U.K MP Stella Creasy: “Feminism isn’t about women, it’s about power”

that’s her words not mine

10:05; “Feminism isn’t about women, it’s about power”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srt3AQyrs_E

 

and she is an affirmative action/diversity hire

In 2010 Creasy was selected from an all-female shortlist as the Labour Party candidate for Walthamstow,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Creasy#In_Parliament

 

 

 

 

 

Mother-of-one, 19, who was obsessed with male sacrifice stabbed her lover five times ‘while dressed as a clown after persuading him to put a pillow on his head for sex and saying “trust me”‘

A young mum fascinated by murder and male sacrifice stabbed a teenager five times after persuading him to cover his face with a pillow before sex, a court heard.

Kieran Bewick told the Carlisle Crown Court how moments before Zoe Adams plunged a 10-inch blade into his torso, she said: ‘Trust me.’

Adams sat quietly in the dock as the 18-year-old gave his harrowing account of events that led to him being stabbed in Wigton on July 29 last year.

The 19-year-old admitted defendant to intentionally causing him grievous bodily harm, but insisted Mr Bewick’s story was made up.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5679891/Mum-19-obsessed-male-sacrifice-stabbed-lover-five-times-sex.html#ixzz5EIxmKfEp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Woman stabs husband for looking at other women

SAN ANTONIO – Bruce Springsteen once sang “you can look, but you better not touch,” but the Boss apparently needs to change those lyrics.

A Texas woman was arrested and charged with aggravated assault for allegedly stabbing her husband because he had been looking at other women while they were out.

 

Star Perez, 27, and her husband argued over the unapproved ogling after returning to their home from the city’s Fiesta event, reports KSAT.

Perez grabbed a kitchen knife and swung at her husband, stabbing him in the arm.

Police said Perez told her husband “I could ******* kill you right now. You don’t even know. I could kill you.”

Perez’s husband of 11 years ran from the home and called police.

 

https://www.local10.com/news/weird-news/woman-stabs-husband-for-looking-at-other-women

Campaign to remove Male Genocide Proponent Clementine Ford as the speaker of a Lifeline event for tweeting ‘Kill all men’

Suicide prevention group Lifeline is being lobbied to remove controversial feminist Clementine Ford as the keynote speaker of domestic violence awareness forum.

change.org petition argued her previous tweets saying ‘kill all men’ and ‘all men must die’ made her unsuitable to address the ‘Recognise, Respond, Refer’ event in Melbourne next month.

‘It is extremely important that they remain distant from the hateful comments previously made very loudly and consistently by Ms Ford,’ the petition, which has amassed 399 signatures, said.

‘She MUST be removed from the speaking lineup for the protection of the very people you are funded to support.’

Petition author Adam Smith included screen shots of Ms Ford’s inflammatory tweets and argued she was synonymous with the hashtag, ‘#killallmen’.

‘Lifeline is a service that is crucial to people experiencing high levels of emotional distress, many of them suicidal over bullying experiences,’ he said.

In October 2015, Clementine Ford tweeted ‘kill all men’ after a woman suggested on Twitter her ‘blind hatred of males’ made it hypocritical of her to be an advocate of equal rights.

One woman questioned how Lifeline could give her a platform, considering many men with mental health problems relied on the service.

‘It’s hard enough for men to call a helpline to talk about how they are feeling,’ she said on the Facebook page of former Labor leader Mark Latham.

 

‘Now I feel men may not utilise this important lifeline for them.’

However, Lifeline said it did not necessarily agree with Clementine Ford’s views on men.

‘It is common place for a range of views and perspectives to occur in a discussion panel,’ it told Daily Mail Australia.

‘Lifeline does not necessarily agree with any particular panel member or commentator’s views.’

Clementine Ford said she had ‘addressed the intention behind these statements numerous times’.

‘If we lived in a world where women were murdering men en masse and men genuinely had reason to fear they might be murdered in their beds by a gang of marauding feminists, I would agree with your concern,’ she told Daily Mail Australia on Monday.

‘As it is is, we live in a world where it’s women who are being murdered by men at a minimum rate of one a week in this country, not to mention the countless circumstances of sexual violence, physical harassment and ongoing domestic violence perpetrated against women.’

The author of ‘Fight Like A Girl’ has also previously tweeted ‘I bathe in male tears’ and last year wrote ‘Have you killed any men today? And if not, why not?’ in a book signed for a fan.

 

Ms Ford, a Fairfax Media columnist, is  due to speak at the State Library Victoria on May 29 at the ‘Recognise, Respond, Refer’ forum moderated by former Ten and Sky News presenter Tracey Spicer, who is spearheading the ‘Me Too’ movement against male workplace sexual predators in Australia.

‘Clementine’s number one mission is to speak openly and honestly about the state of the world as we live in it,’ the event organisers said.

