While lobbyists for the family violence law sprinkle poison on social networks and handshake media after the failure of their blitzkrieg in the State Duma and the Federation Council, their Internet infantry continues to foment the war of the sexes and attempts to "gender transformation" of humanity. The main asset of this infantry is modern feminists. Grounded in theory and very young neophyte schoolgirls, absorbing all the "progressive" trends with the corresponding "values", they unite in communities with a large audience, leading active propaganda and constantly recruiting new adherents. Seeking idealistic ladies and naive young people still believe that feminism is a struggle for gender equality, for a respectful attitude towards women, etc. Forced to disappoint. The author of this material got acquainted with the main theses of the largest movements of the "third wave" - radical,socialist and liberal feminism, as well as with the popular statements of their representatives, and considers it important to share his observations with the readers of Katyusha.
Let's start, as they say, right off the bat - we will define the attitude of modern femactivists towards representatives of the opposite sex. Yes, it is to all representatives in general, and this attitude, according to the theory of radical femkas (radfem), should always prevail in women over the personal perception of an individual individual (see the material "On the private and general perception of men." Each man belongs to a discriminating group Male nature is, by definition, the nature of a rapist, exploiter, discriminator, oppressor and tyrant - in general and in relation to women, in particular. Direct quote from the program article "Men and Boys" of the "icon" of Radfem Andrea Dvorkin: "Men must come to accepting violence, because it is the first and foremost component of male identity."
According to Dvorkin, every boy has a “gender choice”: to become a man, ie. those “who have the power and right to hurt, use force, use their will and power over and against women and children,” or choose the role model of their mother. That is, to become a semblance of a mother, a woman psychologically and socially. Dvorkin sincerely believes that “a boy chooses to become a man because being a man is better than a woman,” and not because this boy has primary sexual characteristics inherent at the level of genetics, as well as secondary sexual characteristics that were formed in the womb by the distribution of appropriate hormones signs that, with the growth of the male body, accordingly shape his psyche and physiology.
According to this Radfem, a man can be changed for the better if he is raised as a girl, if all “gender stereotypes” are destroyed and the male sex is raised as “gender neutral” in order to permanently erase this “vile masculinity” from him. femomysl continues its high flight - let's get acquainted with another cult article by Sonya Johnson "Raising good sons will not change the world". A couple of quotes: "Despite our desperate efforts, our sons are forced to be men." And here's the "horror": "The basic formative factor of male existence - every man is born, automatically having an eternal advantage based on violence." Well, and this is of course: "Nature itself does not allow them to be fully decent, loving and kind."
Naturally, this attitude towards the male sex was immediately picked up by other "authors", materials like "Mine is not like that." About mothers, sons, responsibility and denial”, which speak of the same thing: men, they say, cannot be changed. Born with a primary sex trait means, at best, an oppressor and exploiter, or even a maniac and a sadist. The adept and the neophyte began to smoothly lead to the idea following this logic. You probably already guessed which one: "Coons are not needed." This is still a mild term, you better just look at the comments of feminists collecting hundreds of likes on social networks.
Promotional video:
If after reading there are still naive people who believe that the fem movement is able to adequately communicate and accept men who share part of their beliefs, you will have to open their eyes. For them, male associates are cockroaches that need to be poisoned. Here is a very frank comment and 1,180 "likes" below it.
The attitude towards the opposite sex forms the strategy of struggle of modern feminists. Equality has long been out of their scope. It is enough to take a quick look at Yulia Khasanova's frank text "Feminism is not a struggle for equal rights" to see the main goal - "the destruction of the male dominance system as a whole." According to adherents, “to achieve equal rights in a society built by men for men means trying to get their main right - to oppress”.
Thank you for another frankness - so, feminists are building a dictatorship of matriarchy. It is for your gender, and not for all of humanity, no matter how absurd it may sound idiotic. Indeed, in their view, our entire multi-thousand-year history is the history of the establishment and development of the patriarchy that they hate. With the exception of the mythical country of the Amazons and the semi-mythical island of Lesbos, women, in the understanding of modern feminism, did not live at all, but suffered, raped and cruelly oppressed. And if humanity in its current form ceases to exist, they will be happy, which directly follows from feminist memes (see photo below). However, to divert the eyes of feminists, they broadcast that society, they say, can still somehow change.
