Feminisms liberal attitude…towards women only


12 May 2006


Feminists like to claim they’re somehow “liberal”, when in fact they are only liberal towards women. When it comes to men, no civil right is safe from their claws. Hence their accurate nickname Feminazis.

A good example is Germaine Greer, who has often ranted about her disgust for Sweden’s former policy of sterilizing handicapped women and how this is awful because it involves the government restricting procreative rights of the individual.

Yet on a British television programme a few years ago, she suggested a plan whereby boys, upon reaching puberty, would have some sperm samples taken from them and frozen, then the boy would be sterilized. According to Greer, men would only be able to have children by obtaining their sperm samples that were held by the government, and to obtain the sample to impregnate a wife or girlfriend, that man would have to have his life ‘examined’ and be interviewed by a panel so that it could be determined (no doubt by feminists) whether he is a suitable enough candidate to be a father. This is a serious plan that has been echoed by other feminists, that men should somehow have their ability to have children restricted (feminists are usually a bit vague on the scientific details; I guess that’s up to men to work out) and only allowed to have children if governments (i.e. feminists and manginas) give permission.

So this Greer is outraged at the idea of women being sterilized but quite content for adolescent boys to be sterilized to make men even more under the thumb of the Matriarchy.

In fact, sex and reproduction are the key areas of the feminist mindset of freedom for women and restrictions and responsibilities for men.

Abortion is a good example. Women can kill their unborn babies without having to consult the would-be-father, but men cannot avoid their responsibilities of having to support the child if the woman deigns to have it. Furthermore they damn well want the governments to step in and force the man to cough up if he proves reluctant.

The National Organization of Women had a big whine a while ago in America when the government suggested education programmes telling girls that having children was best when in a proper lasting relationship, ideally marriage. The NOW harpies declared it a disgusting invasion of girl’s privacy to advise them such things.

Yet NOW are eager for men to have money stolen from them by the government and handed to women for children they probably are not allowed to see, may not have willingly father and indeed may not have fathered at all. They are very keen on seeing men who fail to work hard enough to come up with enough cash for some woman thrown behind bars to be raped and brutalized.

Then there are the predictable snidey remarks feminists make if a man dares to complain about being forced to pay Child Support: “You should have kept your dick in your pants.” Yet suggest slutbag single mothers should have kept their thighs together and you’ll get blasted for daring to “oppress” women’s sexuality.

Then there are the demands feminists make for women to avoid legal responsibility for crime. At feminist’s request – and thanks to mangina’s compliance – women are regularly given short prison sentences – or none at all – for killing their husbands and children. NOW demanded Andrea Yates be spared prison and give a bit of therapy for killing her five sons. They’re happy for men who can’t afford to pay extortionate amounts of cash to wives who ditched them to go to prison, but are angry when women are locked up for mass murder.

Feminists want unrestricted freedom for women. Responsibility-free sex, little or no legal culpability and never told what they should or should not do.

But they want men to be under the heavy thumb of the matriarchy, held responsible for their actions and for women’s actions, every aspect of their lives and what they earn under the control and scrutiny of the government.

Fucking feminazis indeed.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:22 PM

%d bloggers like this: