text:
Exposing Feminism
The #MeToo campaign took the world by storm, it exposed how women – on a global scale – suffer through "sexual harassment" and even "rape" in their daily life. However, the campaign was quickly hijacked by feminists who used it to spread animosity and hate towards men. This led the campaign to lose its credibility and has since then begun to lose traction. Thus the feminists prove once again that they are only interested in their own agenda, completely alienating men and non-feminist women from the debate.
Feminists are usually leftists, and leftists usually hate Nazis. Yet Feminists and Nazis seem to operate with the same mentality; if an apple is rotten – then all apples must be rotten! The Feminists have been using the #MeToo campaign to put the blame on all men. Their slogan is repeated in the thousands of Twitter posts – they are basically saying: If you're a man, then it is your fault that women are being raped! And: All men need to re-educate themselves about sexuality!
"Men pls stop now
The feminists are spreading their gender-doesn't-exist ideology and calling for social and political actions to enforce a Feminist view on all men.
In one article at CNN, the author of the article shares her opinion on what all men should be doing – to protect women:
At tip 2 she tells men to read and follow Feminist writers. EVEN IF YOU HATE IT, or IT MAKES YOU ANGRY. However, I would like to see a similar advice thrown towards feminists: "Read male writers, even if you hate it and it makes you angry". But hey, that's so miso-soup-gardenist! (Misogynist).
At tip 3 she tells men to discriminate against men who write about social issues, and instead focus on finding articles written by women. She then sugar-coats her reasoning by including other groups based on ethnicity, color, sexuality and disabilities. This is of course a great thing in general, however, affirmative-action is unfair and a form of reverse-racism/sexism.
At tip 4 she tells men to help women raise their voice; if a woman can't stand up for herself; then men must stand up for her. (This contradiction might cause brain damage).
At tip 6 she tells men not to call women nicknames, because it is "condescending". Wow, take a chill-pill princess!
At tip 7 she describes how virgins and shy people have sex for the first time. And that everything means no, unless the girl is riding you and screaming "YEEHAAA", then it might be a MAYBE – because at the end of the day you don't know if the woman is just too afraid of saying no.
At tip 8 she doesn't want you to use words such as bitch, slut or any other word that target women. The *** recommends that men insult others based on their behavior – not their gender.
At tip 9 she tells men to give boys- dolls to play with, and girls- trucks to race with, to defy "gender stereotypes".
At tip 10 she tells men not to call little girls "cute".
At tip 11 she tells men to stay away from women after dark. If you see a woman walking down the street, then you must worry about her safety by staying away from her. Don't make her feel uncomfortable!!!!!!
At tip 13 she tells men to never dismiss a woman when she speaks, to always listen to her story and believe her. And don't be argumentative; asking her why she went home to a guy freely can be interpreted as questioning her victim-hood. Asking questions about a woman's immoral behavior is a bullying tactic that only serves to derail from the real issue, which is her side of the story; the only important side!
At tip 14 she tells men to accept if their child becomes a transsexual, the discomfort we feel is an important telling sign that we have much to learn!!!
Then we have another article, written by yet another feminist, but this time for the INDEPENDENT:
In this article, the author targets men: "Three things that decent men can do in response to #MeToo". It is interesting that she writes decent men, hoping to use some psychology to inspire men to worry about their own decency, so that they engulf her article in hopes of becoming decent men… however, the only thing feminism will do for you is turn you into immoral animals.
She begins her article as if it was taken from a dystopian fiction novel, set in a world where women rule the world and men are savage beasts living under the ground. The article begins as such:
*Epic Serious Moment Begins*
"Almost all women have had bad things done to them by men. But not all men are bad."
*Epic Serious Moment Ends*
HOLY SHIT. Let me do some mathematical calculation here, hopefully I remember my algebra for real life application:
Feminists chase the same bad-boy
Carry the slut over to the other side
Then divide by stupid life choices
Aaand the result should be… yep, just as I predicted = BI**H, shut the f**k up!
WAAIT a minute, just hold on, don't women have bad things done to them by other women too!?
I don't know… these videos could be CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), a patriarchal conspiracy against feminism. But that's not all, women usually hide their rivalry and use covert means to hurt both men and other women:
"The words now associated with female aggressive behavior include: excluding, ignoring, teasing, gossiping, secrets, backstabbing, rumor spreading and hostile body language (i.e., eye-rolling and smirking)."
I could go as far as to say that feminism itself is a covert operation used to punish all non-feminist individuals and push away all non-feminist ideas.
However, I do have to give this author some credit, she did after all write "But not all men are bad". Although I beg to differ. Most men are bad, just like how most women are bad. Every bad man has a bad woman to match him somewhere on the planet. It has to do with evil; not men, or lack of sexual education, or consent or whatever. The problem is deeper than that, but more on that later. Let us focus on the article instead. It continues:
The first "thing" a man must do – according to the article – is that every man must consider himself a potential rapist, at least in the eyes of every woman he meets. So if you meet a woman outdoors, you must view yourself as a rapist. Because "Every time you talk to a woman, you can feel pretty confident that she has been touched without her consent." She is basically saying that all women are damaged goods, and that men must treat women like fragile egg-shells. And that all women will judge you based on everything men have done to them in the past. So if a man once grabbed her hand and moved it towards the butter-knife to force her into making him a sandwich, then if you grab her hand without her consent, then she is going to associate you with that man from her past, even if 10 years have passed. Men must simply think of every millions of different way a woman can FEEL unsafe in their presence and engagement.
The next "thing" a man must do is teach their SONS; their MALE offspring – (no mention of female responsibility… that's feminism for ya!) – that they must never touch a girl (I don't know what age she is referring to). Because girls have not yet learned how to say no… even though they can say no to green peas or if you try to take their ice-cream away. The absurdity of this advice is that it assumes that boys are rapists from a young age. "…mother of two yet again relentlessly shamed her sons for their biology, and then topped herself by explaining that they are, like every other man, "not safe." And by "not safe," she means prospective rapists."
And finally, the last nonsense on the list of "things" a man must do according to the article, is to oppress other men who don't agree with feminism! Listen to how she phrases it: "Bad men walk among us. Decent men who don't understand women's experiences walk among us." So basically; everything is man's fault – because not all men have been indoctrinated with feminism – yet. It is therefore a duty upon all men to convert other men into becoming terrorists. I mean feminists. Notice how she mentions "decent men" again. This is a trick to make men feel INDECENT if they don't agree with her or feminism.
Alright, so I bet you're getting tired of this nonsense spewed by feminists… well guess what, I'm not and it is my article. Trust me, the next one is funny. Also, remember the rule: "third strike and you're out"! So we need to give these feminists a third chance! Here it goes:
This article is on mashable – again, written by a feminist:
I'm going to be brief:
#1: Obey women. Don't question them, their behavior or their actions.
#2: Talk to boys and men. Teach your father, brother and son to become feminists. Because everything is their fault for being born male.
#3: Your male sexuality is creepy. Showing women that you're sexually interested in them always means rape.
#4: Consent, consent, consent. However, consent can be WITHDRAWN during sex, if you don't pull it out then it counts as rape! And remember, she can always regret having sex with you days later or even years later, it counts as rape then as well!
#5: Women did their part (by complaining), now you, the men, must fix society according to feminist guidelines!
Okay, I give up, Feminists are hopeless. They are completely oblivious to any sense of self-reflection and responsibility. Or perhaps they're simply dishonest and doing all this intentionally with an evil grin!!!??? Nobody can be this stupid… right?
Next up, #MeToo examples. I have a theory that most rape victims in the modern world are simply prostitutes who were not happy with the payment or wished they had asked for more. Also, remember that I said "most". Just putting this out there, because I know feminists are cunts, I mean ***. Again, I said "most", not all. There are real victims out there. This article is not about them, this article is about feminism and how feminism silences the real victims by stealing their voice – for the sake of spreading feminism.
"Because when I was in college my boss asked me if I knew what a geisha was and if I was interested in become one for him, I needed the job and didn't report him. I should have.
This woman seriously accepted "money" for sex just to get a job. What exactly does she think she is entitled to report? Imagine a man walking down the street, then this woman walks up to the man and asks for money. He demands sex in return, sets a price and then she accepts it. DONE DEAL. For what crime then are you going to report him for? You sold your body for money like a prostitute, this is REAL LIFE, you can't undo.
It is the same with all those famous actresses, they accept the same deal as any prostitute; sex for material gain. Then 10 to 20 years later – when their fame is over – they come out with a sob story filled with regrets. They were high on money and fame while selling their dignity. But now when their HIGH is over or needs re-kindling, they cry out loudly to the public about rape and injustice. Much respect to all the women who didn't accept such a deal!
"The high bidding for Giselle's auction shows us how high the demand for virgins is. Business people from all over the world have been bidding."
It's as if feminists don't have any good role models, someone to teach them about morality. So I'm going to do mankind a favor and hereby define what rape is and what prostitution is:
Prostitution: Selling your body for materialistic gain (by free choice). You want a cookie or a job, and the owner of the cookie or workplace asks you for sex in return. If you accept the deal, then you are committing prostitution. If you don't accept the deal, then you are a good person (even better if you report the pig). Because nobody is forcing you to eat the cookie nor work in such a workplace (report him/her so the company can sue and replace with a new boss). You can't say "I was forced to have sex because I really really really wanted the job" seriously, seek mental help you feminist imbeciles. Why doesn't feminism teach women not to use their bodies to get a job or other materialistic gain? Oh yeah, "prostitution is a legitimate form of work for women faced with the option of other bad jobs".