We have already seen how feminists dream of “changing” (sorry, poison or destroy in any other way) men in the name of “liberating women”. But if you think that their attitude to female nature, to femininity as such, to the main functions of a woman laid down by nature, to the peculiarities of the female psyche and physiology, again genetically and hormonally conditioned, are fundamentally different - again you are forced to disappoint. In that “gender neutral” IT, into which the adherents intend to transform a woman “from the beginning of time, imprisoned in the shackles of patriarchy”, it is very difficult to see anything even remotely resembling a beautiful lady.
To evaluate the emerging role model for the female gender, the author had to analyze the content of publics and communities on the VKontakte social network, which are administered by modern feminists (Radfem / Sotsfem / Libfem). They have a lot of subscribers (mainly subscribers), and this number is growing exponentially. Here is an incomplete general selection:
"Coons are not needed" (propaganda of man-hatred, "there are no non-creepy men") - 44209 subscribers, "My Abortion" (shocking stories about pregnancy and childbirth, designed to inspire horror and push for abortion and childlessness) - 10222, "The truth about pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood "(all the same, plus the denigration of motherhood and the role model of the mother) - 22056, Sots-fem - 41858," Feminism visually "- 162284," Live with a friend "(a group of acquaintances and promotion of homosexual relations between" sisters ") - 10040, various variations of publics" Yazhemat "(bullying mothers, banter over motherhood) - more than 3 million subscribers in total, various variations" Overheard by family / married "(banter and at the same time disgust from the institution of marriage and starting a family) - more than 1.5 million subscribers,various variations of "childfree" (propaganda of childlessness and child-hatred) - about 200 thousand, various LGBT-related communities (propaganda of all kinds of perversions, inciting hatred towards those who do not accept homo communication and do not consider them the norm) - about 1.5 million.
As you can see, the asset of these communities, which with a high degree of confidence can be attributed to destructive content (!), Is quite wide (approaching 10 million participants) and is constantly growing. Someone might argue that the list includes groups that do not position themselves directly as feminist. Yes, this is so, but the agenda set forth there is 99, if not 100%, is shared by adherents of modern feminism.
Let's return to the question, what kind of image of a woman is formed by modern femgroups. Firstly, she should be a supporter of abortion ("my womb is my rules"), even better - childfree ("Goddess do not let a boy be born, but no matter how you bring him up, it will still be part of the patriarchy", and also "children take away a lot time and money, hinder a career and the path to power to defeat the vile patriarchy "). So feminism dismantles the most important feminine function - procreation and reproduction of humanity.
Second, feminism maintains hatred of motherhood and childcare (“fuck!”) By dismantling the key female biological and social role - the role of the mother. Adepts cleverly try to explain this position by the fact that the role model of the mother was allegedly imposed on the woman by patriarchy in order to exploit and oppress her for millennia (they often use the expression - “dooming” a woman to the role of a mother, as if it were a link to a concentration camp or directly to the scaffold).
Thirdly, every neophyte is instilled in a wild hatred of the institution of marriage and marriage - this is the dismantling of the role model of the wife and the family woman, and through it - the traditional family (fits perfectly into the slogan of feminists, which became popular with the light hand of femoblogger Zalina Marshenkulova: “Neither husband, no God, no master "). As a result, neophytes with processed brains shout out without further ado: "Marriage is violence against a woman's personality."
We emphasize once again that the “confinement” of the female body for procreation and motherhood is the reason for the main differences between women and men (hormonal, physiological, psychological), the reason for her uniqueness and uniqueness. For the implementation of all of the above, the primary sexual characteristics, determined genetically, are responsible - they begin to form immediately after the fertilization of the egg. According to them, the sex of a person is determined - i.e. it is they that make it possible to define a person as a woman or as a man. And from all this - pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood, childcare - a woman is offered (not even offered, but strongly encouraged) to refuse. What is this,if not a fatal blow to the very feminine nature? Also, adherents like to use the expression "dismantling the ZHGS (female gender socialization) and MGS (male gender socialization"), covering up the destruction of the female and male sex as such with a screen for creating "gender neutral women and men."
