Europe’s Men Are Too Feminine and Can’t Defend Their Women from ‘Rapefugees’

http://russia-insider.com/en/society/europes-tragedy-too-much-angela-merkel-too-little-masculinity/ri12472

 

After the incidents of sexual assault in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve committed by Muslim refugees against German women, feminist apologetics have acquired renewed vigor in the European debate.

Pundits and politicians assure the public that refugee males now storming the gates of Europe from the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia will be required to learn that Western women are independent and sexually liberated. Such arguments, however, are obviously too weak to have any impact on the male cultures representative of certain refugee groups.

To these individuals, strong European women are ‘easy’ and easy victims; they have respect only for strong men – and strong men aren’t exactly thick on the ground in Europe.

The deficiency of masculinity in European culture renders it impotent in the face of the political and cultural chaos that has escalated along with growing immigration.

Instead of a single-minded focus on imposing liberal feminist values on Muslim males, it might well be much more beneficial for Europeans to consider if the feminist war on masculinity might be the underlying cause of the weakness of European culture – feeble and defenseless as it is – against the culture of immigrants and refugees. The irony is that the vacuum feminism has created means that women become victims of an aggressive male culture.

A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre shows that the number of young men in the US who want to marry has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.

American author Suzanne Venker claims that the pervasive cultural influence of feminism is the cause. Venker states that men explain their lack of desire to marry with the observation that “women are no longer women”; feminism has programmed women to see men as the enemy. As a result, males have been made redundant in post-modern Western culture. Women no longer need men as a provider, protector or father of her children; an anonymous semen donor can do the job of creating a baby if a woman so chooses.

Since the 1960s, modern mothers have raised their sons to be women, soaking them in feminine values like accepting responsibility for household chores, being caring, understanding and attentive, and bend to every wish of the woman. This has produced a generation of soft, insecure men, who are out of touch with their masculine nature, identity and strength.

Indeed, Danish police officers were seen playing with refugee children on motorways instead of doing their job of enforcing the law. They were lauded as heroes in the media. They acted like women with soft hearts and not as men entrusted with defending their country and the rule of law.

Camille Pagilla, self-professed “feminist dissident”, put it like this in the Daily Mail: “The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service – hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. That is a recipe for disaster… These people don’t think in military ways, so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we’re just nice and benevolent to everyone they’ll be nice too. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.’ According to Paglia, the results are there for all to see in the on-going dysfunction in Washington, where politicians ‘lack practical skills of analysis and construction’”.

The precise problem is that Europe’s political leaders have no military background, unlike leaders of the past, for instance Roosevelt, de Gaulle and Churchill. For this reason, they lack the basic understanding for defending their culture, their country and its inherent values. They are self-deprecating and apologetic, gullible and caring to the point where their policies become severely harmful to the populations they are supposed to protect.

The feminine approach threatens to throw society into chaos and outright collapse because the rule of law and its enforcement are made subject to the priorities of care, understanding and inclusion. The shortage of masculine virtues affects society and the political system. The shortage of masculine virtues is the underlying cause of the immigration problems.

The present clash with Islam, driven as it is by a dominant male culture, reveals the lamentable shortcomings of post-modern feminist culture, which does not possess the strength to defend itself against a male-dominated culture. The gross violations against women on New Year’s Eve in Cologne provide a chilling reminder of the contrast; male aggression has gained a foothold and feminine values are helpless and unable to resist.

At the moment, Europe resembles a woman who allows herself to be battered and abused by her man. Like many battered women, she tries to cover her man’s violations, makes excuses for him, and returns to him time after time.

At the same time, immigration is inevitable in a globalized world. If Europe is to survive in an age of mass migration, there must be a male revolution. This revolution will be as important as the struggle for women’s rights in the 1960s. It is vital for Western men to acknowledge this need and start building social, cultural and political capital based on masculine virtues to defend the values upon which Europe is based.

 

Farrah Abraham the Girl who cried rape

Farrah Abraham America’s biggest attention seeker. again cry rape 2-3 months after she falsely accused James Deen of rape. But she finds it ok to date a man with a history of violence against a woman and tried to bond her daughter with him.

http://pagesix.com/2016/03/07/farrah-abraham-admits-she-wasnt-almost-raped-by-uber-driver/

 

“Teen Mom OG” star Farrah Abraham, who last week claimed that an Uber driver “almost raped’’ her, now acknowledges that he never tried to lay a hand on her, but instead was just “looking at her lecherously” and that “it could have escalated into a rape situation.”

Abraham now says, “I got into the car and the gentleman was looking me up and down.”

Abraham described how in January 2015 she ordered an Uber to pick her up from a hotel in Jericho, LI. She claims the driver asked her to walk down the road to his car instead of picking her up in front of the hotel, and then turned around to stare at her as she got in. She said she felt so uncomfortable that she immediately got out of the car.

“Something was wrong with him, like he was mentally disabled,” said Abraham.

Her then-boyfriend Simon Saran came out to talk to the driver and the two got into an argument.

The driver complained to Uber after the incident, and the company responded by banning Abraham. The car service said she appeared to have made the incident up.

So why did she say on her podcast that she was “almost raped”? “It could have escalated into a rape situation,” she explained.

The Soviet Communist Roots of International Women’s Day

 in Eastern Europe feminism is synonymous with communism.

http://theothermccain.com/2015/03/09/international-womens-day-communist-history-feminism/

“International Women’s Day” (IWD) is a Communist holiday. Despite my extensive knowledge of communist history, I didn’t know this until I saw a post on the Tumblr blog of Mehreen Kasana, a Pakistani-born radical feminist who lives in New York:

This time when you celebrate International Women’s Day, make it a point to remember that it started off as International Working Women’s Day until the bourgeoisie hijacked it and removed its class component to present a false and unified ‘sisterhood’ so that women were discouraged from participating in the struggle against upper class hegemony.

Thank you for the tip, Ms. Kasana! It’s amazing the things the bourgeoisie can learn by reading feminist Tumblr blogs. So I checked Wikipedia, and sure enough, it’s true: The first International Women’s Day was organized in 1909 by the Socialist Party of America, and this anti-capitalist holiday played a pivotal role in history:

In 1917 demonstrations marking International Women’s Day in Saint Petersburg on the last Sunday in February (which fell on March 8 on the Gregorian calendar) initiated the February Revolution. Women in Saint Petersburg went on strike that day for “Bread and Peace” — demanding the end of World War I, an end to Russian food shortages, and the end of czarism. [Bolshevik revolutionary] Leon Trotsky wrote, “23 February (8th March) was International Woman’s Day and meetings and actions were foreseen. But we did not imagine that this ‘Women’s Day’ would inaugurate the revolution. Revolutionary actions were foreseen but without date. But in morning, despite the orders to the contrary, textile workers left their work in several factories and sent delegates to ask for support of the strike … which led to mass strike … all went out into the streets.”
Following the October Revolution, the Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai and Vladimir Lenin made it an official holiday in the Soviet Union … On May 8th, 1965 by the decree of the USSR Presidium of the Supreme Soviet International Women’s Day was declared a non-working day in the USSR “in commemoration of the outstanding merits of Soviet women in communistic construction, in the defense of their Fatherland during the Great Patriotic War, in their heroism and selflessness at the front and in the rear, and also marking the great contribution of women to strengthening friendship between peoples, and the struggle for peace. But still, women’s day must be celebrated as are other holidays.”
From its official adoption in Russia following the Soviet Revolution in 1917 the holiday was predominantly celebrated in communist and socialist countries.

 

You can read more of that history here (PDF).

America won the Cold War, but the deadly totalitarian ideology of the Soviet Union — the “Evil Empire” as Ronald Reagan famously called it — has been resurrected in the name of feminism.

Honestly, I knew nothing of this history Sunday when I noticed friends on Twitter mocking International Women’s Day.

@kurt_loder: Tomorrow back to International Men’s Day…” Raping and pillaging 364/365, amirite?

— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) March 8, 2015

 

Look, I’m busy oppressing a wife and two daughters here. Some of you guys have got to step up and shoulder more of the load. @instapundit

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 8, 2015

 

@TayNez81 Exactly. We only gave them a 23-hour day.@instapundit

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 8, 2015

 

As far as I knew then, International Women’s Day was just one of those silly occasions created by the United Nations and promoted by the tax-exempt non-profit feminist groups that feed at the trough where governments and gigantic foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, etc.) shovel out grants to crusading liberal do-gooder types in sensible shoes. Then I noticed radical feminist Laurie Penny pimping IWD.

