Skip to content

Feminism – The Plutocracy’s Lapdog

Feminism – The Plutocracy’s Lapdog published on

(This is the first of a three part series on the ways in which feminism serves the plutocracy. It was originally going to be a very long one-piece thing but after smoke started to come out of my ears I realized I would be less likely to suffer an cerebral rupture if I split it into several chunks. As I have been working on this on and off for six months I am not about to make any promises as to how soon the other parts will come out. Days, weeks, months, it all depends on whether or not there’s anything good on TV.)

One of the more pertinent facts constantly ignored by most MRAs and ground troop feminists – as opposed to their Generals – is that, in all likelihood, the second wave of feminism has from the very beginning been a plutocratic project. Both the left and the right seem oblivious to this, mostly because they have bought the oft-repeated lie that feminism is some sort of left wing ideology, a cowpat that is easily swallowed given Karl Marx’s support for the wiminz and the idiot left’s support for feminism. The main problem is that everyone keeps looking at what feminists say and not at what they actually do, at the actual outcomes of their actions.

When you look at who has actually benefited from the second wave, it is the rich bastards who come out on top. It is they who have gained the most from the feminists’ work. Is this all just a terrible accident? Are the women who lead the feminist movement really so dumb that they have not, despite decades of evidence, realized that they are doing the devil’s work? No, this does not seem at all likely. These women are not dumbasses, yet the great majority of them continue to do their masters’ bidding year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation. It is quite viable that one or two of the leadership might do this due to some intellectual blind spot or due to some psychological factor, but the idea that this is happening with all of them is ludicrous. A few unwitting helpers, and a multitude of all too willing hench-wenches, that’s what we have in the feminist leadership.

So what, then, are the plutocratic aims of second wave feminism? They are numerous, but the main ones boil down to this – feminize the workforce, spread irrational modes of thinking, and psychologically attack men from the lower classes. Sure, there are also other elements such as helping the plutocrats to crack down on free speech by screaming misogyny then asking Facebook to remove “objectionable” material – this is a well-oiled slope that is intended to eventually make it more acceptable for things like Facebook to censor other “objectionable” material such as calls for revolution or the dissolving of the state. Another obvious effect of feminism has been to help the New “Left” distract the lower classes from the issues that really matter – class and the environment – by harping on about less important matters such as the discomfort of high heels and the scarcity of female football players! Face it, lefties, it’s not as if Wall St cares whether their stooge in the White House is male or female, black or white, straight or gay – as long as the puppet dances to their tune, all is well. The feminist lapdogs also encourage a much harder line on law and order by spreading hysteria about “Violence Against Women,” knowing full well that in a culture such as ours women are of primary concern and that anything is justified to keep the sacred creatures safe – even if it means locking men up for a couple of weeks simply because they have been charged with domestic violence. How does this benefit the plutocrats? Well, if certain places can now lock men up for a couple of weeks without a conviction, why shouldn’t we be able to do the same for men charged with – but not convicted of – making revolutionary or anti-state comments? See what I mean by a well-oiled slope? But these are the lesser of the Second Wave’s attainments, the main three are, as I see it, the deadliest to the interests of the lower classes and they will be the focus of this series. First, we have the way feminism has ruined conditions for the lower class workforces…

Over the last few decades, feminism has convinced millions of shit-brained women that, somehow, 40 hours in a boring office or a stinking factory is more fun and fulfilling than looking after your own children in the comfort of your own home – because as every waitress knows, it is soooo much more rewarding to feed coffee and donuts to strangers than dinner to your own children. Somehow, the dumber members of the female sex bought the idea that – unlike their husbands, brothers and fathers – class would not stand in their way and they would become someone important. CEOs, doctors, lawyers, the kind of thing that the males in their family never managed to become. I have yet to decide whether it was sexism or pure idiocy that led so many women to believe in this particular fantasy, but I should also point out that many women seem to have bought the idea that being a housewife would lead them to break out in psychosomatic boils – I kid you not, Betty Friedan actually makes that claim in The Feminine Mystique – so I lean towards seeing it as a confluence of sexism and sheer stupidity.