Fourth, radical feminists, within the framework of the very rejection of the WGS, advocate a complete refusal of a woman from cosmetics, from caring for her appearance, from feminine clothes, etc. - all this, in their opinion, is called playing along with the social system of women's subordination. That is, if a woman tries to look attractive to the opposite sex, she thus bends under her eternal oppressors. Yes, they directly call it the dismantling of femininity (femininity) as a patriarchal construct. Yes, it sounds completely delusional, but feminists in their evolution (or, perhaps, involution?) Have reached the point of denying and fighting femininity. This is how they see a woman watching herself:
Finally, fifth … here those who are not in the subject may experience a real culture shock, but it is just necessary to tell about it: Radfem advocates the deconstruction of love (for a man, of course) as a "source of social subordination of women." In the programmatic article by Accion Positiva entitled "Love and social subordination of women", a romantic feeling, a woman's attachment to a man, a desire to be with him, and so on. called "the basis of the patriarchal economy" and "forcing women to a certain way of existence." To solve the “problems” of male and female love and attachment, it is proposed to “create a new“culture of love”, other models of the family”, as well as “critically analyze attitudes towards monogamy and obligatory heterosexuality”. Well, you get the idea …
In general, according to these unfortunates, if a neophyte experiences some kind of feelings and mental anguish in relation to a man, she must make a willful effort and stop experiencing them. If she chose for herself monogamy, marriage and family, or (oh, what a horror!) The role of mother and housewife, it means that she was forced to do this by the vile patriarchy. She just didn’t have time to realize this sad fact, but it doesn’t matter - caring "sisters" will quickly fix her brains and even help with an alternative model of "family" - lesbian cohabitation.
Eroding the entire foundation that makes a woman a woman, who do feminists propose to turn into, what is the portrait of their average neophyte or experienced activist with reliably brainwashed ones? Or let's ask a little differently: how do they see the ideal "fighter" for the right to oppress men? Well, of course, this is a childfree-lesbian / asexual despising "everything masculine", betting on "personal growth and career" in life and using her womb exclusively as an argument in the "battle for reproductive rights", and not at all for its intended purpose. The close connection and mutual adoration of absolutely all areas of modern feminism (Radfem / Sotsfem / Libfem) and sodomites (who call themselves the abbreviation LGBT) deserve a special mention.
The ideal “liberated woman” is an ardent defender of the rights of homosexuals. All modern feminism is intersectional - that is, the fight against men and masculinity for adherents is inseparable from the fight for the rights of perverts, trances who are self-mutilating, and sodomites. True, among Radfem transsexuals are not held in high esteem, since they were not born women, bisexuals are also not honored, because continue to rub shoulders with "vile men" - but these are already particulars. In the "sisterhood" in every possible way, same-sex close friendship / lesbianism is encouraged - the main thing is that in the life of a neophyte men are completely absent. Of course, with the exception of their constant presence in the mind as the main object of hatred. But the attitude towards homosexuals among the majority of feminists is more than positive - of course,after all, they (for the most part) are devoid of "disgusting masculinity" and do not pretend to have a relationship (and, therefore, exploitation and discrimination) with a woman. Well, if sodomites commit "domestic violence" against each other, then this is also okay - feminists do not suffer from this. In general, if we do not destroy everyone who was born with masculine dignity (this is somehow not comme il faut - extremism), then at least bring up “worthy” perverts out of them - this is the current femdeviz.who was born with masculine dignity (it is somehow not comme il faut to talk about this openly - extremism), then at least bring up "worthy" perverts out of them - this is the current femdeviz.who was born with masculine dignity (it is somehow not comme il faut to talk about this openly - extremism), then at least bring up "worthy" perverts out of them - this is the current femdeviz.
Let's highlight the key manipulative techniques of femactiv that help them bring the end of humanity closer. Firstly, this is the so-called “reverse sexism”, allegedly in response to constant violence and oppression by the patriarchy, although in fact there is no “reverse” here. We are talking about direct insults of men on the basis of gender, bullying them with the use of profanity, threats, wishes for them painful death, visualization of their physical suffering (see, for example, photo albums of the community "Coons are not needed").
Secondly, it is the constant intimidation of women, instilling fear and, through it, aversion to any relationship with a man (including family, to marriage), to the male sex in general (as a constant source of all kinds of violence), as well as to pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood. This is done by searching and reposting an endless stream of dark information, shocking stories mainly from the life of socially disadvantaged people, or written like a carbon copy of posts on behalf of women who have suffered from men / pregnancy / childbirth / family / children. Also, neophytes are told in the rules of communities that it is forbidden to say anything good about men here, and "the only reasonable way out of a relationship with a man is to end this relationship." Nobody is going to convince women with different views - they interfere with the conduct of propaganda,and therefore immediately go to the ban.
The effectiveness of such brain processing directly depends on the intellectual baggage of the neophyte. Often, after immersion in a swamp, she begins to utter such pearls:
Thirdly, this is a harsh satirical ridicule and leveling of all female roles and functions, which the femaktiv considers "stereotypes imposed by the patriarchy." We have already spoken about them above - this is done by publics such as "Yazhemat", "Overheard by married people", "My nitaka", etc.
