Tuesday, March 29, 2016

The Myth of Female Unity

When flooded with messages of "girl power", advertisements for "best friends forever" accessories and other feminist-based propaganda, it's easy to believe that women are better off trusting their female companions over male. However, like most feminism hype, there is an unanswered sexist root that folds to statistics and reality. Firstly, in relation to just feminism, the extreme liberal movement only has unity for the few elite that fit the emotionally fascist bill. Secondly, even in a post-feminism world there proves to be something instinctual about women not trusting each other. This is not to say that no women are able to form long-lasting relationships but rather that it is a rare treasure. In fact, half of those friendships "turn over every seven years". Although the feminism movement has dropped some extreme slogans like "women need men like a fish needs a bicycle", they still make promises yet fail to fill the void when women choose to neglect men from their life (or even be honest about the void to begin with). There is much in the mainstream media to promote that women really only need each other - Sex in the City would be a prime example - while completely failing to show the obligations needed in order for female unity to actually be successful. As mentioned in the previous Feminists or Lobbyists? blog, there is a group of "Elite Feminists" who have just the amount of power in the media and politics to successfully push against the will of the American people. They are the ones who push the myth of female unity as well as control the oppressive and exclusionary group.

Being a woman does not automatically qualify you to be eligible to enjoy female unity or feminist acknowledgement. Hillary Clinton is one of the most famous NOW-card carrying members. She is the chosen one of the Elite Feminists to pursue the highest office in the land of the USA. This would be the exact kind of power transfer that feminists have been fighting for all along. This means that these Elite Feminists will do anything to see Hillary win, even if it exposes their true colors and destroys any remaining credibility in the process. When they say they care about the "1st woman ____", they really mean the "1st elite feminist ____". It doesn't matter if a woman has character, respect or integrity to the feminists. They only care about helping "their own". This is exemplified in this clip of Madeleine Albright, who went as far as to say that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other", though everyone knows she really meant Hillary Clinton:

This was completely demeaning and condescending to women, shaming them into voting for someone based solely on gender. However, this of course completely excluded the fact that Hillary Clinton was NOT the only woman running for president as Carly Fiorina, on the Republican side, was running as well. This is despite the fact that Carly Fiorina was the 1st female CEO of a DOW 30 firm. Her "1st accomplishment" meant nothing to the feminists as you could "not help out" Fiorina yet still somehow not end up in that same special place in hell if you did not help out Hillary. Go figure, feminists think they can control hell.

Hillary Clinton's Contributions Compared To Carly Fiorina's

In addition, Madeleine Albright accused these women in the crowd of also being clueless and lacking in ambition, accusing them of "thinking it's done but it's not done". This woman was the 1st Secretary of State, nominated by none other than Bill Clinton himself, in 1996. She doesn't stand for "all women" and their accomplishments and progress in society. She doesn't care about all women and raising up all women for their strives and successes. Like Hillary Clinton and other Elite Feminists, she cares only about spinning a story to manipulate the emotions of women to use for her personal advantage. She cares about paying back her debt to Hillary Clinton, after the important position was bestowed upon her by Hillary's husband. They depend on bullying, shaming and fear mongering to force women to make the choices they want them to make. Looking at the contributions Hillary gets (especially compared to Republican women) shows how much NOW and other Feminist organizations care about those women who don't mimic their views.

Later, Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright both blamed their insensitive sexism on the passion for not wanting to digress backwards in society. (Please also keep in mind that these feminists completely lie about women's struggles - past and present.) They didn't catch the irony that they're the only ones trying to make women digress by forcing them to ignorantly embrace and worship, as well as conform and comply, with what the Feminist Elites choose for them, without any question or individual investigation.

Not only do feminists not show unity to all women, but they don't even show unity to other feminists. You can even still be harassed and abused by other feminists if you don't meet all of their qualifications or use your freedom of choice to speak out against feminist wrong-doing.

Erin Pizzey
is an original pioneer of the women's movement in Britain in the 1970s turned anti-feminist. She had believed feminism really did care about equality for all, then she tried to stand up for male victims of domestic abuse and found out just how wrong she was. The Elite Feminists did not appreciate the fact that Erin Pizzey was an honest woman who wanted to help men and women rather than be another sexist, willing to falsely paint women as always victims and men as always perpetrators. Not only did the feminists successfully stop her from opening a domestic shelter for men, but they continued to harass her when she chose to keep speaking the truth nonetheless. They even sent her bomb and death threats, eventually successfully terrorizing her into moving to a different country. Here are her own words:

Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist but considers herself an "equity or freedom feminist". She was also around for the beginning of the feminism movement as we know it in America in the late 60s-early 70s. In a nutshell, she is harassed and ridiculed by western feminists because she believes that western feminists have come to abuse feminism towards trivial matters while ignoring the actual gender inequalities in the west and real women's issues elsewhere in the world. She believes that women are stronger than the helpless victim narrative that feminists push, and that this takes away from the real positive progress that feminism could be making. She believes (and even personally admits that) feminism should be fighting for both genders because she has a personal connection that hinders her from the basic linguistics of the term and true intent in the origin of the movement. (She even admits that she is tempted to start an "equalism" movement but just isn't ready to give up on feminism quite yet.) This is what many feminists do and why feminism prevails despite most women rejecting mainstream feminism. Objectively, it is more progressive to push a new movement altogether (like humanism or egalitarianism) rather than try to branch off with an existing movement (in feminism).

