Nailed by an Anglobitch?

Anglobitch debating society in session! Well, sorry to disappoint you all, but the following arguments mustered against the Anglobitch Thesis probably wouldn't trouble a Neanderthal - and a pretty dumb Neanderthal, at that. This blistering critique appears on the following feminist website, run by one 'Tangerine Peach':

http://tangerinepeach.wordpress.com/

Below, I intersperse my pithy, inimitable comments amidst her puerile, demented ramblings:

Despite this lameness however (of the Internet - RK), there’s also countless awesome stuff you can do of course – one of my favourites include checking out the blogs or articles of my sisters or friends, or interesting feminist opinions from feministing.com or thefword.org.uk. But it is the freedom of speech and sharing of views that is also a problem: because morons who know nothing about a subject can write any old shit about it and post it on the ol’ virtual noticeboard.

Heh, you knew where I was going with this, didn’tcha. Thanks to “Anglobitch” the blogger for providing hilarious views that I could directly quote (NOT out of context)…

“Why Feminism is a failure”, or, “Why We Don’t Need Feminism” and similar articles dot the internet, newspapers, stupid gossip magazines and even TV reports.

Why IS Feminism a “failure”, hmm? I have yet to come across a good argument for this ridiculous view. The main reason is they didn’t convince morons writing such articles because said morons would not ALLOW themselves to be persuaded, because they are ignorant, stupid fuckers who would rather bash everyone else than be part of something positive and potentially society-changing (we hope), something that actually points out the oppressed opinions and cultures, something that sheds light on issues affecting women. Oh that’s right, women don’t matter.

If people are going to be such pleborons, then frankly, we don’t want you in our movement. And they become bitter. And make up arguments like, “Oh, Feminism hasn’t solved world hunger, OMG ITS A FAILUUUREEEEE”.

Well, has it solved world hunger? Yes or no? In fact, has it has any positive effects on Western civilization at all?

Grow up, idiot. Feminism is for equal rights, for the vote, for equal work experiences and opportunities, pro-choice, stopping rape, incest and abuse, for LGBT rights, anti-racism, access to birth control, smooshing the patriarchy, etc. What the fuck is your problem? Because we’re not living in all-female communes and starting from Year Zero we’re not real Feminists? Because some of us still like to wear make-up and dresses (because it looks lovely) we’re not real feminists? Who the fuck is anyone to say what feminism is when they don’t know anything about it?

“[...]enormous damage has been done to the family, to Marriage and other traditional institutions ” – oh, has it? I wasn’t aware that PLANNED families or families where the parents aren’t married or straight were damaged ones.

Well, what all about the single-parent, Welfare-dependent families that are the direct products of feminism?

“Nearly all the Feministing women who post on YouTube are obvious avatars of bourgeois respectability: straight, pearly teeth, carefully applied make-up and costly designer clothes. If these women were truly opposed to the extant social order, they would dress with complete indifference to traditional female standards. Self-evidently, they retain a knee-jerk affinity to the existing social order and its values. Yet this, according to them, is an oppressive patriarchy that militates against their social and emotional well-being.”

Need I even comment on the above?

Yes, it might be a good idea. If these women are so opposed to patriarchy, why do they insist on retaining its trappings? If your stated goal is to 'smoosh the patriarchy', surely its myriad achievements must be 'smooshed', too?

“Moreover, the computers they use, the publishers who print their turgid books, their cosseted university enclaves – are all products of the patriarchy they profess to despise. If they want to reject patriarchy, why do they not jettison their attachment to these creations of ‘oppressive’ patriarchal society? Why not live in feminist communes in the wilderness and ‘start again’ from ‘Year Zero’ like Pol Pot, using an exclusively feminist science and technology?”

This is so stupid it makes me laugh heartilly. This is…. well, utterly ridiculous. I don’t even feel I NEED to say anything against that – I thought it w just plain commical and entertaining enough to throw in there.

It is interesting how this semi-literate feminist actually refuses to comment on my arguments, claiming that my points are 'too ridiculous' to confront. Clearly, feminists dwell in such an insular cocoon of irrational sentiment that they cannot muster rational arguments against coherent thought. One might as well be arguing with an earthworm or centipede, a creature entirely bereft of reason. In short, they give no reasons for what they believe because they have no reasons for what they believe!

The blogger then bashes Jessica Valenti for a bit: “This is not an African-American male maimed in Vietnam living in a trailer on a pittance; this is a hyper-advantaged individual profiteering from hollow rhetoric.”

Because we all know those are exact opposites. Grow the fuck up.

I don't understand this at all. Can someone with a background in psychotherapy please explain what she is trying to say? Or are we back in earthworm/centipede territory?

I’m glad idiots like this haven’t joined (so to speak) feminism.

Me too!

People like that don’t care to know what they cannot scoff at: if they knew what it was really about, if they had bothered their lazy ass to even research it a little bit, they’d realise that what they have written is complete bollocks. Despite providing hilarious reading material, it is also frigging annoying having so-called “educated” people make such decisions.

If it is 'complete bollocks', why are so annoyed about it? More retarded comments from the Anglo-feminist cult of unreason...

If it’s not for you, Fine.

OK. Fine. I'm sure we can all live with that...!

But don’t talk about shit you don’t understand. If you love the internet so much, how about using it for research than bitching on your blog.

AFTER you’ve done research is when you can bitch all you want.

Bleh.

My regular readers are well-acquainted with my research methods, and their intellectual weight.

You don’t say to an African-American, “Hey, slavery has been abolished, why are you still whining about racism???” Just because most white feminists have been to Uni and don’t live in poverty does not mean they cannot care about all women who have been/going through such times. And why only mention the white feminists?

Well, one reason why Anglo-American MRAs tend to focus on white, middle-class feminists is that Anglo feminists are overwhelmingly white and middle-class. And, in the case of Marie Stopes, racist and fascist, to boot.

The Anglobich blog is… awful. If you read the one on gay people in ”anglo-society” you will get mad, trust me.

Don't worry - if you're an Anglo feminist, you're probably mad, anyway. But remember - sanity is just an oppressive patriarchal construct. Well, so is the Internet, not to mention all great works of art, music and literature, science and engineering. Of course, since feminist 'cherry-picking' is in operation, they like to keep those particular 'oppressive patriarchal constructs'.

And there we have it, pure gold. By the way, don't bother posting any comments on this feminist's blog, as she is too cowardly to allow posts. Obviously, 'smooshing the patriarchy' (what patriarchy, the Anglosphere is a misandrist matriarchy, for f**k's sake!) is easier to say than to do...

Surge In Claims Of Child Sex Abuse By English Women

It occurs to the present author that female sex-offenders have not recently increased in number, rather that Anglo-American MRAs (by their ceaseless work in exposing the preferential treatment granted to females in the Anglosphere) have created a new cultural climate where rational criticism of women is now relatively acceptable. Hence, the figures SEEM to change, while in fact it is Anglo-American CULTURE that is changing, slowly but slowly:

The number of children reporting sexual abuse by women to ChildLine has soared over the past five years.

New research reveals the helpline experienced a 132% rise in complaints of female sexual assaults over the period, compared with a 27% increase in reports of abuse by men. The statistics follow the case of nursery worker Vanessa George, who is awaiting sentencing for sexually abusing children in her care and taking and distributing pornographic photographs of them.

In the past year, more than 2,100 children told ChildLine they had been sexually abused by a woman. That is nearly a quarter of all calls where the offender's gender could be identified. More than half of those (1,311) claimed their own mother was responsible for the assault. The research found boys were more likely to say they had been abused a woman than a man. However, girls were more than 10 times likelier to report being abused by a male than a female.

Esther Rantzen, president of the helpline, said: "This report reveals that ChildLine, by listening to the direct and authentic voices of abused children, has shattered common myths about sexual abuse.

"It does not only happen to girls, as many people believe. It happens to boys too. Mothers can sometimes sexually abuse their sons. And the report found that when girls are sexually abused, by far the most common perpetrator is not a stepfather, as many believe, but the biological father."

Previous research by the NSPCC suggested women may be responsible for about one in 20 sex offences committed against children.

Sourse: Sky News

The Anglobitch Debate II

It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself. More of this material will be forthcoming.

1.on June 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm Joe T.

novaseeker -

The brand of feminism prevalent in Sweden is completely different than that which exists in the USA. It is a much less pernicious kind. What we have in America is an asexualizing society built on appying hypermasculine values to everyone — male and female. This results in hyperambitious females obsessed with competing with men. But what are they competing at? They are competing at selling themselves out — being perfect elements of the soulless, competitive capitalist machine.

In Sweden, you have a society built on essentially female values, which I actually think is far superior to the US model. Sweden may be very feminist in orientation, but it is very beta-friendly. While in the US, what you have is the tactical alliance of feminists and alpha males, which freezes out and marginalizes beta males.
Being essentially a beta (like about 80 of males), I don’t think I should have to tell you which society I would prefer.

