{Examples} - Victimhood

Posted by
{Examples} - Victimhood

Here are some of the things that the feminists consider as oppressive to the women (i.e., extensions or the beginning of a culture of male privilege, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, or rape) and the reason for the continued existence of their ideology of hatred for the males/masculinity. Feminism has made this perpetual victimhood of women into a career and a means of extracting money from the government and creating unconstitutional anti-male laws and policies everywhere. Hence why the feminists (and women employing the victimhood tactics to get pussy pass or falsely accuse someone of rape or DV to earn name, fame, status, forced apologies, revenge, and/or money) are also known as "Professional Victims", i.e., people for whom it's a business/job (for which they get paid) to spread the false narrative of victimhhod propaganda and sell fear and misandry, despite the fact that males are everywhere more likely than females to be the victims of crimes. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary. Updated: 2014/11/24.)


End of the document.

Male Privilege or Female Handicap

Posted by
Male Privilege or Female Handicap

Feminists are always obsessed with and insistent on certain long-debunked myths and illogical ideas like the male privilege, patriarchy, rape culture, wage gap, etc. In all cases, all the related factors claimed behind these myths have been shown to be not only non-existent, but actually working in the exact opposite way; that is, actually there is no male privilege but there's female privilege; there's no patriarchy but a de-facto matriarchy; there's no rape culture as being pushed but the rape perpetrated by the females is either not recognized by the law or is considered normal and healthy for their victims; and there's no wage gap owing to the discrimination against women, but it's the men who are being discriminated against (and that's by law, not by some shoddy hideous misandrist who does it secretly). In this post, let's see how the concept of male privilege finds its justification in a feminist mind and why some of the feminist bigots push it so hard. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

What is male privilege? Males and females are inherently different - by nature, by biology, and by nurture, by their upbringing. There are certain fields of work in which one gender is better than the other, generally speaking. When it's a field in which the females are better, the feminist logic attributes it to the inherent superiority of the female sex and labels the male sex as inferior based on that observation. When it's a field in which the males are better, the feminists say that it's because of XYZ, where XYZ is one of their devised myths, one of them being the male privilege. So if you're a male and hop to the top spot through your hard work, then, according to the feminists, your success is because of your male privilege. Of course, they never cite a real factor contributing toward this privilege (because there's none); they just want you to accept, anyhow, that you're male-privileged and to always remember this. They make irrational points (like the said privilege being institutionalized and invisible, which you're unable to see because of your penis; or the privilege being a group concept which applies to you even if it didn't benefit you; and other bullshit - often in an offensive/rage-filled/abusive tone, as if showing anger will make you accept it like a good kid). They do this because this thinking is helpful in the propagation of their larger agenda: The Matriarchy, which is normalization of the feminine standards (and criminalization of the male traits).

What is normalization of the feminine? In a more popular sense, you know it by the term feminization. Suppose there's a certain thing that males and females do differently, even if it doesn't affect anyone else. (For example, taking a pee - Males do it standing, females do it sitting down.) Now, feminization refers to making the female way of doing the things to be the default, the only accepted norm; and tax or criminalize the male way. (For example, law has been proposed to make the males pee sitting down, like the females.) Under an emerging matriarchy, this is accomplished in every field and with everything, with the help of the pressure from the State and the judiciary.

How is the concept of male privilege tied to feminization and the matriarchy? Well, that is straightforward. If the females are inherently worse in a certain field or are not that much interested in taking up a role in that field as actively as the males, then according to the feminists, that lower level of participation by the females in that field must be the norm (the default), and therefore, the higher male participation must be viewed as an abnormality to be criminalized. Since many such fields form the backbone of the current society, the feminists cannot go ahead and outright make those male behaviors punishable (for example, unlike the peeing posture, a law criminalizing the technical work will be met with a strong opposition), at least not yet. In such cases, the feminists settle to merely shaming the males for being better (or more interested) than the females in those fields. So they resort to call the males "privileged" instead of acknowledging the females' limitations or lack of interest. Once you, as a male, accept their stance and begin considering yourself 'privileged', the rest of the transformation is automatic. Since you're privileged, you now need to do something to counter it (and the privilege of all other males as well), which means you'll now push toward feminization (or at least won't oppose it or see it as something sexist or discriminatory toward you). To wit, the institutionalization of the (very real) female privilege as a law or policy matter comes at the shoulders of the propaganda bullshit of the male privilege myth. When the female privilege starts getting enshrined in the policies and law in every field, matriarchy establishes.

How do I counter this? Reject the myth of male privilege as there's absolutely no privilege you have as a male. Call the bigots telling you that you have that privilege out and tell them that it's a myth and you know their game and the reason behind their insistence.


End of the document.

Numerical Morality

Posted by
Numerical Morality

Is it okay to classify the victims of a crime or a tragedy by one of their natural identities and then ignore them or deny their victimization based on the justification (fact-based or just plain made-up) that the other people possessing that natural identity face that kind of crime or trgedy less frequently? And if you believe this is alright, do you still hold this same view when the opposite class that you're currently supporting is the one that is on the receiving end of the bullet, or does it then start to seem like discrimination? (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

What is 'numerical morality'? This is a special kind of belief in the (supposedly) "moral" values that does not remain constant at all times and for all the people; rather it only kicks in when the person to which it is being applied to under a particular condition belongs to a specific class of people who, as a class, face that condition either above or below a particular percentage value (let's call this number the "morality threshold"). For instance, consider a male person being raped or beaten by a female person. Suppose the statistics of crime (whether based on truth or just on the bigoted redefinitions of the crime to exclude certain class of criminals) in the city, state, or country where the crime happened show that the number of male victims of rape or violence by the female perpetrators (say, 45%) is less than the number of female victims of the same crime committed by the male perpetrators (say, 55%). Then, if you're a person holding a belief in numerical 'morality' with a morality threshold value of 50%, then you'll believe that it's perfectly okay to ignore the mentioned male victim of that crime (or in general all male victims of that crime perpetrated by the females), because 45% is less than 50% (or because 55% is, yet still, more than 50%).

Is numerical morality objective in a moral sense or is it inherently bigoted? Numerical "morality" is really no morality at all. It's a concept taught by the leaders or proponents of a bigoted ideology or worldview to their blind-followers who lack self-thinking. To see why it is not natural, suppose you're walking past a street and chance upon a cop beating up a civilian for no good reason or with excessive brutality (that does happen, frequently). In your ordinary moral sense (which automatically come up when you've never been indoctrinated into believing otherwise), you'll immediately come to the conclusion that what's happening before your eyes is wrong, regardless of the natural identity of the cop or the civilian. If you're logical as well, you'll label this as wrong even if you happen to know the civilian and that civilian is one of your enemies or strong opponent at some viewpoint (something similar to, "I disagree with your opinion but I'll fight till death for your right to express it"). If, on the other hand, right after seeing what's happening in front of your eyes, your first thought of labeling it wrong or right is to start looking for a particular kind of natural identity of the civilian being beaten up and then comparing it with a particular percentage value, then that is not natural because you need those numbers to justify your moral position (even the sources of which can be questionable and prejudiced), and to justify why you took only a specific kind of natural identity (or a set thereof) into account, you need to have been enrolled into a school of that particular thought. In other words, for taking that kind of stance, you must have been indoctrinated by the bigots holding a particular view that justifies any and all harassment against a particular class of human beings. Clearly, this view is inherently bigoted.

Are people holding a view of numerical morality hypocrites too? Sometimes they're not, most often they are. If you're a person holding the view of numerical morality, how do you determine whether you're a hypocrite as well? Here's a test. Reconsider the above example of the male victim of a crime where you determine that it's alright to ignore him because 45% is less than 50%. Now, consider another scenario, that of a war on a border where the soldiers are fighting and dying for your country. There are female soldiers and there are male soldiers. Historically, almost 100% (e.g., 99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties, and similar numbers for other countries and for all the times) of the war casualties and deaths have been the male soldiers. In our example too, suppose the situation is typical and most of the people being injured are male. Since the male casualty rate is so much higher (well above your moral threshold), according to you, it must be perfectly fine to ignore the injured female soldiers altogether and care only for the male ones. If it is so, you have a sense of numerical morality (whose moral compass keep looking at the statistics and reverses itself as soon as the numbers cross the moral threshold) but you're not a hypocrite (that's the only good thing about you w.r.t. this subject). If, however, this time you change your stance and start looking for other, supposedly "deeper", rationalizations for that stance (most probably a result of your indoctrination and of blind faith in your bigoted overlords), well, you're a hypocrite.

What problems does a numerical morality create? None as long as it's just those people's viewpoint and type of thinking, and doesn't impact others. For example, you can be a teacher who is against a particular religion but as long as you do not discriminate against your students based on their religious background, it's no problem. After all, you have the freedom of having your own views. However, the numerical morality creates all kinds of problems when it gets written into the law, because then the people can no longer be treated as equals, and are classified and accordingly treated based on their particular natural identities.

I don't want to be someone with a numerical morality. What should I do? Start thinking with your own brain rather than following the bigots. Identifying those bigots that are indoctrinating you is a good starting point.


End of the document.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)