Why is the femininst movement so misogynistic?

in blog •  last month

yyy - Copy.png
Why - if the feminist movement has women's interests at heart, has it failed so dismally? A political movement that is now a century old...
Why are women (and men) becoming unhappier, with 'so called' more 'equality'?
Why are their more single parent families than ever before?

Isn't this a screaming testament to the failure of feminism..?

Maybe the entire feminist movement has been nothing more than a communist psi - op....??

A war against women, (and men) as the family structure and it's destruction is an essential component for communism to work. The state has to take the place of the family.
The family unit must be destroyed, and the best way to achieve this, is to destroy the mental health of women.

Destroy women by taking them out of an environment that has served society brilliantly for the last two millennia.
As women become more and more unhappy, so mental illness takes hold in the space left by contentment.
It is no coincidence, that the almost exponential increase of women taking anti depressants mirrors the disconnect with the 'traditional' family unit.

yyy - Copy.png

As women are more and more isolated from the natural environment of the family unit , including a lack of extended family for support, (this breakdown of the family unit extends to becoming inter generational) the psychological 'equilibrium' is forever being assaulted.

Destroying the family unit by separating mothers from their children as soon, and as much, as possible.
50 hours a week working , and creche's, anyone..?

Rather than pointing out the obvious lack of concern shown about females within society,( mostly from other females). we need to see how so called accepted 'truths' of today, were actually borne from lies, half truths, and twisted logic. (all to suit the narrative of familial destruction to satisfy a political agenda..).

I googled basic feminist theory....

Basic Principles of Feminist Theory

(www.colorado.edu/Sociology/Mayer/Contemporary%20Theory/Feminist%20Theory_files/)

The relationship between men and women has almost always been unequal and oppressive.

yyy - Copy.png

This can only hold true if the default position of the woman is seen as being a victim as a starting point.

Only the misogynist would look at all women as victims – someone to pity, and feel sorry for. To see collectively, they then become a group - a 'something' to pity and feel sorry for.
Dehumanizing women to a collective is misogynistic.

Labeling the entire female population as 'victims' is disrespectful beyond belief.
There is no way you can see women in those terms, with any sense of respect. Which of course, is how the feminist see women..
The real seeds of misogyny starts right here...

The extent of inequality and oppressiveness has varied greatly.

Inequality is a reality of life, and is not a sex, race, age construct. It is a reality of nature.
Nothing is equal.
Conflating it to being gender specific, is the wedge to create division between the sexes. Time and a constant drip drip of poisoned propaganda - going unchecked- will do the rest to widen the chasm.. (as the last 60 years can attest to)

All known societies have been patriarchal.

The figureheads of society have (mostly) been male.
Conflating that with patriarchy as some oppressive structure is insulting to female intelligence. Most clever women know they don't have to have the title to have the power.
The real power today (the banking system for example), is a perfect example of this.
Titles do not denote where the power really lies.
'Female intelligence' has always been aware of this dynamic between the sexes, that's up until the feminist movement convinced them that they didn't possess this intelligence (that has been used very successfully for millennia) and competing with men and their world on their terms was somehow 'better'.

To make women compete on male terms shows an extremer disrespect for the female psyche, and is totally discounting her own skills to the point of valueless.
Demeaning the qualities of women to the point of being valueless, is misogynistic in the extreme.

yyy - Copy.png

Patriarchy is a system in which males dominate females.

Only if you are accepting the male orientated definition of 'dominated'.
Female domination by less obvious (male style) direct means - can be expressed very differently, but no less powerful.

Playing by the female rules and not the male rules is the natural exchange of the sexes.
Misogyny_ is forcing women_ to play by male rules against their own nature, against their own intelligence.

I put this in here, as measuring intelligence (and emotional intelligence) is difficult..
Using physical realities are much easier, to highlight the point.
Is it misogynistic to have mixed sexes in competitive sports?
No, because the reality of the difference of the sexes - physically - is recognized as a reality. Feminism cannot argue against something so blatantly real as the sporting arena.
Feminist theory (especially postmodernist feminists), would argue this is misogynistic.
When stark reality hits insane ideas, there is only one winner.
(for example, Serena Williams would rank slightly above the college level male singles, in tennis.)

