It was more than ten years ago that I read
an article written by a young female politician who opposed the gender quota.
She said it would be unfair if some stupid bimbo got appointed to an office
just because she is a woman. Curiously, she concluded the article with a brief
statement that instead of trying to increase the percentage of women in
men-dominated professions, the society should do something to get men more
involved in things like domestic tasks and childcare.
To me, that kind of article came as no
surprise, since it was already years since I had read a very eye-opening
booklet. It was not about gender relations at all, but at one point, out of the
blue, the female author suddenly began to criticise the classical feminism –
the attempt to get more women into power positions and supposedly male jobs, as well as make them similar to the men in other respects. She said it was not the
right kind of feminism at all. Making housewives take up jobs hadn't actually
liberated the women, she said, it had only liberated the men. Women were now
actually worse off, she said, because now they had to go to work and still do
the housework. Men would now have to do only half of the work outside the home
and would still do nothing at home. What the feminists really had to do, she
insisted, was to make men do things that had been so far considered women's
job, like taking care of the children, cooking, cleaning the house and such.
I had also read the book "Why Men
Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps". One the one hand, it was so
wonderful in its merciless demolishment of all the commonly accepted equality
myths. It showed how scientific research had proven numerous profound
biological differences between men and women, up to the point of their eyes
working differently – women are better at noticing things, men are better at
estimating the attributes like size and distance and speed of things they have
already noticed. On the other hand, the book was monstrous in its insistence
that men's and women's biological differences are evil and must be eradicated –
up to the castration of men to "cure" them of their genetical urge to
be "unfaithful" to their partners.
In other words, even though the authors of
the book criticised and even ridiculed the ruling feminist ideology, they were
clearly no less female supremacists – just like the author of the booklet I
mentioned earlier, and just like the author of the article I mentioned in the
beginning. Their differences with the classical feminists were only in methods,
not in the end result – oppression of men under the pretext of equality. Coming
back to that article, I noticed people commenting on it along the lines
"wow, a woman spoke up to the defence of men". They totally
failed to pay attention to the last paragraph where the author expressed her
disagreement not with the principle of feminism, but merely with its methods.
Because the supporters of this what might
be called neo-feminism are very critical of the classical feminism, which the
general public has come to identify as THE feminism, they appear to be (and
often insist they are) not feminists. Just as that woman slightly younger than
me with whom I happened to have a number of very frank conversations some time
ago, once said: "Look, I wanted to ask you something. Did you really think
I was a feminist?" Well, you can bet your ass she was! Only she wouldn't
acknowledge that, because she was opposed to the traditional methods of
enforcing equality. However, she enthusiastically supported the policy of
making men effeminate – she just wouldn't call that feminism.
Eventually, I discovered a yet another form
of feminism which is even more overlooked than neo-feminism. And that's what the rest of this article is essentially about.
That was the background. Now let us take things systematically.
The three types of feminism
are:
1) gentlefeminism;
2) classical feminism or bitchofeminism;
3) neofeminism or snagofeminism.
Classical feminism and neofeminism may have
different names in the feminist literature but I couldn't be bothered to study
any of that. The alternative names "bitchofeminism" and
"snagofeminism" are invented by me.
Gentlefeminism is, to the best of my
knowledge, my discovery. That is, gentlemenism as such is obviously well known
to everyone, but I have never seen anyone clearly identify it as a form of feminism.
The basic principles of the feminism's
three forms are as follows.
Gentlefeminism: men's and women's
natures are profoundly different and men are supposed to serve the women.
Bitchofeminism: men's and women's
natures are essentially the same; all apparent differences are due to the millennia-long
oppression of women and will disappear when the oppression ends.
Snagofeminism: men's and women's natures
are profoundly different, but those differences must be eradicated by making
men think and act like women.
The cornerstone of all three types of
feminism is what I call THE BASIC DOGMA OF FEMINISM: the unfounded
belief that women are inferior to men. This dogma is common to all three types of feminism.
What the three types of feminism
differ in is the implication they make from that basic dogma.
Gentlefeminists hold that women must
forever remain inferior, but the men must serve the
women, because it is the natural duty of the superior to serve the inferior.
Bitchofeminists insist that women must be
raised up to the men's level.
Snagofeminists insist that men must be dragged down to the women's level, the opposite being impossible.
None of the three types of feminism offers any arguments in support of the basic dogma. That is, they don't explain why two things being different should mean that one has to be superior and the other has to be inferior. They just seem to hold it for self-evident that things can't be of equal worth unless they are alike.
