I have written before about how socialist parties do not
want the workers to be happy because their purpose is not to make the workers’
lives better. Their purpose is to push the workers into starting a revolution
therefore it is to their advantages that the workers are unhappy.
Happy people don’t start revolutions,
which is bad for the socialists, therefore they have been pointing themselves
towards the lumpenproletariatt, who has little chances of succeeding and whose
anger can more easily be exploited for political gain.
The same politics have been successfully employed by feminists from the second
Their purpose stopped being actually helping women sometimes in the 60s, and
became about controlling women by turning them into a mass of unhappy and
frustrated harpies who’d spend their lives in fits of rage that are easily
exploitable for political gain.
Ever noticed how none of the notable feminists were ever successful in any
field that isn’t feminist ideology?
Let’s make this very clear- while the first wave of feminism had its flaws, it
actually did have a fairly good purpose into achieving social and legal
equality with men. Whether or not that was either achievable or a good idea is
a discussion for another time – women and men are different creatures and
therefore full equality can’t possibly work, it makes sense for both genders to
have equality within the law.
Which means that, if the purpose of feminism was to achieve equality, it should
have ended in 1963 when JFK signed the Equality Act.
However, after that momentous event, feminism changed course. It could no
longer exist as an equality seeking movement, so it became a movement that, in order to continue to exist, had to
ensure women felt as miserable and angry as possible.
Feminism needs women who are easy to manipulate, and the
easiest people to manipulate are those who are unhappy. Therefore feminism
proceeded to make women unhappy.
Unhappiness is a very highly valued commodity. Unhappy people will continue to
seek ways in which to alleviate their unhappiness, which is why they buy more
unnecessary stuff, drink more, eat more, make more bad decisions and are a lot
more susceptible to bad advice.
This is Cult Theory 101. Only the cults have the decency to
target already unhappy people. Feminism,
like the advertising industry before it, decided to create their own base by
actively working to make women unhappy.
This was done on two fronts:
1. Telling women that all men hate them.
This is the bread and butter of sex theory ideologues like
Andrea Dworkin and the ilk. By telling women
that all men hate them, this not only discourages women from pursuing happy and
fulfilling family lives and thus no longer being manipulable by feminism, but
also creates deep feelings of hostility and anger towards men.
The focus of this attack was obvious- all of the hurt and damaged women coming
from bad relationships were suddenly told that this wasn’t the fault of their
own bad decisions ( which is at least partially true) but something that would
have happened regardless because men are just monsters who hate women.
Most of the radical feminists I met in my feminism days were this sort of
deeply damaged women who refused to take responsibility for their own fuckups
and preferred to demonize the whole male half of the human species instead.
This is very obvious when one analyses Andrea Dworkin, the High Priestess of
the Manhating Cult.
Dworkin’s work is all based on her claims that she had been
repeatedly abused and hurt by men her entire existence. Weirdly enough nobody
ever scrutinized her early claims, and the only time when they were
scrutinized, nobody, including her partner and
personal doctor, believed them.
Dworkin claimed that she had been sexually abused by her
father as a child. However her late writings on incest prove that
she had weird obsessions about it, to the point where one has to wonder
whether she imagined these events as a form of masturbatory fantasy.
She also claimed that she had married in Europe and that her husband repeatedly
raped and abused her. Yet this is something that was never corroborated by
anything like medical records or testimonies of anyone who knew her while in
On her return to the USA she claimed that she had entered a
drug deal in exchange for a plane ticket back, the deal fell through but she
was somehow still given the plane ticket. One wonders where did she find such
kind drug dealers, or even why would she even need such a thing since she was
coming from a well off family who would have easily paid for it.
After her return she enters the feminist ideology field where she claimed, based on these alleged
personal experiences, that all men hated women and that the entirety of the western
civilization was based on men’s desire and need to rape women.
While the absurdity of this claim is something for another
post, one has to wonder why the hell did no mental health specialist realise
that this woman was in need of treatment not a pulpit, but then again the 70s
She made a long and prosperous career out of it, writing and
speaking at various universities and being published in various reputable
The result of her work is that many
women were indoctrinated into her ideas that all penetrative (so, mainly
heterosexual) sex was invariably rape because no woman could possibly give
informed consent in a society whose main purpose was to hurt women.
