Politico: Feminists split on Hillary sexism defense

It's about illiciting a visceral response, says Eleanor.

It's not about right or wrong or equal treatment. It's about the feminist dictum that says to cry fowl when they actually get treated like men in some way they didn't count on. They then play on the "I'm just a girl, be nice to me!" sentiments found in the average adult female left over from grade school.

If the Hildebeast gets elected, get set for a never-ending stream of such whining. Does Condi do this when Middle East negotiations don't go her way? No. Apparently she has a lot more self-respect. God I wish he were the first possible female president and not this horrible Hildebeast Creature from the Black Lagoon.

"Coddle me, I'm just a girl" loses the election.

The recent flap over the alleged "pile-on" by Hillary's male opponents is only going to get thicker and deeper and funnier in the coming months.

Why?

Because for the first time, America is going to have to witness on a daily basis via the mass media, the characteristic volatile illogic and hormonally-induced vascillations of a typical female brain.

Women's brains are marinated in a stew of turbulent hormones that are constantly changing. That's why the feminists had to come up with the "emotional intelligence" crapola -- to conceal the awful truth.(Women can't trust their brains, and they know it.)

That's why it's so funny that people are still trying to locate "the real" Hillary.

She does not exist. And, to be fair, her basic calculating persona as a shape-shifting chameleon is completely consistent with how women everywhere operate and behave and conspire.

If Hillary is elected, it will be like getting three, nine, fifteen Presidents all in one revolving multiple-personality simulated leader, with the Victim-in-Chief's hormones dictating which version of Hillary we'll enjoy from day to day.

Read Louann Brizendine's "The Female Brain"
for a hint of what's coming during a Ms. ClitOn presidency.

I think it's unfair to women to equate them all with Hillary, and I'd have no problem voting for a woman if I thought she would push the right agenda. (Wendy? Amy?)

But yes, the search for a "real Hillary" is going to be a long and fruitless one. Btw, I think that ClitOff might be a more accurate nickname for her-- the poor dear does seem pretty sexless.

No, we don't want Wendy McElroy in office either. She's a trojan horse and has been known to bad mouth the MRM several times. She's no true supporter of equality in that she still considers herself a feminist.

Claiming that "she's a good feminist" is kinf of like saying "I'm a good klan member" especially since feminism can be traced to the Women's KKK.

As a black male I would never stick a person that chooses to wear the label of a sexist racist in office.

Maybe other men would and perhaps this is why Mr. Rudov said that "men who vote for Hillary are wimps."

Quoted for truth@Marc.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

The other candidates always gang up on the front-runner. Also, the debate moderators were quite fair. Women were apparently hoping for special concessions, or even chivalrous behavior by the others involved, due to Hitlery's gender.

What if Obama had been the front-runner, and when under attack had pulled the race card? (something he certainly would not have done). He would soon be rejected as a possible nominee.

Another double standard.

ax

Wendy isn't a Trojan horse to us because we don't yet have a city. She presents our issues on her site all the time.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

...hey roy..do us all a favor, as there are now many,many important books to read concerning mens activism!! I'lle donate 50 dollars to mens activism (this site) if you would post(as an article) (2 internet pages long)...youre reviews/book report of the book....

"The female brain" by louann brezendine.......

If i see the book report, I send the 50 donation!!

If I am a member of the klan it does not matter if I have "some black friends" or "say a few positive things about blacks." As long as my basis is KKK ideology and I identify myself as a klan member I am just as bad as all of the other klanswomen. As a matter of fact I would be worse since at least my peers admit to what they are and don't try to lull others into thinking that they are "not like those other klansmen." Anyone choosing to wear the label "feminist" still believes in the same ideology as other feminists just to a lesser degree(or so they claim).

The same ideology that "feminists" use now was used before feminism when the "feminists" were calling themselves the "Women's KKK." Any man choosing to ally with klanswomen is a fool. You think feminists are your friends go ahead and ally with them....your choice. I will not stop you nor could I. Personally I know better...

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Not at all. Feminists are Marxists. Whatever she calls herself, McElroy isn't one of them.

Whether Wendy is a friend or a wolf in sheep's clothing is a bit of a sidetrack, but as her name keeps popping up and the question touches on some important issues, I will go down it for a moment.

My own take on Wendy is that she certainly says a lot of things that are supportive of men, which is very welcome. But she still believes in some kind of innocent, primal form of feminism (i-feminism) where women are individuals, strive for true equality with men, stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their own actions. So she insists on continuing to fight a battle for this imaginary pure soul of feminism long after that battle has been well and truly lost. She is still waiting for a train that left the station years ago - and it went full steam in the wrong direction with all the other kinds of feminists on board.

