Sep 3, 2013
In George Orwell’s dystopian (that’s smart-talk for “scary fucking fictional future”) novel Nineteen Eighty-Four he implemented the concept of a language called newspeak. Newspeak was a boiled-down version of the English language. It was used by the totalitarian regime as a tool to limit free-thought; concepts outside of the established verbal construct were considered “thought-crime”. Concepts like freedom, rebellion, individuality, and peace could not be verbally explained within the confines of newspeak:
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
― George Orwell, 1984
However, they didn’t just ban words, they changed them too. For example, the word “free” still existed in newspeak but could only be used in terms of something not being possessed, as in, “the dog is free from lice” or, “this field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in terms of being able to do as one pleases, as in “free choice” or “free will” since these concepts no longer existed.
“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”
― George Orwell, 1984
As you have likely realized by now, I’m about to make more outrageous comparisons between Feminism and Socialism. However this time I’m just going to use Nineteen Eighty-Four as a precursory comparison. I won’t force conclusions on you at every turn, I’ll let you do that for yourself with each example. So let’s hit it.
5. Sexism is always misogyny
Despite what everyone seems to think, sexism is not inherently bad. Sexism is, by definition:
Prejudice or discrimination on the basis of gender.
So prejudice is bad, but discrimination? Well it has two meanings:
(1) The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things
(2) Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
If we combine the meaning of sexist and the second meaning of discrimination we have: Recognizing the difference between the sexes. What we can conclude is that discrimination, and therefore sexism, is amoral. For example: I would hook up with a girl but not a guy, not because I’m homophobic, not because I’m misandrist, but because I’m being sexist. I’m discriminating between potential hook-ups on the basis of gender. Or if a dairy owner hires a cute brunette over a guy to work as a checkout clerk because he thinks it’ll be better for business (damn straight): then he’s being sexist.
But regardless of this, feminists have changed the language, sexism is now misogyny. Hence the golden rule of feminism: Anything that can be construed as sexism, will be construed as misogyny. Which brings us to my next point…
4. Misogyny is as prevalent as sexism
There is misogyny in advertising when they objectify women. Romantic movies are misogynist where women are depicted as damsels in distress. Skin products claiming to make you feel young are misogynistic.
Pro-Lifers Anti-abortionists are just misogynists disguised as conservatives! Slut-shaming too! And anything patriarchal! It’s all misogyny! ALL MISOGYNY EVERYWHERE!!!
No. I’m calling bullshit. Misogyny is hatred of women. Hatred. They make out as though misogyny is as prevalent as sexism. Unlike sexism, misogyny is inherently bad. Something like say, objectification is not hatred; to be honest, its closer to… appreciation. Seriously, how selfless of us men that we are so willing to devote so much time and energy into celebrating women’s… womanliness. How awesome of us, right?
3. Submission is slavery
This term now has two meanings, neither of which are the original. The first is patriarchal oppression. Thanks to feminism, respecting and appreciating the other person in your relationship is… oppressive. They’ve effectively made submissive synonymous with “doormat”. Apparently if you’re submissive you have a “dull personality”, can’t make decisions for yourself, and a guy would “get bored of you” after a little while. I love that last one, because, we all know how much guy’s just love drama. We live for that shit, which reminds me, Downton Abbey is on tonight.
These are shame tactics the lovely RedPillWomen have to put up with on a fairly regular basis, usually as a loaded question like, “How do balance your Red Pill philosophies with your sense of self-worth?” Hey here’s a genuine question, what happens when two people in a relationship put the other person’s happiness first? You have a good fucking relationship. – But I digress.
But when I meet a man who isn’t phased by the firecracker in me, -then- I get soft. When I meet someone who’s stronger than me, all the strongwilledness completely melts away. I -love- when someone takes charge. The way to my bed is to be dominant. In -and- out of bed. Male chaucvinists can fuck off, cause they’d grow sick of me quickly, but a strong alpha male and I go completely putty in his hands. […] Cause that leaves me with the men who don’t agree with me when -I- whine. The men who’ll instead pull me close by my hair, slam me against the kitchen countertop, tell me to shut the fuck up and screw me, just to put me in my place. Bliss.
This does not sound like a helpless little girl to me. There are quite a few variants of submission, here are two:
Submission is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the power of another.
Submission is to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc…
Notice that word, acknowledgement; in this context it is effectively synonymous with respect. Acknowledgment doesn’t even imply obedience, as Redditor Whisper explained. But let’s get it straight: The key difference between oppression and submission is the latter is voluntary (TempestCup had a beautiful quote on the subject). It’s funny, apparently the only other way feminists can comprehend this concept is as some sort of cultish Gorean fetish. Honestly, I get the feeling that the RPW would get more respect if they said there was leather and steel involved.