Having bought the mirage of the workplace paradise, millions of female Zippies flooded into the workforce. This benefited the plutocracy in at least two ways. First, it brought down wages and salaries through increased competition for jobs. Simple numbers alone would have done this, throw in the fact that most of these deluded females were providing the family’s supplementary income rather than its primary one – and were therefore both able and willing to take less money for the same work – and you have an easily foreseeable recipe for disaster. How long do you think it took bosses to overcome any traditionalist objections they may have had to women in the workforce once they realized that Mrs. X was willing to work for less than Mr. Y? Not bloody long – greed trumps patriarchy any day of the week.

Secondly, it made the whole workforce more compliant. By filling as many parts of the workplace as possible with the sex which, historically, is less likely to rebel against oppression the bosses make it easier to downgrade wages and conditions, knowing fully well that a woman with a steel pipe is highly unlikely to kick in their door and smash their heads in, much less go up against a horde of blue-clad Stormtroopers. You show me one woman like Mother Jones, and I will show you a dozen men like Eugene Debbs. The plutocracy knows from their experiences with previously male dominated careers such as teaching and secretarial work that once the women take over you can reel out your dick and piss on everything without fear of any significant revolt. Even Chomsky, not a man given to saying things feminists don’t like, points out that when the U.S corporations started outsourcing to Jamaica in the 70s they deliberately chose female-dominated workforces as they knew they would be easier to dominate than the Jamaican men.

Once this initial gaggle of knuckleheads flooded into the workforce many of the more sensible women – the ones who realized that the ideal life did not consist of filling out forms or assembling widgets – were forced to go to work part time in order to supplement what was now their husband’s smaller wage packet. Good idea in the short term, but not so much in the long term, as this second wave of women brought yet more competition – again from members of the less rebellious sex seeking only a secondary income – and wages and salaries came down even further. Soon, of course, these women would have to be working full time just like hubby and now we have a situation in which both mom and dad can be working like dogs and still not be able to support a family – the kind of situation that a couple of years ago led British charity Save the Children to set up a campaign to help not children in the third world but kids in Britain itself! You don’t need to be an economist to realize this is a situation that has the plutocrats rolling with laughter and giggling with delight. The left, of course, would like to lay all the blame at the feet of things like outsourcing and mechanization, factors that have obviously contributed to the problem of lower wages etc, but steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the part the feminist movement has had in this attack on the lower classes lest it reflect badly on their feminist friends and, by extension, on women. The right, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge it lest it make their capitalist idols look bad by associating them with feminists!

Incidentally, this filling of the workforce with women has, in turn, facilitated the transition from a human workforce to a machine workforce. Given that few people in the sixties could have predicted the explosion in technology that would soon make workers of both sexes redundant, I suspect that the original goal was to permanently feminize the workforce so as to more easily control it. But the plutocracy is smart – or at least it can afford to hire minions who are smart – and it has adapted the strategy to the new circumstances. What was initially intended as a permanent feminization of the workforce has become only a stopgap on the way to the obsolescence of the great majority of both working class and middle class workers. Permanent feminization, temporary feminization —  either way you get a workforce that puts up with more shit, including being made obsolete by Robby The Robot.

So this is where feminism has dumped the common man and woman – in a cesspool, a near-Dickensian situation in which the average couple with children now finds itself working around 50% more than a few decades ago. From dad doing 40 hours in the office or factory and mom doing, say, 30 hours at home to both of them doing 40 in the workplace and then having to split the housework and childrearing between them. I’m no mathematician but I’m pretty sure that that adds up to about 55 hours for each of them. More work both in and outside of the home, less pay, less benefits, less dignity – just the way the plutocrats like it. Ask yourself also, why doesn’t the plutocracy destroy feminism? We know they can do it, they control the media and the government. Simply stop talking about all these feminist issues and within a couple of years feminism will be relegated to the dark corners of the internet, it will become to most people nothing more than a vague, malodorous memory. Yet year after year, decade after decade the plutocrats leave feminism to go on its merry way. They crushed socialism, anarchism, communism, the unions, even liberalism is being dismantled. Yet feminism remains untouched. There are only two viable explanations for this amnesty – at best feminism does the plutocracy no harm, at worst it is actually serving its interests. You already know which of those I think is most likely. So make no mistake, boys and girls – it may be the feminists who are carrying out the hit, but it’s the plutocrats who are paying the bill.

Amy Schumer is a rapist

Amy Schumer is a rapist published on
Confessed rapist Amy Schumer wondering where she can buy some roofies

Recently, the third rate comedienne to your left got up in front of a coven of her sister feminists at the Ms. Foundation for Women’s “Gloria Awards and Gala” and told them this enchanting tale about some hot college boy who had never shown any sexual interest in her until one glorious morning when he finally called her up and asked her to come on over. Being hot to trot, young Amy races to her beloved’s quarters…

“Finally, the door opens. It’s Matt, but not really. He’s there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can’t focus on me. He’s actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. “Hey!” he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He’s fucking wasted.”

Let that sink in. This dirtbag female actually admits that the guy is totally out of it, drunk as a skunk. He probably would have fucked a walrus, or even Marcia Pappas, at that moment, which means unless he’s into bestiality he is in no shape to decide what he does and does not want to do. That is the whole point of the idea that you shouldn’t have it off with people who are wasted – even if they seem enthusiastic they are not in control of themselves, their own minds, or their genitals for that matter. This is one of the few sensible standards promoted by feminism and one they strictly enforce when the wasted one is a female. When the semi-comatose partner is a male, not so much. Not surprisingly, devoted member of the sisterhood that she is, Amy didn’t let her victim’s near-catatonic state deter her….

“He put on some music, and we got in bed… His alcohol-swollen mouth, I felt like I was being tongued by someone who had just been given Novocain…His fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there. And then came the sex, and I use that word very loosely. His penis was so soft, it felt like one of those de-stress things that slips from your hand? So he was pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate…He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal?”

To answer rape-woman’s question, yes it is still getting head – but it is also rape. If a man gets into bed with a woman who is so wasted she keeps falling asleep while trying to blow him, then it is rape, no matter how many times the girl with the sleeping brain tries to ride his dick. The same applies with the sexes reversed, at least to the just and logical mind. Not surprisingly, there has been no feminist outcry over Schumer’s rape confession, no flood of calls to the police from the harpies present at the Gala asking them to come on over and arrest the rapist in their midst, no petitions urging the D.A to look into what is a very clear case of rape, nothing. What there has been is some defending of this predatory female from that least surprising of sources, Manslug, who has recently renamed his blog “We Hunted The Mammoth,” presumably because he has finally realized that a fat guy who runs a blog called Manboobz is just asking to be ridiculed. In a lengthy and morally and intellectually tortuous post, Manslug claims straight out that what Schumer did is not rape, describing it instead as “a regrettable sexual encounter.” This is to be expected from a man who, if looks are anything to go by, is so desperate for a shag that he will do or say anything, no matter how vile, to get some female attention. It is also more evidence that Manslug is the scum of the earth — may some giant kid soon come along and pour a truckload of salt on him.

From other feminist quarters the silence has been deafening. Whether this can be taken as a silent agreement that Schumer is indeed a rapist or whether it is merely an attempt to kill the issue by denying it oxygen, I do not know. What I do know is that the lines can often be blurred when it comes to alcohol/drugs and consent. How much booze is too much? One drink? Two drinks? Five? Yes, the line can be hard to spot, but much in the same way that you don’t have to know exactly when you crossed the state lines to realize that once you are flying over the Brooklyn Bridge you are now in New York, neither do you need to know where the line is to know it has been crossed when the affected person has reached the point at which they keep passing out – even if they do keep trying to fuck you they are in no shape to know what they want. By this, one of the few reasonable feminist standards, this woman is a rapist, Ms Foundation seems to be supportive of rape, and David Futrelle is a rape apologist.

Full transcript of the rapist’s confession here, where it is described as a “Powerful Speech About Confidence” Yes, confidence that if you are a rapist who is also a woman the sisterhood will simply look the other way.

 

Oh, the horror of it all…

Oh, the horror of it all… published on

Funnily enough, I wasn’t going to bother writing about this one as I had already had my five cents at the “men’s rights” subreddit but they removed the post for “being stupid” so I had to bring it here. I really don’t know what’s up with those schmucks. Either there is a personal grudge against myself or swines in general or they are just dumbasses. Think about it. My submission gets removed because it doesn’t see a slap on the ass as sexual assault, while this submission in which some morons approve of a judge who gave a confessed rapist a lenient sentence remains in place. Curious.

Anyway, this one isn’t quite as egregious as complaints about wrist size or statues but it’s still good for the kind of laugh to be expected from the Guardian of Female Privilege. While (presumably) rending her garments and gnashing her teeth, some hysterical woman at the aforementioned rag screeches that last Saturday she was sexually assaulted while on her bike.

Seems that while she was basking in the glory of some pointless achievement like having biked up a hill or something, some dickhead comes along and commits against this poor woman what is no doubt the most hideous sexual assault in the history of sexual assaults. Sensitive chap that I am I can barely bring myself to write this, but he…he…oh, god…he… he slapped her on the ass! Oh, the horror! The sheer, unspeakable horror of it all!

Anyway, there is no doubt that he shouldn’t have done what he done, and he should probably be charged with putting her at risk of falling off her bike and further damaging her brain. But sexual assault? The kind that left her “totally humiliated” and even crying? Rubbish. Only by the broadest and most feminist of definitions is this a sexual assault, even if the law itself has, in some jurisdictions, adopted the feminist definition. As for the level of distress shown at the “sexual” aspect of this incident, is this woman exaggerating or is she just the world’s most easily traumatized woman? I hope to hell she isn’t on Twitter, the poor cow will end up with a bad case of PTSD! Now, is this woman a feminist? Or just a wimp? I suspect it is the former…

“Who are these people who think it’s fun to degrade a woman as she rides her bike? Do they get a sexual thrill from their leather glove whacking a Lycra-clad backside? Or is it just about asserting power? I bet the bikers had a right old laugh about it when they stopped at the pub for lunch, the odious morons.”

Yes, pretty much a feminist interpretation of the events. Degrading women. Asserting power – she might as well have screamed misogyny. Notice also the way that she supposes that the other bikers would side with the perpetrator. Well, of course they would – that’s just the way the menz is. It probably doesn’t even cross her mind that they may have told him, “Mate, that was fucking stupid! She could have fallen off and been hurt!” No, boys will be boys. Right, madam?

And this horrible event didn’t blow over either. A couple of days later she was “still fuming” and went to the cops! She refers to the perp as a pervert, so I can only assume that what she is still upset about is the “sexual” aspect, not the fact that she could have broken some bones. That’s what she should be doing – complaining about the danger involved, not spreading a definition of sexual assault so broad that half the men ( and probably a quarter of the women) in the world would be in jail if she had her way. Probably doesn’t hurt that the entire article feeds into the ongoing tactic of portraying women as delicate victims upon whom should be heaped ever-growing amounts of privilege. But then, what can we expect from a woman who admits to being part of a women’s-only bike club?

Epidemic of Trifle-Induced Violence Sweeps Russia!

Epidemic of Trifle-Induced Violence Sweeps Russia! published on

If a distressing new ad is anything to go by, thousands of Russian women are being killed every year in acts of “domestic violence caused by trifles!” I can only assume that these poor women are sitting around minding their own business when suddenly a trifle pounces on them and kills them, presumably by giving them an instant and deadly case of diabetes!

Pictured here is Boris Yvenko, who was last week charged with the murder of his second wife. Picture of misogynist dessert via Wikipedia

Precisely why a usually harmless dessert should suddenly go on a country wide misogynistic rampage is anyone’s guess. Perhaps these delicious killers have spent too much time in front of the internet absorbing the West’s rampant culture of misogyny, or maybe they have just gotten sick of being devoured by badly made-up heifers and this is the only way they could strike back…

Irina Yvenko, who was last week killed by her husband, of whom neighbors said “We are all very surprised, he always seemed like a very sweet person!”

Whatever the cause, I am sure we all agree that T.I.D.V (Trifle-Induced Domestic Violence) is a serious issue that needs to be tackled, whether the victim is female or male, adult or child. Why the non-woman victims of this spate of murders are not mentioned in the ad I don’t know, it’s almost as if the authorities are upset only when women are killed by trifles – men and children, not so much.

 The other way to take this is that some male dirtbags are killing women for making them trifles which are substandard in some way – not enough Vodka soaked into the cake, perhaps – but this seems too ludicrous and unlikely an idea to even entertain.