History of the International Women’s Movement: A Dry Topic for those Wet behind the Ears.

Mark Conway

The Birth of an International Movement

To enter this topic into polite “cocktail” conversation is often difficult.  You are either met with glassed over eyes from those that are either ignorant and/or uninterested in the topic, or you are subject to vehement observation of a potential deviation from the accepted narrative.

One can, and probably should, consider the birth of the international women’s movement to the founding of the United Nations (UN) Status of Women’s Committee (SWC) in 1946, and its initial triumph in removing the reference to “men”, as being synonymous with “humanity”, in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This was laudably argued by the SWC as being more “inclusive language”, consistent with the concept of equality.

From there, the SWC managed to influence a number of international declarations/agreements over the following 20 years.  These include:

The International Labour Organization’s 1951 convention concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, enshrining the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The 1953 Convention on the Political Rights of Women, the first international law instrument to protect the political rights of women.

The 1957 Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, following by the 1962 Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages.

The crowning achievements of this initial period resulted in the 1963 request by the UN General Assembly for the SWC to draft a Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which was adopted by the UN in 1967.  This declaration contained 11 Articles which mostly consolidate the fore mentioned conventions.  Article 1 specifically declared that discrimination against women is “fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offence against human dignity”.  Though that “black fly in you chardonnay” may actually not be ironic, the fact that the initial “inclusive language” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins to dissolve away. The absence of the inclusion of men is a little ironic, don’t you think.  

In essence, the objective of the first 20 years of work by the SWC was to legally build a level playing field which tried to establish equality between the sexes.  This work also inspired the United States in 1961 and Canada in 1967 to appoint their own “Status of Women” Commissions to evaluate the situation within their respected countries.  

These two national committees echoed the concerns of the UN’s SWC findings, and recommended measures to promote equality and women’s participation in both politics and the economy.  One interesting recommendation from the Canadian Royal Commission was to “undertake short-term measures, where necessary, to achieve it’s (these) objectives”.  What these “measures” were, and how “short term” they were to become some 25 years later, should be a concern for those that truly espouse the concept of equality.

The First International Women’s Conference:  Mexico City 1975

The year 1975 was chosen as the year of the first International Women’s Conference, to coincide with both the International Year of Women, and the start of the International Decade of Women (1975-1985).  The principle objective of this conference was to sustain the improvements already made, and to further “bestow the benefits” of equal opportunity on all.  In addition, the conference promoted “i) full gender equality, and the elimination of gender discrimination, ii) the integration and full participation of women in development, iii) as well as increasing the contribution of women by strengthening world peace”.

The inclusion of “world peace” was a major issue of conflict at the conference as it highlighted the major political/ideological differences that existed during the cold war.  These differences were principally between the United States, and the Eastern Bloc countries.  The United States promoted an “equality agenda”, and wanted to keep a narrow focus on what they believed to be “women’s issues”, whilst the Eastern Bloc promoted a “peace” agenda, wanting to incorporate issues like colonialism and Zionism into the discussion.  The United States considered these issues to be non-related, whilst the Eastern Bloc did not consider “sexism” not to be present in their societies; hence there was no need for an equality discussion.  This political discourse also haunted the following two conferences.

Some concrete developments that came about after this conference were the establishment of both the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW), and the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).  UN-INSTRAW was the leading research and knowledge management organization to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment using a “gender perspective”.  While UNIFEM provided financial and technical assistance to promote women’s human rights.  These two agencies appear to be the first to direct monies directly to organizations assisting women.  The first of the “temporary measures“ to be employed to promote the development of equality.

In addition, the convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was enacted in 1979.  It is in this convention the phrase discrimination against women was clarified as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”.

In hindsight, there are two other noteworthy observations that can be made from this conference.  Firstly, this is the first time that the term “gender” became dominant in the documentation related to SWC.  Secondly, the impetus from the Eastern Bloc to broaden the agenda to incorporate what could be considered “non-women” related issues.  Both of these will become much more prevalent 20 years later, to the familiarity of all who read this I am sure.

Copenhagen 1980

What was initially scheduled to be located in Tehran, was moved to Copenhagen as a result of the Iranian Revolution.  Though a Program of Action was adapted from this conference, this adoption was not by consensus as the political tensions from Mexico City had carried over.

