Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Toxic femininity and sexual deviancy

Most people probably take a lot of satisfaction in being right. I however, being a pragmatist, do not; pessimism being so often its concomitant. So it is with the paradigmatic regret that I say, once again, I was right.

As I've long said in conversation, on my social media, etc., decades of assiduous Marxist brainwashing as resulted in "modern" women hating men.

"The modern 'feminist' movement is the gender equivalent of Black Lives Matter. It's a hate filled rebellion against an illusory tyranny that no longer exists to any meaningful extent, like that of blacks protesting 'white supremacy,' devised purely for the purposes of advancing the Socialist agenda. [....] Feminist women hate men [...] in identical fashion to the manner American blacks have been made to hate whites, [...] having been instilled by the left with an indelible inferiority complex from their earliest years. As I've stated before, being black or female is blatantly a form of disability in the eyes of leftists, for which they contend the government must compensate with preferential treatment. It won't be long before members of one or both are demanding handicapped parking tags, all the while speciously claiming egalitarianism as their motive." - Me, Nov 26, 2017.
"We have every right to hate you," says professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, and flagrant commie cow Suzanna Danuta Walters.


This coming from people in a movement ostensibly predicated upon fighting/abolishing hate. As usual we see that which they denounce, in this instance "hate," is perfectly acceptable in regard to individuals or groups they dislike. The original article featured a prominently placed image of Harvey Weinstein. You know, because he represents the billions of men on the planet, all of which are, we may infer from the image, also sexual predators and serial sexual assailants, or at least aspirants to such. So sexism and stereotypes, just like hate, are likewise perfectly acceptable among leftists.

As stated above you see the same thing in women throughout occidental society that you see in the perpetually aggrieved blacks. Both engage in egregious generalizations that invariably omit anything good the object of their political ire has ever done. Never mind that democracy, to which leftists so incessantly appeal in their specious rhetoric, and which they ostensibly deem to be the highest form of governance on Earth, is a product of white men. Never mind that it was white Christian men that saved the women of France from the "fascism" the Stalinists of the left so love to rebuke. Never mind that it was the white Christian male that gave blacks, and subsequently women, their freedom in America. And what have they done with that freedom? Both now line up to bury knives in the back of the white Christian male, then stand high-fiving each other over his corpse in elation. Because men in the eyes of "feminists," just as whites in the eyes of black leftistsare the cause of all their woes in life and have never provided anything positive to the world.

So it's okay to hate men. Indeed, women have a "right" to hate them. Because women, unlike men, have never been manipulative, deceptive, or maleficent. To hear "feminists" tell it women are incapable of treachery, and there has never, ever, been any documented instance of women engaging in deleterious or pernicious behavior. So, obviously goes the rationale, we'd be much better off with them in charge of everything. But they've illustrated over and over that would not be the case. (Indeed, one need merely look at the current decline of occidental society to see that evinced.)


Again, what do you see in Emily's sentiment? The pursuit of equity and equality, or an abject disregard for justice, motivated by that quintessentially traditional female characteristic, vindictiveness? This is precisely why "feminists," as I've long stated, or any other comparable group would absolutely not be better rulers. They would plainly be unabashed tyrants, because in their minds modern men, just like whites in the eyes of blacks, "deserve" to be oppressed for past circumstances they played no part in creating or perpetuating (and which their antecedents even fought and died to abolish), and to which modern women have never been subjected. Virtually no American woman alive today has ever been unable to hold property, work, or vote, just as no black person alive today has ever been a slave, but both seek to punish white men for such. And it is precisely this utterly irrational penchant for vengeance, on conspicuous display in both Emily's Twitter post and Suzanna's insipid hate screed, which would be interminably justified as mere "payback" for slights real or imagined, that would make them absolutely terrible rulers given to greater abuses of power than those they supplanted.