Rape: Sex with someone that doesn't belong to you. If a husband wants to have sex with his wife, then he doesn't need to ask her for permission to engage sexually; the wife already gave him consent by marrying him. If the wife tells her husband that she is on her period or feeling sick, yet he continues to force himself upon her, then said wife should ask herself why the hell did she marry a psychopath; someone who isn't even concerned about her well being? Again, it's her own fault for marrying him even though there are many "boring" guys out there. Who would've skipped work just to cook a warm soup for her and take care of her. Don't blame all men for your poor choice in men.
There is no rape in marriage, the husband owns the wife and the wife owns the husband. Consent was already given when the couple got married. Also, marriage is more than just two individuals forming a partnership. Marriage is about becoming each other's flesh, holding each others' deepest secrets, a bond that is physical, mental and spiritual. The wife belongs to the husband just like how the husband's hand belongs to him. And the husband belongs to the wife just like how the wife's hand belongs to her. Men and Women should never feel ashamed or embarrassed for expressing their sexual desire within their marriage. Be as naughty as you want, but only with your spouse. There is nothing wrong with that nor does it break any of GOD's laws. Actually, sex is a gift from GOD for the believers to enjoy, which also means that only believers can enjoy sex. This explains why disbelievers have such a strange relationship to sex (stigma & shame) – or indulge in abnormal sexual behavior that always leaves them feeling bad and unsatisfied.
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION that I am referring to MARRIAGE according to GOD's laws. Boyfriend girlfriend nonsense is not supported by GOD. Instead; GOD's law demands that the husband takes care of his wife's needs for shelter, food and clothing. This is part of the deal, even if the wife is rich. If a man cannot provide these necessities to a woman, then he cannot claim a woman as his own, nor is he allowed to demand obedience from her. If a man forces himself on a woman that isn't his wife according to GOD's law, then he is indeed committing rape. If you are in a boyfriend girlfriend relationship – which is a feminist concept – then you have to obey feminism and feminist law. You can't mix it with GOD's law, it doesn't work that way. You have to choose; GOD or Satan/Feminism. If you suffer because you are in a feminist-relationship-concept – such as a boyfriend girlfriend relationship – then it is your own fault, don't blame GOD, men or women.
Anyhow, I'm getting ahead of myself now. I will talk about morality further down, but for now I would like to continue examining the feminist agenda.
#MeToo is being praised as something really huge; that 1,7 million tweets have been made (as of writing this article). However, this is a statistical misconception. It is propaganda. It makes you assume that 1,7 million women have shared their story. But that's not the case at all. I have alone used the #MeToo hashtag at least 30 times by now. And if you investigate some of the posts being made by other people, you'll see that many are using the hashtag back and forth between their conversations. There are also Twitter accounts whose sole purpose is to re-tweet a mixture of testimonies, feminist ideas, hate against patriarchy and hate against men – all while using the #MeToo hashtag.
If we take into account that people are using the hashtag back and forth between their conversations and debates, and the fact I alone have used it at least 30 times, then if we divide 1,7 million by 30, we get the following: 56667 unique users who have tweeted about #MeToo on Twitter. Of course this is just using numbers that are available to me. Most of those who have shared their story usually only post once or twice to the #MeToo hashtag. This reveals that there really are not 1,7 million stories about sexual harassment or rape on Twitter.
I could be nice and reduce the average post down to 10 posts per unique user, we would then end up with 170000 unique users who are tweeting to the #MeToo hashtag. Again, let me remind you that these users are not necessarily sharing their story about sexual harassment or rape, they are instead unique accounts using the #MeToo hashtag to share their opinion, debate, or news about the #MeToo campaign.
The hashtag is also used by automatic twitter accounts that lists trending topics, these bots post at least twice every hour, and there is one for almost every country. If we use those numbers for one month, then that's around 1440 tweets. That's not much. But remember, there are many bots that target a specific country each, combine all those and you'll have a couple of ten-thousand tweets per month, whose only purpose is to list trending hashtags.
The hashtag is also used to share news related to the #MeToo campaign, such as:
"Time magazine's person of the year: The 'silence breakers' behind
Now, imagine more news outlets and magazines in every language sharing news about the same event under the #MeToo hashtag. And then imagine these same posts being shared by multiple regular users under the same hashtag. This repeats over and over again on a daily basis – for months. This alone could add a few hundred thousand posts.
Also, even if you include the posts posted on Facebook, you'll still face the same issue. There are very few testimonies; instead we see a flow of news, re-posts and opinions about the #MeToo campaign – and also about the whole issue of sexual harassment in general. For example, in the same article mentioned above, we can read statistics released by Facebook. Here Facebook claims that 12 million posts, COMMENTS and REACTIONS related to the "Me Too" campaign were made within just 24 hours. This tells us two things, One: Facebook is the better social media platform for user engagement. Second: Statistics is bullshit and can be twisted to mean whatever you want.
For example, if ONE woman tells her own "Me Too" story, and her story gets shared, commented on and "liked", then all those engagement are counted towards that – "12 million posts, comments and reactions" – statistic. We all know what happens when a post goes viral, it receives thousands of likes, thousands of comments and thousands of shares – usually by every unique user. AND REMEMBER; in the Facebook comment's section, you can reply to other people's comments. And those engagements are also counted towards the "12 million posts, comments and reactions". Yes, including sad face emoji-es.
Others use the hashtag to spam their tweets to as many readers as possible, this also increase the number of times the #MeToo hashtag is used:
" #birthday #photoshoot #birthdaygirl #cute #photography #CoupleGoals #couple #cuteboys #goals #MeToo #Beautiful #like #legal #follome #Christmas #Christmaslights #lights #Holidays #Flowers #NaturePhotography #nature #Modeling #model #famous"
Okay, so now we have looked at the dishonest use of statistics all for the sake of lobbying for political and social actions against the male population and non-feminist women. Now we'll take a look at the actual reports themselves.
"…my career in a "man's world" was used as an excuse for being physically assaulted. I feared pursuing justice after reporting would prevent me from ever working in industry again.
(She basically valued her career more than her morality and thus sold her body for material gain).
"…Male driver stopped & called out, "Hey baby, come over here." I just kept walking. He drove off. His behavior was
#Unacceptable #SexualHarassment #MeToo #resist #sexism @EverydaySexism @BitchMedia"
(Showing interest in a woman = sexual harassment according to feminists).
"…told me I was pretty & touched my hair when I was 16…
(Touching a woman's hair and calling her pretty = sexual harassment).
Feminists are erasing the divide between flirting and actual rape, there is no definition and instead it is up to the woman to decide if she feels raped or not. This is why women only come forward years later, when their feelings towards the man has changed and they feel bad for giving up their body to a man that they now hate or no longer need.
Feminists just don't get it. They are brainwashed by their ideology into hating men, and thus exclude men completely from the debate. In this twitter thread you can read how Feminists compare male flirting and sexual interest to actual lethal stabbings. Also, after reading most of their "fun-o-harmless" posts, I realized how deeply brainwashed these feminists are. They're literally ignoring male sexuality completely, as if it was non-existent. Their posts are sarcastically making fun of replies to the #MeToo campaign made by men, it truly shows how deaf they are to anything men say:
"There's a world of difference between stabbing and good-natured poking. Society is now teaching men to see everything as a stab."
"It really depends on how the men were dressed when they were stabbed,"
"You must understand I grew up in a time when stabbing men was considered harmless."
"Also, it's our natural instinct to stab. Maybe they shouldn't be in the workplace if they can't handle a little good natured stabbing."
"Are you sure the men didn't like the stabbing? Most just like the attention."
"It was only locker room talk! This is normal. Every woman talks about stabbing men. Learn to take a joke."
"You'd think men would have learned that if they're going to be in the workforce, there's going to be a little stabbing. Geesh!"
Alright, enough examples, you can read the twitter thread yourself. It is quite silly, however, it does point out an issue; feminist philosphy excludes male sexuality from their ideology. Remember, these feminists are brainwashed by gender-fluidity and LGBT nonsense. They don't recognize men as having a gender. Nor are they interested in learning about male sexuality. Instead they do their judging based on their gender-fluidity concept. Feminism establishes an artificial gender that is based on female sexuality BUT EXCLUDES THE FEMALE NATURE. And it also excludes the male sexuality, BUT INCORPORATES THE MALE NATURE.
|Female Nature
|= The Feminist Artificial Gender
|Female Sexuality
|Male Nature
|Male Sexuality
This is why you see feminists dressing up like men, and almost looking like men. They want to copy the male nature because of its success in obtaining power, the so called "alpha" identity. Some male feminists copy the female nature to satisfy some abnormal perversion or to get laid. Other men support feminism out of ignorance; falling for feminist propaganda – not knowing what feminism actually stands for.
All this goes against GOD's design and commandments.
[Quran][4:32] You shall not covet the qualities bestowed upon each other by God; the men enjoy certain qualities, and the women enjoy certain qualities. You may implore God to shower you with His grace. God is fully aware of all things.
[Deuteronomy][22:5] A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Through the Quran we can now also appreciate that the Bible is talking about a much deeper issue, rather than just what types of clothes men and women wear. We can also conclude through divine law that feminism is a Satanic doctrine. This gives us the right to judge feminism as something evil and something we can all fight against – and destroy with confidence.