In this Program of Action, the tone of the language began to change.  It cited the “reasons“ for the apparent discrepancy between the legal rights of women, and women’s ability to access those rights was blamed on:

  • The lack of sufficient involvement of men
  • Insufficient political will
  • Lack of recognition of the value of women’s contribution to society
  • Lack of attention to the particular needs of women
  • A shortage of women in decision making processes
  • Insufficient services to support the role of women, such as cooperatives, day care centers, and credit facilities
  • Overall lack of necessary financial resources

During this conference, again much of the dialog concerned promoting international cooperation, peace and security.  As well, there was much credence given to women’s struggled with colonialism, neocolonialism racial discrimination and apartheid.  It appears that the Eastern Bloc had gained the upper hand in deciding the agenda.  Both the American and Canadian delegations voted “no“ the conference’s resolution, but for all intents and purposes, delegates from the remaining countries began to fully embrace the Eastern Bloc’s “peace“ agenda.

The Program for Action called for stronger measures to ensure women’s ownership and control of property, their right to inheritance as well as child custody.  In addition, it was at this conference, for the first time, that domestic violence was explicitly mentioned in an official UN document.  The legislative measures recommended at this conference included both the ratification of CEDAW by member nations, and that nations enact legislation to accelerate full and equal participation of women, and to eliminate existing inequities between men and women.  This laid the foundation for additional “measures“ in order to promote equality.

Nairobi 1985

The Nairobi conference was scheduled to review and appraise the achievements of the UN’s International Decade of Women.  This conference has also often been cited as the “birth of global feminism“.

The conference found that generally the women’s movement had grown in number and scope, and that they represented an international force for equality, peace and development.  (Though the key findings of the statistics provided to the conference found that only a limited number of women had benefited from the improvements),  As a result, it was mandated that new ways to overcome the obstacles would be sought. 

Some of the recommendations to overcome these obstacles include the establishment of a “mechanism“ for women’s equal participation at all levels of the political process and public life.  There was also a call for the formulation of laws, programs and policies to harmonize the family and work balance. 

In addition, the continued discussion about domestic violence would lead to the appointment of Radhika Coomaraswamy as the first Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, and the adoption of the UN declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993).  The conference also recognized that gender equality was not an isolated issue, but encompassed all areas of human activity.   This would result in the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo (1994) beginning to recognize women’s health, education and rights a prerequisites for effective population control policies.

Beijing 1995:  The turning point for the Global Agenda for Gender Equality

The Beijing conference is the final of the four conferences to date, and provided a Plan of Action which has manifested in numerous national government policies/laws and programs that actively support and favor women.  In essence, all governments that signed on to the agreement have adopted a policy tool called Gender Based Analysis (GBA).  GBA mandates everything a government does must be subject to gender based analysis to correct for historical imbalances that exist.  It allows for the unequal distribution of monies and consideration to a specific gender.

The principle problem with this approach is that it is the domain of the Status of Women Committees in the various countries to present the gender specific data by which laws/programs and policies are enacted.  The Status of women committee is only required to act on behalf of women, and not men.  This is how the governments of the world can discriminate against men on all fronts, yet justify their actions as being, inclusive.  This is that “short term measure“ which if you are under 25 years old, has been in place since you were born.  In a future article I will explore how this policy tool has created a situation where Separate consideration is given to one group, But it is considered Equal.

I will allow Hillary Clinton to summarize it as she did at the conclusion of the Beijing conference.

Let it be that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all. “

Emotional coping mechanisms and the Spark of rebellion:

 

This is a guest post from Moiret Allegiere.  He has a great deal to say about our plight as men in today’s insane misandrist world. You can find his blog here.

_____________________________

Way back in the ticky-tacky days of late January or early February of 2019, something happened of a severely personal nature which caused a severe decline in my health and happiness – a rather significant double-barrelled shotgun shock to the solar plexus of my misfiring central nervous system, if you will allow me my poetic flights of fancy. Now, the nature of this happening and the circumstances surrounding it is something I aim to keep private and personal. Suffice it to say that it was directly related to my writings.

What I am interested in, is not so much exploring and explaining the severe emotional and physiological distress I found myself in as a result of this happening, but the coping tactics I employed in dealing with it. Of course, I will be explaining the pain and distress. But not in too much detail.

See, it has bothered me for quite some time this insistence that boys and men don’t deal with their emotions, or that when they do, they deal with their emotions in an inappropriate manner, whatever the hell that means. That we suppress our emotions and pretend we don’t have any. I find this to be both insulting and belittling, and more like than not, I can find several other words to use as proper descriptors for this nonsensical idea, each of these hypothetical words more inflammatory and pissed-off than the next.