Christina Hoff Sommers does a show called "Factual Feminist" where she corrects the facts of feminist propaganda to put it in perspective. She covers topics like women in sports, gender pay gap, sexual harassment statistics and more. Here is an example of Christina Hoff Sommers' Factual Feminist series in which she discusses some current feminist agendas that hurt women as well as the feminist reaction to her voicing such concerns:

You will notice that the feminists attack Christina Hoff Sommers' right to voice her concerns, rather than protecting and/or debating them respectfully. These feminists try to silence her because she offers a different narrative than the one approved by the Elite Feminists. The more power feminism gets, the more clear it becomes that it is an emotionally fascist movement bent on producing societies that serve the few over the many. It doesn't matter that Christina Hoff Sommers is trying to liberate and empower women. All that matters is that her sources of information are different from NOW's.

Even if you don't speak out against feminism but you don't support the right feminists (The Elite Feminists) then you will also be insulted rather than respected. This was proven by Gloria Steinem's attack on Bernie Sanders and his followers for not giving up on their own preferences and choosing Hillary Clinton. Gloria Steinem decided to attack all of Bernie's female supporters when she exposed her hypocritical nature of attacking Bernie for Hillary, despite having made him an "honorary woman" back in 1996 when she went out of her way to campaign for him. Bernie Sanders proved that even as a one of the 1st males to support the feminism movement, he would only be supported by feminists so long as he took a backseat slave position to helping them over himself:

(15:46) "Actually I'm only here today to make Bernie Sanders an honorary woman."

(1:03) "And when you're young, you're thinking where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie."

Despite the push from the Elite Feminists for women to "be who they are and do whatever they want", this is not shared as an appreciated value. This is primarily true when it comes to clothing. Take this article for example.

Courtesy of: http://jezebel.com/5863842/why-short-skirts-magically-turn-women-into-bitches
Quite predictably, the author here immediately turns to blaming men for how women treat each other. All the while he still acknowledges that "We suspect that women who appear sexually available are not perceived as ‘‘safe'' friends — they are expected to be mate poachers and they likely devalue a person's mate value (guilty by association)". In clear feminist fashion, the author completely ignores the fact that these women are fearful of what other women will do to them and instead blame the behavior only on the fear of losing a male mate. He blames the female competitiveness not on natural biology but socialization and a jab at men.

The truth is that the link between men being strong, responsible and reliable has absolutely nothing to do with their chemistry and biology. Men have a biological, chemical and psychological need for a release which means their brain is programmed to achieve the release as much and as well as possible. Subsequently, men are incredibly attracted to the female form, even if it is completely covered up! So when you add men’s health need for a sexual release (as abstinence leads to a higher risk of prostate cancer) and a woman dressed sexually and begging him to relieve himself in her, of course he is incredibly tempted because his brain and body is wired to get excited easier and quicker so he can reproduce better.

The reason why women hold other women responsible with "slut shaming" is because they are the women who have accountability and common sense. They know what affect certain clothing has on men. So when women dress that way, it is their way of disrespecting all other women by saying “I want to steal your husband [and son]’s attention away because I have no class or loyalty myself. I want all men to look at me and I don’t care if they are married or not. I deserve to be the center of attention because I think I'm better than all other women and they will just have to deal with it.That is why women hate provocatively dressed women. They are offensive and rude, exploitive and conniving. Furthermore, even if men weren't involved in the picture, women don't like the way other women make them feel about their bodies when dressed provocatively. When was the last time you've heard feminists or any women's activists complain about women dressed too modestly on TV and how it body shames them? Never, because modesty is not offensive. It is the attractive women who rely mainly on their feminine attributes that make other women so self-conscious about themselves. This is because even without trying, women have a tendency to offend each other and just not get along. This is not to say that this problem amongst women cannot be fixed but rather that it cannot be fixed with feminism.

Feminism has only served to further divide women amongst themselves, trust each other less and compete with each other more. Additionally, American feminism is a socialist system in a capitalist setting which inherently encourages women to use their femininity to get what they want and need while pretending to not be in competition with each other. This also explains why no matter how close women are, they still never want to be caught in the same dress. Women like to feel 'part of the pack' (aka the bandwagon effect) but they also are very complicated and like to be unique, at the same time. Before the feminism movement however, there was a balance of female unity which actually helped the formation of feminism to even occur. Unfortunately, women have since been reciprocated with multiple forms of division. Some divisions cannot be changed, like the division between the whore and the housewife. Other divisions encouraged by feminism on the other hand, are unnatural and unproductive. It is essential that women find a way to unite against their one true common enemy: Western feminism.

No comments:

Post a Comment