Okay, so I have been berating this whole anti-sexual-harassment thingy for a while now. Does it mean that I don't believe there are sexual harassments and rapes going on? OF COURSE THERE ARE SEXUAL HARASSMENTS AND RAPES GOING ON IN THE WORLD. Phew! Good! Now you know that I'm not ignoring the issue. But then why am I so against all these campaigns? Well, I'm not!!! I'm against feminists using these campaigns to blame men, ALL MEN. And, since I am a man, then these feminists are obviously talking to me too. And since feminism excludes men from the debate, then I AM inviting myself into the debate, resting my butt in a comfortable chair and raising my legs on the desk as if I owned the damn place.
So, what is the problem then? Why are all these things happening? Why is society so messed up? BECAUSE OF FEMINISM of course!!!!!! Here is a very long why:
The problem is not just sexual harassment. But instead we can see a steady increase in all kinds of immoral behavior. The biggest burst of immorality happened from the 1960s to 1990s, which is also known as the time of the Sexual Liberation, or "Second Wave Feminism". This in combination of the ever growing separation between church and state; created a big spiritual vacuum that had not existed since thousands of years back since the prominence of pagan cultures.
People were lost and had to fill this spiritual vacuum… and they did so… with drugs and sex. The playboy magazine began early during this time and many others followed in its path, normalizing immorality within societies. Porn became the "new thing", where porn-stars were praised as revolutionaries. Rock-stars and porn-stars replaced traditional role models. Girls dreamed of affording breast implants and having a successful career in acting and modelling. Boys dreamed of becoming rock-stars or actors in hopes of becoming famous so they could sleep with as many women as possible. This culture attracted men and women from all over the world, turning them into sex addicted groupies and swingers. This culture got so deeply rooted into this new emerging liberated society that Christians themselves began justifying such behavior.
""Meet local Christian swingers who believe that an open and honest relationship with each other will keep any marriage fresh and exciting," websites are popping up to help Christian couples meet other Christian couples for the purpose of swinging."
This culture created by the Sexual Liberation began to spread and taint other nations as well, however, it was very short lived in most religious countries, where religion was still much part of the state. The leaders saw where these ideas would lead their nation – unless they put a stop to it. The Sexual Liberation was everywhere, it was in spirituality, television, music, writing and social interaction. This extremist liberal force led to an extremist conservative response and a distrust in everything the west had to offer. This is why it might seem like the rest of the world is "lagging behind" in progress, it isn't. It is just a rejection of feminism. Calling other countries "backward" is a feminist agenda to spark conflict with non-feminist countries. This is done in hopes of enforcing feminism through violence. Banning homosexuality and punishing adultery doesn't make you evil, instead it makes you good. Only feminists and those brainwashed by feminism will call it evil.
Now don't get me wrong, sexual expression is important, however, you have to understand that the Sexual Liberation wasn't about expressing oneself sexually, instead it was a movement to attack and destroy the conservative morals, or as feminism calls it; "patriarchal morals". People simply indulged in sexual addictions as a rebellion against their conservative parents and society. Men no longer had to work hard to earn money to afford marriage – because women were giving away sex for free. This is what bought men's support. However, ask yourself what types of men these were. It was not the married men nor the accomplished men. Instead the Sexual Liberation was supported by men who themselves wanted to sleep around, men who had perversions which they wanted to fulfill.
And this is exactly what is wrong with the Sexual Liberation, which feminism today doesn't seem to get. The terms for the Sexual Liberation is that women must always be willing to have sex, including with strangers – since morals was a "patriarchal" invention. Because that's the duty of women in a Sexually Liberated society. And this was the case for 30 to 40 years. A woman could be sleeping in her bed, and a stranger could then slip into bed with her AND she was then expected to give him sex. This is the CORE PART of what made the Sexual Liberation a reality. Women were provided the Pill and the message that they now had no excuse to say no to sex. The feminist movement's ideology at this time was based on the pursuit of sexual pleasure for women. By initiating sexual advances, enjoying sex and experimenting with various forms of sexuality such as homosexuality and swinging. However, this ideology only worked for already bad women, for other women it was a constant torment of trying to fit in by having sex against their will. Just to please the new social order called feminism. "…at university I could see close-up the impact of the sexual revolution and the 'new' pressure to sleep around. It was expected; nobody wanted to be called 'uncool' or 'uptight'." Feminism used social pressure to force women into immoral behavior.
The men were living the dream, all they had to do was drop their pants and then any woman in his vicinity would get down on her knees to practice her freedom. These are the terms the Sexual Liberation set. I remember the 90s, it was common to find a gang of young teens having sex behind the school building after school hours. For example; two girls would lay down on the grass while a couple of guys took turns penetrating them. After releasing their load, they would then walk behind a tree to take a piss – which was more embarrassing/private than sex I guess. Then they would come back and stand in line to have a second round at penetrating one of the free and independent women – who were laying down on their back with their legs spread in the air. I was young when I witnessed these acts, but understood exactly what was going on. I remember one occasion while I was out walking with my babysitter, I was 7 and she was 16. She asked me to penetrate her; she looked at me and pointed towards the group of teens having sex and said "let's do what they are doing, it's fun, I promise!"
Female pedophilia skyrocketed because of feminism, and there is lot of resources spent to keep it all under the radar, including death threats. ""An estimated 92.4% of all youth who reported staff sexual misconduct said they were victimized by female facility staff."" But this article is about feminism, and NOT women raping disadvantaged boys and young adults. "Female Refugee Workers "Systematically" having sex with refugees: "We all do it"".
Female pedophilia and rape is very common, it's just that people don't expect women to be that evil, because feminism wants us to believe that women are always innocent.
"She had sex a couple of times a day with children and with as many as five children at a time. Victims also included other neighbourhood children"
After creating this big mess called the Sexual Liberation, feminism realized there was a problem: The men naturally dominated sex within the sexually liberated society. So for feminism it was back to square one. Who now began the process of dis-powering men by telling women to say no to sex. And to only say yes to sex they desire or the sex they themselves initiate. This is of course not wrong, however, this was used by feminism to begin their assault against the dominant male-sexuality and the submissive female-sexuality. Feminism now wanted to change the terms for the Sexual Liberation, it wanted to be the owner; judge and jury. However, this excluded all the men who supported the Sexual Liberation, the term for their support was free sex, anytime and anywhere, the exact same terms women were promised; free sex anytime and anywhere. The real Sexual Liberation was therefore short lived, it only existed for just a few decades, between the late 1960s up to the early 1990s. It was like a bubble that suddenly burst, which left a big mess that would taint society for generations to come. "We have effectively succeeded in killing love and replacing it with a lethal brew of selfishness and animal-like rutting. Small wonder we are in the mess we are in."
Here in Sweden a noticeable change was that porn magazines and pornographic posters slowly faded from the public view. It was otherwise a common sight during the 90s to see 8 year old boys and girls stand at the cash register next to rows of magazines, that depicted naked women spreading themselves in various position with a penis in their mouth. It was normal, it was also normal for 8 year old girls to read about relationships and sex. Feminism taught 8 year old girls about the friend-zone and how to invite guys over for a movie night or pajama party to french kiss and play doctor. This culture was however fought against by conservatives in Sweden and thus the porn culture slowly faded away, and with it the Swedish porn industry faded away as well; returning back to the underground from whence it came. However, feminists didn't fight the porn industry because children were exposed to it, or because of its immoral impact. Instead feminism fought against the porn industry because it was by men for men, which they labelled as misogynist and violent against women.
Again, feminism only want sexual liberation for women, not men. So in response to the male dominated porn industry, which feminist had failed to shut down – feminism responded by producing feminist friendly porn:
""Everyone in the films is over the age of 18, no one is doing anything against their will, everyone shares equally in the money from the films," she said. "All of this makes Mia Engberg's project different from regular porn in many ways.""
So according to feminist philosophy – pornography is okay as long as it is produced on equal terms were the female actress gets paid the same as the male actor. They don't reject pornography based on its immorality – this proves that feminism doesn't care about morality. Morality is not part of feminist philosophy, at least not morality derived from male thought, such as philosophy by men, religion by men or culture by men, (Feminism counts divine morality as a male invention). Instead feminism seek to create its own moral values, such as teaching children to be gender fluid and to be accepting of sexual abnormalities such as homosexuality and transsexuality. I don't want to go in-depth about feminist view on children. But I do want to mention that feminism disallows parents from interfering with their children's sexual activity, parents are reduced to a supporting role. For example, if your 12 year old daughter wants to have sex, then the only thing you can do as a parent is reminding her about protection. This means feminism seeks to spread immoral behavior among children, and seeks political and social means to prevent parents from having power over their children's upbringing, such as the authority to disallow their children from having sex.
Feminism also seeks to destroy the family unit. According to feminism – marriage is a male concept derived from male thought. It is therefore important for feminism to destroy the family unit – labeling it as the root of women's oppression. Different sects of feminism have different views on this matter, however they all seek to corrupt the family unit in one way or the other. Feminism encourages women to sleep around and have children from multiple men. Having children from different fathers is not really a problem, however, the issue here is that feminism ENCOURAGES switching partners over petty matters. Instead of encouraging women to fix their relationship, feminism tell women to leave and get a new man – or even a woman. "When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn't rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist."