The whole thing smells and reeks of social engineering, and that is a frightening prospect in and off itself.

See, back in the days of high-strung muscle-tension that is the ever trembling body of feminist “research”, it was decided that the one true way to properly express – and deal with – ones emotions is the feminine way of expressing – and dealing – with ones emotions.

Since the feminine way is deemed the only way, boys and men have needed to be re-structured and re-programmed on a societal level to express their emotions as women tend to do, and in so doing toss their own nature to the fires of Hades as the sinful parasite on society that it is. What else could one gather from this hopeless denial of biology and this shameless shaming of masculinity, than the attempted re-engineering of the nature of men, the biological truth of men mastering their emotions instead of being governed by them; than the tired old view of women as moral and emotional superiors to men, and so the only moral and emotional guidance needed?

If you, like me, have been a victim of this attempted re-engineering, a victim of this brainwashing which claims masculine identity to be wrong and feminine identity to be correct, despite both apparently being solely societal with no biological underpinnings at all, you might know what is coming up next. And that is very simple: our society do not wish to hear about men’s emotional pain. Or the pain of men at all, for that matter. For all the slack-jawed talk that men need to emote, need to open up and talk, there are sure as all hell few ears – if any – willing to listen. More often than not, a man is shamed and shunned should he dare to express his pain and his insecurities. By both men and women. That is to say: by society at large. Strange that this should happen in a society which claims that men, in order to be free from the constraints of traditional gender-roles, need to express their emotions with tears and valuable dialogues; how odd that this should happen in a society which claims that men are treated far better than women in all respects. When the same forces that claim this are the same forces that shame and ridicule men when men do what they claim men need to do, confusion and isolation creeps in.

On the one hand, this is said.

On the other hand, this is shown.

And both hands do nothing but shove a giant middle-finger right into the glazed-over eyes of confused men, trying the best they can to be heard above the hubbub and the constant background noise of women-worsting.

Men, being of course fairly practical by nature, goes by what is shown them. And what is shown, time and again, is that no-one will listen, no-one will offer support. Quite the contrary. People will go out of their way not to listen. People will derail, hijack the attempted conversation, ignore completely or completely miss the point of what is being said. Or they will, quite simply, state that women have it worse or that women experience this as well, and so the man should consider that before complaining. Because in this society in which women are hated ever-so-much(!), the happiness and well-being of women goes above all. Even on an individual level, when speaking of one-self and not having gender as a part of it, it will creep in. This, it seems to me and my perplexed and eternally confused mind, is due solely to the fact that our societies are completely obsessed with gender whilst claiming that gender does not matter. It is a strange level of discord and chaos; gender does not matter, so lets bring gender into everything, even where gender has nothing to do with it – as in the emotional or physiological distress of one individual.

I would dare to offer this one thought in regards to this; or to point out the elephant in the room, as it were: gender does matter. And in trying to not make gender matter, we are making gender matter even more by our insistence that it does not. The elephant can only be ignored for so long. Eventually, something or someone will be trampled.

What I mean by this should be self-evident. Men and women are different. We deal with things differently. We are wired differently. We are biologically different. In trying to erase these differences and claiming complete same-ness in body and mind, we are shooting ourselves in the foot whilst riding the elephant in the room straight over the cliffs, to tumble to the doom of both itself and ourselves. In trying to eliminate and disregard gender and gender-differences, we can not help but see them and in seeing them, we can not help but bring it up. Even when it should not matter.

The simple solution to this should be, in my humble opinion, to let people deal with their emotions and their pain the way that works best for them, regardless of their gender. To treat the pain of one individual and the way this pain is processed as both the pain of, and the path to healing, of that individual, not wrong or right, but his or her way of dealing with it. Let be, and let others let you be, instead of forcing someone to do something that goes contrary to their core being.

If he would talk and cry about it instead of seeking action or solitude, as men are known to do, this should be treated the same as if he seeks action or solitude. There is no shame in either, and there should be no shame in either. Clearly, this is something I believe should apply to women as well. My focus, however, is on men.

And men, by and large, are drawn towards action or solitude as a way of dealing with their pain. The action, I find, is more often than not of a constructive and creative sort. And I can think of no better way to tackle difficulties than to turn what could easily be a destructive force – for instance depression or anger – into something constructive. To create something out of that which would otherwise seek to destroy. To claim, as the feminist hive-mind do, that men suppress their emotions because they do not deal with their emotions as women do – and I am speaking broadly, of course – is to claim that one way is better than the other, instead of it just being different paths to take.

