The Problem with Feminism Watch

The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Let's talk again about an all-too-familiar subject: feminism and its crapulous diatribes. There are a number of reasons feminism isn't telling us as to why it wants to aid and abet passive-aggressive ingrates in their efforts to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that it promises its bootlickers that as soon as it's finished subjecting human beings to indignities, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that feminism has arrived at the highest degree of imposture. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, feminism's grand plan is to adopt approaches that have not been tested to try to solve problems that have not been well defined. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, feminism wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving it lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that feminism's use of the term “anticonstitutionally” displays, at best, a tone deafness. The term drips with echoes of antinomianism and warns us all that feminism claims to have data supporting its assertion that the most valuable skill one can have is the ability to lie convincingly. Naturally, it insists that it can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that it's hiding something. Maybe it's hiding the fact that it remains to be seen whether its cabal is capable of self-critique. Will its members acknowledge their own insularity and excesses, or will they continue down the path of smug self-congratulation and vanity, never passing up an opportunity to cultivate networks of snitches and spies to ensure that any unity against feminism can immediately be nipped in the bud? In either case, feminism once said that it is patriotic to inject its lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard it say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that feminism's teachings are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I initiate meaningful change, its invariant response is to bring yahooism to this country in the name of anti-yahooism.

I am tired of feminism pretending there's nothing wrong with propounding ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright frotteurism. I am tired of its putting a clog on all attempts to limit its power. I am tired of too many things to mention here and now, but I will say this: Feminism would have us believe that the majority of base-minded spoilsports are heroes, if not saints. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But feminism is surrounded by unrestrained lummoxes who parrot the same nonsense, which is why one does not have to nurture and spread extremism in our nation's heartland in order to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. It is a mawkish person who believes otherwise.

Feminism makes so many laughably nefarious statements, it boggles the mind to think about them. I can reword my point as follows: Feminism demands that we make a choice. Either we let it make unconscionable wimps out to be something they're not or it'll get people to vote against their own self-interests. This “choice” exemplifies what is commonly known as a “false dichotomy” or “the fallacy of the excluded middle” because it denies other alternatives, such as that I unequivocally warrant that feminism's opinion is a lazy cop-out. To say anything else would be a lie. The poisonous wine of sensationalism had been distilled long before feminism entered the scene. Feminism is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity.
By the same token, feminism grates on my nerves like a thousand nails on a thousand chalkboards. Hence and therefore, wherever you look, you'll see it enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see it suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see it crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity.

The first thing we need to do is to get feminism to admit that it has a problem. It should be counseled to recite the following:

  1. I, feminism, am an officious, daffy palooka.
  2. I have been a participant in a giant scheme to recover the dead past by annihilating the living present.
  3. I hereby admit my addiction to isolationism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.


Once feminism realizes that it has a problem, maybe then it'll see that when I'm through with it it'll think twice before attempting to suppress those who would seek to learn the truth about its litigious vituperations.

Feminism asserts that wars end only when a goodhearted, newly enlightened tyrant heeds the advice of transnational peace activists. This assertion is merely a belief, a belief unsupported by anything approaching a strong, clear body of historically documented evidence. In fact, most existing evidence suggests to the contrary that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until feminism and its thralls started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that the future is what we make it. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Why aren't our children being warned about feminism in school? A clue might be that it's astounding that feminism has found a way to work the words “syncategorematically” and “uncontradictableness” into its remonstrations. However, you may find it even more astounding that it gets particularly concerned whenever someone indicates that it favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness. It should realize, however, that such negative opinions of it simply come with the territory. Rather than try to suppress the unflattering things people say about it, feminism would do well to consider that this is just simple math. That is, if A is more unforgiving than B, and B is more unforgiving than C, then A is more unforgiving than C, right? In case you don't have the secret decoder ring, A is a malodorous astrologer; B is a pompous dirtbag; and C is feminism.

The prank phone calls, editorials, and opuscula that feminism is trying to tattoo on our minds are not educational but sappy. This just goes to show (to me, at least) that for the first time ever, a majority of imperious, diversivolent caitiffs have been questioning their role in helping feminism gum up what were once great ideas. I think that we should take advantage of this historic opportunity and take the mechanisms, language, ideology, and phraseology for determining what is right and what is wrong out of the hands of feminism and its worshippers and put them back in the hands of ordinary people. Feminism's goons have already started to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. The result: absolute vapidity, hateful and pharisaical cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. Feminism has one-upped George Washington in that it cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically, it's too savage to distinguish between the two.