I, in turn, have never been, and possibly
never will be, able to understand the equality mania. Men and women have completely different
biological functions. For that end, they have developed
profound physiological and psychological differences. Due to those, men are
better than women at some things, and women are better than men at other
things. Asking which one of them is better or worse overall is a completely
irrelevant, unimportant, meaningless, nonsensical question. Both have their
essential roles to fulfill, in progenation as well as in the society. Some
tasks are better fulfilled by the men, some by the women. What is supposed to
be wrong with that?
And while we're at that subject, it is just
as obvious that not only are men and women profoundly different, but every
human being is different from every other human being. What is supposed to be
so desirable about forcing them to become uniform?
But I'm digressing. Let's get back to the
types of feminism.
Bitchofeminism: the heart of a mouse in
the body of a lion
Initially, feminists believed that the
women's "unequal" status could be made to disappear simply by
removing all rules that would prevent women from doing anything men do. Not
only would women be encouraged to work as miners and locomotive drives, but
also to wear men's clothes, to smoke and to drink whiskey. As men had the
magazine "Playboy" which printed photos of naked women, the feminists
felt they had to establish a magazine titled "Playgirl" containing photos of
naked men. I was once at a striptease show where female strippers were
alternated with male strippers. Yuck. In short, feminists demanded all imaginable
kinds of token equality, short of urinals in ladies' toilets.
Decades of that, and not only did the women
still sit down to piss, they continued to get lower salaries than men, be
visibly underrepresented in political and business leadership, spend much more
time on children and housework than men, as well as, mind you, dress and act quite
ladylike. The large majority of women kept showing very little interest in
traditionally male activities, such as watching photos of naked people of the
opposite sex, physical violence, or science and technology.
Snagofeminism: a scorpion under your
blanket
Eventually, some of the embittered
men-haters developed the ability to acknowledge the reality: it is impossible
to make women become like men. So they figured out a different strategy: the
so-called gender equality was to be achieved by turning men into women with penises. Instead of making women strong, make men weak. Instead of making women
aggressive, make men acquiescent. Instead of getting women to drive tractors
and repair water pipes, get men to do the dishes and change diapers.
It seems to me that most people still think
of feminism in the terms of women driving race cars and shooting rifles and
slapping your face when you open a door for them. People often don't seem to be
able to recognise snagofeminism as feminism.
Snagofeminism has been successful to some
extent. I had a horrifying demonstration of that when I heard of a little boy
who was told at the kindergarten that he wasn't allowed to bring a toy pistol
with him. I couldn't believe it was real. Back in my childhood, we had an
entire arsenal in the kindergarten with better toy guns than any of us had at home.
Now I was dumbfound to find out that in 20 years my country had turned into a
place where there weren't even any toy guns in the kindergarten. What were the
boys then supposed to do there? Build Lego houses all days long??
After that, I started to pay close
attention to the signs of feminism creeping up on us, barely noticed.
Eventually I learned how the US education system is destroying boys'
masculinity with methods that are nothing short of genocide. Possibly the most
striking demonstration was an article whose author mentioned briefly that maybe
it isn't entirely right to subject aggressively-acting boys to chemotherapy.
The casual way in which he mentioned it, made it clear that it was a topic so
well-known to his readers that it wouldn't need any elaboration. Which seems to
mean, blood-chilling as the thought is, that it's probably normal practice in
the American schools to destroy masculine personalities by altering their minds
with pharmaceutical drugs.
At the same time, it pleases me to say that
snagofeminism has also failed, even though not as spectacularly as
bitchofeminism. Even though the Western men tend to be incredible wimps,
attempts to raise boys and girls with a complete disregard of their gender have
been quite unsuccessful. The information to that is readily available. I'll
just share with you a story I particularly enjoyed. A couple who had a son, decided that there would never be any toy guns in their house – until they saw
their little son pretending to shoot at people with a gun he had made of bread. Then they
gave up.
(By the way, how do you expect to raise
boys to be pacifist pussies inamidst of this plentitude of gory computer games
we're having today?)
But that's quite another story. The actual
reason why I wrote this article was to draw attention to a third, even more
dangerous form of feminism.
Gentlefeminism: a wolf in the sheepskin
Even though many people are ignorant of
snagofeminism, there is nevertheless some discussion on it, and the general
public is slowly becoming aware of it. However, there exists a third kind of
feminism to which nobody seems to be paying attention to.
Have you ever thought why virtually every
government, although consisting mostly or even solely of men, implements
feminist policies? In every society (apart, perhaps, from Arab countries),
independent of the political order, women are clearly privileged, although
nearly all influential people in the country are men. Or think about this
simple question: how did women get the right to vote? They were given it by
men. Why did the men do it?