It is as insulting as it is stupid.

In particular when the experiences of men, by and large, who listen to and are suckered in by this attempted re-programming, are that no-one listens when he attempts to speak about it. Or that he is shamed for it. By women as well as men. Now, imagine if the feminist hive-mind had not been so hell-bent on dismantling any and all male-only spaces, whilst, of course, keeping female-only spaces female-only. Men have always offered support to one another. It just takes a form different than the one women tend towards, and in dismantling male-only spaces, a whole hell of a lot of that support flew out the window. Just look to the men’s shed stuff in Australia. But more on that in a later ramble, I think.

From personal experience, anecdotal as it may well be, this holds true. I suffer from chronic pain and chronic fatigue, as well as being constantly in the grips of insomnia, which one would expect does not exactly benefit my emotional state. These three are fairly severe. Of course, it is all intertwined and interconnected, and when the mind is in distress, the body is in distress, and vice versa. Which makes the usual view that body and mind are somehow separated bothers me immensely.

Those few times in the past where I have been so bold as to complain about this in writings or in social media posts, the resultant reactions have been interesting, to say the least. More often than not, it has been ignored. This, I think, is to be expected with posts on social media as a general rule. Other times, I have been shamed for it. With one instance in particular tickling my rage-boner something awful.

In short: I was sent a private message on Facebook by a woman who, of course, self-identified as a feminist, telling me in no uncertain terms that I was “not allowed to make myself out to be so pitiful”. A very interesting way of treating someone in severe pain, don’t you think? In particular considering it is the feminists claiming that men need to talk about their emotions and how they are doing. And that women are more empathetic than men!

Another very interesting observation I have made in regards to my declining health, is that the first instinct of people – and this goes for everyone – is to ask how my wife is doing whenever my health is declining. Her happiness is more important than mine, and the way in which my declining health impacts her is more important than how it impacts me. Now, of course, I am aware that this is a normal thing to ask of people. It has to do, in these instances, with context. And the context here is simple: I am/was in pain. And the first instinct of people was and is to ask how my wife was or is doing in regards to my pain. The first question asked. Not “How are you doing?” but “How is she doing?” In short: how is my pain affecting her?

As a result, and as my eyes have opened more and more to the reality of the world we live in, I have learned to process emotions and to deal with my pain in a manner far more creative and far better suited to me as I am. I have learned that all this talk that men need to open up and be more expressive in regards to their emotions and their health, be that mental health or physical health, is nothing but talk. Because the moment you – as a man – start to open up and talk, you realize that it will hurt you more than it will help. Telling men that they need to express their emotions in a more feminine way presupposes firstly that someone is willing to listen, and that is seldom – if ever – the case. Secondly, it presupposes that what men do and how men do it is harmful, whereas what women do and how women do it is not.

I would be so bold as to state, as I have done before, that neither is bad or good; that they are merely different, that different people have different needs and different methods and that to shame and ridiculeand to un-learn, through force that which comes natural does far more harm than it does good. I would also be so bold as to state that it is only ever how men, generally, do or do not that is shamed and need to be un-learned. Yet again, something incredibly self-evident to anyone willing to see and to listen.

Why not create a movement telling women that they process and deal with their emotions all wrong? Well, that would be sexist. But it is quite alright to tell men that they process and deal with their emotions all wrong. That is not sexist. That is equality made manifest! Because, to these people, equality is whatever they say that it is at any given moment, as long as women can somehow be made to be better than men at something – preferably all the things. Or, as long as the feminine can be made to be better than the masculine, despite none of these, apparently, existing as anything but socialization and as such could be written off as just as expendable and nonsensical as each other. So why, then, pray tell, is the feminine better and more natural than the masculine, when both are made-up cultural constructs, just as much as cultural construct is a made-up cultural construct which, of course, might just as well be dismissed alongside all the other cultural constructs? In short: why is one better than the other, if none of them are real anyway? Nihilism ho! They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

This is not to say, of course, that I believe culture and society does not play a part in how we behave. It most certainly does! But to claim that biology plays no part in it is, to my bloodshot and near-catatonic eyes, nonsensical.

