ever hope to get by without men.




I will let John speak for himself. Another mind opening, bigot enhancing, confirmation video..

Sweden has probably been the best example of feminist governance and how obnoxious, sexist as well as discriminatory it can get. The blatant and obvious male hate generated by those lesbian feminists who have been imported to institute anti-male legislation for the Swedish/Scandinavian governments, has been unchallenged. One can guarantee the most rabid laws to be generated by those rabid feminist women as they have no issues whatsoever regarding equality, neither pretend that to be the case as well, it's female supremacy, period. What surprises me is the obvious lack of resistance from the males in those countries. What the hell are they doing apart from sitting on their hands and taking it full frontal..

Northern Europe: The Ideological Front Line?

Post image for Northern Europe: The Ideological Front Line?

The critical response to my article on Anglo Feminism, which suggested that feminism is nastier in Anglo societies than Scandinavia, was pleasantly instructive. Although I was aware that there was some dissent against the state feminism of Northern Europe, I did not know that it was so strongly felt. More importantly, I didn’t realize that feminism was such a crucial component of state ideology.
The picture that is emerging is one of a bureaucratically-entrenched soft totalitarianism in Scandinavia, as compared to a more lawless, rapacious and violent form of feminism in Anglo countries. Perhaps this is because in Scandinavia the state has been more successful in efforts to socialize feminism, thereby drawing support from society at large, whereas in the Anglosphere the burden falls most heavily on individual men who have exposed themselves to the risk of marriage or cohabitation.
Whatever the reasons, according to Henry Laasanen and other Finnish commenters, with a few exceptions, dissent against feminism is notably absent from the mainstream Scandinavian discourse.
Henry Laasanen:
In the USA you may grind teeth with radical “feminazi” writings. We have no feminazis (maybe one or two), which is – paradoxically – a catastrophe for the Finnish MRM: there are no critical discussions of equlity in the media, only feminist propaganda.
[...]
There are no feminist blogs (one inactive) or feminist columnists (other than official propaganda) in Finland. In the British newspapers Guardian and Daily Mail there are gender debates every week – we have no gender debates, because feminism holds the absolute “truth”.
Vortac:
…I think Finland is one of the world’s hardest countries to talk about men’s rights. In USA, it seems to be much easier, because there are so many more people, which means there are so many more MRA’s, and there is so much variance with all kinds of different states, different environments from mountainy places to plains and many things inbetween, that even men’s rights can be discussed seriously. Even when there is the expected ridicule, there are more people to rise against the ridicules, and challenge their viewpoints. In the little Finland, it’s a very difficult thing to do, and the consequences are less challenged – especially in the ‘real life’.
Finndistan, an (American?) expat living in Finland:
As a foreigner in Finland, following the finnish news in english, the media attack is impossible to avoid.
Articles on how the recession forces women back into the kitchen, articles on comparing all women and all men’s salaries not divided by occupation etc, articles on how men have more free time when the data clearly showed that men work more (from a survey spanning the ages 10-65), the president saying that the real victims of war and conflict are women and children, etc… In a small country, in the main news outlet, when these kinds of articles appear multiple times a week, its can get overwhelming, and with what Henri says, the consensus politics, it is impossible to show people that “Look, the survey showed men worked more. It is in the data”. Talking to a brick wall gets more response.
The atmosphere described in the above comments sounds like what one might find in an American gender studies classroom, but nowhere else. Family court may be hell for men in the US, but for the most part people have stopped cooking up ideological justifications to defend the strong-arm robbery that passes for “justice” in our courthouses. Instead, they simply say something like “bend over and take it like a man.” However, this is recent development, so perhaps Scandinavia is simply a few steps behind in this regard.
Because Scandinavia has traditionally been the testing ground for progressive policies, its societies have had a disproportionate impact on the Western world’s political discourse. This suggests that if men’s rights advocates gain some political traction in the Nordic nations, it could significantly raise the profile of the movement throughout the West.
Despite the awful political climate for MRAs in Finland, it looks as though there’s actually a lot of potential there. The frustration is palpable, and the thing about a consensus, we humans being what we are, is that it is made to be broken. Paradoxically, one of the advantages we Americans have in regards to speaking out about these issues is that so many of us men have very little to lose. When you’ve already been destroyed by your ex, denounced as an “abuser” or “monster,” and had your children and property seized, what more can they do?
Although it may not be that bad in Finland now, if the feminists continue to get their way, it will get worse. If I were a Finn, this is something I’d tell my fellow men. Point out how American law metastasized in the 90s with the passage of VAWA and the unholy feminist/conservative alliance. Stress the need to fight feminism before it takes things that far. I’m sure plenty of Anglo men would be willing to tell their own personal horror stories to Finnish MRAs, who could use them as an example of what feminism has the potential to do.
Given the remarkably strong position feminism has in Scandinavia, it looks like the perfect place to take a stand against the ideology which, despite its claims, is supremacist rather than egalitarian. In fact, this may be the single best argument for the egalitarian Scandinavians: feminism ultimately leads to a society that is anything but just and equal. Through its pursuit of radical equality of outcome, it undermines legal equality, and eventually will replace rule of law with rule by law, which would erase the distinction between Scandinavia and its eastern neighbors, and thereby destroy the distinct civilization of the North.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.