I shall try to explain.
The worst enemy of man is not the libber.
It is not the bitch, the gay, the lesbian or the snag. It’s not even the
transsexual. Man's worst enemy is the gentleman. A woman who castrates
her husband while he's asleep, is a lesser evil than the male juror who acquits her, insisting
that she's the real victim.
It is vital to understand that the ugly fat
harpyes' whining clubs are not to be taken as a serious threat, any more than
the "modern men" urging women to fight "oppression". You
give the bitch a beating and she won't dare to speak out of turn again. You
give the snag a good punch in his eyebrow-ringed face and leave him crying in
the corner never to bother you again. The real, dangerous enemy are the traditional
chivalrious men who are strong but use their strength to attack other men in
order to impress women. Behind a jug of beer, they brag how men should rule the
world, but as soon as a woman walks by, they'll be pushing each other out of
the way to be the first one to fall on his knees begging her to allow him to
fulfill her every whim. They are lions in a battle but mice at home. The
gentleman is a man who would slay a billion men to conquer the world, only to
lay it at the feet of the first woman who happens to smile at him.
The bitchofeminists and snagofeminists
at least lie that they want gender equality. The gentlefeminists don't even
bother. They say openly that women must be raised
up on a pedestal and worshipped – just because they're women. So it surprises
me to no end that people fail to realise that gentlemen are feminists – in
fact, the worst feminists of all.
As a matter of fact, when you read
masculist websites, it's not hard to notice that many men who proudly call
themselves antifeminists or even chauvinists are actually pure gentlefeminists.
(What the overwhelming majority of masculists demand is essentially
the return to patriarchy. Their basic desire is the reluctance to prepare their
own meals and to do their own laundry, but they're not masculine enough to make
any woman want to do it for them. But that's outside of this article's topic.)
The three types of feminism in
comparison
To give you some idea about the differences
between the three kinds of feminism, I present to you the following tables.
The first table explains characteristics of
typical representatives of different arts of feminism.
gentlefeminist
|
bitchofeminist
|
snagofeminist
|
Count Monte Cristo: a man who betrays his
principles and jeopardises a goal he has worked hard for decades to achieve,
simply because it would sadden a woman he adores.
|
A woman wearing a cylinder and a tie and
smoking a cigar.
|
A heterosexual man wearing an earring and
having his hair coloured.
|
A medieval nobleman who betrays his king’s trust by persuading him to agree with an unfavorable peace treaty, just because the
arrangements give him an opportunity to spend a week with a woman he loves
(French TV series "The Countess of Monsoreau").
|
A woman doing violent sports like boxing,
ice hockey or American football. (However, when playing in a men’s team, she
still expects her own dressing room. The equality, you see, goes only as far
as it's to the women's benefit.)
|
A man who refuses military service on the
grounds that his moral principles forbid him to carry arms, and actually
succeeds in stating his case convincingly.
|
A woman who curses at a man because he
didn’t open the door for her.
|
A woman who curses at a man because he
did open the door for her.
|
|
A man who, without a second thought,
gives his place in a lifeboat to a woman, any woman – just because she's a
woman.
|
A woman who proudly calls herself a
bitch.
|
A woman who takes no care of her looks,
dresses awfully and still expects men to desire her; accuses beautiful women,
as well as men who desire beautiful women, of "beauty mania" (Schönheitswahn;
a term commonly used by ugly women in Germany)
|
In the next table, there is a selection of topics, to demonstrate how the three types of
feminism differ in their ideology.
gentlefeminism
|
bitchofeminism
|
snagofeminism
|
A girl enjoys when boys fight over her,
and despises the loser.
|
A girl takes karate classes and enjoys
hitting men whenever she has a chance. (Of course, they are not allowed to
hit her back. We're not that equal.)
|
Boys are reprimanded, punished or treated
with psychofarmacons whenever they use force against someone or display aggressiveness (current government policy in the USA).
|
Every man is supposed to go through a
period of slavery in the army, and that is supposed to be an honour. Nothing
even remotely as humiliating is required from the women - after all, they're
women!
|
Women have the right to join the army, so
that the man-hating bitches can vent their mental problems by humiliating the
male slaves. Of course, the military service for men isn’t made voluntary –
we’re not that equal.
|
Firearms are to be prohibited whenever
possible. The country attempts to join a military alliance, turning the
national defence over to a foreign country.
|
Male homosexualism is severely punished
as "unnatural" and "perverse".
|
Male homosexualism is still criminalised.
