Anti-Feminism

In my judgment the entire feminist movement has become highly toxic to all parties involved. Economic shifts, not political or social movements, are responsible for the advancement of women in the world. Things changed after women filled the workforce during WW2, especially in America. Hitler was aware that once a country went down this road, there was no going back, and for this reason he chose to use forced labor rather than put German women to work. It was a bad decision with ideological motives behind it, but his reasoning was sound. There is nothing wrong with women working, but it does drastically alter the arrangement of society. Feminism for the most part is not about advancing women's rights or interests. Feminists care about themselves more than anything. They've devoted their lives to this cause and therefore need the cause like you and I need food. Only look at the despicable treatment of women who turn against mainstream feminism. Look at what happened to Erin Pizzey, a (former) feminist who opened the first women's shelters in England. She undertook to research domestic violence and questioned the then (and still) widely accepted Duluth Model, which states that men are universally the aggressors. She found a very different reality among flesh and blood women, namely that women were often just as violent as the men, and that domestic violence on the whole was reciprocal. The feminists ran her out of England, sent violent death threats and even poisoned her pet dog, simply for contradicting their established model. These people border on mental illness in more ways than one.

Famous people like Emma Watson call themselves feminists without really understanding what that means. It's hip, and it goes hand in hand with the greater movement towards 'social justice'. The reality is quite different, and you shouldn't be fooled by attractive, well adjusted outliers like Watson. Nor should you let the popularity of feminism among college children mislead you, because many of these people are simply toeing the line and trying to jive with academic culture. The movement is (and has been), on the whole, composed of women who fall very low in the social and reproductive hierarchy. It's unfortunate and unkind to point out, but as Nietzsche told us very clearly over 100 years ago, the healthier a woman is, the more fruitful she is, the less interest she has for so called 'equal rights'. Why? Because her current position is unquestionably one of special, superior rights: equality would be tantamount to a demotion for this sort of woman. It would mean being dragged down to the level of ordinary women, and even that of repugnant, sterile women. The correct account of feminism is nothing like what it purports to be. Feminism has been nothing but a long conspiracy against women, a bitter struggle of the lowest orders of the female sex against all higher orders. The feminists have been engaged in trying to topple this social hierarchy for generations. Feminists do not despise men. They only despise other women, namely the successful, desirable, fertile types which hitherto have always 'had it easy' in life. By upsetting the structure of society, they have sought to make this type of woman question herself, her comfortable life, her carefree dependence on whatever man was providing for her. They affect to hate men, but in reality they only hate other women. The feminists understand that in reality, men empower women to do many things; they provide, they make children for them which ensure a decent living and some inheritance.

Following on this, the motivation for altering women's feelings towards their role in society, and that of men as well, could not be more clear. The feminists want privileged women to renounce their advantages in the world, to throw away youth, health, beauty, chastity, charm, fertility and all the domestic talents. This is precisely what you see among feminists, who encourage and personally demonstrate:

>Unhealthy habits (drinking, smoking, bad diet, partying, recreational drug use, etc)
>Poor hygiene (lack of cleanliness, refusing to shave, unusual piercings, tattoos, lack of gynecological hygiene)
>Distasteful appearance (slovenly or lewd attire, unnatural hair colors, etc)
>Profligacy (causal sex, indiscriminate sexual favors, fetishism, etc)
>Uncouth behavior (vulgar language, screaming and yelling, physical violence, nasty dispositions, hostility, combativeness)
>Contraception (rendering sterile, birth control, forced miscarriage, abortion, delayed entry into motherhood)
>Contempt for domestic life (the housewife is a slave, the stay at home mother is unfulfilled, etc)

The aim of all this is what I have already stated, namely to destroy the innate female social hierarchy, the natural order of rank among women. It is just another miserable chandala revolt, an uprising of the female underclass against their betters. No one should think favorably of feminism on any level. It is conspiracy and hatred through and through. It has wrought untold dysgenic harm on our entire species, and it must be purged before any more generations are poisoned by it.

////////////////////////////////////////////////

Feminism is a conspiracy against women.

The feminists have never aimed to promote healthy women in the world, on the contrary. They saw these women as too well provided for and sought to depose them from their place at the top of the female hierarchy. To this end they have poisoned the healthy woman with false ideas about her identity and slandered her enthusiasm so as to make her adopt their own. The crowning piece of malice was the invention and widespread distribution of hormonal contraception. This is the tool with which the feminists have tried to destroy all healthy, fertile women. They perverted social perceptions of a woman's role in society, created the lie of patriarch oppression, and turned the healthy women away from precisely that lifestyle which for thousands of years has guaranteed her security and prosperity in the world. And while this has been taking place, the feminist have gone to great lengths to find ways of correcting their own sterility, even while defaming the institution of motherhood.

There are two things that a feminist will defend to the death. Can you guess what they are? The full weight of this conspiracy becomes apparent when you understand this.

Firstly: A woman's 'right' to abortion
Secondly: A woman's 'right' to infertility

Credo experto

There is also no such thing as genuine misandry. Misandry is only a more covert form of misogyny. Feminists who claim to despise men are lying: what they truly despise are healthy, fruitful women. But in order to give a discreet vent to this hatred (which otherwise would reflect badly on them and discredit their thesis that men are the entire problem and women are helpless victims) they choose to despise men, who are responsible for empowering these superior types.