Feminism created the rape culture with their Sexual Liberation, by eliminating morality, promoting slut behavior among men and women – and by creating a culture based on sex and turning both genders into sex objects. Feminism has failed and instead proven itself to be a failed philosophy incompatible with our human nature. Therefore feminism cannot be the answer to solve the issues CAUSED BY FEMINISM. Feminism must be eliminated from society or reduced to only affect those who choose it. Feminism is an ideology, how would you feel if someone forced their ideology on you? This form of oppression has led to countless wars throughout human history, and at this rate – feminism might be the next instigator of civil wars on a global scale.
If feminism continues to champion sexual freedom for women, then feminism must also accept the sexual freedom of men. However, doing so will only contradict the core bedrock of feminism; which dictates that men and women are equal. The Sexual Liberation proved feminism wrong. Women became dominated on an equalized playing field. Both men and women were for at least three decades completely free from all moral shackles and sexual restrictions. Yet even then women couldn't keep up with men – proving men and women are not sexually equal. Instead women faced new challenges, they discovered that their true desire was indeed long term relationships after all. That marriage actually does serves women and not only men. The only ones who benefited from the Sexual Liberation were men and lesbians. Normal women on the other hand suffered, their traditional role was "gone" and the new role left them emotionally devastated. Normal women suffer at the hands of feminism – because feminism is designed for lesbians.
The problems today exist because feminism demands it, why? Because sexual freedom entails sexual initiation and sexual exploration. Remember; Sexual Liberation expects men and women to have sex without any feelings of guilt or any sense of traditional moral responsibility. It is therefore always hypocritical of feminism to judge men who practice their sexual freedom. Yet feminism has been working very hard for the last 30 years to restrict men's sexual freedom (by calling it rape). This means feminism is basically hitting a wall they have set up themselves. It is perpetual and designed to always fail, to always create a demand for feminism; which in turn creates more problems. Feminism is like a female dog chasing its own tail, leaving menstrual blood all over the place for the grownups to clean up.
Baby-boomers had children who also learned to be promiscuous by their parents, however, those children were born into a non conservative society. So they did not have the same cause for rebellion as the baby boomers had; whose rage targeted the conservative morals. Then the grandchildren of the baby boomers had it even better, sexual expression was the norm, making the opposite more attractive; conservatism. Sexual freedom was a given, however, sexual privacy became the ideal. And this is where we are today.
We now live in a time where we are trying to find our way back to our own sexual privacy. And feminism is desperately trying to tap into this change to maintain its relevancy by suddenly promoting "morality"; "Casual sex isn't immoral. But morality aside, it just doesn't work for all of us" (WTF did I just read?) Feminism is a failed ideology as we have witnessed for the last 60 years. Is it really smart then that we should continue allowing feminists to lead the way? I don't think so. Their solution to the problems they created… is to blame everything on men… and non-feminist women. By claiming ownership of the "good woman" identity, feminism can control what it means to be a good woman. This is how feminism can stay relevant to continue corrupting women.
"My friend was talking to two black guys and wanted to know who had the bigger dick, so she blew them both in the kitchen."
"Saw a girl getting banged by her boyfriend from the back while she was blowing guys. There was a line to who was getting sucked off next."
"Indeed, in all the promises made to us about our ability to achieve freedom and independence as women, the promise of sexual emancipation may have been the most illusory. Yes, we can do "anything a man does" (except maybe in terms of bench pressing). And yet, all the sexual bravado a young woman may possess evaporates the first time a man she truly cares for makes it clear that he has no further use for her after his own body has been satisfied. No amount of feminist posturing, no amount of reassurances that she doesn't need a guy like that anyway, can protect her from the pain and humiliation of those awful moments after he's gone, when she's alone — and feeling not sexually empowered, but discarded."
Feminism created the rape culture, then blames it all on men. But not only that. If we examine the feminist agenda for the last couple of years, then we can see a pattern where feminism has shifted their focus on men in hopes of turning the tables between men and women. They want to create a society where the woman is the active gender and the man is the passive gender. They want to give all power of sexual initiation to women only. And label all sexual initiation by men as rape. Calling it "Third Wave Feminism". "Third-wave ideology focused on a more post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality. Post-structuralist feminists saw binaries such as male-female as an artificial construct created to maintain the power of the dominant group."
This means that since there is no gender, then there is only; "The Artificial Feminist Gender". And since only feminists are allowed to set the discourse for feminist philosophy, and feminists are females. Then "The Artificial Feminist Gender" is of a female nature. And since the female nature is passive; then feminist theory dictates that all sexual initiation must adhere to a sexual initiation from the perspective of the female gender; a passive, stealthy form of initiation through small gestures, body-language, hints, guess-work, etcetera that women are known for.
Anything else is rape. And since anything else is MALE BEHAVIOR, then all men are rapists. It is therefore important for a feminist society to re-educate all men to eliminate their ACTIVE sexual behavior, and instead turn it into a PASSIVE sexual behavior that adheres to "The Artificial Feminist Gender" theory. This is why feminists say that "patriarchy" also oppresses men, because according to them it is the "patriarchy" that teaches male behavior. Feminism is therefore convinced that the natural male behavior is actually the same as "The Artificial Feminist Gender"… SO GOOD LUCK DEBATING WITH THEM. It will be like debating with a bigot, but twenty times worse.
However, the opposite is true by nature. Men are naturally active and women are naturally passive. This has been human nature for hundreds of thousands of years. Feminism is not founded on realism; it is an ideology that ignores human nature. And instead derives its reality from opinion-based sciences and feelings. There is actually no real evidence that proves the feminist agenda nor the LGBT agenda. Instead we find there is evidence against feminism and LGBT, such as diseases and immorality. But also the fact that lesbians can't reproduce with each other, nor can gays reproduce. This alone proves that such behavior is not natural, for it would lead to extinction, a form of self-harm. The human body and immune system is not designed for abnormal behavior. But this topic demands its own article, let's focus on feminism in this article!
Feminists want men to become passive, and they want women to become active. This has put generations of boys and girl in conflict with themselves. Men and women are in a constant battle against their own nature in order to satisfy the demands of a feminist society; demands set by feminism. During the Sexual Liberation their target was mainly the women. But ever since "Third Wave Feminism", their target is the man, but for opposite reasons; to discourage men from sexual expression. And since men and their sexuality is active, powerful and dominant – as part of their nature. Feminism has decided to target men on every point that makes a man – a man. Which means that males are discouraged from early age to practice their active male nature.
Males need to compete and be rewarded for their effort. Effort is derived from being active. And by being active, the male nature is practiced and strengthened. The reward for ones effort is therefore a confidence boost – that the males' own determination to take action led to an achievement. This practice of the male nature can be done in many fields, not just sports. It can be in academia, in the workplace, or whatever. However, by having limiting factors such as equal reward no matter how much effort one puts in – males will become passive; since unnecessary active effort would go unrewarded. For example, boys and girls are taught the same way. This is bad because the school-system has been re-invented to focus on girls, which has resulted in a passive learning style. Boys on the other hand want to solve problems, they want to investigate, they want to obtain information as a reward for their active effort. Otherwise boys will lose interest in learning and zone out in the class-room. Affirmative-action is another system that works against the active male nature, what's the point of working hard if someone can obtain the same reward for reasons other than active effort? All this and much more makes active-effort seem like a waste of time. Which explains why gaming is a big hit among men, active-effort leads to victory in competitive gaming, while passive-effort always leads to defeat. Being rewarded for ones active-effort is what makes gaming addictive.
It is easy to get duped by feminism, and it is easy to create parallels between feminism and perhaps conservative moral thought. But this is just propaganda, they use words – such as equality and freedom to convert ignorant people to serve their agenda. Feminism is trying to morph into something more inclusive – evolving to remain relevant. One way to understand this is by treating feminism as a religion, and with time sects spring up. However, the sects are based on feminist propaganda and ignorance about what feminism is really about. For example: Muslim women who identify themselves as feminists and serve feminism along side their religion. This is not necessary real feminism, but instead an off-shoot-sect based on feminist propaganda. These Muslim women were duped by feminism. If they knew what feminism was really about then they would not associate themselves with feminism. The only movement Muslim women need is a true reform that takes Islam back to its original message; the Quran. This is done by removing the religious traditions derived from Hadith & Sunnah. FEMINISM IS NOT THE ANSWER. Feminism, by definition, contradicts the message of the Quran. Feminism seeks to corrupt GOD's design.
The real definition of feminism is the following: Feminism is the separation from all male thought in every aspect of human civilization, such as religion, philosophy, science, psychology, law, economy, etcetera. It counts divine morality as a male invention. It is about creating an alternative human reality. They base this idea on the suspicion that all male thought is biased against the female thought. Which means:
All religion by men is biased against women.
All society by men is biased against women.
All language by men is biased against women.
All philosophy by men is biased against women.
All science by men is biased against women.
All psychology by men is biased against women.
All law by men is biased against women.
All economy by men is biased against women.
If we consider all these things, then when feminism speaks about equality; it is referring to its own definition of equality. When feminists criticize their opponents they will most often say "YOU ARE AGAINST EQUALITY!" or "YOU ARE A MISOGYNIST". And leave you baffled and confused because YOU KNOW that you are not against equality, nor do you hate women. There is a dissonance, a barrier. For example:
"The first thing I notice when I'm confronted with this argument is that the feminism-opposer almost always operates on the male/female gender binary, and that's already a problem. Discounting trans, gender nonconforming, and gender fluid folks is no way to have any conversation about gender equality, and we need to keep this in mind when we're having any discussion about feminism."