But @PennyRed is a loyal comrade!http://t.co/3pcdsWypxQ @politicsofone #tcot#InternationalWomensDay pic.twitter.com/yAcTkB6yw0

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 8, 2015

 

Remember @PennyRed loves Bolsheviks and hates love!http://t.co/3pcdsWypxQ #tcot #InternationalWomensDaypic.twitter.com/vT3b2Anfkp

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 8, 2015

 

That’s right: Laurie Penny’s book quoted Alexandra Kollontai, the Bolshevik commissar who helped make IWD a holiday in the Soviet Union! Let’s quote the commissar, eh?

“The communist economy does away with the family. In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . the family loses its significance as an economic unit. The external economic functions of the family disappear . . .
“Once the family has been stripped of its economic functions and its responsibilities towards the younger generation and is no longer central to the existence of the woman, it has ceased to be a family.”
— Alexandra Kollontai, 1921

This, my friends, is the ideology celebrated on the communist holiday International Women’s Day. The more you know about feminism, the more you recognize its familiar totalitarian agenda.

 

Your weekly reminder: Every single word of that is true.http://t.co/0k3yb05rVO #tcotpic.twitter.com/Ca19xQ9MUz

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 9, 2015

 

#3 in Amazon HOT NEW RELEASES for Women’s Studies? SEX TROUBLE! http://t.co/CVs298JVTh Kindle $1.99pic.twitter.com/eoysTVbM93

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 8, 2015

 

Despite our “upper class hegemony,” my oppressed wife and I must still pay that bourgeois capitalist electricity bill. Please help your comrades in this struggle: Hit the freaking tip jar!

 

 

‘Heterosexuality Is the Structure That Keeps Sexist Oppression in Place’

 

““Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement so in the search for recognition of my struggle, with each day that passed, I deconstructed my heterosexuality and was substituting it with an artificial bisexuality.”

 

“hatred against men, hatred against the beauty of women, hatred against the equilibrium of families. That’s what feminism is”

- Sara Fernanda Giromin former member of FEMEN

http://theothermccain.com/2016/03/07/heterosexuality-is-the-structure-that-keeps-sexist-oppression-in-place/

 

“According to feminism the role of heterosexuality is what structures the male-female relationship. Heterosexuality is the structure that keeps sexist oppression in place in the private realm; where sexism in general operates to also oppress in the public sphere. In other words heterosexuality reinforces the hierarchy established by sexism to keep women dominated in ‘sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family.’”
— “Heterosexuality: The Role it Plays in Feminism and Lesbianism,” 2007

That quote is from a Portland State University student enrolled in a course (“Gender and Critical Inquiry,” WS301) in the department ofWomen, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. The syllabus of that course shows that the assigned text was Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (edited by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, 2002), and the readings included such radical lesbians as Charlotte Bunch, Monique Wittig and Audre Lorde. The student quotes from “Separating Lesbian Theory From Feminist Theory,” an essay by Cheshire Calhoun in the textbook, where she says that “from a feminist perspective, sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family are all danger zones,” being patriarchal institutions that “serve male interests.”

Trying to explain feminist theory to a stranger Saturday night at the Project Veritas CPAC party, I realized he thought I was a lunatic. What most people think of as feminism — a commitment to “equality,” understood as basic fairness — bears little resemblance to what is taught in the university Women’s Studies programs that enroll more than 90,000 students on some 700 campuses in the United States. Women in these courses learn to despise motherhood, to celebrate abortion, to fear men as perpetrators of sexual violence, and to consider heterosexuality a synonym for oppression. When you try to describe this paranoid anti-male belief system to people, they look at you like you’re crazy. Maybe I am crazy to read Women’s Studies textbooks like Feminist Frontiers,Women and GenderRethinking SexualityGender TroubleToward a Feminist Theory of the State and Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions, but it is impossible for anyone who hasn’t read this stuff to believe how extreme academic feminism has become. So when I summarize these theories — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — people look at me as if I’ve slipped a cog.

As insane as it may seem, however, this radical ideology is what the word “feminism” now means on campuses. Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned us, and the consequences of feminist ideas are manifest throughout academia, e.g., the University of Pittsburgh:

 In the spirit of free speech, Pitt’s Student Government Board passed the microphone [March 1] to a line of students speaking out about a controversial speaker whose visit SGB partially funded.
At its public meeting in Nordy’s Place, students packed the William Pitt Union’s multipurpose room to speak their piece on Milo Yiannopoulos’ lecture [Feb. 29]. . . .
SGB President Nasreen Harun amended the agenda at the meeting to allow for more time for student comments. . . .
Board member Everett Green said, in his three semesters on the Board, this was the first time he had seen a student response of this magnitude at a meeting. . . .
Marcus Robinson, president of Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance, said after leaving the lecture on Monday, he felt unsafe on campus for the first time.
“So many of us shared in our pain. I felt I was in danger, and I felt so many people in that room were in danger. This event erased the great things we’ve done,” Robinson said. “For the first time, I’m disappointed to be at Pitt.”
Robinson suggested that the University should have provided counselors in a neighboring room to help students who felt “invalidated” or “traumatized” by the event. . . .
“This is more than hurt feelings, this is about real violence. We know that the violence against marginalized groups happens every day in this country. That so many people walked out of that [event] feeling in literal physical danger is not alright,” Claire Matway, a social work and urban studies major, said. . . .
In response to student comments, Harun said, with teary eyes, said the best way to make an impact on campus was to begin conversations like this with the Board.
“Now is a good time talk about [amending the allocations manual]. It starts here and we can take it from there,” Harun said. “We’re very sorry people are feeling the way they are and it was not intended … and we’re sorry people are not proud to be at Pitt.”

 

This kind of rhetoric — students claiming to be “traumatized” and “feeling in literal danger” because someone contradicted their opinions — shows how ideological conformity has made universities a bubble, a cocoon where students never encounter criticism of “progressive” dogma. Consider this mission statement:

The University of Pittsburgh Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program is an interdisciplinary academic program focusing on excellence in teaching and research relating to gender, sexuality, and women. The Program is committed to promoting feminist and LGBTQIA activism, pedagogy, and scholarship that engage with the larger local, national, and global communities. Program offerings provide opportunities for students and faculty to explore the historical development, cultural variations, and changing representations of gender and sexuality as they organize identities, interactions, and institutions and intersect in complex ways with sex, race, class, ethnicity, ability, age, religion, and nation.

 

Notice that this academic program is “committed to promoting feminist and LGBTQIA activism” — it is a department with a political agenda. Among recent events on the department’s calendar was a book release party for the program director’s new book that claims to be “the first sustained and comprehensive study of Renaissance textual responses to Platonic same-sex sexuality.” Another event was a lecture by Professor Susan Wells, “In Search of the Clitoris: Writing and the Body in Our Bodies, Ourselves.” Permit me to suggest that nobody smart enough to go to college should require a lecture about where to find the clitoris. And despite my enthusiastic interest in female genitalia, I’m not sure what Professor Wells could have said on the subject that would have added to my knowledge. If students at Pitt need enlightenment in this regard, a quick Google search should suffice to cure their ignorance.

We can perceive, however, that the “education” provided by such programs is not about the transmission of knowledge, but rather aboutindoctrinating students in terms of their attitudes and beliefs. There are no Republicans or conservatives on the faculty of Pitt’s Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program, nor are there any professors in this department who advocate a traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of gender and sexuality. Pitt’s resolute hostility toward traditional morality can be seen from its events calendar, featuring Gabriella Lukacs’ lecture“Career Porn: Blogging and the Good Life” and Patricia Ulbrich’s “Hard Hatted Women & Wild Sisters: Lesbian Feminist Community in Pittsburgh.” A feminist student at Pitt will be applauded if she becomes a lesbian or a porn blogger; the only “wrong” choice she can make is to pursue a life that involves a husband and children. Feminists have never made a secret of their goal of destroying the traditional family.

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
— Sheila Cronan, 1970

“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1974

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Simone de Beauvoir, 1975

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, 1988

“Women’s heterosexual orientation perpetuates their social, economic, emotional, and sexual dependence on and accessibility by men. Heterosexuality is thus a system of male ownership of women . . .”
— Cheshire Calhoun, 1994

“The term motherhood refers to the patriarchal institution . . . that is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women.”
— Andrea O’Reilly, 2008

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, 2015

Feminism is a death cult which exercises such hegemonic influence in academia that no one on the 21st-century campus dares to dissent from this anti-male/anti-heterosexual belief system. Because there are no professors who criticize feminist ideology and rhetoric, students are never exposed to evidence or arguments that contradict the cult beliefs propagated by radical academics “committed to promoting feminist and LGBTQIA activism.” Is there any professor — at the University of Pittsburgh or Portland State University or anywhere else — who doubts that heterosexuality is “the structure that keeps sexist oppression in place”? If there are such skeptics of feminist theory on campus, do any of them dare say a word in favor of heterosexuality? Can anyone name a professor who has spoken out in opposition to the claim that “marriage constitutes slavery for women,” or who defends motherhood against the assertion that it is “deeply oppressive to women”? Do any faculty dispute the implication that all heterosexual men perpetrate “sexual violence” to express “patriarchal power by men over women”? And is there anyone in academia today who loves babies, rather than despising them as the smelly “time-sucking monsters” Amanda Marcotte wants to abort?

 

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the suppression of dissent is accomplished by terroristic intimidation tactics intended to silence opposition. Feminists like Amanda Marcotte do not hesitate to slander their critics as “rape apologists” and accuse opponents of “supporting rape because you hate women.”However, anyone who attempts to call critical attention to this anti-mate propaganda by confronting feminist hatemongers will be accused of “harassment” and stigmatized as a “misogynist,” because disagreeing withAmanda Marcotte — or Anita Sarkeesian or Jaclyn Friedmanet al. — is considered proof that you are a woman-hating rape apologist.

“The feminist movement’s goal — ‘to destroy the structure of culture as we know it,’ as Andrea Dworkin said — is incompatible not merely with marriage and the family, but with the principles of democratic government. In order to obtain the androgynous ‘equality’ that is the objective of feminist ideology, religious freedom will have to be abolished, along with the free speech rights of feminism’s critics. Unless we are willing to oppose feminism now, we may find ourselves eventually living in a totalitarian society where such opposition is prohibited by law.”
— Robert Stacy McCainSex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

People think I’m crazy for taking feminism seriously, but this totalitarian movement is becoming increasingly powerful in American culture:

Students at Western Washington University have reached a turning point in their campus’s hxstory. (For one thing, they’re now spelling it with an X—more on that later.) Activists are demanding the creation of a new college dedicated to social justice activism, a student committee to police offensive speech, and culturally segregated living arrangements at the school . . .
WWU’s student-activist community — the frightening-sounding Assembly for Power and Liberation — made their demands publicearlier this week. . . .
The most substantial of the activists’ demands is a call for a new college that would essentially train students to become social justice warriors . . . WWU must meet the needs of this new “College of Power and Liberation” by immediately hiring 10 faculty members — subject to the approval of student-activists. . . .
Activists have also demanded the creation of an Office for Social Transformation, which would employ 15 students — young Robespierres in training — for the purposes of monitoring “racist, anti-black, transphobic, cissexist, misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and otherwise oppressive behavior on campus.” . . .
Keep in mind that WWU is already an extremely liberal campus with a number of social justice-oriented activities: it has a department of Education and Social Justice, a Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program, a Queer Resource Center, a Social Issues Resource Center, and an Ethnic Student Center. . . .
At the heart of this effort lies a bizarrely totalitarian ideology: Student-activists think they have all the answers—everything is settled, and people who dissent are not merely wrong, but actually guilty of something approaching a crime. If they persist in this wrongness, they are perpetuating violence, activists will claim.
The list of demands ends with a lengthy denunciation of WWU’s marginalization of “hxstorically oppressed students.” The misspelling is intentional: “hxstory,” I presume, was judged to be more PC than “history,” which is gendered, triggering, and perhaps violent.

 

The public education system produces high-school graduates who know nothing of history, even if they could spell the word correctly. Mass ignorance benefits the taxpayer-supported intelligentsia who exercise hegemonic control within academia. Professors now indoctrinate college students with the kind of paranoid radicalism that perceives “oppressive behaviors” everywhere, and it is these progressive training camps that produce our nation’s future ruling-class elite.

“When you have a ruling class that doesn’t believe in — or even much like — the fundamental values of the nations it rules, things tend to work out poorly.”
— Professor Glenn Reynolds

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.