All major social institutions have been characterized by male dominance:

Economy

All economy is driven by the male desire to acquire assets, to then have a a choice of partner, and then protect them, and their offspring.
The motivator of all economy is rooted - at the most fundamental level - in pleasing the female.

Political system

As males procure resources, they have historically been the decision makers – they are ones directly invested in the systems.
Hence the political systems.
Female influence in the background may have been just as important and in many cases the actual power. ( just like the bankers and the prime ministers of this world. Only one of them is truly in charge..) .

Since female voting- and the move towards more socialist policies because of it ( which is no coincidence ), we can see how western society and culture has become weak, and the men within it, also.
Creating a system that then allows for itself to become weaker because of female participation, is truly indicative of just how how high we hold females within our society. You can reference it to any islamic countries to see the stark differences..
....Respecting the wishes of one sector of a population so much, in fact - that it's now close to the point of near societal self destruction.

How misogynistic is it, to promote a political system, that will, by it's very power dynamic, inevitably lead to being over run by other male dominated societies – ones that do not respect women or see them as equals?
Feminism left unchecked - will ultimately lead to the female society having _no political say. Whatsoever.
The leftist socialist society will make way for less 'feminist' populations to gain dominance.
(Western civilization compared to islamic cultures for example).

yyy - Copy.png

Ask Sweden just how that's working out for them and the females in society - or the German women at new years celebrations.
These are the direct consequences of the more empathetic individuals in society having equal, (or _more_arguably) decision making powers for a country and it's direction.

Women are far more caring and empathetic than men.
Mother's ? - More caring?
Who would have thought it? Just amazing, uh?

Family

This has always been the domain of female power and influence. The misogynist has taken this power away from females.

How misogynistic is it, to send the female power hub of the household out to work for 50 hours a week, and not spend as much time at home with their children, and thus help weaken the stable family structure?

Every study since the 1960's has shown the continuing decline of women's happiness as they become a worker, an employee - and not the homemaker.
How misogynistic is it, to persuade women to alter their natural roles and then in doing so, make them unhappier.
That's sadistic, not just misogynistic.
Sadists and communism are very good friends of course...

It comes as no surprise that feminism is really all part part of the communist strategy to destroy freedom.

We are all the victims of it, but our women bear more scars from the battle, than the men do...as can be seen in the medicine cabinets and empty cots, throughout the western world...

yyy - Copy.png

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Well, its about equality of outcome...
which equals death to whatever motivations there were to maintain a society.

Good job feminists, if you push just a little bit harder, we can all go back to living in grass huts, carrying water and cooking on dung chips.

I just assumed that lesbians were usually so angry and miserable because they never get any dick. Also the way that progressive politics works is to create an identity group with a victim narrative, so for women they the narrative that men oppress them. For minorities the narrative is white people oppress them. For gays and the mentally ill it is straight cisgender people oppressing them.

These narratives appeal to anyone who has an external locus of control.

·

😂 😂 😂

...be careful you don't oppress me! I've got a cat....

·
·

I have 3. :-)

·
·

That cat's not your property!
Stop oppressing cats you cis gender piece of shit!

·
·
·

..seeing that face with my first morning coffee makes we want a safe space ...

·
·
·
·

don't worry he killed himself as do a lot of people who don't accept themselves as they are.

·

I just assumed that lesbians were usually so angry and miserable because they never get any dick

I have to correct you there. DEAD WRONG. Lesbians do not want a Man's D!ck or any other part of a man on them. Now Straight women who DO consider themselves to be MODERN DAY FEMINISTS & any assortment of SJW Blue Haired Fatsos - THOSE WOMEN are The women who are angry & miserable because the never get a good lay by what they consider to be a decent looking guy.

·
·

then what is your theory for why lesbians are so angry and miserable?

·
·
·

most lesbians were sexually assaulted as kids. (almost all male homos were either sexually assaulted as kids or had their first sex as a young teen - by an adult homo- a pederast)

But the male homos don't all become insufferable miserable bastards. Many Female Lesbos do? Why?

Because the MALE brain is hardwired more towards SEX SEX SEX. So the make homo doesn't sit around being miserable, he goes out and gets laid, usually an endless stream of one night stands or behind the gay bar encounters.

WHERE AS the FEMALE BRAIN is not so much hard wired for non stop sex- but for non stop EMOTIONS. Women FEEL, THEY FEEL, THEY FEEL. Women want to TALK TALK TALK about how they FEEL. So for the LESBO it's her non-stop talking about her feeling - since she is MISERABLE- this non-stop talking about it with her FEMALE LESBO partner who feels the same- ITS a Self Feeding Closed Loop System.

OHHHH & By the way there are PLENTY of Male Homos out there who are NONSTOP MISERABLE. They just Project their misery in a different way than the women do.

Here listen to this-

·
·
·
·

the lesbian death bed, what else could happen with two women?

Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

I am not holding my breath until feminists come out in support for the oppressed women of Saudi Arabia!

·

Except women in Saudi Arabia most certainly arent opressed(at least, not more than men are, feminism definatly shouldnt meddle in that).
They even get away with mutilating the genitals of their children.
They genitaly mutilate girls? Guess what, they genitaly mutilate boys, too. They stone women for adultery? Guess what, they stone men for adultery more. Some of those were actualy victims of rape becouse a man can rape a woman and its not considered rape unless X, Y or Z? Guess what, women can rape men and boys and the men or boys will allways be stoned if someone finds out becouse thats not considered rape under any circumstance. Women cant leave the house without a male guardian, espacialy if there is a war going on? Guess what, men cant stay in the house, espacialy if there is a war going on. And, by the way, muslim men oppose FGM in higher numbers than muslim women do and its typicly mothers in both cases (FGM and MGM) that make that decission. A man is legaly required to provide for his wife, mothers and sisters, and that includes paying her taxes if she earns money. Now, if after your and her taxes you cant feed your family anymore, she is not required to use any of her income to feed the children and if they starve, you are responsible. She can do with her money what she wants or just save it and you are required to provide for her...

·
·

With no offense intended in this politically incorrect/correct world, you really do need to use a spell checker, I like your gusto as regards this situation, now tell me how you feel with regards to the western world, illegal immigration on mass in the EU, and your stance on Sweden being the rape capital of said EU. add in if you have time, your philosophical ideals of a Utopian future, heading away from a dystopian world, whilst you are at it, give us some ideas on how Marxism and Leninism fit into the communist dystopia, I await your reply with almost though not quite, baited breath!

·
·
·

My stances on illegal immigration and rape are in strong opposition.
My philosophical ideals are found in hedonism. No, not cyreanics/cyreanic hedonism which is what people typicly think about when they hear the term hedonism. A potentialy good way there may be transhumanism. That doesnt mean you become transsexual, it means you can become a machine.
And marxism and leninism - just like socialism in general - fit quite well into a dystopia. Though people like Orwell were better than me at pointing at this and people like stalin and hitler better at demonstrating that fact.
Why do you ask?

·
·
·
·

Not sure I follow the Hitler part, unless of course you prescribe to the current theoretical narrative of the holocaust, even though the 6 million dead figure was pre printed and is used over and over again, only the winner writes the story in all battles, as they control said narrative!

Why do I ask? you peaked my intrigue is all.

·
·
·
·
·

I am well aware that that figure is off by about 5 million. Becouse appearently all the "mentaly ill" and gay people dont matter, they are conveniently ignored.

·
·
·
·

And by the by, you can be

A potentialy good way there may be transhumanism.

Because that is not happening to me, enjoy.

·
·
·
·
·

Of course, if you prefer to remain a human thats fine. Though, just in case that ever becomes an issue, if people try to kill skynet, ill not be on the side that opposes its right to defend itself.

·
·
·
·
·
·

you do know do you not, that skynet is fiction? or is sir deluded and lost of perception?

Skynet is a fictional neural net-based conscious group mind and artificial general intelligence system that features centrally in the Terminator franchise and serves as the franchise's main and true

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Of course it is fictional. AI in general is not, though it doesnt exist yet.

You break it down perfectly my friend
Literally the best breakdown I’ve seen on topic!

Loading...