Also, a point which is actually not much cited on this blog, but which is significant, is that the USA has *by far* the highest divorce rate in the world — about 4.95 per thousand. The second highest is the UK, still significantly less than America’s, at about 3.8 per 1000. Sweden ranks around 3rd, but only half of the US rate, at about 2.5/1000.You actually have to look at the statistical groupings of the list of countries, and their divorce rates, to appreciate how the US ranks in a classy by itself.

I am *not* equating a low divorce rate necessarily with policies and society that favors males, but it so happens that the countries with the *lowest* divorce rates are considered by social scientists to be the most patriarchal. I know Roissy rails against marriage, and he would probably say the men in countries with low divorce rates — Italy, Portugal, Brazil, etc. are “suckers” for staying married, or for being married in the first place. But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

So, America presents the absolute worst of all possible worlds for the beta male (80-85 percent of males, according to even Roissy’s numbers). American Turbo Capitalism endorses all of the following simultaneously:

1) Militant feminism and the “empowered”, male-suspicious female
2) Asexualism and the obliteration of traditional gender roles, passed off as “progress”
3) Promotion of broadly pro-Alpha Male values, as an overall societal value system (which includes libertarian capitalism as the preferred method of economic organization)
4) The marginalization, devaluation, and debasement of what are essentilly the broad masses of the male sex
5) Female sexual “empowerment” and the pressure to form “female-led” relationships, either out of economic necessity, by default, or because of pressure from the prevailing propaganda line promulgated by the corporate media

Rookh Kshatriya writes: Marriage in Anglo culture is overloaded with significance because of the puritan temper of Anglosphere societies. Anglo Marriage is a pycho-social lifestyle adjunct, not a realistic relationship-contract. Because it is so charged with insoluble psychic baggage (the usual Freudian issues and complexes), Anglo-American Marriage is an enormously stressful Institution for both partners - a psychic pressure cooker. However, Marriage originated merely as a functional institution to produce children in a patriarchal culture. In such cultures, the religious/spiritual/philosophical/sexual features of life were dealt with by relevant institutions, such as organized religions or Temple-prostitutes. Anglo marriages are those most likely to fail because the Anglosphere now has an unrealistic understanding of that institution, asking it to bear responsibilities it was never designed for.

As an aside, it is odd that the author considers feminism to be partly fostered by Alpha males, since Alpha Males are those most likely to be fleeced in misandrist divorce settlements. The sociobiological arguments of the British author Moxon often seem to be invoked in these debates, but many of his assumptions are riddled with errors. For example, criminal underclass males have the highest fertility rates in modern society, not upper-middle class alphas. It is much more likely that Anglo culture fosters feminism and misandry as a function of its puritanical obsessions than its sociobiological imperatives.


1.on June 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm doug1

Joe T.
But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

Although you’re of course right about the sharply different attitudes towards extramarital sex particularly for men in Anglosphere versus other Euro societies, you’re wrong about the reasons. It is not primarily greater prudishness. For instance, in Victorian England it was widely assumed that many married men would need the release valve of extra marital relations, particularly with prostitutes where it was mostly winked about, but sometimes with others.

Early feminism was all about two things most of all. First was getting women the vote, which they felt (rightly) would end up being of key importance it getting a lot of other rights for women. Second was greater rights in divorce, and social acceptance of the idea that male infidelity was absolutely grounds enough for not only a divorce, and one in which the woman made out handsomely if the man had any bucks. Feminism was lead by women whose men did by and large. American women in particular have always been militantly against male extra marital affairs as a women’s rights and dignity issue. This united women of a wide variety of political persuasions.

Rookh Kshatriya writes: We cannot assume that the original feminists thought exactly as modern Anglo feminists do. In the late Victorian era, patrician women believed in religion literally and implicitly. Also, they harbored right-wing ideas that would broadly be seen as unacceptable today. Actually, most early Anglo feminists were upper-class Nazis. Most of them were avowed racists and eugenicists (Woolf, Stopes) and some of their preoccupations (contraception for instance) were motivated by eugenic concerns and a desire to eliminate troublesome sections of the working class. Early Anglo feminists were also Puritanical Christian Protestants with an obsessive desire to impose moral continence on the masses – partly intrinsic, partly motivated by eugenics and lastly by a yearning to ‘ration’ sex, thereby rendering men of their own class easier to control. While Victorian gents were having sex with whores (and each other) the puritan ‘standard’ was still there, even if no one held to it. In other countries, the ‘standard’ just wasn’t present. For example, the Germans made extensive use of official field brothels in WWI, something the Anglo combatants never adopted. So there clearly were differences between Anglo countries and their Continental counterparts at a deep, cultural level. Maintaining that Anglo-Saxon cultures are not puritanical and repressed is the height of folly; though, to be charitable, this viewpoint often characterises those who have not lived outside the Anglosphere.