Skip to content

Feminism? Hell, what is “Socialism”?


If you understand that feminism is, in part, a leveling mechanism used by less-attractive women against more-attractive women, it will make sense.” – Glenn Reynolds

Right.  And if you understand that socialism is, in it’s entirely, a leveling mechanism used by less-attractive and competent men against more-masculine and capable men, it all falls into place.


17 Comments leave one →
  1. 2015/09/13 01:37

    Only men?

  2. ccoffer permalink
    2015/09/14 22:48

    I’m not one to dismiss things out of hand just because, but I’ve always thought the “ugly woman” explanation of feminism was sort of simplistic and lazy. After all, there is no shortage of otherwise attractive women who count themselves as so called feminists. I think the root has more to do with antipathy toward men than anything to do with women per se. It’s a hate movement. Always has been. Just another filthy tentacle of the left.

    • 2015/09/16 10:31

      Sure. Explains why leading “feminists” have been outspokenly supportive of Bubba Clinton.

      • Libertarian Advocate permalink
        2015/09/16 14:49

        I’m always amazed by the dissonance of the feminist left. All men, except those who publicly pronounce the Pillars of feminist ideology are evil, even though they may never have raped or otherwise coerced or even just slyly coaxed a woman into having sex (after all, to some feminists, ALL SEX is rape). Yet Bill Clinton – SEXUAL PREDATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE – gets a free pass. Mind boggling hypocrisy.

  3. ccoffer permalink
    2015/09/16 22:50

    Well, so called feminists aren’t people of integrity. They’re leftists first. Feminists second.

    • 2015/09/16 23:28

      People that are Kool-aid drinkers and water carriers are the same way. it doesn’t matter as long as the belief system is supported. Republicans, Democrats can be the same, so can people that own Harley Davidson’s or Apple Products. It’s belief above all else. In the case of the feminists, they are a subset of the democrat party, which in the case of competing interests, the superior group takes precedent. Insofar as feminism in general, I think it may come down to envy and envy of power or perceived power. On one hand, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. On the other hand women have been second class in some cultures. Take the muslims. Women are told what to wear, what to do and are subject to arcane rules and restrictions only a mentally ill prophet could understand. It’s like being a child, a subject of a parent, a sometimes twisted one, except you never get to grow up and get out of the house. We’ve evolved culturally to the point where a lot of the feminists complaints don’t match what really is here, but to keep that religion going, the template talking points and narrative must be continually reinforced to keep the religion alive. We see it every day with many things. For instance, if the Israelis gave the palestinians everything they wanted, they still wouldn’t stop. They love and value the narrative and the power that their mess generates more than they do justice, progress or getting what they say they want. It’ll always be the jews fault, men will always be evil…and you could apply it across the board to many beliefs…It serves the larger group and the power base that it is, not the truth. It’s a human flaw. A big one that causes a lot of pain and woe.

  4. ccoffer permalink
    2015/09/19 21:30

    You’re simply describing the tribal nature of human existence. The almost universal incidence of the “decide first, justify second” model is pretty much unassailable in a clinical sense, but there are divisions between decent and indecent people. Maybe only in hindsight, though. I guess that’s why I love that Downfall movie so much. It really shows how beautiful and ugly we are at the same time. Half angel, half monster. Then again, what is an angel but a type of monster?

  5. ccoffer permalink
    2015/09/19 21:33

    BTW: I maintain that feminism as currently constituted is a hate movement. It’s an ongoing Klan rally with a common enemy…the sons, husbands and fathers of this world. (Western)

    • 2015/09/20 01:42

      Unassailable? I find it dysfunctional and dishonest. It may have served a function vis a vis the group, but the consequences on the individual aren’t so rosey. Insofar as hate goes, when tearing down another to build oneself up is required, it’s a negative.

      • 2015/09/20 02:17

        I think Chuck was saying that the existence of the phenomenon is solidly proved in the clinical sense. Sure, it’s assailable in the moral sense.

        My problem with “feminism” is it’s collectivist mindset. No ideology can “free” all women; Justice is, after all, not a collective matter, but always and everywhere a personal, individual matter. There is no such thing as “social” justice thus there can never be a valid feminism that speaks for all women.

        And like all collectivist movements, feminism has a nasty potential to “other” those not “it.” So to Chuck’s point, it has devolved into a hate movement. My take on it is that it was needed to “unite” women against the morally individualizing effects of personal responsibility inherent in Western religious observance.

        Collectivism is the opiate of the masses.

      • 2015/09/20 02:23

        Agree, but all group movements, whether political or religious are collective and often use false narratives to perpetuate themselves. In the case of NOW, the narrative require the tearing down of men. From a moral/philosophical perspective, that’s wrong and/or flawed. The actions and beliefs of a collective don’t make them correct, but have the force to make it so. So it is.

        Men (and women I might add), it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one (as individuals with reason).”
        ― Charles Mackay

        my comments in parenthesis.

  6. ccoffer permalink
    2015/09/24 01:49

    Well, at the risk of sounding like a smartass, the term “group movement” is redundant.

    There really is no such thing as an individual in an absolute sense. (That’s what Rand never understood despite her absolutism.) In the end, all relationships come down to consequences and desires. All of them. The in between is what we all bitch and moan about incessantly. There aren’t objective “goods” and “bads” in the moment.(outside of holy scripture anyway) Only in hindsight do we make these judgements.

    Personally, I don’t find movements inherently good or bad, nor do I find them generically prone to this or that pathology. Some are good and some are bad. Feminism is bad. The Boy Scouts are good. I don’t feel I’m on a limb stating that.


  7. ccoffer permalink
    2015/09/24 02:01

    BTW: I thought you two would get a kick out of this. I’m truckin’ down the road way south of Atlanta with my second and we pass a subdivision. Bedford Forrest. No shit. So I ask my man, “You reckon any black people live in there?” He said, “Why? i said, “Did you see that sign?” He didn’t see it. I said, “The neighborhood is named Bedford Forrest. With two r’s. Y’know? The democrat founder of the Klan? He didn’t know or care nearly as much as I did. hehe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: