Wednesday 31 December 2014

Deluded Definitions: ODD and the End of the Anglosphere

Richard Feynman - clearly an ODD candidate

I recently found the following definition of the latest psychiatric fad, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, on the Internet:
ODD is a condition in which a child displays an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant, hostile, and annoying behavior toward people in authority. The child's behavior often disrupts the child's normal daily activities, including activities within the family and at school. 

What Are the Symptoms of Oppositional Defiant Disorder? Symptoms of ODD may include:

  • Throwing repeated temper tantrums
  • Excessively arguing with adults
  • Actively refusing to comply with requests and rules
  • Deliberately trying to annoy or upset others, or being easily annoyed by others
  • Blaming others for your mistakes
  • Having frequent outbursts of anger and resentment
  • Being spiteful and seeking revenge
  • Swearing or using obscene language
  • Saying mean and hateful things when upset

In addition, many children with ODD are moody, easily frustrated, and have a low self-esteem. They also sometimes may abuse drugs and alcohol.
… just like Van Gogh, Richard Feynman, Hart Crane, Edgar Allen Poe and hundreds of other men endowed with Promethean genius. Indeed, defiant opposition to authority is the essence of manhood. A compliant, malleable male is like a wingless eagle, a disgrace to nature.

Vincent Van Gogh: Self-Portrait of Genius

In short, Anglo-American psychiatrists have pathologized normal masculine behaviour as deviant and ‘abnormal’. What further proof do we need that Anglo-Saxon culture, with its puritanical and feminist fixations, is inherently anti-male? Far from being a patriarchy, the Anglosphere is an anti-male matriarchy in all but name. It exalts women because women are sexless and compliant; it detests men because they are virile and individualistic.

Raymond Dart: Scientific Visionary

It is no surprise that all innovation springs from the minds and hands of men. Aside from our greater imagination and intelligence, men are born to defy outworn authority. Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Raymond Dart – without their ‘oppositional- defiant’ traits, the world would be languishing in medieval ignorance. When the Anglosphere labels the Promethean fire of male genius an ‘illness’, one senses its days on the global stage are numbered. No matriarchy has the innovative potential to survive the white heat of international competition in science, business or technology. Endowed with standardized, malleable minds that lack all originality, women are drawn to authoritarian, tram-track disciplines like psychology or law like moths to a candle-flame. Sadly, such sterile disciplines add little to a nation's strength or prosperity in the longer term.

To conclude, only outright rejection of Anglo-American culture can lead men to freedom and self-actualization. At every level – medical, legal, political – Anglo-American civilization seeks to pathologize and denigrate healthy masculinity. It has, in fact, declared war on men.

Happy New Year.

Copernicus: Defiance made Flesh

Sunday 7 December 2014

Sweets, and Illusions: Survival Strategies of the Post-Menopausal Anglosphere Female

The PM woman ponders her dwindling options...

The lame-stream Anglo-American media endlessly sings the virtues of female 'empowerment', as if the average woman was a superhuman paragon of multi-tasking intelligence. However, when we observe the ludicrous life-strategies most women adopt after menopause, the reality is very different. Why? Because, beyond their reproductive age, women are essentially worthless. Even White Knights have no use for them. In prehistoric times, we cannot doubt that most women were killed by a blow to the skull after raising their last litter of children. Feminism, Theosophy, finger-painting, husband-beating or handing out sweets on the train: the post-menopausal (PM) female will do almost anything to disguise/obviate her essential worthlessness. Let us now examine these desperation strategies in more depth.


We must suppress male sexuality at all costs!

The big one. Or should I say big two? Feminism and Anglo-American Christianity have an identical fixation on restricting male sexual freedom. Many PM women suddenly immerse themselves in either 'the sisterhood' or tradcon Christian drivel, and for exactly the same reason: both ideologies neutralize the effects of their plummeting SMV by chastising (or seeking to ban altogether) the dynamic, ageless force of male sexuality. Never mind that most prostitutes are happy in their profession, or that sex-trafficking is a myth, or that Anglo-American men should be perfectly free to marry foreign women if they so choose: male sexuality must be reflexively demonized in order to raise the PM woman's ailing SMV. Of course, many unattractive younger women share the same obsessions; but rarely to the same extent or extremity. After all, they still have reproductive potential, even if most men hardly notice it.

In some respects, the whole feminist project is designed to navigate the reality of post-menopausal female worthlessness. By giving women pseudo-education and faux-status, it hopes to neutralize the deleterious effects of their plummeting SMV. We have Pretty White Girl Syndrome, not post-Menopausal Old Boot Syndrome; and, sensing their impending sexual invisibility to men, old or near-old women will believe anything – literally anything – to avoid the SMV scrapheap.Which segues neatly into Strategy 2:


PM woman mastering the regenerative power of crystals

Alternatively, many post-menopausal women latch onto mumbo-jumbo peddled by the post-60s counter-culture. Fake religions like the Qabala. magic crystals. Homeopathy. Chatting to geraniums. Reading tarot cards and tea-leaves. Because lots of PM women share such irrational fixations, UK 'businesswoman' Anita Roddick built a vast fortune pandering to their whims and fancies. Indeed, Roddick created one of the 90's most successful retail chains (The Body Shop) simply by slapping curvy, female-friendly labels on her queasy products.

When menopause strikes, many Earth Mothers also start engaging with the post-everything echo-chamber that is modern art: ape-house paintings and junk-yard sculptures; formless poems scrawled in indigo ink; or turgid, pornographic novels. Funny how PM women never take up physics, engineering or something useful, is it not?

Is this ‘Earth Mother’ persona authentic or just another attempt to avoid being ignored, abused or killed? My guess is the latter. In the hunter-gatherer context, a PM woman with some kind of shamanic presence in the tribe was more likely to survive than a PM woman with no presence at all. Other women would intercede for her; she knew the herbs to trigger abortions; she was their link to the Great Goddess.

In sum, the PM woman's immersion in primitive superstition suggests a huge level of existential insecurity. Stripped of sexual power, despised by even the lowest of men, she throws herself on the mercy of imaginary beings like a savage caught in an earthquake. Sadly, healing crystals and geranium roots cannot boost her lost SMV. For men have no interest in her Coke-can sculptures of Bingu, the Earth goddess; only fresh young pussy.


Eat, eat... only please don't hurt me!

After menopause, it is notable how women start trying to placate everyone. Many an entitled cunt turns forty and suddenly starts handing out sweets to taxi drivers and smiling at passing strangers. Cakes and pastries, pies and Mars bars; her bounty is endless. Remember to treat such women with unmerciful, unprecedented and unrelenting harshness as you pluck the sweets from their hands. Such losers are also good for sport fucking.


Queen of Self-Delusion

The Tradcon Anglo mass-media - at least that aimed at women - remains fixated on the supposed charms of past-prime women. Madonna remains their default icon, a spidery old cunt ugly even in her prime. Because women lack self-awareness, they suck up this delusional nonsense like Dyson hoovers. Even educated middle-class women actually believe that men find ugly old boots with wrinkled tits and desert-dry pussies sexually attractive. Indeed, I found the following article in the Daily Mail this very day:

Madonna and I have a few things in common. We are both 56. We’re hard-working. We have both been addicted to exercise: Madonna to yoga, me to Pilates. Madonna is rumoured to have had plastic surgery to counter ‘gym face’, I have had plastic surgery to counter a lifetime of disappointment.

When I first saw her provocative, vaguely sado-masochistic photo shoot in Interview magazine, I was full of admiration.

Through sheer force of will (and Photoshop, RK) , Madonna looks fitter and prettier than she did at Live Aid in 1985. Any 20-year-old would be lucky to look this good! You go, material girl! She is proving that post-menopausal women are still vibrant, powerful, sexual beings! If Madonna can do it, so can we!

Do PM Anglo-American women actually believe this rubbish? Do they really believe that any heterosexual man in his right mind finds Madonna 'vibrant' or 'sexual'? Do they really think Madonna is more attractive than the average 20-year old? Are they mad? This 'Sexy at 60' nonsense is particularly strong among tradcon PM women with overt misandrist tendencies - in my extensive experience the most unpleasant of all Anglo-American females.

Heads up, PM ladies. Men evolved to find young, thin women with symmetrical features, long legs and large breasts attractive. No matter how hard you kid yourselves, these male preferences are genetically hard-wired and unlikely to change any time soon.


The Best Solution of All...

Just my own suggestion. Since healthy men have no interest in old, ugly PM women, why don't they just kill themselves? We can do quite happily without misandrist feminists, repressive Christians, crazy Earth Mothers and self-deluded old hags. A wise suggestion: unfortunately, most PM women lack the guts to act on it.

Monday 1 December 2014

Fiona Woolf and the Great MRA Ideas Theft: We’re Not as Marginalized as Feminists Say We Are

Fiona Woolf - voice of the abused and oppressed...

Feminism is usually seen by conservative MRAs as being intrinsically allied with Marxism or socialism. If this were true, however, why we do we see so many feminist/Christian alliances against pornography and prostitution? Clearly, the reality is much more complex.

While Anglo-Saxon feminism pays lip-service to ‘socialism’ and ‘equality’, it is really a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that women of different races or socio-economic strata have divergent interests and concerns. In truth, feminism is designed to gull low-income or minority women into thinking that upper-middle class white women ‘share their pain’. Ridiculous, of course: but such a narrative suits kleptocratic consumer capitalism all too well. Underneath its socialist rhetoric, Anglo-Saxon feminism is racist, repressive and elitist, imbued with puritanical misandry and indeed, contempt for all women outside its charmed circle.

Until recently, with the rise of the Internet, poor women working as servants in the homes of wealthy white women actually believed they shared common cause as the ‘oppressed’ gender.  Indeed, this theme is central to all post-feminist media: that gender is far more important than ethnicity or status. How odd it is that, while the left are quick to identify racism as a fraud designed to fool the masses, they remain blind to the fact that feminism serves exactly the same purpose and uses the exactly same methods. 

With this in mind, it is worth noting that a second woman has been removed from leading the official enquiry into historical child abuse in the UK. Since the death of paedophile entertainer Sir Jimmy Savile three years ago, 'historical child abuse' has become a national obsession. Australian children's entertainer Rolf Harris is currently serving time in prison for historical sex crimes and it seems that the 80s Conservative government (are we seeing a connection here?) not only shelved dossiers on abuse, they also engaged in it. The removed woman in question, the hyper-privileged and wildly unrepresentative Fiona Woolf, is not acceptable to the British public for a number of reasons:

Fiona Woolf finally resigned as chairman of the government’s sex abuse inquiry last night after days of intense pressure over her links to Leon Brittan. But she refused to apologise to abuse victims for failing to make her connections to the Tory peer clear.

Mrs Woolf, a solicitor and Lord Mayor of London, quit hours after victims’ groups said she was unsuitable to run the inquiry, which would be ‘a dead duck in the water’ if she remained. She maintained claims of her links to Lord Brittan were mere ‘perceptions’ and appeared to blame the Press for her downfall.

She attacked ‘negative comment and innuendo’ about her connections to the former Tory Home Secretary, who is at the centre of allegations of an Establishment cover-up of sex abuse claims in the 1980s. Mrs Woolf’s departure is a humiliation for Home Secretary Theresa May after the previous chair of the inquiry, Baroness Butler-Sloss, also had to quit because her late brother Sir Michael Havers was attorney general in the 1980s. It leaves plans for the inquiry in disarray, with Mrs May now beginning a desperate search for a third chairman in only four months since the inquiry was announced.
Daily Mail, 31 Oct 2014

Why is this important?

Because elite women are starting to be seen as members of corrupt, abusive class, not as ‘women’ – the ‘oppressed’ half of humanity.  The entire Anglo-American feminist agenda, with all its absurd assumptions of monolithic female identity, is beginning to disintegrate.

Further proof of this can be found in the systematic theft of our ideas by the mainstream media. British politicians have recently been seen sporting ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ T Shirts. The right-of-centre Daily Mail consequently ran a front page article showing the sweat-shop conditions of non-white workers in sweat shops where these T shirts are produced. The bourgeois, hypocritical nature of Anglo-American feminism is starting to filter down to the lamestream media, at last.

Despite what the academic feminist establishment claims, the Men’s Movement is making real waves in the wider culture. Until recently, the fact that Anglo-American feminism is a racist, elitist movement was seldom discussed outside the Manosphere.  Now, major political and legal decisions are being made that reflect our views. Either we are having a direct effect or, more likely, the public is getting very tired of feminist nonsense spouted by white, upper-middle class women sporting T-shirts made by slave-labourers.

UK politicians with their slave produced feminist T-shirts...

This why Woolf’s expulsion is such a victory for our movement. Two women were elected to head this enquiry because women are generically presumed to be innocent of sexual malfeasance and to share, at least informally, victim status.

Victims of elite child abuse, however, did not see things that way. Woolf, like Butler-Sloss before her, was seen rather as a wildly unrepresentative upper class individual with close affiliations to the abusers and those who covered for them, which ultimately led to her dismissal. She was a close confidante of Leon Brittan, who shelved a detailed dossier on elite child abuse in the 80s.  Her predecessor, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss experienced the same vote of no confidence due to her association with Nigel Havers, Attorney General during the alleged period of child abuse (the early 1980s).