This is what makes feminism a joke. They can spin their agenda for eternity and there would never be equality, ever! This is done to maintain political and social power. "Feminism" – in reality – should have ended when women got to vote and were included equally as men under the law. However, by adopting the cause of the LGBT community and the cause of every social outcast – feminism can maintain its relevancy by championing the rights of those groups. In 200 years from now, I bet feminism will include people who consider themselves to be cats or whales: "It is year 2217 people!! Stop being so backwards!! There is nothing wrong with whale-humans, if they want to have sex with whales then it's their life! This is why we need feminism!"
Another way for feminism to maintain relevancy for years to come, is by opposing every thought by men ever made public since the dawn of time – as I have mentioned earlier – such as religion, philosophy, etcetera. Feminism has already begun infiltrating history to spread their propaganda, one such example is by claiming that human society was matriarchal for at least 200 000 years and "suddenly" changed into a patriarchal society due to war for survival and that cave paintings were done by women. I'm not denying that women back then participated in painting cave walls, I'm just showing you how feminism seeks to infiltrate every aspect of society. They make a big deal about minor things based on assumption. By all means, continue discovering. What I'm concerned about is that feminism will use these theories to spread their propaganda for the sake of converting people to feminism and to legitimize its political existence and funding. There is no gender bias in scientific discovery or archaeological discoveries, scientists are simply following the available data. "Feminists Don't Get Cognitive Science".
Also, a matriarchal society would probably have led to our extinction:
It is very common for feminists to claim the hard work of men and women in the past and call them "early feminists", this is to create feminist role models in hope of converting people to feminism, and to create a place for feminism in human history. Here are a couple of historical figures feminism are claiming as their own:
Prophet Muhammad
This is beyond absurdity. Feminists are confusing divine equality with the feminist version of equality. Prophet Muhammad was not a feminist, because prophet Muhammad preached against the immoral behavior that feminism seeks to establish. For example here is a verse about the punishment for feminist behavior:
24:2 The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out God's law, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their penalty.
Khadija, Wife of the Prophet Muhammad
Again, this feminist propaganda is senseless. The way feminism operates is through disinformation. Khadija was not a feminist. She was a hard working woman who believed in divine morality. Khadija married a man and stayed faithful and obedient to him. This goes against feminism. Therefore Khadija was not a feminist. Here is a verse that describes Khadija's obedience to her husband, which clearly goes against feminism:
4:34 The men are made responsible for the women, and God has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is God's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme.
Jesus, son of Mary
Again, the desperation practiced by feminists make them blind to reality. Jesus was not a feminist, treating women fairly doesn't make him a feminist, instead it makes him a patriarch. Feminism is about opposing "patriarchal" morality and allowing women to sleep around – which Jesus clearly didn't support. "But but but, Jesus did protect a woman who committed adultery!" NOT TRUE. Jesus was proving a point, and at the end he told her "GO and sin no more", acknowledging that sleeping around is sinful. Which shows us that Jesus was indeed NOT A FEMINIST:
10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"
11 "No, Lord," she said.
And Jesus said, "Neither do I. Go and sin no more."
Emmeline Pankhurst
Feminists call Women's Suffrage as "first wave feminism", however, this is nonsense, "First Wave Feminism" is a modern feminist term to hijack and claim the hard work of women who spent their life fighting for equality under law. Such as – the right to vote, the right to work in all industries, equal pay, the right to receive the same health care as men and the same insurance as men. This is not feminism; but justice. Emmeline did blame the "patriarchy", however, she did recognize morality as something universal, for example, she rejected her daughter Sylvia for giving birth outside of marriage. And instead targeted the government and union parties; whose focus has been solely on men – because women would marry and stay at home. However, women wanted to work and build their own life too. This is what Emmeline Pankhurst and many other women AND MEN worked hard for. Woman's suffrage was met with opposition because of ignorance based on the assumption that women would always marry and be taken care of by their husband. The majority of women didn't support women's suffrage, because they were already married and taken care of. Another reason for opposition was shame; society cared about behaving "ladylike", this is what made men worry that their spouse, daughters, sisters, mothers etcetera would bring shame to their family. There was no nationwide misogyny as feminists would like you to believe. Women's suffrage was treated with the same resistance as any other social movement. The propaganda against women's suffrage was just that; propaganda using fear to discredit a social movement.
"Equal justice for men and women, equal political justice, equal legal justice, equal industrial justice, and equal social justice" MRS. PANKHURST'S OWN STORY page 341.
Christabel Pankhurst, daughter of Emmeline Pankhurst
Feminism is trying very hard to create role models to further their own agenda. Sadly, most of these people are dead and can't defend themselves against feminists propaganda. However, I will do that for them. The case with Christabel Pankhurst is the same as with her mother; Emmeline Pankhurst. They were fighting for the same thing; equal rights. However, the difference between the two is that the mother – Emmeline – died before she could witness the fruits of all their hard work. Christabel on the other hand did witness it. And Christabel was not all that happy with how women were using their new found freedom:
"The emancipation of today which displays itself mainly in cigarettes and shorts… in painted lips and nails, and the return of trailing skirts and other absurdities of dress which betoken the slave-women's sex appeal rather than the free-woman's intelligent companionship."
Prostitutes, whores and sluts emerged from the dark shady underground, and instead practiced their behavior shamelessly in the open. This is where modern feminist thought began to play in the minds of evil women – who had now tasted freedom for the first time in the western modern society. Women no longer needed to behave morally or "ladylike" to attract a husband for survival. This immoral behavior escalated and led to the Sexual Liberation. Many feminists call this the "Second Wave Feminism" however, I beg to differ: The only wave feminism have ever had is the "SECOND WAVE FEMINISM". There was never a "First Wave Feminism". Feminism philosophy proves it. In the past, women fought for equal rights, feminism however seek to take credit of those women's hard work. Feminism is living off the shoulders of hard working women who didn't support feminism.
Women's suffrage was happening on a global scale; and not a SINGLE cause of theirs is parallel with "Second Wave Feminism". This proves that Women's suffrage had nothing to do with feminism. Again, feminism is about challenging "patriarchal" morals, the destruction of the family unit, and to justify sexual misconduct. None of these ideas can be found in women's suffrage anywhere in the world. Except during the Sexual Liberation. "Second Wave Feminism" HALTED – and IS HALTING Women's suffrage in other countries by association. By claiming Women's suffrage as a feminist social movement, women worldwide are being judged and fought against by just uttering the word "equality".
Eleanor Roosevelt
Hold on to your brain for this one, the contradictions might cause a painful cringe. Eleanor Roosevelt was a First Lady of the U.S. She spent her political power to push for equality. During her education at Allenswood, under the tutelage of Marie Souvestre, Eleanor Roosevelt found confidence in her own intellectual ability. However, her education was cut off by her grandmother, who probably sensed something fishy was going on, which in a sense protected her from Marie Souvestre; who was described as a lesbian. Eleanor Roosevelt was making a comment about her life during this time when she wrote: "I became more of a feminist than I ever thought possible". The sentence itself speaks of regret, that her grandmother's decision to pull her away from Marie Souvestre indirectly saved her from being brainwashed by feminism. However, feminists use this to justify their claim that Eleanor Roosevelt was a feminist. Even though she opposed feminist organisations. Another evidence that prove she wasn't a feminist is the fact that she didn't promote feminist philosophy. Instead she promoted good old justice; equality for women in education, politics, and the workplace. She did NOT promote the destruction of the family unit, she did NOT oppose "patriarchal" morals, and she did NOT support sexual misconduct – even though she was under the tutelage by Marie Souvestre who "took a special interest in Roosevelt". (P.S. Eleanor Roosevelt was the shy girl in her youth, and it is a fact that homosexuals prey on the inexperienced young). Feminists are sad that historians don't call Eleanor Roosevelt a feminist. It is actually an ongoing debate… Feminists want to corrupt history: ""She was a remarkable woman, a pioneer for women's rights, and I don't think her opposition to the E.R.A. should be held against her," Mrs. Chittick said." Feminists cry crocodile tears when they are not allowed to claim the hard work of non-feminist women. "She paused for a moment, then added: "But if Eleanor Roosevelt had lived a little longer, I think she would have seen the light.'"' Pathetic!!!
Sojourner Truth
Dear GOD have mercy! If a woman fights against any form of inequality, then feminists will claim such a woman as their own. Sojourner Truth's real name is Isabella Bomefree, and that's the name I will use. She was an American woman of Afro-African descent during the period of slavery. She was born into slavery and sold as a slave to different owners. "Born on a plantation about 95 miles north of New York City, Belle only spoke Dutch until she was nine years old when she was sold, along with a herd of sheep, for $100." Her struggle was for equality both as an Afro-American and as a woman – NOT for feminism – therefore she was not a feminist – THE END.
Also, pay close attention to the text within the articles about Isabella Bomefree written by feminists… they have no evidence to prove she was a feminist. Instead they label her as a feminist in their title or introduction: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 they keep saying "abolitionist and feminist" over and over again, as if copying each other's work instead of doing their own research – what a bunch of lazy authors. You will not find anything in her history that can be attributed to feminism. Isabella Bomefree did demand that the woman's suffrage by white women should include black women. Perhaps this is the link feminists are referring to when labeling Isabella Bomefree as a feminist, however, women's suffrage was the struggle for equality as I've written about earlier – not feminism. Also, woman's suffrage by white women was not perfect, it contained all kinds of women, so it is a given that there must have been some crazy lesbians among them who had their own evil agenda, for example there were racists among them as well. You can also read Isabella's own book "The Narrative of Sojourner Truth" to get a more in-depth grasp of her struggle.
