rodvanmechelen

To understand modern feminism, you need to start with the feminist writers of the 1960s and work your way to the present. The fundamental goal of modern feminism (which is Second Wave Feminism despite claims about there being third and fourth waves) is the Marxist destruction of western civilization. Equal rights for women is a facade. So while there are women who believe the equal rights message and who do embrace reason and evidence, the movement is Marxist and as such must reject science to achieve its goals.

That said, even if the whole feminist movement was sincerely focused on equal rights and responsibilities for women and men, it would still have to reject science, because the evidence demonstrates that, while there are exceptions, in general women are inferior to men in almost every way.

Everything she describes in this video can be summed up in one word: Libertarian. And from the seventies and eighties a lot of the feminist rhetoric was very libertarian. But while the libertarian feminists were leading empowered lives, the Marxist feminists, who had been there from the very beginning of the Second Wave, were taking over the movement. Their goal was to destroy western civilization (use the "master's tools" to destroy the "master's house") by destroying the nuclear family, which required destroying marriage...which, for them, meant subjugating men. In the 1990s, libertarian feminists tried to gain the upper hand by creating organizations like the Independent Women's Forum to put a feminist mask on libertarianism, but given a choice between libertarianism, with its focus on scary freedom, and big government, with its promise of support, most women will choose big government, as advocated by the Marxist Feminists. So the "Feminism 2.0" she describes is nothing more than a reassertion of the libertarian mask, and all other things being equal, it's doomed to failure. Only a reset (economic, social, political) will loosen the grip of the Marxist feminists, and when that happens, most women will flee into the arms of traditional conservatism. Feminism cannot and will not happen unless and until female nature changes. Transhumanism, maybe? ... Edit: while posting this comment on the video, I noticed Paul's comment. He's more than 10 years behind me (just as I'm about 10 years behind Warren Farrell and George Gilder) and, like most MRAs, he never immersed himself in feminist literature the way I did, so he doesn't really understand them, and, last time I checked, he still hasn't fully red-pilled to female nature (MGTOW), so he is both unaware of the history and is still engaged in the futile effort to get feminists to stop beating up on men and shift their focus to demanding real gender equality.

A true to female nature version would have all the girls breaking up into cliques and back-biting one another while demanding to be the center of attention, instead of breaking up into bands and fighting for dominance. But the point of the story was to pan anarchy, because like most people the author didn't understand anarchy, which is "self-rule." True anarchists are among the most productive and often most brilliant people in the world.

After factoring in years in the paid labor force and consumption of tax funded services, men pay 70% of taxes.

Most of the histories I've seen ignore everything between 1960 and 2000. Roosh, for example, did a podcast in which he effectively dismissed everything prior to about 2002. I don't trust anything from Elam, but I'll read A Brief History of The Men’s Rights Movement and do a review of it.

Second wave feminism (and the third and fourth waves are not waves in the same sense that distinguished the first and second waves, but are simply generational variants of the second wave), was always essentially Marxist in nature and the stated goals of many of the second wave feminists was to destroy the west by destroying marriage by destroying men for the purpose of establishing a socialist state. In other words, socialism has always been the goal of modern feminism.

When I went to work at Microsoft in 1988, I felt like I had finally found a workplace I could call home. They cared little about credentials but a lot about intelligence, creativity and productivity. As one of the Account Managers there told me, "At Microsoft, you can work as hard as you want to." A few months before I got fired, I learned a very painful truth: it was an ideological echo chamber where feminist dogma (cultural Marxism) was on the ascent and any man who dared to contradict their accepted truth was to be crucified. That was 26 years ago, and the world took no notice. Nobody cared. From that day until today, many people had to suffer and sacrifice to reach the point where the world now takes notice, and cares. But we still have a long way to go.

I agree that NCFM isn't extreme, their silly habit of labeling just about any guy they agree with as an NCFM representative. Mel Feit's National Center for Men doesn't get much attention, but they used to be a very good example of what the MRM was really about, and why feminists hate us.

I wonder if they're getting hit with a DOS attack. The page won't load.

There has been infighting and back biting within the FRM and MRM since 1966. If it's okay for MRAs and MGTOW to criticize one another, why wouldn't it be okay for Cathy to do the same? Now, Cathy, along with Christina, claims to be an "equity" feminist, and I've criticized them both for that. As I see it, feminism has become a hate movement and the term lost all utility decades ago. So Cathy and I disagree on that, and some other things, but I respect her and like her...even if the one time we met she ignored my suggestion and ordered the inedible chicken.

In the case of Ellison v. Brady, they argued that women experience sexual harassment differently than men, and the case set the precedent to create a uniquely female "reasonable woman standard," and a uniquely male "reasonable man standard," in sexual harassment cases. Unfortunately, men are not availing themselves of the protections they offers. While women may not see a tight sweater on a full figured woman as "conduct of a sexual nature," most heterosexual men in the west do. A female coworker wearing a tight sweater could be guilty of sexual harassment. I made the argument for this, touching on all the criteria for determining hostile environment sexual harassment, more than 25 years ago.

Eric Hoffer's book on mass movements, The True Believe, explains this. Great book, short, easy read.

Kenedy sounds a lot like Michael Kimmel.

"Potty parity" is one of those perennial issues that feminists recycle. The first time I heard of it was in 1994. We made fun of it back then. But like the wage gap myth, it never dies.

As a culture, men in the west have failed the collective shit testing. Men who stand up to the shit testing get attacked and sometimes destroyed by the beta male white knight proxies of the globalist elites.

Go on strike.

In 1999 or 2000 I realized (and wrote) that the only time the MRM gained any real traction was when women spoke on our behalf. Society does not treat the specifically male complaints of men seriously. And in our gynocentric age, with hypergamy run amok, the only thing we can do is step back and let it fail. Ironically, there is evidence for this in Reay Tannahil's outstanding book (written many years ago), Sex In History. Paraphrasing, she noted that when a society prospers, gynocentrism drives it into the ground, at which time patriarchy reasserts to pick up the pieces, clean up the mess, and restore prosperity.

If there is a way to end this cycle, I haven't found it. The entire basis for my work--The Backlash!--beginning in 1993 and going onto the web in 1995--was to end this cycle. But until we can actually change human nature (transhumanism and the singularity?), this will not happen. So the only way to restore the rights of men is for the system to reset, and we can hasten that day by going on strike.

How? MGTOW.

I want a T-shirt that reads, "Feminists Are Funny: Cast Aspersions At Them"

Several years ago I noted that when the economy crashes, so will socialist programs like feminism. Then I despaired when I discovered Martin Armstrong's solution, which would save the government. But then my spirits lifted when Armstrong (and then many other even more authoritative sources) revealed that we are starting a new dangerous cold period, if not a new mini ice age, that will wreak havoc on the socialist programs. So take heart. Nature will help to correct socialist perversions, such as feminism. Oh, and the grand solar minimum is happening now. The winters of 2018 and 2019 will be a wake up call.