Another upper-class woman with troubling connections

Moreover, Wolf was felt to know ‘nothing’ about child abuse, indicating that simply belonging to the female gender is no longer sufficient to garner public trust.

If that is not a favorable revolution in perceptions of gender, what is?

Woolf: sling yer elitist, racist hook, fuckface...

Friday 21 November 2014

What's Wrong with this Picture?

From early childhood, middle-class American men are encouraged by the mainstream media to aim for and expect this:

And so they burn the midnight oil to acquire this

because they think they need lots and lots of these

in order to get this:

But then THIS happens:

Since American men make up the bulk of my readership, I felt duty-bound to pass some kind of comment on 80 year-old Charles Manson's engagement to his 25 year-old girlfriend, Star. All one can say to the psychopathic cult leader is: "Good Luck!"

On a more serious note, the legacy culture's obsession with young men 'manning up' and accepting 'adult' responsibilities (i.e. becoming ATM machines for exclusive exploitation by entitled Anglo-American women) is becoming embarrassing. That outworn narrative is, like America's 'War on Drugs', utterly discredited. For here is a male who, by rejecting all such 'responsible' agendas, attracted a girl young enough to be his grand-daughter. Hardly a public advertisement for the benefits of 'manning up' and social conformity! Rather, Mr Manson is a poster boy for psychopathy, criminality, ugliness and idleness. Yet in a post-feminist world ruled by the psychotic vagaries of female mate-selection, such traits have become the highest virtues.

Sunday 16 November 2014

Cannibal Game: A New Direction in Pick-up Artistry?

Handsome Brute: British cannibal Matthew Williams

The pick-up artist community likes to draw on evolutionary psychology for its memes and arguments. While I have some sympathy for their general perspective, it is sometimes hard to square these arguments with real-world events - as the following story illustrates:

Welsh Cannibal Matthew Williams Eats Victim Cerys Marie Yemm and then Dies after being Tasered in Homeless Hostel

The not unattractive Ms Yemm
A killer was allegedly found eating the body parts of a woman he had attacked before being shot with a Taser by police yesterday. He later died. The woman, who died of her injuries, has been named as Cerys Marie Yemm. Matthew Williams, 34, is reported to have been eating the eyeball and face of the 22-year-old woman, who died of her injuries. Police confirmed they had used a 50,000-volt Taser on Williams. Security staff at a hostel for the homeless in Argoed, South Wales, became suspicious when Williams refused to let them enter the room. They are said to have forced entry, before calling the police who knocked Williams to the ground with a Taser gun.
Ms Yemm: an eye for dangerous men
Gwent Police confirmed that the man was shot with a Taser and then arrested, and that while under arrest the man “became unresponsive”.

Williams had been released from prison two weeks ago, after serving half of a five-year prison sentence for a violent attack on his partner. Williams – who is known locally by the nickname Fifi – was staying at the former Sirhowy Arms Hotel, which operated as a bail hostel. He is said to have only just met his victim before asking her back to the hostel for a drink.

Police confirmed that Williams and his victim were known to each other.

Police were carrying out forensic tests on a silver BMW believed to belong to Williams which was parked outside the hostel. Locals have reportedly nicknamed the man “Hannibal Lecter” after the fictional cannibal character. A Gwent Police spokeswoman said:

“While under arrest, the man became unresponsive. Officers and paramedics administered first aid but he has since been pronounced deceased. We were called at 1.23am yesterday after a report that a man was attacking a woman. On arrival both the male and female were still at the location. A Taser was discharged and a man was arrested.

“The woman was located with injuries and has since been pronounced deceased.”

SOURCE: UK Independent, 6th November 2014

While deeply disturbing, the story does seem to shed important light on what women find inherently attractive in a man. Whatever else may be said of Williams, he seemed to have some pretty impressive Game skills. After all, despite living in a hostel for the homeless he was able to pick up a fairly attractive young woman for a night of fun and - well, let's leave it at that. He had been imprisoned for a violent attack on his former partner, something Ms Yemm quite possibly knew about (they were 'known to each other', after all). In addition, Williams was suffering severe mental illness prior to the attack, a result of long-term drug abuse. Indeed, he reported seeing the world as a black-and-white negative. Safe pair of hands, then...

So there we have it. A sadistic, woman-beating thug without education, intelligence or looks, dressed like the inmate of some Eighteenth Century prison hulk, living in a malodorous doss-house full of other psychotic misfits and seeing the world as a photographic negative is able to pick up a relatively attractive young girl ten years younger than himself without any problem at all. Quite the Gamer!

While I am fully aware that the Traditionalist MRAs' fixation with putting the clock back to an era that elides the inchoate vagaries of female mate-choice is deluded, stories like this sometimes make me wish such a thing were possible.

The last thing she ever saw...

Saturday 1 November 2014

The Unwilling Sexualization of Emma Watson

“…at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.”

 – Emma Watson, UN Women Goodwill Ambassador at a special event for the HeForShe campaign, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 20 September 2014 

Watson shuns the 'sexualizing' media!

Watson desperately avoiding 'sexualization'!
Sexualization? Not me, squire!
The 'sexualizing' media disturb Watson's peace once more!

Watson forced into a 'sexualized' pose by the media!

Call the UN!

– Need I say more?

Wednesday 29 October 2014

The Dangers of Sexualization: Emma Watson's UN Speech

Emma Watson speaks for the oppressed, lol

Emma Watson’s recent UN speech on feminism illustrates perfectly the abject hypocrisy of Anglo-American feminists. However, it had various feminists and White Knights fairly gushing with hysterical approval, as the following article demonstrates:

I consider Emma Watson a national treasure, and she’s not even from our nation. Although she is best known for playing the role of Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, Watson is doing her best to become one of the foremost celebrity faces of feminism in the world. We should have guessed she would be aspiring to do great things when Watson was named a Goodwill Ambassador by UN Women, but “great things” is an understatement for the powerful speech that Watson made for the HeForShe Campaign on Saturday. Her speech was all about gender and equality, issues that still don’t receive enough attention (and often negative attention when they do), and it was 10 minutes of pure, unadulterated awesome.

Watson made so many great points during her speech that it’s near impossible to praise her for any one aspect. The whole thing was a flawless, personal reflection on feminism, gender, equality, and activism. Like her on-screen counterpart, Watson is standing up for a cause that means a lot to her with lots of self-deprecating humor to match. “You might think, ‘Who is this Harry Potter girl? What is she doing at the U.N.?’ And it’s a really good question — I’ve been asking myself the same thing,” she said, making it seem all the more inspirational that she made this speech even through her self-doubt.

In fact, Watson was just trotting the same old misandrist bullshit from the same old elitist perspective. Anyone aware of the scurrilous history of Anglo American feminism will recognize her spiel as the inconsistent, hypocritical drivel it is.

1. She claims to speak for all women but is socially unrepresentative.  

Emma - avoiding sexualization, as usual

From the very earliest days of Anglo feminism, upper-middle class white women have spoken for  women they loathe, exploit and subjugate. Black women. Poor women. Women of marginalized ethnicity. As we know, the ridiculous notion that all women share a common 'cause' by virtue of their gender is convenient for the various Power-Elites who dominate Anglo-American culture. It neutralizes class conflict and inhibits effective, trans-gender resistance to racism and economic exploitation. As ever, Anglo-American feminism is not 'revolutionary' at all; rather a neutralizing fraud promoted by power elites designed to perpetuate injustice under a smokescreen of obfuscation.

Back to Emma Watson. Her Wikipedia CV predictably reveals a background of astounding educational, social and economic privilege:

Watson was born in Paris, the daughter of English lawyers Jacqueline Luesby and Chris Watson. Watson lived in Paris until the age of five. Her parents separated when she was young; following their divorce, Watson moved back to England to live with her mother in Oxfordshire while spending weekends at her father's house in London. Watson has stated that she speaks some French, though "not as well" as she used to.

After moving to Oxford with her mother and brother, Watson attended the Dragon School (an expensive and exclusive preparatory school) in Oxford, remaining there until 2003. From the age of six, she wanted to become an actress, and trained at the Oxford branch of Stagecoach Theatre Arts, a part-time theatre school where she studied singing, dancing, and acting. By the age of ten, she had performed in various Stagecoach productions and school plays, including Arthur: The Young Years and The Happy Prince, but she had never acted professionally before the Harry Potter series. Following the Dragon School, Watson moved on to Headington School (another expensive and exclusive private school).

So there we have it - someone who really knows 'oppression' from the inside out! It is fascinating that women from such backgrounds persist in considering themselves 'disenfranchised'. Perhaps the recent feminist fixation on promoting women's 'rights' in countries outside the Anglosphere is best explained by the staggering levels of personal advantage feminists now enjoy in the West. Not even they truly believe they are oppressed, these days.

2. She dresses like a ten dollar whore, then complains about being sexualized in the media.

Emma shunning sexualization, lol

As long time readers will know, Anglo-Saxon feminism continually claims to be a 'revolutionary' movement. However, on deeper examination it is generally observed that the central feminist assumption – that prostitution, pornography and all other forms of sexual freedom are generically ‘bad’ – deviates not one inch from the repressive values extolled by Anglo-American conservatives on Fox News or in the Daily Mail. It is self-evident that women oppose a ludic culture for one reason and one reason only: to raise their own sexual market value.

Watson embodies this ludicrous contradiction. Her UN speech decried her own 'sexualisation by sections of the media'. Yet she actively seeks out such 'sexualization', frequently dressing like a ten dollar whore before the very cameras she claims to despise. In other words, exploiting male desire to raise her sexual market value is fine; but generic erotic freedom lowers her personal SMV, and is therefore bad. This is so blatantly illogical and hypocritical that the less said of it, the better. Seldom has a feminist 'intellectual' looked more ridiculous:

Emma struggling to avoid sexualization

Or less self-aware. Does Watson seriously think she would be famous if she were massively overweight, or had buck-teeth, or a facial scar? The sole reason she has a public platform relates to her stereotypical bourgeois/Caucasian/youthful appearance. Quite how she squares this fact with anti-sexualization rhetoric, I fail to grasp. What else does she have to offer beyond her appearance? Piercing powers of self-analysis?

Emma shuns sexualization by the media!

3. She ignores the role of residual misandry in male oppression. 

On the face of it, Watson’s perspective is not unreasonable. In theory, men can profit by the abolition of gender discrimination just as much as women. Freed from archaic gender stereotypes, men will be free to seek help for depression and other mental problems, for instance.

There are two primary objections to this argument. First of all, men and women are innately different. Hence, gender-neutral social engineering of the type proposed by Watson will exert little effect. Second, the residual misandry that pervades Anglo-American culture will always prevent the majority of men profiting from gender-neutral agendas; they will always be exploited, excluded and marginalized. This is why, in the post-feminist world, women acquire ever more rights, leaving men with ‘traditional’ obligations.

Given this reality, there is no reason for men to believe that feminism will improve their lot.  So far, it has only worsened it.  

4. She thinks we live in a patriarchy in need of ‘reform’. 

Emma... desperately trying not to be sexualized!

Wake up, ass-hole. The Anglosphere is an oppressive matriarchy where men are discriminated against before the law, in the media, healthcare and education. In both the formal and residual spheres women are already advantaged, enjoying official rights and traditional privileges. Little wonder, then, that so many Anglo-American men see feminism as misandrist.

Two interesting elements underpin Watson’s speech, however. First, she explicitly admits that feminism has an ‘image problem’; that western feminism is primarily associated with misandry and sexual repression, not women’s rights. Second, and more importantly, her speech is preoccupied with keeping men ‘on side’.

Clearly, times are changing. The following New York Post article (by a woman, incidentally) highlights the obvious flaws in Watson's position, and contemporary Anglo-American feminism in general:

Sorry to disappoint you, Emma Watson. But I am not a feminist.

Oh, I believe gals should be paid the same as guys for doing the same work. I also believe that at the end of a long work day, a lady deserves to have her feet rubbed by a hot man. (Or woman.)

But I believe women should enjoy equal rights as men while — and this is critical — bearing equal responsibilities. Watson apparently does not.

Speaking in an adorable English accent, the actress who played Hermione Granger in the “Harry Potter” movies pushed feminism in a speech she gave at the UN Sept. 20. “Powerful,” raved People magazine. “Game-changing,” gushed Vanity Fair.

Watson said she believes women should have “equal rights and opportunities.” Not “responsibilities.” Did she misspeak? I don’t think so.

There are things about which I disagree, vehemently, with modern Western feminists, whose ranks Watson publicly joined at the UN while asking us all to come into the club. For one, I don’t believe females should be handed opportunities — or foot rubs — without demonstrating their willingness to shoulder responsibilities equal to those undertaken by males of the species.
No free rides for females.

Emma. Need I say more?

Slowly but surely, Anglo-American feminists are becoming aware of how despised they are. Perhaps Watson's 'contributions' should be welcomed: Such inane hypocrisy can only further discredit their wobbling 'movement'.