Feminism and the Feelings of Men

Ever notice that when feminism is imported to a country from the Anglosphere it takes merely a few years instead of decades to wreak havoc. That's why the men of those countries find it easier to rage against it: it's sprung on them suddenly, and they remember how life was a scant decade earlier.

In the US, UK, Can., Australia, et al., the poisonous cauldron has been simmering for over 4 decades, so you get the Boiled Frog effect--put a frog in a pot of boiling water, and he'll jump right out; put him in a pot of lukewarm water, and he won't notice the gradually rising temperature till he boils to death. So, too, men in the English-speaking world. E.g., anyone born after 1970 probably never remembers a time when female reporters weren't allowed in male locker rooms.

Feminism, incubated in the West, is introduced into these societies like alien pods, and the reaction is immediate. Here at the epicenter, we have a lot to learn about fighting back from the new victims.

Good for this Israeli guy to put his feelings out there on the web! Like him, I too have decided it is just too dangerous to get married and have a family in this misandrist society in which I live. This position, which I have shared with many people, has caused a variety of women that I have dated great pain -- but it has also got them to think about what feminism is doing. I don't seek to cause these women pain... I am only protecting myself against a feminist system that enslaves and abuses men. If we get enough men to go on a marriage strike, and be vocal about it, it will soon become painfully obvious to women that feminism is NOT in the best interests of women, of the family, or of men. I consider a marriage strike a matter of civil disobedience, a public statement that the legal system is entirely broken, and that I don't trust it.

Fortunately for the non-Anglo countries involved, feminism didn't have the time to form the extensive infrastructures that it did in the U.S. and elsewhere. In the 45 years since that toxic ideology became organized in the U.S., for instance, it managed to:

1) create the "Lace Curtain" of media censorship begun in the 60s
2) the biggie, with help from the Ford Foundation, it created its recruiting arm, Women Studies, that ensured that tens of thousands of impressionable young women would take that ideology with them into hundreds of professions
3) conned their way into the Democratic Party by promising to deliver the vote of white women. (Once there, they metastasized in that body by supplying essential volunteers and advisors.)
4) purged the leadership of moderates, and in doing so, adopted a goal of "empowerment" [supremacy] rather than "equality." (In fact, they redefined equality as empowerment.)

All of this was accomplished within a decade of the 1966 birth of the Nat'l. Org. for Women.

5) a hardcore school of feminist jurisprudence arose in the late 70s early 80s. (This perfectly complemented their lobbying efforts, forming a kind of tag-team. Lobbyists would fight for a mild law to be used as a "shield" for women and, putatively, for others. Once passed, feminist lawyers would take said law and fashion it into a sword.)
6) their plants in the media (c. 1972) began to bear a big harvest in the 80s, leading to the rampant misandry seen in the media today
7) the 90s was the decade of the $$$.
a] the boy-unfriendly feminized curricula of the 80s was suddenly expanded due to the "Girl Crisis." Huge amounts of $$$ was thrown at that "problem," at the same time ripened hordes of misandrous education majors were injected into the system.
b] VAWA pumped billions in the feminist coffers, and the War on Males became virtually a role of government.

It is only after all this was in place that a nascent men's rights movement came into being in the U.S. Moreover, 99% of the American public knows or cares less about gender politics than quantum mechanics. This is what the Anglosphere faces.

davidcohen188 said:

maybe men in the anglosphere would be able to import the resistance of men...

This has happened in a small way through the importation of F4J (Fathers for Justice) to the U.S. A problem is that such an import necessitated importing the players themselves. And what worked in the U.K. ran into a brick wall in the U.S. (BTW, preceding the import of F4J to the US by a decade and a half, was a homegrown, equally activist NYC fathers rights org. that imploded.)

IMO, the real mechanism by which feminism spread to the developed world was through "consciousness raising," otherwise known as WOMEN STUDIES. It's analogous to the aliens taking their pods from a little village (academia) into the big cities. Bringing it from the Anglosphere--to Israel, for example--the pattern remains the same. (Of course, in the developing world coercion is used.)

This is why they fight so hard against a fledgling MRM and a true men's studies curriculum: we have the Truth, and we're not afraid to use it.

In your perspective I feel the same, but regardless of thinking only it is due to the feminism, because these kind of laws were exist before feminism was introduced. You may think the punishments in Indonesia, Malaysia and arabian country. Feminist made them as a formal thing instead of non- democratic punishments

I hope the core concept of the feminism could be right, but it is interpreted in different ways in different countries. The people who are responsible to this is some times government and some times feminist.

I want the men behave more perfect to handle these issues, especially from the family and domestic violence law. Because some of the men, among us are doing violence. That brought the guilty to all males. Think there are thief among us, so the supermarkets and shopping complex have the cameras to watch all. Even more, the US air ports have nude scan testing to catch terrorist.

So what would you suggest to solve this issues? Removing cameras or reducing thiefs??