John Stuart Mill
An atheist who worked for equality for everyone, all people no matter gender, race, wealth etcetera. And guess what? Feminists are claiming him. Yes, John Stuart Mill targeted the family unit, but he did so because the woman's position in the family unit was based on bondage by law, labeling it as "women's disabilities" (page 12). He was criticizing the whole social structure caused by inequality. For example, women HAD to marry if they wanted wealth and therefore women HAD to be subservient to men in order to gain wealth. If marriage is the only way for women to obtain wealth and freedom, then women will always exist in "bondage to men" (page 47). And then a wife's submission to her husband cannot be out of free will, but out of "oppression" (page 27). John however, did NOT want to destroy the family unit – as is the case of feminism – instead he wanted women to freely choose marriage based on love; which can only happen if a woman is equally free as the man. He wanted to see women as active participants in human society – it would be "doubling the brain pool" (page 49) if women were given the same rights as men. Let me remind you, John Stuart Mill wasn't perfect, he was an atheist and had therefore a different set of morals. But at the end of the day his intentions for supporting equality for all under the law were good.
Helen of Anjou
Going to keep this one short. Helen was a queen in the Serbian kingdom around the years 1245 and 1276. She built schools for women… and therefore she must be a feminist according to feminists… sigh. This is beyond stupid, but it clearly exposes the feminist agenda.
Equality and justice has become so pervertedly synonymous with feminism, that every woman or man that fights for equality and justice will have their work automatically claimed by feminism – even if the women and men are not feminists and had no intention of working under the banner of feminism. This is what makes many hard working men and women become anti-feminism. Because their hard work is being claimed by feminism – which completely undermines their ability and intelligence as human beings. The following lady exposes this feminist-agenda ingeniously:
If you want a list of more people that feminism have claimed, then you can use this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and/or even search for the term "famous feminists" or "feminists in history". After careful study, you'll notice that most of these people were not feminists, but were instead people standing up for equality and justice.
Now you have witnessed how feminism seeks to mischaracterize historical figures as being feminists. Feminism seeks to absorb other people's hard work and success. This is done so that feminism feels less out of place/history and to hide its real origin; which is the Sexual Liberation. "Second Wave Feminism" and modern feminism is the only feminism that has ever existed. It is of course a fact that feminist ideas did exist in the past social movements, however, they were a minority within those movements. And the victory of those social movements were the victories for equality, not feminism. For example; if 1% of all women in the Women's suffrage social movement were lesbian. Then it is illogical to say that the victory of Women's suffrage belonged to lesbians. The victory belonged to the normal men and women who fought for equal rights under the law. Victory did not belong to the lesbians. However, the lesbians did benefit from the victory – there is a difference! It was only during the Sexual Liberation that lesbianism and other immoralities increased, and it was then that lesbians gained their victory, which is called feminism. This is the fact that feminism seeks to hide. That it is not about equality, but about behavior outside of "patriarchal" morality and avoiding the punishment for those behaviors. I will explain in-depth what I mean by "patriarchal" morality later, but for now just know that feminism considers divine morality to be a creation of men. Feminism doesn't believe in GOD, nor the divinity of morals. This is why feminism is usually promoted by disbelievers. And this is why it is a contradiction to be a Muslim feminist or a Christian feminist. However, more on all that later.
Many feminists are feminists out of ignorance. For example the activist Malala Yousafzai revealed in an interview that the first time she heard the term feminism; then she also heard negative and positive arguments about it. This made her hesitate whether to identify herself as a feminist or not. However, she continues in the interview that once she heard Emma Watson's "He for She" campaign-speech at the UN in 2014 – Malala then decided to identify herself as a feminist. Let us examine THAT speech by Emma Watson in detail:
"…These men from all over the world have decided to make gender equality a priority in their lives and in their universities…
…what if our experience at university shows us that women don't belong in leadership? What if it shows us that, yes, women can study, but they shouldn't lead a seminar? What if, as still in many places around the world, it tells us that women don't belong there at all? What if, as is the case in far too many universities, we are given the message that sexual violence isn't actually a form of violence?
…if you change students' experiences so they have different expectations of the world around them, expectations of equality, society will change. As we leave home for the first time to study at the places that we have worked so hard to get, we must not see or experience double standards. We need to see equal respect, leadership, and pay.
The university experience must tell women that their brain power is valued, and not just that, but that they belong among the leadership of the university itself. And so importantly, right now, the experience must make it clear that the safety of women, minorities, and anyone who may be vulnerable is a right and not a privilege. A right that will be respected by a community that believes and supports survivors. And that recognizes that when one person's safety is violated, everyone feels that their own safety is violated. A university should be a place of refuge that takes action against all forms of violence.
…students should leave university believing in, striving for, and expecting societies of true equality. Societies of true equality in every sense, and that universities have the power to be a vital catalyst for that change."
The underlined text shows how easily this speech by Emma Watson could have manipulated Malala Yousafzai into proclaiming herself a feminist:
"Then after hearing your speech I decided there's no way and there's nothing wrong by calling yourself a feminist. So I'm a feminist and we all should be a feminist because feminism is another word for equality." Men "have to step forward" to promote equality of the sexes." – Malala Yousafzai
However, I beg to differ, if Malala Yousafzai had actually studied what feminism is and what it seeks out to do, then Malala Yousafzai would have distanced herself far from feminism. Because not only will it hurt her identity, but it will also hurt her career and ambitions in bringing equality to her conservative country. Remember, feminism is lesbianism. Not a good badge to carry around when fighting for equality in a religious country. Because then your opposition will think you are promoting homosexuality and other immoralities.
Malala Yousafzai is not alone to fall for the deceit of feminism. I too would have become a feminist if I only went by the speech made by Emma Watson alone, the underlined text in her speech above is something I fully support. But I know better. Feminists use words such as equality in excess because it is hard to argue against it. Of course everybody wants equality, justice, etcetera. Feminism uses tricks like this to recruit people, and it has proven to be very effective. A lot of men and women are now calling themselves feminists without even knowing what it means. They too use the terms "equality", "justice" and such, believing that their definition of equality and justice is the same as the ones upheld by feminist doctrine. It is also very common to hear young adults repeat that "patriarchy is to blame for everything that is wrong". They are referring to a fictional patriarchy that feminism themselves made up. These people are blindly following feminist philosophy – which in truth is; "feminism is in fact a political movement the goal of which is the liberation of women from patriarchal oppression". However, more on this "patriarchy" thing later.
There are feminists and feminists. And not all feminists are feminists. Confused? Well, it shouldn't be if you have read this far. There are feminists who follow the feminist philosophy, which is anti-male thought. And then there are feminists who don't know what feminism really is – but heard some feminists say "equality" and are thus now also calling themselves feminists. We need to separate the two apart:
Feminist – One who adheres to feminism – the opposition to male thought.
Feminist Idiot – Because only idiots follow ideologies blindly.
If a feminist is not against male thought (i.e. "patriarchy"), then it must be a Feminist Idiot and not a real feminist.
Let's talk about consent, or rather consent from the feminist perspective. Again, the feminist perspective on consent is different from what you think. It is a similar problem as discussed earlier about the feminist version of equality. Feminism doesn't really define consent clearly, instead it is taught as something ambiguous, based on the woman's feelings, mood and opinion in the situation she is in – which again, gives women the opportunity to lie about it and claim days or even years later that they indeed got raped because of X and Y reason. Basically the feminist perspective on consent makes it perfectly logical to accuse a man of rape – even if the woman agreed to sex, went home to the guy, stripped down into bed and said "fuck me" during the sex act.
"…consent is all about good communication," says Elle Chase, lead sex educator at the L.A. Academy of Sex Education."
"Sensual wordplay (a.k.a. dirty talk) makes for salacious ongoing negotiation…"
"To give consent, repeat back their words while expressing your passion: 'Yes, yes, put it in my mouth,' or alternately, to deny consent, 'Mmm, I'd rather keep kissing your soft lips.'"
Here we see that consent can never TRULY be given according to feminist philosophy. Consent is instead an act, a form of role-playing that resembles scenes from romance novels. This feminist perspective on consent excludes men, and instead treats men as passive triggers whose sole purpose is to satisfy the fantasy of women. For example, the term 'Mmm, I'd rather keep kissing your soft lips' DOES NOT DEFINE A NO to the question "Suck my dick", or "Get down on your knees", or the more gentleman version "May I please put my penis inside your mouth?" None of these sexual requests are denied by saying 'Mmm, I'd rather keep kissing your soft lips'. Men are not stupid. They will take such a response as something that wastes their time and move on, unless there is definitely going to be sex involved, then they are going to play along, get their sex and then try to move on to a different partner who doesn't put up barriers against their sexual expression. Men don't have time for "Sensual wordplay (a.k.a. dirty talk) makes for salacious ongoing negotiation…", it makes sex weird and fake, again as if taken from a romance novel or movie. Dirty talk becomes enforced due to the fear of being a rapist. Also, I don't know what kind of men these feminists date, but normal men already know their partner.