‘She hopes to give other women the language and confidence to articulate their own feelings of frustration and anger.’

The event, organised by DV Alert and Lifeline, will explore family violence.

‘”Recognise” the signs of domestic and family violence, “Respond” with appropriate care and “Refer” to support services,’ the conference posted on the Eventbrite website said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5672447/Campaign-remove-Clementine-Ford-speaker-Lifeline-event-tweeting-Kill-men.html

Liberal Democrat NPR Headline Calls Kanye West a ‘Colored Boy’

NPR deployed 1840s-style racism in a headline that ran over the weekend.

The article, titled “For Colored Boys Who’ve Considered Career Suicide When Good Music Wasn’t Enough,” refers to megastar Kayne West, who broke the Internet last week tweeting out strong support for President Trump and a rejection of Democrat victimhood policies toward black Americans.

The article by Rodney Carmichael, a black writer, laments Kanye for not towing the party line by coming forward to support Trump. Carmichael works as a hip-hop journalist for NPR, a network with possibly the whitest audience in existence.

“It amounts to what many have rightly interpreted as a denial of systemic racism, couched in free-thought rhetoric. But political leverage in the electoral sense is not Kanye’s primary motive — it’s access to an absolute power and privilege that black boys from the south side of Chicago aren’t blessed with at birth. That hasn’t stopped him from following the blueprint of a long line of men who’ve used capital to compromise our national conscience,” Carmichael writes.

The use of the term “boy” to refer to a grown black man is an old racist trope that has been long-taboo. “Colored” is also a dated term you won’t even hear on network television. All bets appear to be off as long as the author’s target is a black person who has rejected the Democrat party.

Journalists who favor the Democrat party feel no hesitation in using racial epithets toward black people like Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Paris Denard, and others, like “Uncle Tom” or “House Negros” or “Coons” for not towing the party line. Meanwhile, the same commentators collective heads nearly exploded over Donald Trump referring to a black man by saying “Look at my African-American” during the 2016 campaign.

The NPR article goes on:

“Black Twitter has its own hot takes. One popular meme finds George Bush turning the tables on the rapper who notoriously criticized him during failed disaster recovery efforts following Hurricane Katrina.

“Kanye West doesn’t care about black people,” it reads. “History may be a better judge, but for now the joke’s on us.”

Carmichael regularly tweets out material from Black Lives Matter and retweets a white activist claiming to speak for black people, Shaun King. Recently he referred to Kanye as the “new O.J.” due to his stance with the president.

The Republican party has historical roots in the abolition of slavery and fighting for civil rights. In 1868 the first African Americans were elected to office on the Republican ticket. All three of the nation’s civil rights bills were Republican initiatives. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was authored by Republicans and voted in by an overwhelmingly Republican majority, only to be reluctantly signed into law by Democratic president Lyndon Johnson.

 

https://www.dangerous.com/43845/npr-headline-calls-kanye-west-colored-boy/

 

 

 

University Of Texas Mental Health Center Defends Its Anti-male Emasculation Re-education Program

Struggling with your masculinity, particularly all those unfair burdens placed on you by our hypermasculine, gender norms-promoting patriarchal society, which probably have you thinking violent thoughts right now? Well, if you’re a student at the University of Texas, you’re in luck because the folks over there at the Counseling and Mental Health Center are finally addressing masculinity as the mental health crisis it truly is — though that’s not how they would put it.

In a report for PJ Media, Toni Airaksinen provides a hilarious/disturbing look at what amounts to a masculinity rehabilitation program at Texas called “MasculinUT.” The program isn’t some wacky seminar designed by the increasingly hysterical people over in Gender Studies. No, this has been developed by the university’s mental health center which is concerned about students failing to develop a “healthy model of masculinity.” Airaksinen reports:

The program is predicated on a critique of so-called “restrictive masculinity.” Men, the program argues, suffer when they are told to “act like a man” or when they are encouraged to fulfill traditional gender roles, such as being “successful” or “the breadwinner.”

Though you might enjoy “taking care of people” or being “active,” MasculinUT warns that many of these attributes are actually dangerous, claiming that “traditional ideas of masculinity place men into rigid (or restrictive) boxes [which]… prevent them from developing their emotional maturity.”

Airaksinen notes that the school is currently looking to hire a “healthy masculinitiescoordinator” to run the program. The program, he notes, has been developed despite a lack of evidence that masculinity itself contributes to violence, as admitted by programs like UNC-Chapel Hill and Northwestern.

Clearly experiencing significant pushback amid unflattering reports on the program, MasculinUT issued a statement that begins with the assertion that the program “does not treat masculinity as a ‘mental health issue,’ and any such statements are simply not accurate.”