Did I mention she was a lesbian? Funny how that works. The mother
of political lesbianism, who had all possible interest for women to feel afraid
and scared of men and be pushed towards lesbianism as the only woman friendly
choice claiming that all me hated and hurt women?
Like I mentioned, one of her multiple rape claims did
eventually come under scrutiny. In May 1999 she claimed that, while in a hotel
in Paris, the bartender put a drug in her drink and then him and the bus boy
raped her in her hotel room.
She claims to have woken up with deep bloody gashes on her thighs… only to
describe them as scratches in the very next paragraph.
She never reported this to the police, her personal doctor stated that there
was no evidence of this on her body and even her husband( she married a gay
friend ) claimed later that he didn’t believe this had happened and that it was
more likely that she had hallucinated it due to her medication- as it turns out
some of the meds she was on caused her to hallucinate vividly- at some point
she had been found in NYC wandering the streets and having no idea where she
In any field with integrity, this should have been enough
for her career to end. However not only did this not happen, but she received
even more attention and exposure, even the Guardian hired her to write for
Why? Because feminism, like I said, needs women to be unhappy. Happily married women,
successful women? They don’t make good feminists. So in order to survive the movement
had to keep women in a deep state of unhappiness. In my days as a radical feminist
not only I had been looked down upon for having a male partner, but it was
strongly impressed on us that not only was the idea of having a male partner
politically impure, but also that the only valid feminist choice was political lesbianism.
Women who are told that all men are out to harm them are
very unlikely to just go out and seek
personal fulfilment in good relationships. They are however a lot more likely to
interpret any interaction with a male as rape or assault, or to even make up such
claims in order to gain attention from their peers and the much coveted
victimhood status, which EXPLAINS the current wave of rape hoaxes we've been witnessing in the USA.
THis type of anti sex feminists identified as second wave feminists and rejected the third wave sex positive feminism because one couldn’t possibly want a satisfying sex life with a man.
Ridiculous? Maybe so, but these ideas have obviously caught root in the fertile ground of the neglected and spoiled children of the Boomer and Gen X feminists.
Namely the same children that the second wavers pushed women into parking in the care of strangers.
It’s almost as if it’s all a big set up isn’t it??
2. Set women up to fail by selling them unattainable goals.
Even more perverse than the idea that all men were out to
rape all women, the myth of “having it all” is an incredible trap for the
average woman. By telling women that
they could “have it all”- career, family, children, the result was that women
that couldn’t manage it were somehow less.
Women were scorned for choosing to be homemakers, because,
after all, if women could have it all then those who dedicated themselves to
only one side of life were obviously failures.
This of course led to the horrid attacks on family life we have
seen in the past decades. Under the
guise of having it all, women were pushed to sacrifice their families and
children to their careers, then made to feel bad when that didn’t work out.
This is how you create a whole layer of unhappiness in society- you tell them
that they have to live to an unattainable standard then scorn them when they
fail. When they’re sufficiently broken, offer them the shelter of feminism and
the convenient excuse that they didn’t cut it because men hate them and it’s
therefore men’s fault.
Of course, that doesn’t resist scrutiny, since it wasn’t men
who pushed women to “have it all” to begin with.
So, make women feel
unhappy and unfulfilled and then use that anger and resentment as fuel for a
political and social movement. Lonely and angry women are after all good for
the economy too, they buy more, eat more and are more easy to influence.
Everybody wins … except nobody does Women are still unhappy and alone,
relationships are ruined by the unrealistic expectations of indoctrinated
women, children fall prey to mothers who find them as a an inconvenience and
who are all too eager to pass them on to
kindergartens and nannies and thus grow up alone and needy, and men are being
pushed further and further away because the fact that feminism is making women unhappy is being blamed on
Welcome to feminism. Please prepare your credit cards so you
can buy all of the crap that will tell you that everybody hates you , ladies.