It is very clear that feminist consent-law exists to manage ONE NIGHT STANDS and sexual encounters between strangers, in other words; men and women who sleep around. It is therefore important that we distinguish feminist consent in the feminist world from the normal consent in the normal world. The feminist consent-law only applies to feminist societies – where people are sleeping around. That's the only world where feminist consent can make sense, because sex with strangers is bound to lead to a lot of miscommunication. Especially when we look at what types of men who do sleep around. They are usually the violent type, social outcasts, from a "patriarchal" perspective and are only socially valued in a feminist society. These types of men were created as a response to survive in a feminist society, and can therefore only exist in a feminist world. Feminism identify them as "alpha males" or "macho guys".
The alpha male or macho guy is a definition set by feminist philosophy, who has reduced the male nature to an animalistic identity; derived directly from the animal kingdom. It is described as power over others through physical prowess, intimidation, domination and coercion. The consequences of this within a feminist society is that men now compete against other men for dominance within social settings… within every social setting. It has also led women to compete against other women for dominance, which explains why women on women violence is increasing. However, this alpha dominance is based on animalistic traits, such as violence and aggression for the reward of establishing a higher social status – to supposedly gain the right to mate, as is true in the animal kingdom. Feminism therefore assumes humans are animals and has bought the theory of Darwinian evolution as truth. But even if Darwinian evolution was true, the human being has leaped far from its supposed origin narrative. This then makes it unrealistic to compare humans with animals. Darwinians claim that the chimpanzee/Bonobo is our closest relative. However, the evolutionary separation between humans and these apes is at least 4 million years. It is therefore illogical to derive examples from ape societies and apply them to human societies. In the past, the so called "alpha male" or "macho guy" would be forced into serving in the military like an animal – by the order of intelligent leaders. That's how the "patriarchy" works, it rewards wisdom and punished animalistic behavior. This is why the supporters of feminism are always the type of people who behave like animals or even worse than animals. This is why the so called "alpha man" and "alpha woman" are popular in feminist societies. This has led many men and women to strive into becoming "alpha men" and "alpha women". However, these identities are artificial and consist of a wide range of human characteristics, as a response to feminist philosophy. For example the trait of dominance is exaggerated because men feel that their natural dominance is being challenged. This results in poor advice that would've gotten any man killed if it was the law of the jungle.
Here is one website trying to encourage men to become "alpha men":
"The problem most men and women that want to be alpha face is a lack of knowledge and guidance on the traits and characteristics necessary to become alpha."
Take an empty cup, now write "alpha man" on the cup with a permanent marker. Now write a bunch of characteristics that you admire down on pieces of paper and put them all inside the cup. That's the "alpha man" identity in a nutshell. And the characteristics all depend on the person's own opinion and what they like and dislike. But if we read multiple of such websites then we will discover that there is a common theme – standard characteristics – that make up the "alpha" person. Such as being dominant, competitive, having vocal presence, ignore everyone else… because everyone else is shit compared to the "alpha". 1, 2, 3
The term "alpha male" was mostly used by scientists to study hierarchies in social animals. So the term being applied to human males is a new trend that follows the feminist effects on society. It was born as a response to how feminism changed the rules between the sexes. And the sole purpose of the "alpha male" identity is for men to succeed at playing the dating game in a feminist society; to succeed with women basically. This has led to a vast array of seduction oriented communities by men who are trying to find their place in a feminist society. But that's exactly the problem. The "alpha male" is one who accepts feminism. Because the entire identity of the "alpha male" was born as a response to changes by feminism, and is thus about surviving under feminist rule. In the old days, an "alpha male" would have easily gotten himself killed by the woman's father, husband, brothers or sons, or at least severely wounded for his unsocial behavior.
"Rather than relying on aggressive dominance, humans are actually far more cooperative and social. Some evidence suggests that our friendliness and sociability is what made us so smart to begin with, so rather than being the top humans, you could argue that alpha males are something of an evolutionary throwback, the civilization equivalent of an appendix; no longer used, just hangs around and occasionally fills everything with poison."
The "alpha male" identity only serves the feminist agenda by turning men into animals. This is to combat the male nature that would naturally lead to a patriarchal identity, which is obtained as the male experiences life and gains wisdom. These men then guide the younger generation – to create and maintain order in society. However, by turning men into "alpha males", men become preoccupied with chasing women and competing with other men about things that don't really matter in life, nor increase their wisdom or spiritual strength. Feminism thus turn men into animals or even worse than animals, because even animals have morals.
"Men are animals and machines, nothing else but walking dildos."
"He ["the male"] is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than apes, because he is, first of all, capable of a large array of negative feelings that the apes aren't – hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, disgrace, doubt – and, secondly, he is aware of what he is and isn't."
"Overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex".
Here is even more dumb crazy things feminists say, enjoy!
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."
"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men."
"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things."
"'kill all male babies and any man you see in the streets'"
As you can see, feminism is WORKING to reduce men into an animalistic entity. The result is the "alpha male". In reality, the "alpha male" is the male that would not succeed in a patriarchal society because of his unsocial/immoral behavior. However, the feminist society has successfully made these type of dysfunctional men the ideal. Now many young and inexperienced men desperately see the "alpha male" as a role model. WHY? Because it is advertised as the only solution for gaining access to women and reproduction. However, this is far from the truth. Women are passive and they will always respond to social demands. If men begin demanding moral behavior from women; by demanding marriage and virginity/chastity. Then most women will begin to behave morally again.
THE PATRIARCHY? So what is this patriarchy thing that feminists keep talking about? Again, as mentioned before, a word might mean one thing for us – but something completely different for feminists. The patriarchy that feminists are referring to is actually the injustice towards women by rulers and law-makers under the common law system. However, this is not patriarchy, it's just injustice and tradition. Their definition comes from looking at Christianity and Christian history in Europe. This was a law system derived from old examples, before Christianization and early Christianization. They were carried over from generation of kings and elites to the next generation of kings and elites.
However, what they don't understand is that during the early times of Christianity in Europe, most of the communities were barbaric and in constant war with each other. For example the Saxons and Vikings converted to Christianity and they brought their old barbaric traditions into this new religion. They would also build their communities out of the Christian ideology, but with an interpretation that coincided with their old traditions and their old law-system. This led to a very nasty interpretation of Christianity. Which later resulted in witch hunts and all kinds of crazy stuff. It is therefore important that we distinguish crazy from sexism. People were superstitious and ignorant, this is something feminism ignores whenever it blames "the patriarchy".
The conflicts were never ending, so there was really not much time available to create reforms. People were still trying to discover basic philosophies after decades of paganism and naturalism. Europe wasn't introduced to the old philosophers until around the year 1200. It was at this time that people began to spend time on intellectual pursuits. However, conflict kept springing up.
In the years of 1300 the European region got hit by famine, people had no food, crops were ruined due to extreme weather conditions, which also ruined the economy. This then led to revolts due to the poor governance. Then came the plague, it took the most lives between 1346 and 1353, however, it continued to cause mass-deaths all the way up to the 19th century. Killing off at least half of the European population.
Then around the years of 1500; publishing houses sprung up after the printing press was invented. This is when information became more easily available – after years of illiteracy. Yes, before the year 1500, basically nobody could read, unless they were rich and could afford an education. However, the printing press made it cheaper to access literature and thus made it cheaper for the lower class and middle class to obtain learning material. Before all this, people would simply ACCEPT what they were taught by their preachers and law makers.
As people became literate, they also began to learn about injustice and learn that life CAN be better. This led to new technologies and improvements. It was during this time that people began to question the church, they began to explore spirituality. A lot of things BEGAN to happen, which was not possible in the past. This led to identity crises, new philosophies popped up, ancient philosophies were re-introduced, a need for identity was needed, the concept of a master race began to grow, this led to colonization of other "lesser" RACES. This caused wars between nations and proxy wars through colonies. The murdering of indigenous peoples were in the hundred-millions in total across the globe. That's at least 100 000 000 people being murdered because of their skin color.
The European countries were in constant conflict among themselves. The United States of America was born after much struggle, who then put an end to the European colonization of North-American and South-America. Also, don't forget that the Wild West WAS A REAL THING:
Yes, these are actual outlaws/bandits/"alpha males" who thought it was cool to rob banks and trains… pay close attention to how dead they are.
"The major type of banditry was conducted by the infamous outlaws of the West, including Jesse James, Billy the Kid, the Dalton Gang, Black Bart, Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch and hundreds of others who preyed on banks, trains, stagecoaches, and in some cases even armed government transports such as the Wham Paymaster Robbery and the Skeleton Canyon Robbery."
Then came TWO WORLD WARS, yes, TWO OF THEM, the total death toll for these two world wars was around 60 million COMBAT related deaths. Then an additional 30 to 40 million death due to famine and disease in the aftermath of the wars. Governments and leaders were focusing on survival, so that's where most of the resources and thought-energy went.
Basically, life was miserable for everybody, not just women. However, nations began to adopt democracy, which led to stability, peace and law-making, this made it easier to recognize where reforms were needed. And that's where the Women's Suffrage comes in. They saw that the law was unfair towards women. WHY? Because the law was based on traditional law-making from the past eras. IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL; a byproduct of our vile and barbaric history. If the patriarchy really was out there to oppress women, then there wouldn't have been any reforms, and women today would be without any equal rights. You can't deny this fact. There have been many social movements to improve life… Women's Suffrage was ONE of them, it is therefore unfair to claim that there was such a thing as "the patriarchy" that intentionally oppressed women. There was a lot of injustice, not just against women. But society was growing and learning, it was a natural process, and we just happen to be living in a time that allows us to improve upon life in ways that was not possible in the past. Here are some links if you want to study about various social movements throughout our history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements
So, when feminists say "patriarchy", they are then referring to a fictional barbaric monster who intentionally oppressed women in some secluded ancient tribe 3000 years ago.