Her insistence on calling herself a feminist is therefore rather pointless and certainly irritating. I am sick and tired of hearing how every feminist is never one of "those other" feminists, who are always the bad ones. No feminist you encounter is ever one of the hypocritical, man-hating ones; they are always the good, sensible ones. Enough already; I am long past caring about the differentiations. They can all go to hell.

So encountering Wendy is rather like finding someone dressed in full nazi uniform, who nevertheless stands apart from the other nazis and insists she really likes Jews and hates the idea of anything bad happening to them, and never mind if the swastika is a symbol of hatred and bigotry in other people's hands, because they are wrong and her swastikas are the real ones that symbolise peace and love.

You might like what you hear, but still find it rather difficult to believe such a person, and have some doubt as to their grasp on reality and common sense.

That's where I place Wendy. She's a one-off, still clinging to her own shredded and besmirched banner. She has a few supporters but they will never recapture the lost soul of feminism - because it never had one in the first place. But Wendy cannot bring herself to accept that, so she continues her lonely and impossible fight. It also explains her attitude to the MRM - our battle is not exactly hers, and she doesn't like the way we fight it.

Too bad.

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women

We're supposed to take the feminists seriously when they say that they're just like men...except...

When you actually treat them like one?

When you question them like one?

When you expect a straight answer to a straightforward question?

When they should take responsibility for their actions and their words? In other words...when they should "man up"?

And we should not say that woman are emotionally, not logically driven, except when it works to their advantage?

Please forgive my rather obtuse questions. I'm just trying to figure out the rules here.

And I am only a man.

Correct. The example was thus: even though a klan member claims he or she is "not like the other klan members", they are still a member of the klan and should be watched more closely than those members who say "I hate blacks", outright. Since at least those who admit their hatred are honest. A dishonest klanswoman/man is what society must keep an extra eye on. Wolves in sheep's clothing I believe is the term? You can't wear the symbol of hatred, claim you follow the basic tenets of that symbol of hatred, and then claim that you are about love and peace.

What most people fail to realize is that members of the klan were also "something else by day" -- often professions people thought of as being helpful such as police officers, judges, doctors, etc. -- which is why when they did their dirt they wore sheets.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

More commentary from Roland Martin at CNN regarding the playing of the gender card by Clinton and her supporters.

I don't think I could have said it better myself. Your questions are right on target.

www.move-off.org

Wendy reminds me so much of my mom.

Well intentioned, compassionate, idealistic ...

Also calculating, manipulative, arrogant...

Pretty much everything Wendy has ever written has been a thinly veiled instruction to men to comply with her views, disguised as a compliment from an "I'm-not-a-real-feminist" supposed female comrade.

Did I suggest that I do not trust my mother?

That would be unchivalrous in the extreme...

Dude, TWO pages for $50!

That's way below the scale that the Hollywood writers are striking for now.

I'll sell you an option on my book review for $12,000 -- that's 50% off the going rate.

You can hold that option for one year, and have the right of first refusal to renew it for another $12k.

If I actually ever write it, MANN gets $50.

Pretty solid proposal, right?

BTW - What interesting men's rights books are MANN's posters reading right now?

I'm getting weary of re-reading Arthur Schopenhauer's famous essay "On Women" at -

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html

Hey roy..take one for the team man..
give us a little low down on the book!!

...Alot of writers are going to be un-employed soon!!! hey you could start cutting a nitch for youreself as the ...mens rights activist books critic.

...Hey it's not the new york times book review ...but mens activism is a growth market!!
We should discuss my buying of options!!

OK,OK!

This is only the "treatment" (i.e. savvy pitch) for the complete book review of "The Female Brain." All the great Hollywood writers submit a treatment before delivering the actual option for a review of the real treatment that they might write in the future ....

---

Ah hem...

"THE FEMALE BRAIN." (A pre-review treatment by Roy, Inc. LLP ...)

**** "ONCE UPON A TIME .... there was a female scientist..." ****

---

Now scottkirk send MANN the $50, you con artist! ;-)

You know after that excellent intro that I'm good for the next 1 page! (The all caps means that was the "splash page" of the two web pages you required. HTML and all...)

Do I have to send Pearl the Landlord to negotiate with you?

I think the problem is men's brains, at least as much as it is women's brains. Who keeps voting for one piece of idiotic, androphobic legislation after another? Men. Who's always the first one to jump up and offer to kill a man who's been accused of abuse, regardless of whether or not there's any evidence? Men. Who treats rape of women like murder and prison rape of men like slapstick? Men.

A lot of what we call feminism is really paternalism. Turn all the MEN around, and you won't even have to worry about the women.

Paternalism properly administered requires authority, control, and a means to impose that power -- in one's own interest.

Paternalism is (dictionary definition) about supremacy.

Any Congressperson who voted for VAWA is an anti-paternalist, because the laws they have passed subjugate men and eliminate constitutional due process. (For women as well.)