How I have learned to cope is fairly simple; I write, and I draw, or I retreat into solitude to mull things over, thinking on it and grinding on it until it is ground into dust and I have transcended it. Some things are of course far more difficult to transcend than others, as is the case with what happened in late January/early February, the results of which still manifest as a severe flare-up of my pain, fatigue and insomnia. Even in the midst of April, when I should be enjoying the early days of spring. Of course, I should give a big shout-out to the wonderful world of self-deprecating humour as well. Finding something to laugh about, even in the midst of severely debilitating pain, loosens the reigns of the thing. And that thing, that wonderful joy of finding something to laugh at, or about, even in the darkest moments of life, lifts the spirit immensely. It turns the whole thing on its head. So; I may be ill. But at the very least, I get to sit at home and get high on painkillers. And that ain’t all bad. Heh.

My writings and my drawings are, as a result of this being a big part of my coping mechanisms, subject to my emotional state at the moment of writing or drawing. As a general rule. Evidently so, considering the bleakness of the thing and things since February. For all my logic – or illusions of logic, depending on which way one sees it, I assume – my writing is highly emotional. And this does not bother me in the least. It may bother other people, of course, which, when one tries to get other people to listen or to read might prove itself to be a problem. The point of it is that it gives me a healthy outlet for anger, depression, anxiety or good old fashioned sarcastic snark. It’s either that, or self-loathing. And I have done enough self-loathing to last me a good dozen life-times or so.

See, in my darkest moments – in prior incarnations of my ever-evolving personality and barely contained psychosis – I was very much a prisoner of feminist indoctrination, and as such considered myself to be a fault and a flaw in and of the world around me. Growing up with the message that men are scum imprinted upon the plasticity that was and is my brain, I could not help but internalize the message. If one viewed it from the outside, one would not hesitate to label it as political indoctrination. For the very simple reason that this is exactly what it was, is and always will be. It was not until I was 28 years of age that I actually heard someone say anything positive about men in general. Prior to this, it had been nothing but shit; hardly a day going by without the message of men’s inherent wickedness and cruelty being fired into my subconscious mind with all the subtlety of a nuclear bomb.

When teachers, subtly or not-so-subtly, constantly and consistently hammered the message of the flaws of men into our immature and under-developed psyches, one could not help but embrace it as a part of ones own personal belief-system. Couple that with the media insisting the same, as well as relatives and everyone else in the social circles of days gone by, one is left with the resultant war-cry, echoing and reverberating within as well as without: “There is something wrong with boys and with men!”

How one can look to this constant message, this constant bombardment, this constant assault upon boys and upon men and upon masculinity as a force of pure good instead of the destructive force of pure chaos and hatred that it is, speaks volumes to the might of gynocentrism and of the manipulative powers of the immense fraud and sham that is feminism.

To look upon the way boys and men are constantly devalued, ridiculed and shamed by not only feminism, but by the society which we inhabit, and then claim that it is a force seeking equal treatment of the genders is absurd on its face. But that is the level of indoctrination, that is the level of manipulation, that is the level of our societal psychosis and the value women have in our society. How one can look upon the treatment of men and the treatment of women in our societies and claim, in unison, that women are oppressed and that men – all men everywhere – are guilty of oppression is as ridiculous as it is laugh-out-loud funny. We ought to howl with mocking laughter at this ridiculousness. But we can’t. The tears get in the way. A wondrous male privilege this; to be allowed to see my very nature dragged, kicking and screaming through the mud and ground-up glass all the way to the hang-womans noose, sentenced to death by our moral superiors!

For years, I believed it all. Swallowed it hook, line and sinker. To sacrifice myself and what I want for the betterment of women. To step down and shut up, not object, not even to the gravest trespasses upon my own personal space or to the devaluation of my mental well-being, were it done by a woman or someone claiming to do good for women. And as the self-loathing grew, so too did my natural expressions of my own masculinity diminish. To the point where I was but a shell, a flimsy transparent nothing. My previous ability to say what was on my mind in regards to any given subject was thrown into the abyss, alongside what was left of my self-respect. I had been, not only told, but shown time and again that any objection to the feminist rhetoric would be shot down, no matter what facts I had, no matter what the truth was. The objections were not shot down by facts, reason or logic, but by shame and ridicule from women, which, for a young man burdened by puberty, the insecurities of puberty as well as insecurities emanating from the feminist insistence that there was something wrong with me by my very nature, were and are absolutely horrible.