>Women want to be autonomous: and to that end they have begun to enlighten men about 'women per se'—that is one of the worst signs of progress in Europe's overall uglification. For look at all the things brought to light by these clumsy experiments in female scientific thinking and self-revelation! Women have so much reason for shame; there is so much hidden in women that is pedantic, superficial, carping, pettily presumptuous, pettily unbridled and immodest (just notice their interactions with children!), so much that has heretofore been most effectively repressed and subdued by their ultimate fear of males. God forbid that the 'Eternal-Boring' in women (they are rich in it!) ever dares to come out, or that they begin completely and by conviction to forget their cleverness and their arts, those of grace, playfulness, bidding care begone, easing our burdens and taking the world lightly, their subtle readiness for pleasant desires! Already we hear female voices that frighten us, by holy Aristophanes! with medically precise threats about all the things that women WANT from men. Doesn't it show the very worst taste when women set about being scientific in this way?

>Until now, thank goodness, enlightenment was a man's business, a man's gift—and so men remained 'among themselves'. And ultimately, whenever we read something a woman has written on 'women', we can reserve our mistrust about whether women actually want to be enlightened about themselves—whether they can want it... Now, if women are not doing it to get themselves some new adornment (self-adornment is part of the Eternal-Feminine, is it not?), then they wish to instill fear: perhaps they want to dominate. But they do not want truth—what do women care about truth! From the beginning, nothing has been more alien to women, more repellent, more inimical than truth—their great art is the lie, their highest concern appearance and beauty. Let us admit it, we men: it is precisely this art and this instinct that we honor and love about women: we who have it difficult in life and are glad to relax in the company of creatures with hands, glances, and tender follies to make our seriousness, our difficulty and depth seem almost like folly. Finally, I would ask whether any woman herself has ever conceded that a woman's brain can be deep, a woman's heart just? And isn't it true on the whole that until now 'women' have been disdained most of all by women—and certainly not by us men?

>In no other age have men ever treated the weaker sex with such respect as in our own—it is part of our democratic inclinations and basic taste, as is our irreverence for old age. Is it any wonder that this respect is already being abused? They want more; they are learning to make demands; they end by considering that modicum of respect almost irritating, preferring to compete, or even to battle for their rights: let's just say women are becoming shameless. And let us add at once that they are also becoming tasteless. They are forgetting how to fear men—but a woman who 'forgets how to fear' is abandoning her most womanly instincts. It is fair enough, even understandable enough if women dare to assert themselves when the fear-inducing elements in men (let's put it more definitively: when the man in men) is no longer desired or cultivated; what is harder to understand is that this is enough to result in—the degeneration of women. This is happening today; let's make no mistake about it! Wherever the industrial spirit has triumphed over the military or aristocratic spirit, women are striving for the economic and legal independence of office clerks: 'Women as clerks' is written over the entrance-way to our developing modern society. While they are gaining these new rights, aiming to become 'master', and writing about women's 'progress' on their flags and banners, it is terribly clear that the opposite is happening: women are regressing.

>Ever since the French Revolution, women's influence in Europe has decreased to the same extent that their rights and ambitions have increased; and thus the 'emancipation of women', in so far as women themselves (and not only shallow males) are demanding and encouraging it, turns out to be a curious symptom of increasing weakness and dullness in the most womanly instincts. There is stupidity in this movement, an almost masculine stupidity, which a truly womanly woman (who is always a clever woman) would have to be utterly ashamed of. To lose the scent for which battleground best leads to victory; to neglect the practice of her true defensive arts; to let herself get ahead of a man, perhaps even 'up to a book', where she had earlier been well behaved and subtly, cleverly humble; to work with virtuous audacity against man's belief in a fundamentally alien ideal, cloaked in the shape of woman, in some Eternal- and Necessary-Feminine; to disabuse men volubly and emphatically of the notion that women should be kept, provided for, protected, indulged like delicate, strangely wild, and often pleasant domestic animals; to gather indignantly painstaking evidence of everything about the position of women in our own and earlier social orders that suggested the slave or bondman (as if slavery were a counter-argument and not rather a condition for every higher culture, every heightening of culture)—what does all this mean, if not a disintegration of womanly instincts, a defeminization?

>To be sure, there are enough idiotic women-lovers and female-corrupters among scholarly asses of the male gender who are advising women to defeminize themselves in this way and to imitate all the stupidities that are infecting 'men' in Europe, European 'masculinity'—those who would like to bring woman down to the level of 'general education', or even to reading the newspaper and politicking. Some of them would even like to make women into freethinkers and literati, as if a woman without piety were not something wholly repellent or ludicrous for a deep and godless man. Women's nerves are being destroyed almost everywhere by the most pathological and dangerous kinds of music (our modern German music), making women every day more hysterical and less competent for their first and last profession, the bearing of healthy children.

////////////////////////////////////////

Any healthy woman is a highly compelling argument against feminism.