2. Femininity is weakness
In many ways feminism has been women’s greatest enemy, by way of teaching women that they are inferior to men. I know, what I just said sounds like seven whole kinds of stupid; but bear with me. It’s like George Orwell’s satirical Animal Farm. The pigs realized that the farmers had all the power, so they became like them, wearing suits and everything (if you haven’t read Animal Farm then I’m certain that sentence looked about stupid as the first one). So I’ll let Zooey Deschanel explain it for me:
“Here’s the thing about being a girlie girl. I think there was a generation before us that felt like they needed to act like men to be taken seriously, like they had to use their sexuality to take control of people. […] The fact that you associate being girlie with being non-threatening, that is I mean, I can’t think of more blatant example of playing into exactly the thing that we’re trying to fight against. […] You’re not demeaning yourself by acting girlie. I think the fact that people are associating being girlie with weakness, that needs to be examined. Not me dressing girlie. I don’t think that undermines my power at all. […] I like being feminine. I think it’s good to be feminine. We don’t need to look like men or dress like men or talk like men to be powerful. We can be powerful in our own way, our own feminine way.”
There’s actually nothing I can add to that.
1. Equality is Socialism
I’ve left this one for last because it is the most important. The progressives feminists are always championing under the guise of equality. However the feminists have framed the concept of equality in terms of society (socioeconomics); rather than in terms of self-evident human rights from a legal perspective. Ummm, let me simplify: they’ve made equality a “touchy feely” emotional thing; rather than a rational and logical concept.
Because their “equality” has changed, their idea of inequality has changed as well. Inequality is no longer, “I’m not legally allowed to work in my home-country; and that’s an infringement of my human rights.” Now it’s, “My work colleague said something that I found really offensive, he was discriminating against me and everything; I feel like a second class citizen.” The former is rational and logical – the latter is all touchy-feely emotional bullshit.
The big problem is, the moment we adopt this latter “equality”, we then have to ask ourselves where we draw the line. Because this pseudo-equality is impossible. The closest we can get to it (and we’re this line of thinking inevitably takes us), is a socialist regime. But even in the most perfect society, people will always be different. We may treat each other well, but we’ll still be discriminating. And then of course with socialism, you’ve got the people who decide what is “equal”; and then everyone else, the great unwashed masses of society if you will.
This pseudo-equality is subjective, just like sexism or discrimination. And because it’s subjective, it should never be passed into law. Here’s an example: it should never be passed into law that if a girl regrets a one night stand, the guy committed a crime. Obviously we know this would be a bad law, but we have to examine exactly why so that we can consistently apply the logic. It would be a bad law because either consensual sex is a crime or it’s not. Her opinion doesn’t actually matter: you have to objectively look at the facts and decide if it was a crime.
So any degree of this “enforced equality” immediately opens up the question of “Why?” Logic dictates that we have to be consistent. So if we force people to treat people equally in one way, we then logically conclude that, “This is bad too! We should criminalize it as well!” And of course you have to ask yourself where you draw the line.
That’s why there are no exceptions in the US Constitution for Freedom of Speech. It’s not, “Freedom of speech for all except you can’t criticize the President or use the words cunt, faggot, dyke, nigger, motherfucker, or whore – because those are just not nice.” Freedom of speech has no clauses, no exceptions: It is the most objective and sensible place to “draw the line” so to speak (that is also why I’m pathologically against the ban of “Hate Speech”). The same goes for equality.
There’s a good quote, I don’t know who said it, I don’t know where I heard it, but I’m damn sure I didn’t come up with it, and it goes something like this, “Whenever someone with a greater degree of power than yourself, uses the word ‘fair’; prepare yourself, because that means they’re about to take something from you and give it to someone else.”
So we’ve established that we can’t force people to treat each other equally (enforced equality) and yet we do have a degree of objective equality. Where? We have equality within the justice system. The reason this system works, is because we’re not forcing people treat each other equality; we’re forcing the justice system (and thus the Government) to treat its citizens equally.
So I advise you to be cautious when anyone presents their actions as “fighting for equality”. Because we’ve already got it. The best bit is, this means that I (and hopefully you too, if this post made logic to you) am against gender equality. Boom: I know. Now there truly is no argument a feminist can use on me, because my version of equality and their version of equality are very different.
So when the college professor asks, “What is feminism?”
And you stick up your hand an say, “Man-hating!”
And she (or he) says, “You mean you don’t believe in Gender Equality?”
You can very proudly say, “Nope.”
I’ll leave you with this thought: If everyone is equal, then if someone is discriminating… they’re not really discriminating. Take sex-selective abortion as an example (don’t worry, you opinion on abortion doesn’t affect the point I’m making). If people in China are intentionally aborting girls over boys; then it’s not discrimination: because boys and girls are equal.
So in effect, if you (to use another example) point out that someone always talks rudely to women… you are the one being sexist, because you are the one “recognizing the differences between one thing and another”; you are the one pointing out that someone is of different a woman.
Mindfucked. This means it is sexist to recognize that sometimes women are wrongly discriminated against. So, my theory: The solution to “inequality” is to ignore it. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with me, just as long as you use consistent logic when disagreeing with me. So if you apply the logic consistently, the
Progressives feminists end up agreeing me. Fuuuuuuck. Am I say that the Left, Right, and Libertarians can actually agree on something?
And my final piece of advice: never trust anyone who uses lot’s of buzzwords, like “sustainable development” or “non-consensual sex”.
…I wonder what equality meant in newspeak.
Note: I’m conducting a poll of the Manospherian’s religious and political affiliations. So if you haven’t already, and you do consider yourself having taken the Red Pill, please take five seconds to vote here.