 

“It has become clear that some of the communication and discussion surrounding MasculinUT did not convey this fully or clearly and was not effective at reaching the broad audiences the program envisioned,” the apparently embattled program explains. “As a result, we will be reviewing the website and other content to ensure that it serves the program’s goals and will make any appropriate changes as we receive feedback from stakeholders.”

Below is the full text of the program’s defense of itself:

The MasculinUT program does not treat masculinity as a “mental health issue,” and any such statements are simply not accurate. It was established to bring more men to the table to address interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues.

Like other UT programs related to sexual assault and interpersonal violence, MasculinUT is housed administratively in the university’s Counseling and Mental Health Center. Its goals include helping men explore ways to reduce sexual violence, helping students take responsibility for their actions, and fostering healthier relationships on campus and beyond.

These are important goals that we strongly stand behind. It has become clear that some of the communication and discussion surrounding MasculinUT did not convey this fully or clearly and was not effective at reaching the broad audiences the program envisioned. As a result, we will be reviewing the website and other content to ensure that it serves the program’s goals and will make any appropriate changes as we receive feedback from stakeholders.

Earlier this year, the UT System Board of Regents approved funding for mental health, student safety, and alcohol-related initiatives including efforts to reduce sexual assaults on campus. The new staff position that will oversee this program, and coordinate with other UT System schools, is part of those efforts funded by the Regents.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30023/university-texas-mental-health-center-defends-its-james-barrett

A New Aristocracy

The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.

 

And as that threat grows, so the ostensible power of feminism grows.

 

The history of feminism is the history of a female sexual trade union, growing in political power in exact correspondence with the steady loss of female sexual power caused by the continual widening of the sexual market. The opening up of the sex market, the ever increasing opportunities for men to gain access to cheap and anonymous sex, is the result of constantly emerging new technology, and itself completely out of the hands of feminists, or anybody else, to control or put a stop to.

ahistoryoffeminism.com

https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/a-new-aristocracy/

April 28, 2018 By  6 Comments

 

When Marxist activist Rudi Dutschke looked at ways to stage a neo-Marxist revolution he hit on the plan of “a long march through the institutions of power to create radical change from within government and society by becoming an integral part of the machinery.” His strategy was to work against the established institutions while working surreptitiously within them. Evidence of the attempt to implement his plan can be seen today through many levels of society – especially in universities.

Marxists however are not the only ones to use this strategy. In fact when we look at the numerous political forces attempting to infiltrate and influence our cultural institutions we see that another, much more influential candidate, has twisted its tendrils through every layer of society – and it existed long before Marx and Marxism was born. That force is political feminism,1 whose culture project has been in play now for several hundred years.

Protofeminists like Lucrezia Marinella, Mary Wollstoncraft, Margaret Cavendish, Modesta Pozzo, or Christine de Pizan were advocating a ‘long march’ through institutions for centuries before Marxism emerged and began its tragic experiment. Pizan’s main book for example titled A City of Ladies sketched an imaginary city whose institutions were controlled completely by women, and each of the protofeminists advanced some theory of female rule or ‘integration’ of women into governing institutions. Later feminists followed suit, such as Charlotte Perkins Gillman wrote the famed book HerLand (1915) envisioning a society run entirely by women who reproduce by parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction), resulting in an ideal (utopic) social order free from war, conflict, and male domination.

A survey of protofeminist writings reveals consistent advocacy for the superior abilities of women as functionaries: women’s greater compassion, virtue, nonviolence, intelligence, patience, superior morality and so on, combined with a concomitant descriptions of male destructiveness, insensitivity and inferiority as we see continued in the rhetoric of modern feminists.

Via that polarizing narrative feminists sought to grab not just a big slice of the governance pie; as contemporary feminists have shown they would stop at nothing but the whole pie. Nothing but complete dominance of the gendered landscape would satisfy their lust for control, and it appears they have succeeded.

We see that dominance in women’s occupation of pivotal bureaucratic positions throughout the world, from the UN and World Bank all the way down through national governments, schools and universities, and HR departments in most medium to large workplaces. Feminists not only govern the world via these roles, but as surveyed in Janet Halley’s recent book Governance Feminism: An Introduction, that governance is far from the utopia early feminist promised.

The long feminist tradition underlines the danger of viewing ‘the march through the institutions’ as a Cultural Marxism project, because it deflects us from the historically longer, more powerful, more dangerous and ultimately more successful project that is political feminism.

Moreover, the protagonists of Marxist and feminist worldviews are not one and the same; the former aims to dismantle social-class oppression, and the latter gender oppression. While there are some individuals working to amalgamate these two contrary theories into a hybrid of Frankenstein proportions, their basic theoretical aims remain distinct.