Women, though, proudly declare their homosexualism and claim that
criminalisation of male homosexualism only is yet another sign of oppression
of women, as it indicates that female sexuality is not taken seriously.
|
Not only is homosexuality completely
legal, but gay activist groups encourage young men to believe that they are
homosexual.
|
Striptease is forbidden, as it interferes
with women’s "purity". Men who see striptease are furious that
women have to "expose themselves like meat".
|
Strippers enjoy baring themselves in
front of men, making them horny and leaving them unsatisfied. When touched or
proposed to have sex, though, they scream sexual harassment.
|
|
|
Ridiculous attempts to make women appear
like men, for instance a TV talk show where women boast with their
one-night-stands (which is actually something men desire but blatantly contradicts
women’s nature)
|
The German "Playboy" magazine
(I’m not familiar with the English issue) whose declared goal is to present
women not as sex objects but "personalities".
|
Sex offenders are the lowest in the
prison hierarchy, far more despicable than murderers.
|
|
|
Some principles are being shared by all
three types of feminism, above all the following:
1. Every man has to undergo a period of
slavery, usually lasting 6–48 months, depending on country. (Note that even
those who support a man's right to refuse military service require that he pass
the alternative service instead, proving that their actual concern is not the
national defence but the enslavement of young men.)
2. When a woman gives birth to a child, the
child’s father is supposed to become her serf for the next 18 years.
3. Rape of a woman by a man is to be
considered the second-most horrible crime, right after murder. (And many people abhor it even more than murder.)
The occurrence of the feminism's different faces in everyday life
It should go without saying that in real
life, the three forms of feminism are usually mixed to a certain extent rather
than appear in their pure forms. Each one of us has surely encountered all three types of
feminism during our socialisation. For instance, when we are reprimanded at the
kindergarten by female staff for our noisy and aggressive games, instead of
playing "nicely" like the girls, that is snagofeminism. When we are
told "girls first" ad nauseam in every possible situation, it's
gentlefeminism. The authority figures who tell boys to be like girls one
moment, and stress the girls' superiority the next moment, may well be the
exact same people. Indeed, it is not unusual for a feminist to act like one
type of feminist in one situation and another type of feminist in another. Especially
for women, such switching between different ideologies is very easy.
One possibility to observe this amazing
flexibility is to discuss military slavery with someone. You may hear someone
suggest that men's and women's salaries ought to be equal, because all people
are equal and so it should be forbidden to discriminate against one of the
genders [bitchofeminism]. You ask in return: "Why then don't women have to
serve in the military?" The feminist would reply: "Get real, they are
women! What kind of a man are you that you want to send women to the
army?" [gentlefeminism] You say: "But you said that all people are
equal and neither of the genders may be discriminated against." He'd say
that that's a different thing. You can ask in which sense it is different, and
you can ask it a hundred times, you won't get an answer. The feminist seems to
be operating with two brains: one that treats sexes equally and one that treats
them profoundly unequally, and he switches between them according to the
requirements of the situation.
In places like Western Europe, you'll get
one step further. The feminist would say: yes, you're right, in order to grant
full equality to women, they should have the right to become soldiers. You ask,
dumbstruck: what do you mean, "right"? What kind of an equality is
it when women can serve in the military when they please and men have to do it
whether they want it or not? And again, they turn deaf. When talking about
women's rights, they have the non-discriminating side of the brain switched on,
when talking of men's obligations, it's the discriminating half.
The same dual logic can be seen in other
fields of life. When a woman wants the man to do something that has something
to do with their child, she insists: he's your child exactly as much as mine.
And the man meekly submits because he can hardly argue against that. When it
comes to a custody dispute, however, the woman screams "It is MY child, he
shall live with ME!" and it never crosses her mind that the father should
have anything to do with the child. That'll last until she wants money from the
child's father. Then it's suddenly equal rights again – but, mind you, not so
equal that the father should have any right to be with the child unless the
mother deigns to permit it. (And it's, of course, never "I want".
It's always "the child needs". And it's, of course, she who has the
divine knowledge of what the child needs. The father has no say on that
whatsoever.)
In other words: although we can distinguish between three different feminist ideologies, it is not important to a feminist to remain true to any one of them, or even be consistent in his feminist rhetorics. What does matter to him is to subordinate the men to the women, and to that end he'll use whichever of the three feminist ideologies happens to be more convenient at the moment.
Conclusion
The most important point to remember is
that bitchofeminism and snagofeminism feed on gentlefeminism. The bitches and
the snags have no force. Their power is illusory, given to them by the
gentlefeminists. The latter have the real power. There
would be no noticeable feminism without the gentlemen. That is why gentlefeminism is the most harmful among the three types of feminism.
