Feminist Nonsense

“I have no doubt that the distortions of the truth by the radical feminists of our time will, someday, be seen as having been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the 20th century. Meanwhile, we still live under the aegis of that crime and to call attention to it is an act of great moral courage”.

Professor Howard S. Schwartz, Oakland University, Michigan USA.

The sinister problem we face today as men (and that less directly women face as people) is that government’s driving ideology in every befitting area of policy-making is feminism. But upon what strength? None. Feminism has no strength. It has no logical stream of reasoning and pays scant regard to fact.

So why does government take feminism seriously? I will examine this question later on in this piece. But first let us take a brief but revealing look into the central plank of feminist ideology that forms the basis of modern government’s policy-making: the presumption of equality between men and women.

The quote from Professor Schwartz takes us straight to feminism’s central brain-piece:

If they look different, sound different, behave different and think different then they’re the same.

The fact is, men and women are not the same. Or, to put it another way, they are not equal. Yet feminists tell us that men and women are equal. (Except, of course, when they want to venerate women and demonize men. Then they’re as different as chalk and cheese. More about that in another post.)

First of all, women and men look differently, otherwise you couldn’t tell them apart. Secondly, you can recognize a woman’s voice and distinguish it from a man’s in far more cases than not. Men and women just don’t sound the same. Indeed, a woman’s whole attitude to life is reflected in the manner in which she speaks. A man’s too.

Men and women have clearly different behavioural patterns. Men eat more and drink more. They work longer hours. They take on work that’s more complex or more pressurized or riskier. They do the ugliest jobs that women won’t go near.  They are at-the-ready to risk their lives to protect their loved ones and provide for them.

And, of course, behaviour patterns are linked to the way men and women think. This is the only one possible sticking point in all this. Feminists claim that women can reach the same great academic levels that men have succeeded in doing in every period of history but that they have been held back by one serious barrier: social conditioning.

Yeah right. Makes me wonder how stupid women must be to let themselves fall foul of such obvious tricks (presumably from men?).

Well, I’ve got news for you feminists (although this will not be news for anybody else). Men’s and women’s brains are as different from each other as their bodies are.

The findings of Doreen Kimura of the University of Vancouver, behavioural psychologist and world expert on sex differences, demonstrate that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses for different cognitive brain functions.  Typically, women showed a greater ability in verbal areas, while men in spatially-related ones.  But although many of these strengths varied more within one sex than between the two, spatial awareness displayed very narrow overlap between the two. (And it is exactly spatial awareness that lies at the core to understanding and innovation in mathematics, physical sciences and engineering.)

Moreover, the research of Dr. Kimura indicates that women with high testosterone levels have stronger spatial skills than women with low levels. The presence of testosterone is a chemical indicator of masculinity. (So, in a way, physicists, mathematicians and engineers are real men.)

Other researchers make the same observation. For example, A. Torres, E. Gómez-Gil, A. Vidal, O. Puig, T. Boget and M. Salamero from the University of Barcelona find that:

Women outperform men on verbal fluency, perceptual speed tasks, fine motor skills, verbal memory and verbal learning. Men outperform women on visuospatial ability, mathematical problem solving and visual memory.

Agneta Herlitz and Johanna Lovén of Stockholm University conclude no differently:

Thus, there is ample evidence that sex differences in visuospatial ability favoring males exist throughout the life span.

In short, men and women think differently.

But even then, sex differences in the brain don’t stop at cognitive functions. There is also the issue of intelligence. Dr. Paul Irwing of Manchester University found that women and men possessed different intelligence patterns as well. Although his research puts men with a slight lead in average I.Q. of five points, this is not the real issue. The real clincher is that men have a greater spread of intelligence: there were twice as many men on I.Q. 120 (which is considered “bright” university entrance level), and thirty times as many on 170 (which is high genius level).

Another reason nearly all scientific advances were conceived by men, and another reason the few discoveries from women were not at the same dazzling levels as men’s.

And another difference in the male-female brain function antithesis.

Feminist Government

I now return to the question I posed at the beginning of this article: why does the most powerful body of any country — government — incorporate the blatant nonsense that is feminism into every area of policy that it can wedge it into?

There can only be one reason. Governments don’t like men. After all, in view of all the facts I have outlined, why do governments spend a great deal of energy encouraging women into higher education but don’t give out one grunt to help men?

Because their very survival depends on it. They want to keep men poorly educated. Governments want to create an underclass of men and an aristocracy of women.

Firstly, women spend more — a lot more — than men. More spending means more business and more tax. Arguably nothing wrong with that per se, but it still raises the question: surely if both men and women are highly educated and both are working it would mean more business (and more tax) still? Why make policy that will exclude increasing numbers of men from the economy?

It makes women less dependent on men for their survival. This way, government can asphyxiate the intimate heterosexual relationship and family life that people’s happiness and security are centred on. A less secure population is more dependent on government for its protection and will thus secure the jobs of government officials.

Moreover, poorly educated men have a greater tendency to commit crimes. And crimes provoke a greater public need for government. See my article Why A Men’s Movement? What politicians fear the most is a society that is crime-free. Such a society will have less need for government. Of course, some government will always be necessary, but a population with a significantly lower crime level would force it to downsize. Not an appealing prospect if you are a member of the government.

Apart from that, prisoners’ labour can be used free of charge. Someone will be needed to build and repair roads, maintain sewers, mine coal, etc. These unattractive jobs will still need doing. But if they are done free of charge — by forcing prisoners to do them — it will boost economic efficiency for the new aristocrats: women, big corporations and governments. Men will become the new slaves (barring a few manholes involved in big business or government).

Not good news if you’re a man.

So why does the public in general buy into feminism? One reason is that government is legitimizing it by creating gender studies departments in universities. This gives feminism an erudite appearance. The sole purpose of gender studies is to justify the vilification of men and sanctification of women. The nonsense feminism propagates will be questioned by fewer people if it appears high brow.

And, in any case, government also uses skilled propagandists of its own to communicate feminist lies to the unsuspecting public, working alongside media organizations, who themselves have their own separate vested interests in promoting feminism.

All I can say is thank goodness for the Internet. We need to fight this. But currently the fight is still underground. It is taking place over the Internet behind computer screens.  We need to make it more open. For that we need as much involvement as possible in public spaces over the Internet first of all, not just men’s blogs.

The next step after that will be the big one: to get our message out to the public at large through the mass media.That will only happen when large enough numbers of men demand it.

And that depends on us. I think we can do it.



For excellent material on sex differences see:

(Amazon U.S. linked. Amazon U.K. and other countries exist.)