Like Marxism, feminism too can be imagined as a socio-political ideology, in this case modelling itself on a medieval feudalism which was structured with two social classes: 1. A noble class of aristocrats, priests, princes and princesses, and 2. a peasant class of serfs and slaves overseen by indentured vassals.

Stripped of its medieval context we see the purveyors of political feminism working to institute a new sex-stratified version of feudalism which serves to maximize the power of women. With this move we have seen an increased tendency to emphasize women’s “power,” “dignity,” “honor,” “esteem” and “respect” – descriptors historically reserved for dignitaries.

As in medieval times, the assets and wealth generated by the labour class – predominately men – are taxed and redistributed to the new quasi-aristocratic class via a plethora of social spending programs of governments, or alternatively via asset transfers like alimony, child support, divorce settlements and other court mandated conventions. Children themselves form part of that asset portfolio which men are often forced to relinquish to women in the event of divorce. In the face of such practices men are reminded that women’s “dignity” is very much at stake, and their acquiescence mandatory.

The push to establish a female aristocratic class has long been recognized, as mentioned by the following writer from more than a century ago (1896), who in his ‘Letter To The editor’ observed the granting of unequal social privileges to female prisoners;

A paragraph in your issue of the week before last stated that oakum-picking as a prison task had been abolished for women and the amusement of dressing dolls substituted. This is an interesting illustration of the way we are going at present, and gives cause to some reflection as to the rate at which a sex aristocracy is being established in our midst. While the inhumanity of our English prison system, in so far as it affects men, stands out as a disgrace to the age in the eyes of all Europe, houses of correction for female convicts are being converted into agreeable boudoirs and pleasant lounges…

I am personally in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment, as I am of existing prison inhumanities, for both sexes, but the snivelling sentiment which exempts females on the ground of sex from every disagreeable consequence of their actions, only strengthens on the one side every abuse which it touches on the other. Yet we are continuously having the din of the “women’s rights” agitation in our ears. I think it is time we gave a little attention to men’s rights, and equality between the sexes from the male point of view.–YoursYours, &c.,, A MANLY PROTESTOR.”2

Another comes from a 1910 Kalgoorlie Miner which reported a push to set up a female aristocracy in America. It was entitled The New Aristocracy:

A question of deep human interest has been raised by The Independent.

“To be successful in the cultivation of culture a country must have a leisure class,” says the editor. “We Americans recognise this fact, but we are going about the getting of this leisure class in a new way.

In Europe the aristocracy is largely relieved from drudgery in order that they may cultivate the graces of life. In America the attempt is being made to relieve the women of all classes from drudgery, and we are glad to see that some of them at least are making good use of the leisure thus afforded them. It is a project involving unprecedented daring and self-sacrifice on the part of American men, this making an aristocracy of half the race. That it is possible yet remains to be proved. Whether it is desirable depends upon whether this new feminine aristocracy avoids the faults of the aristocracy of the Old World, such as frivolousness and snobbishness.”3

Lastly a comment from Adam Kostakis who gives an eloquent summary of feminism’s preference for a neo-feudal society in his Gynocentrism Theory Lectures:

It would not be inappropriate to call such a system sexual feudalism, and every time I read a feminist article, this is the impression that I get: that they aim to construct a new aristocracy, comprised only of women, while men stand at the gate, till in the fields, fight in their armies, and grovel at their feet for starvation wages. All feminist innovation and legislation creates new rights for women and new duties for men; thus it tends towards the creation of a male underclass.”4

By many accounts what we’ve achieved today under feminist modelling is the establishment of a neo-feudal society with women representing an aristocratic class and men the labour class of serfs, slaves and peasants who too often spend their lives looking up from the proverbial glass cellar. When men do rule, it is usually not with a life “free of drudgery” as mentioned above, but with hard-work as CEOs, executives and prime ministers in service of the ruling female class who are busy with little more than lifting their lattes.

This gendered enterprise is now several hundred years in the making, enjoying further consolidations with every passing year of feminist governance. That a widespread female aristocracy now exists is undeniable, at least in the Western world, although we remain reluctant to name it as such for fear of offending our moral betters. We can only hope that the recent petition to abolish the House of Lords becomes infectious and begins to tackle the unearned privileges of those new aristocrats who serve nobody but themselves.

Sources:

[1]. Ernest Belfort Bax coined the phrase ‘political feminism’ in his book The Fraud of Feminism. London: Grant Richards Ltd, 1913
[2] New Feminine Aristocracy; Narrowly Trained Men, Kalgoorlie Miner, Wednesday 5 January 1910, page 2
[3]. A Privileged and Pampered Sex, Letter to the Editor, Reynolds Newspaper, 1896
[4]. Adam Kostakis, Lecture 11: The Eventual Outcome of Feminism –II, Gynocentrism Theory Lectures, 2011

*An earlier version of the above article published in Feminism And The Creation of a Female Aristocracy.