It is not paternalistic to castrate oneself.

It is sado-masochistic. Self-destroying and perverse.

The actual meaning of words matter.

I like to look them up once in a while.

n. A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.

I think the problem is men's brains, at least as much as it is women's brains. Who keeps voting for one piece of idiotic, androphobic legislation after another? Men. Who's always the first one to jump up and offer to kill a man who's been accused of abuse, regardless of whether or not there's any evidence? Men. Who treats rape of women like murder and prison rape of men like slapstick? Men.

1. Women control the vote, not men. Women are also the first ones to call anything that demands women take responsibility for their actions "misogyny."

2. Actually news is starting to show that women are the ones jumping up and killing "men" before they(i.e. the women) even make a claim of "abuse" and they are getting away with it. So, many of these so-called "abusers" are being murdered by women before the case even gets into the "man's" hands. Of course I do agree that the law system is biased and this is due to not only chivalry but female narcisissm that tends to make a spectacle and whine and rant if things do not go her way.

3. Men could not treat it like murder if women never made so many false accusations or started the hysteria in the first place with false statistics. So, who is worse the one that lies to get another person castrated or the person that acts on the lie believing it to be true? I say a false rape accusation IS rape. Feminists are the first one who broadened the term of rape in the court system -- and through rape hysteria convinced women that using the term "rape" was a way to circumvent reaponsibility for their actions. By way of their ideology then via the power that women hold within the U.S. matriarchy, women put pressure on the so-called "justice system" to enact said legislation. Moreover, history shows that when feminism was known as The Women's KKK there was also rape hysteria then, due to claims made by women that black men were abusing them. Stupid white men believing they were "protecting women" went and started hanging black men in large numbers.

History is now repeating itself and once again people like yourself are trying to cover up women's hand in this, focusing only on the men who "acted" on women's lies due to love and a societal rule(backed by women and their drones) that men must protect women and children that has been ingrained in men for sometime now. It's time for such nonsense to end so in effect I do agree -- to a point -- that our battle is two-fold. However, the woman requires special attenion in this matter due to her manipulative, petty, duplicitous ways.

Claiming that the person who starts the war and promotes it from behind the scenes(i.e. women) is less responsible than the person(i.e. men) whom actually engages in the war believing they are defending their CUNTry is a fool's notion. Men are fools for falling for women's bullshit no more. Women have been manipulating men for hundreds of years, even before feminism and men that make excuses for women(Like you) are part of the problem. I am the solution. Don't try to assert such bullshit -- as women being blameless -- again or I shall assume you're a female infiltrating this site to absolve women of any responsibility as has occurred before.

A lot of what we call feminism is really paternalism. Turn all the MEN around, and you won't even have to worry about the women.

Actually they are two different words with two different meanings. Feminism is not the same thing as paternalism.

At the root of the problem is female narcisissm, female entitlement mentalities, female greed, etc. coupled with male chivalry which stems from the societal rule(written by women and enforced by men indcotrinated by women, their mothers) that men must do any and everything they can to please women, while women must just BE pleased.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Sosickoftheirlies said paternalism means: ". A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities."

That's not what I got. Here is what Merriam-Webster's(http://www.m-w.com) said:

Paternalism 1 : a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Mr. Reality, you must realize (don't you? come on..) that men have been contributing to screwing themselves over, it cannot be blamed just on women. One problem is that men have not found a voice yet for the most part, except for mainly MRA's; most are "secure" (i.e. ignorant) in their knowledge that since most politicians, etc. are men, that men have most of the power. In short, they have not become enlightened, like by reading Farrell or somebody.

A caveat is that you cannot totally separate the two (i.e. the contributions of men and women to men's current situation). For example, mens' historic instinct to protect women is a huge factor, if not the main one (and most women still do naturally expect this protection). Also each individual man is influenced by individual women in his own life, like for example his mother during upbringing, etc.

Maybe it is more correct to say that the main things responsible for men's current situation are:

1) Men's historic need to protect, and provide for, women (which was once functional, but is not in today's society).

2) The steadfast belief in feminist dogma and rewriting of history; and the actions of ideological feminist pigs, such as changing laws in order to give women special advantages over men.

3)...(fill in if others)

-ax

Check out both the wendymcelroy.com and ifeminsts web sites. She claims to be an anarchist. Also look at the side bars, links etc. I thought I saw at least one reference endorsing Marxism there. She may believe, wrongly, as many still do, that Marx's ideas are sound. He is a very convincing writer, isn't he?..he is effective at leading people down the wrong path.

(One problem with following Marx, is that it can lead to the replacement of communism by fascism. After the people overthrow the "bourgeois" class, they become the new bourgeois themselves; or chaos provides a favorable situation for a dictator or similar person to step in.)

-ax