Any man who obtains experience and wisdom, then guides others; is a patriarch. Any woman who obtains experience and wisdom, then guides others; is a matriarch. These patriarchs and matriarchs are parents, grandparents, grand-grandparents, religious leaders, and teachers. They guide in all aspects of life, so their knowledge and wisdom is immense. They guide economically, socially, spiritually, morally, legally, etcetera. These men and women are the bedrock of any society. Patriarchs and Matriarchs thrive in large families with strong ties; stretching generations. However, as feminism keeps intruding on the family unit, patriarchs and matriarch find themselves powerless – because feminism seeks to destroy the family unit. This leads to weaker families and stronger governments. People become more dependent on government, rather than on their own family. Feminism will therefore lead a society towards communism and totalitarianism. This is not theory, or conspiracy, this is ACTUALLY HAPPENING, one step at a time.
Patriarchs and Matriarchs serve to keep both young men and women in check. It inspires them to be better people through guidance and wisdom. If wisdom and kindness is cherished, then all men and women will strive towards wisdom and kindness.
Feminism is bad, however, I believe it has brought up something we should worry about, which is the following:
Has our historic narrative and scientific discoveries been biased against women? I believe this is a very important task that should be taken seriously. For example, when I was in school, almost everything we read was about men and how great those achievements BY MEN were. There were very few, if any; female figures. I think it is important that we take this more seriously. We need to investigate this and begin including achievements BY WOMEN. We read about Napoleon or the Roman emperors, however, I believe the history of their spouses should also be included in the text. It is important for young girls to find role models and really feel that women do have their place in history. This way women will grow up feeling a deeper connection to the importance of their female nature. So instead of having billions of women trying to fit in, we will instead have women who treat civilization as their child.
I recommend the following solution for all these social issues – which is actually the only solution – described as divine commandments by GOD.
Virginity and Chastity – will help teens deal with their new emotions after puberty. It is interesting that before puberty; all attraction and love towards the other sex is based on everything other than sexual attraction, such as personality, common interests, kindness, humor etcetera. However, after puberty, all attraction and love is suddenly solely based on sexual attraction. This clearly reveals that all love and attraction between teens and young adults is solely based on sexual attraction. The individual is being exposed to new hormonal reactions; something that the individual had never experienced the first 12 years of his or her life. It is therefore reasonable to conclude through deduction that this new experience is NATURAL; and not a divine or spiritual truth for justifying sexual intercourse with whoever is triggering the sexual attraction. It is therefore logical to dismiss all "love" among teen and young adults as superficial and false until they've developed control over their new hormonal reaction; which again wasn't there for the first 12 years of their existence. Instead this new experience (caused by new hormones after puberty) must be understood and put under the individuals own control. This is done best by promoting Virginity and Chastity. It allows teens and young adults to find the divide between sexual attraction, normal attraction and love. This will make them grow up into becoming stable and balanced individuals who can control their own lust.
Marriage and Morality – by being in control of ones own lust, an individual becomes attractive as a life partner. And if marriage demands virginity and chastity, then individuals will be less prone to indulge in immoral behavior, which would otherwise only ruin their chance at attracting a life partner. This is the mistake many men and women are doing due to feminism – their immoral misconduct only proves that they are untrustworthy partners. If we take a look at our society today, then we can witness how people are sex-crazed maniacs who have no self-control over their lust. This is because feminism have destroyed the purpose behind being a moral person. You don't need to be a moral person in a feminist society, because you can find a partner that is equally corrupt as you.
Order and Punishment – a society that doesn't punish adultery and other immoral behaviors; will succumb to immorality, as is the case in a feminist society. The punishment for adultery creates a value for the seriousness of the crime. By removing the punishment for adultery, you also remove the seriousness of the crime. If you remove the punishment for stealing, then stealing is no longer a serious offense. If you remove the punishment for murder, then murder is no longer a serious offense. If you remove the punishment for driving over the speed limit, then driving over the limit is no longer a serious offense. Throughout human civilization we have witnessed the effectiveness of law and punishment. GOD gave us the punishment for adultery as a divine commandment that sets the seriousness of the crime and it is as follows:
100 lashes for mature and intelligent offenders (the independent individual).
50 lashes for younger or ignorant offenders (individuals that are dependent on others; teens, servants, weak etc).
80 lashes for falsely accusing married women for adultery (accusing women of adultery without being able to prove it is a very serious offense).
House Arrest for women who have cheated with at least 4 different men (this protects society from disease, it also protects married men from seductresses who would ruin his marriage, and prevents the risk of spreading diseases to the husband who would then spread it to his wife).
100 and 50 lashes is the value of cheating. This is why many people report that cheating is the ultimate betrayal, many people get killed and a lot of property is vandalized because of cheating. Yet governments still don't punish it. Which gives people little hope for justice. And without justice there is no security. Which creates fear and stress in a relationship, because people are worried their partner might cheat on them. People take justice into their own hand. "Local reports say that the man tied his wife to the car because she was cheating on him". Cheating has also become a wide-spread problem. Lashing would solve this immediately. It will eliminate the spread of disease and reduce the amount of abortions drastically. Did you know what there is at least 40 000 000 abortion each year? That's forty million babies being murdered each year by proud independent feminists… or rather satanists!
"Infidelity is considered one of the most emotionally traumatic and stressful events a person can go through."
"Coping with a spouse's infidelity is one of life's most stressful events."
The 80 lashes for falsely accusing married women is a very interesting punishment. This alone would increase women's respect in society, nobody would dare shout "slut" at women or spread rumors about women. This also protects a woman from evil men and women who would try to ruin her reputation or seek to ruin her current relationship. Not many societies offer women this kind of protection. Which ends up causing a lot of revenge acts on a personal level, because it is not something that can be brought into court. It is illegal to accuse people of crimes they didn't commit, but it is not illegal to accuse women or men for cheating – this discrepancy in the law makes absolutely no sense, especially since being accused of cheating can affect men and women on a deep personal level where she can lose her family. Remember, you need evidence. So even if you know a woman has been cheating on her husband, you still won't be able to accuse her or call her a slut without evidence. This will create a culture of respect towards women. It will also protect women from being exposed to public shaming by people who wish to insult her or ruin her public image. Is calling a woman a slut worth 80 lashes? I don't think so. I don't think you do either. And I believe most people won't take that risk either. This is why this law is important to protect women.
The interesting part about these punishments is that once the offender has been punished, then they are basically re-born. So if someone cheated and got their 100 lashes, then it is wrong to judge that person afterwards. They paid for their crime and should be left alone in peace as if nothing had happened. This removes the social pressure off the offender so they can live their life without feeling ostracized.
House Arrest might also seem as something OUT THERE into the extreme direction. But its not. The woman is limited to her own home. It's just that she isn't allowed to go out and seduce men, such as her neighbors or at the workplace. There are many such women; they get jealous of married women and seek to take away their husband. TO THEM it is a game, they are just like animals, and therefore it is only logical that such people should be treated like animals. And how do we treat animals? Well, we limit their freedom into specific areas, so they can't roam around destroying peoples property. The solution for her is if someone marries her, this way her sexual lust will be satisfied, which reduces the risk of her chasing and seducing men. Or until her diseases are cured, only then can she be allowed to leave her home.
These are GOD's commandments – as part of divine morality, which feminism/satanism seeks to destroy. Now these might seem too extreme and you might feel repulsed, but that's because you have been brainwashed by feminism. However, in the years to come – as feminism continues to corrupt society – you will come back to these commandments and see them as divine truth and the only solution to save your society.
BE WARNED. If a society does not change, and children continue to be brainwashed to serve feminism/satanism, then GOD will mark a society for some sort of destruction or total annihilation – in order to protect other communities from being afflicted by the immoralities of said society. Sodom wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality alone. Instead Sodom – and many communities like it – were destroyed because the people BECAME ACCUSTOMED to their immoral behavior, to the point of indoctrinating their children into committing such abnormal immoralities. Meaning, the society was hopelessly locked in sin.
So in order to protect future generations and other communities, GOD decided to annihilate such a society. And we can witness this process in modern time, as feminism slowly infects every home through law-making; schools teaching children to accept gender-fluidity and LGBT abnormalities. Other issues are: Censorship of criticism (freedom of speech is under attack), freedom to live according to GOD's commandments, racism, organized-crime, drugs and all kinds of immoralities is on the rise. All these will contribute to a societies' own downfall. It is therefore evident that feminism is just another word for Satan's ambition to inflict evil upon mankind.
These divine commandments should be on a government level, just like how the punishment for stealing is. These punishments should be done by the government to eliminate emotional bias against the offender – this will also maintain order. The punishments should be conducted outside the view of the public with only a handful of witnesses, namely the afflicted parties – such as the parents, husband, wife, siblings, doctors, judges, and moral leaders or counselors within the immediate community.
Yes, it is barbaric.
Yes, it is primitive.
But so is crime.
Again, these laws originate from the same source as the laws against stealing and murdering. They are designed specifically in order for the human being to create a healthy, peaceful and functioning society. They are delicate pieces that depend on each other, excluding one law is enough to offset the whole system.