For years, I did not cope. I settled for disappearing instead. Isolation and a bleak and nihilistic outlook took precedence. I sought the void, and became a lost boy; not going anywhere, not staying anywhere, not being anything but an over-medicated mess of man forced into psychiatric help which did not wish to see the root cause of the issues I was facing, but chose to medicate the symptoms into oblivion instead, and in so doing medicating me into oblivion alongside the symptoms.

And so, when realization dawned after years and years of this vast and empty nothing, it dawned with the crash and the bang of a thousand suns imploding and exploding, a constantly repeating pattern of implosion and explosion, immediate, immense, powerful, mighty, frightening and masculine as though the gates of hell were opened, unleashing the hounds of war!

I marched to war with what strengths I had, which was – and is – art and writing, wrote the piece “Remembering Rebellion”, not knowing whether or not I would keep writing about these topics. Turned out I would, even at great personal expense.

That, I think, is one of the great masculine virtues: being able to turn something severely destructive into something fantastically constructive, no matter how long it takes to get to that point; to transcend tragedy and despair, not through crying, not through talking, but through action, through creativity, through honestly translating pain and heartbreak, trauma and destruction into language, into symbols, into lines and scribbles aiming, always and ever to transcend, to overcome, to grow and then to follow the process and become stronger, better and even more suited to survive whichever difficulties life – with all its suffering – will throw at one self.

Through “Remembering Rebellion”, I found the rebellious spark which was present in my formative years. And I would urge others to re-find, regain, re-awaken that spark of rebellion, that force seeking to rebel against all that is, all that was, all that ever will be and capture it vividly, fantastically, glowingly, immediately within your minds and guts and balls. To explore it, expand it, explain it through what ever strength one has.

Teenage rebellion is one thing – an unfocused force of self-exploration and self-expression; a force designed to rip one-self loose from the looming authority figures of that time in ones life. Something deep inside which makes one pound ones chest with ones fists and roar primeval, primitive, primordial, beast-like, reptilian that “I am here, and don’t you dare challenge my right to be here or belong here!”

And now, in adult life, with the damage done by feminism so clear to all who are not indoctrinated, who are not clinically insane, who are not still caught in the grips of our dominant ideology, of our demand for ideological purity and conformity, that spark of rebellion seems to me to be more important than ever it was before.

And now, in adult life, with boys and men being beat and shamed and medicated into submission and subservient subjugation to the demands – not of women, but of feminism – an adult mind would be, should be, could be capable of focusing that spark of rebellion through a lens of reason, truth and a demand for consideration and compassion, to make that spark of rebellion so focused, in fact, that it tears through the feminist rhetoric; that it burns right through the skin of feminism and so exposes and utterly dismantles the core, showing it to be nothing but what it always has been; Marxist rhetoric of class and class-warfare re-clothed as gender and gender-warfare.

This is not a war of the sexes. It is a war of ideology against one sex, harming both sexes in the process. It is not men against women or women against men. It is feminism against men and against the very fabric of our societies and all common sense. It stuns me in how cleverly it has been implemented; how fantastically smart it has been in painting any opposition to feminism as an assault on women and on equality between the genders. And how sly and manipulative it has been in painting the abhorrent hatred of boys, men and masculinity as nothing but the actions of “a radical few”, even when the hatred of men evidently lie at the very core of feminism! In order to make people understand that feminism cares for nothing but feminism, fearless rebellion is necessary in exposing feminism for what it is.

It ain’t easy. But then, nothing worthwhile is.

Feminism employs terrorist tactics, terrorizing any opposition, creating fear and layers upon layers of fear in any who dare oppose and object to their ridiculous assertions. Don’t want to lose your job and livelihood, your place of study or your social life?

Better not object.

This is the means through which they maintain power and control. Total social domination under fear of total social death and annihilation of the self. Tyranny clothed in justice. The emperor has no clothes, and only a few are willing to point this out. When one does not show fear in pointing this out, their power diminishes. In the end, they will expose themselves to more and more people as having nothing but flimsy emotional manipulation and the threat of social death and ostracizing on their side. They themselves are doing the non-and-anti-feminists the greatest service there is by behaving just as they do, and in not backing down, not showing fear, but countering and re-countering, they will be forced to expose themselves for the hateful pile of ideological serpents that they are.

Rebellion ain’t easy.

But: we have two things on our side. The truth, and the very simple fact – however silly it may sound – that everyone, whether they admit it or not, loves a rebel.

 

_______________________________

Moiret Allegiere is a concerned man who has had enough, and finally started expressing his views on mens issues and the state of the world.  His blog can be found here.