So in small steps, as if without physical violence, but with the help of daily directed psychoprocessing, where with laughter, and sometimes with fear, shock therapy and hatred, destroyers of masculinity and femininity and all basic differences in biological sexes (with their replacement with pseudoscientific ones " gender "social signs-chameleons) go to their terrible goal.
It will be relevant to consider the agenda of the femactiv in the context of the draft law "On the prevention of domestic violence", which is actively discussed in society and on the sidelines of the authorities. How many such femwomen, who do not plan to create families from the word "absolutely", are drowning with wild activity for this bill, which, in the current version, concerns EXCLUSIVELY legally married families, relations between spouses, their children and relatives! Do deniers of family and matrimony as values sincerely strive for the release of families and marital relations from violence? For the release of their ideological enemies, dissidents, "vile traditionalists-patriarchals", for whom family and marriage remain a value? What idiot would believe in the altruism of these hedonists? Their true purpose,as has already been shown - the "liberation" of a woman from the "discriminatory by definition" institution of marriage, from the role model of the wife as such, and, ultimately, from relations with a man in general. Does anyone else take seriously the "care" of these characters, after the shock of activist Alena Popova from the fact that for the purposes of the law "preserving the family" and "promoting the reconciliation of the parties" are prescribed?
Analyzing the doctrine of modern feminists from the outside, you regularly come to the conclusion: adequate citizens with more or less developed logic should bypass their communities for a kilometer. Over the past decades, the avant-garde "bortsukh" has developed a position that all human history is an "abnormal history" of violence against women, any society (including modern) is patriarchal in its essence, and therefore is subject to complete dismantling and reformatting. They allegedly discovered the image of a new, correct, "brave new world", in which the oppressor and then the sole inhabitant will become … no, not a woman, but that very transformed IT. Imagining such a society, you recreate pictures more abruptly than any fantasies of Marxist-Leninists, admirers of the "new Reich" or dystopian writers. At the moment, males are still needed by women freed from all female in order to reproduce. But as soon as science has stepped far enough forward and learns to generate male reproductive cells from female biomaterial (such successful experiments are currently being actively conducted), in their "society of victorious matriarchy" men will no longer be needed. And then the scenario of the Polish satirical dystopian film Sexmission (1983) will be completely real.
At the dawn of human civilization, massive social confrontations arose mainly along ethnic, territorial and religious grounds. Then social engineers cleverly threw into society the idea of a "class struggle", as a result of which absolutely any country could explode into civil war - everywhere there is a conventional proletariat and bourgeoisie. Today, puppeteers are reaching a new, unprecedented level - they pit men and women against each other, promoting their dehumanizing anti-values behind this screen. There will be no winners in this war. All modern versions of feminism, through the efforts of their high curators (obviously, very, very wealthy men - heads of clans "owners of money") with varying degrees of rigidity postulate not only a woman's refusal from a traditional family, but also generally from any interaction with the opposite sex. Feminism organically merges in ecstasy with perverts - more neophytes (this is how sectarians call newly converted girls and girls whom they are always ready to brainwash) have nowhere to go.
Not only the harmony of relations between the sexes is eliminated (adherents believe that there can be no harmony between M and F by definition), but the very feminine nature (women are imposed an uncontested transition to lesbianism, which is accompanied by childlessness and degeneration), in parallel, a war of destruction with male nature (i.e. with men as such). Where will this ultimately lead? To the degeneration of both men and women - i.e. of the entire human civilization, which some representatives of the fem movement openly call for. This is obvious to everyone except zombie feminists. Modern feminism as a totalitarian doctrine of the apocalypse must be officially recognized as an extremist ideology - for the sake of saving humanity.
***
PS The reaction of the majority of feminists to this material is not at all difficult to guess - they will call the above "patriarchal propaganda, avoiding the topic of permanent oppression of women by men, simply because he is a man." They will remind, strictly according to the methodology, that “women all over the world must continue their tireless struggle for complete deliverance from male exploitation and violence”, for “establishing a fundamentally new, masculine femo-society” - their utopian dream (or sick fantasy, whatever you like). But it was written not for them, but for people with brains not yet completely washed out by feminitives and "the struggle for women's liberation." I would like to believe that there are an overwhelming majority of those in Russia.
PPS January 31 this year it became known about the proposal of the President of the Canadian Federation of Women, transgender Gabriel Bouchard, to completely ban heterosexual relationships - i.e. the relationship between M and F, for they are "violent in nature":
“Heterosexual relationships are really cruel. Moreover, the vast majority of such relationships are based on religion. Perhaps it's time to talk about canceling and banning them,”said Bouchard.