I feel I can't continue without also observing the absurdity of Emily Lindin, in particular, purporting to be oppressed in a society in which women generally considered on the more attractive end of the spectrum will never have to work a day in their lives. There is no greater spectacle of abject bullshit in the west than an attractive woman claiming to be oppressed. There is no life of greater "privilege."

People often attribute this misconstruction of reality to "ignorance." I wish that were true. I wish this was merely a product of ignorance, and therefore, something that could be remedied by apprisal of the facts. But it's plainly not, as leftists when presented with the facts reject them, often absurdly claim the truth is illegitimate based upon some arbitrary grounds, and merely proffer the same fallacious assertion ad infinitum. Such is not a product of ignorance. It's a product of immorality. It's as much guile as gullibility. And for this reason, women are oft inclined to omit the litany of benefits afforded them, and the copious vexations from which they were exempted, by traditional gender roles. True, they weren't treated equally, but they were also never expected to forfeit their lives at the behest of some capricious/avaricious ruler, to which the vast preponderance of men were for much of human history (much like women to men) completely subject.

No, all that stuff is left out you see, for obvious reasons; it directly contravenes the false narrative upon which their conception of the world is erected. To admit these things, to acknowledge them at all, would be to existentially implode on a psychological/intellectual level.

This hatred for men goes far beyond mere political or personal disagreement, however, and is perpetrating real and perennial harm throughout occidental society. Countless western women have by assiduous Socialist brainwashing, been rendered subversives constantly seeking to undermine their husbands on a regular basis, and even outright termagants whose adopted purpose in life is (often obliviously) destroying traditional values and culture. They regularly exhibit a profound and nigh palpable malice toward men and masculinity, which millions of them unwittingly, and even intentionally, seek to extirpate from everything in their lives. And those most susceptible to, and defenseless and against this abuse, are their children.


Western women have been made to hate men and masculinity so much, many of them hate their own sons, and systematically emasculate them. These women range the gamut from utterly clueless amoral enablers and facilitators, to deviants themselves engaging in the cognizant grooming of their children into depravity; from coddling mothers who rear milquetoasts, to overtly misandrist harridans, seeking to purge every last vestige of traditionally "masculine" attributes from all the males in their lives. 

Their boyfriends and husbands can escape, by leaving them (and often do), but their sons cannot. Their mothers are free, thanks to a deranged hyper-permissive society, to mentally rape them at their leisure. Their fathers, if they're involved at all (more likely not), are by a subverted legal system largely powerless to intercede. Women are essentially given carte blanche to perpetrate the most egregious psychological abuse masquerading as love, while men are proscribed from loving their children according to the Biblical paradigm, by a gyno-centric matriarchy that deems aggression, austerity, and discipline (masculine characteristics) to be "abuse." Basically, to a large degree a woman's own discretion is the only check upon the extent to which she might psychologically warp her child. 

There is a direct, apodictic correlation, between toxic femininity (feminism) and the explosion of sexual deviancy and psychosis surrounding "gender" in our society. And it will only get worse so long as women like Jessica, are allowed to warp the minds and bodies of the future reprobates they will unleash upon our society without meaningful opposition, in pursuit of an androgynous society. A society in which the fantasy of gender "equality" can only be achieved by emasculating men, and in which psychotic misandrist mothers seek to suppress, if not abolish, the natural physiological disparity between boys and girls with radical hormonal treatment and/or surgery to that end.


Anyone who thinks what Jessica's doing to her son "doesn't affect" anyone else, the common argument of proponents and apologists, is unsalvageably stupid. These womens' depraved spawn are tomorrow's voters, mayors, governors, congressmen, etc. They will be making the laws that dictate our behaviors, speech, and thought on a local, state, and national level. They already are to a significant degree. Our country's interminable socio-political cascade is a direct result of men being legally gagged and restrained by women like Jessica, the monsters expelled from their rancid loins, and hyper-tolerant matriarchal culture of emotionalism which placees things like "tolerance," "acceptance," and "inclusiveness" over pragmatism and reason.

No comments:

Post a Comment