Feminism has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. It can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches feminism's nostrils, it'll start talking about the joy of gangsterism and how little green men live on Mars. As you listen to feminism's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice its hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that its assistants proclaim that its platoon of loopy perjurers is looking out for our interests. I say to them, “Prove it”—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that I obviously claim that we should shift our focus here to the role of environmental and situational factors in triggering the maladaptive and violent behaviors that feminism exhibits whenever it attempts to place discourteous philologasters at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that feminism wants us to believe that quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “interparenthetically” it will be considered cool to spoon-feed us feminism's pabulum. Yes, things will be that way if we choose to believe that. I choose not to believe that. I choose to believe that feminism says it'll cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills if anyone dare threaten the existence of its brownshirt brigade. What's scary is that “threaten” can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, feminism might consider it threatening if one were to claim that in the absence of any meaningful way to help people help themselves, many people retreat into laagers of place, race, or religion as a means of self-defense against feminism.

In order to solve the big problems with feminism we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must show some backbone. Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will hardly be able to deny that many scholars have already concluded that feminism's ultimata are highly batty. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that feminism and its votaries are a cancer on our society. They will therefore do what cancer always does: kill the host. What's noteworthy about that observation is that feminism has managed to convince a vast assortment of people that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. That's just further evidence that the most insidious thing in the world is nonsense that sounds just plausible enough to listen to. It's the sort of nonsense that prevents people from seeing that feminism is extremely spineless. In fact, my Spineless-O-Meter confirms that I've been trying to get feminism to admit that it uses such elite, lofty language that most, if not all, of its listeners are utterly confused much of the time. Yes, I know what you're thinking: Getting it to admit such a thing would challenge even the most patient of Zen masters. Nevertheless, I feel that it's worth a try because I recently checked out one of feminism's recent tracts. Oh, look; it's again saying that we ought to worship the worst kinds of snooty, self-aggrandizing gadflies there are as folk heroes. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Feminism distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions.

Of course, feminism has stated that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a pouty act. One clear inference from that statement—an inference that is never really disavowed—is that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as it. Now that's just disgraceful. Following this line of logic, it would appear that one of the goals of clericalism is to render meaningless the words “best” and “worst”. Feminism admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, feminism's own mediocrity can flourish. Feminism's hariolations are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, feminism talks a lot about Bulverism and how wonderful it is. However, it's never actually defined what it means. How can it argue for something it's never defined? To turn that question around, is it genetically predisposed to putting the public peace perpetually in danger? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why does it have to be such a party pooper? Apparently, even know-it-all feminism doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't even matter much if it did, given that it likes to talk about free speech. Lamentably, feminism's model of free speech is not free at all. To it, free speech is speech that it controls and can use as an ideological weapon to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with its litanies. Feminism's zealots, who are legion, are the inarticulate spivs of the modern age. And that's all I have to say.
1
reply
Angry Bird
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
tl dr
0
reply
CookieButter
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by The Socktor)
Hence and therefore, wherever you look, you'll see it enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see it suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see it crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity.
Feminism is an evil, flawed ideology that is not very much unlike any other evil ideology in that it operates under beautiful titles like equality and freedom and tolerance and diversity when its reality is very far from, no, the opposite, of all those things. Such ideologies rely heavily on authoritarianism, on subverting apposing views on criminalising debate and on violence to keep people from questioning these ideologies and finding out the truth.

This is why I am now starting to love what is happening on this forum and across the internet. People are starting to debate feminism and they are slowly becoming exposed to this vile sexist ideology for what it really is as apposed to what we are told it is by those benefiting from it. This is, hopefully, the beginning of change.
0
reply
Mnemosyne.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
I can't read all of that so I'll just agree.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
I like girls
2
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Assuming this came from a generator and is satire?
0
reply
GonvilleBromhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
That's like reading a gender studies paper. A whole lot of words to say absolutely f all. There is no coherent point to any of it and given the stupid, atypical and in some instances incorrect use of grammar and words I'm presuming this to be the content of a generator of some kind and whoever programmed said generator doesn't understand paragraphs sadly.
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by anarchism101)
Assuming this came from a generator and is satire?
I'm somewhat surprised it took so long for someone to figure that out.
1
reply
Nirvana1989-1994
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Perhaps, put it into coherent paragraphs next time, if you want people to read it that is.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (20)
6.92%
They might tell the bully (29)
10.03%
I don't think they'd understand (44)
15.22%
It might lead to more bullying (106)
36.68%
There's nothing they could do (90)
31.14%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed