Guidelines 1-31 (long version)

 

 

Below are guidelines that I will refer to by number and letter in the “Feminist Media Bias” and “The Daily Vos” pages. This will allow you to come back here and find explanations and brief examples and allow me to avoid explaining the whole concept within every article. 

 

We, Center Right Americans, are the new media and we need to monitor the old media. I created these guidelines so that you can use them for your own websites and new media communications.

 

We know that the Feminist Media is predictable. One, if only one, nice thing about its predictability is it allows us to have a prepared response.

 

I recommend that you print these guidelines for yourself and keep them handy so you can use them whenever you’re analyzing articles from the feminist news media. They can also be used when watching feminist entertainment media and even in preparation for conversations with feminists. 

 

These guidelines are especially accurate whenever feminists’ core-selfishness is involved, but they might not apply to all feminists in all situations at all times. 

 

 

Guideline 1a: Feminists’ Core-Selfishness

 

It is critical that you understand the concept of Core-Selfishness in order to figure out how feminists think and communicate. Understanding this concept will actually allow you to accurately predict what they will do and say before they do it and say it.

 

Core-Selfishness is the motivating factor in which feminists stand to gain financially, politically, socially, etc., or in future interpersonal leverage. The more an issue or conversation involves gain or leverage, the more pure, intense, and determined is the feminist deceit and manipulation.

 

A few elite, Marxist, feminist professors will engage in endless, obscure, philosophical debates about “historical materialism” and how it relates to myriad branches of feminism, but I can simplify modern, pop-feminism this way, it has two parts: the attitudinal and the political.

 

Soft-Core Feminists. These are attitudinal feminists. Your interaction with them is within an interpersonal relationship, most often your spouse, friend, family member, or co-worker. Their game is mostly financial gain and manipulation. “We’re oppressed. We’re victims. Life owes us a living. This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.” 

 

Not all of them vote for the Democratic Party.

 

Hard-Core Feminists. These are attitudinal and political feminists. These are the feminists you see on TV. Note well! There are male feminists too! Imagine a debate about reducing spending on the military and welfare by 10%, a Hard-Core Feminist will say, “We’re oppressed. We’re victims. Life owes us a living. This is all everybody else’s fault but ours. So let’s cut military spending by 20% and cut welfare spending zero.”

 

They always vote for the Democratic Party, or if that candidate isn’t liberal enough, for the Socialist Party.

 

To help you understand the concept of feminists’ Core-Selfishness, here is an example of when it doesn’t apply. You will get a straight answer out of Soft-Core Feminists (probably an ignorant answer but I can’t blame them for that, geopolitics is even more complicated than domestic politics) about conflicts in the Middle East. Why? Because they don’t care. There is nothing in it for them to gain no matter what happens. 

 

Feminists hope to link women along by making honest, virtuous women complain like Soft-Core feminists, and make Soft-Core Feminists vote like Hard-Core Feminists. Their first step is to turn honest, virtuous women into bitter, angry feminists.

 

We, honest, virtuous men and women, need to do the opposite. We need to civilize Soft-Core Feminists on our side, reach out (reaching out doesn’t mean selling out) to left of center Soft-Core Feminists, and defeat Hard-Core Feminists at the ballot box.

 

 

Guideline 1b: Omni-Deceit and Manipulation

 

If deceit is telling bald-faced lies, then manipulation is making people do things on your behalf, and to your benefit, based on deceit.

 

Feminists are liars and manipulators. It isn’t that all feminists lie all of the time about everything. It’s that all feminists lie all of the time about everything when their core-selfishness is involved. Deceit and Manipulation is the bedrock of feminism.

 

It isn’t that boys and men don’t ever lie, we certainly do, but here are some thoughts by Midge Decter: boys have “an enormous degree of transparency”…”Little girls acquire wiles with practically their first step. They flirt, they pout, they manipulate.”…”Boys, by contrast, have no wiles.”…”But little boys almost never dissemble or manipulate—even their lies are transparent.” (Decter, Midge. “What Are Little Boys Made Of?” Commentary. December, 1998.)

 

These comments are insightful, astonishingly frank for a woman, and totally true. And, just the tip of the iceberg. Can you imagine what it would be like if the opposite were true? Men would never hear the end of it about how honest women are and how deceitful and manipulative men are.

 

In order to fully understand feminism, and what Center Right Americans are up against, you must allow yourself to see feminists for the liars and manipulators they are. I know that sounds rude, but you must set aside all of the pre-conceived notions you have about women generally—you must make distinctions among women.

 

There are a few Ann Coulter-types.

There are some honest, virtuous women.

There are some Soft-Core-Selfishness (Attitudinal) Feminists.

There are some Hard-Core-Selfishness (Attitudinal and Political) Feminists.

 

The first two groups are just great. Men should behave in as much of an honest and virtuous manner as possible to them. Give the same amount of respect to them that they give to you. The last two groups are the ones we, honest, virtuous men and women, need to civilize. This entire website is dedicated to explaining Soft-Core and Hard-Core Feminism, so I will leave it here for now.

 

 

Guideline 1c: Omni-Manipulation

 

A master manipulator can make you act or believe a certain way, based on a lie she has told, and if it is done right, you won’t even know you’ve been manipulated.

 

It isn’t that boys and men don’t ever manipulate, we certainly do, but feminists are the Harlem Globetrotters of manipulation. We aren’t even the Washington Generals—they at least have potential. We’re like a bad junior high school team compared to feminists.

 

Know that deceit and manipulation are two sides of the same coin in understanding feminists. It’s possible to “manipulate” someone into doing something using honesty and kindness, but feminists almost never use that method. Why not?

 

Imagine a woman asking her husband or any man, “would you please do this or that for me?” Then he does it and she says, “thank you.”

 

An honest, virtuous woman might treat a man that way but a feminist won’t for several reasons. A feminist doesn’t want to ask nicely and say “please”, then, after the request is fulfilled, feel as if she owes him a nice “thank you.” For a feminist, even a small interaction such as this can be fraught with score keeping. Did she treat him too nicely? Did she just set a dangerous precedent? Will he expect her to behave like this in the future? Will he start to feel too good about himself as a human being? And if you don’t think feminists think this way, then you don’t understand feminists.

 

For feminists, manipulating people into doing something, based on deceit and the absence of virtue, is the ultimate display of power and contempt for others. Feminists like to feel that they forced you to do something, that they fooled you into doing it. Feminists like to feel that they earned the favor with their clever use of words and thus don’t owe you common courtesy.   

 

                                                                     ***

 

When I was young, I thought feminists were merely ignorant, not deceitful. I thought they would eventually wise-up. I didn’t think they were dumb, mind you; I just thought maybe there were issues they didn’t know much about. I was accidentally helping feminists. I wasn’t holding them accountable and responsible. I was excusing their behavior as ignorance instead of a well-practiced and determined deceit. Then I saw how feminists took such overweening pride in their intellect and how they were capable of thinking intelligently in other situations. I knew for certain it wasn’t just ignorance feminists were practicing.

 

Again, when I was young, I thought maybe feminists were less logical than men. Then I saw how they were capable of thinking logically in other situations. I eliminated lack of logic as an explanation for their behavior.

 

(See Guideline 15a for a concise statement for the two preceding paragraphs.)

 

Again, when I was young, I thought maybe it was argumentation itself that confused them. It might not have been ignorance, or lack of logic, but the argument, the fight, that explained their behavior. In an argument, all kinds of things are said, and people are trying to catch others in contradictions. I figured anyone could get confused in such a situation. But then I saw how feminists, not once, not even by accident, ever acknowledged a single, opposing point, no matter how obvious or factual. In other words, they exhibited tremendous discipline within their own (deceitful and manipulative) framework.

 

(See Guideline 17a for a concise statement for the preceding paragraph.)

 

 

Guideline 2a: Omni-“Oppression”

 

Deceit and Manipulation is the very bedrock on which the cornerstones of feminism are set.

 

“Oppression” is one of the four cornerstones of feminism. Feminist literature is saturated with the concept of “oppression.” The other cornerstones are “discrimination,” “sexism,” and “equality.”

 

To defeat feminism, the one cornerstone you really need to understand is “oppression.” The other three cornerstones follow the same pattern. If you can master this one, you will be able to master the other three. “Oppression” is the most important of the four cornerstones because it justifies all of the complaining all feminists do about all other aspects of life.

 

“Oppression” is their trump card. No matter what happens to anyone else (men), feminists don’t have to care. Why not? Because they are “oppressed.” Constantly complaining about everything keeps the focus on them. So everybody constantly tries to make them happy and of course it is never good enough for them and the game continues. 

 

Feminists work endlessly to create a syllogism for women:

All women are “victims” of “oppression.”

I am a woman.

Therefore, I am a “victim” of “oppression.”

 

Feminists know that women don’t want to have to prove their “oppression” individually – because they can’t. Thus, the need for a simple syllogism every woman can use.

 

The flaw is with the first line – it just isn’t true. 

 

The definition of oppression is:

Cruel or unjust treatment; tyranny; persecution, despotism. Harsh; severe.

 

Of course, feminists try to use a very loose definition of “oppression” that includes all women but excludes all men. If men are ever counted among the “oppressed,” the game will be ruined, because there will be no net advantage or leverage for feminists against men.

 

If feminists were lexicographers, you would find the word “oppression” to have a one-word definition: women. For feminists, it’s simple, women equals “oppression” and “oppression” equals women. This is how they begin to manipulate you into trying to help alleviate their “oppression.”

 

Here are a couple real world examples of actual oppression.

The wars involving Congo and the war in the Darfur region of Sudan. It is political, racial, and religious oppression. There are additional hardships such as AIDS, starvation, and malaria.

American women are not “oppressed.”

 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one measure of a nation’s wealth. By that measure the U.S. is the richest country on earth.

 

“Soaring obesity rates make the U.S. the fattest country in the OECD.” OECD.org.

 

American women (and men too) are the richest and most well-fed group of people on the face of the earth. Look in a mirror! I want to be clear, I’m glad American women and men are well-fed and rich. I’m glad we all have so much to be thankful for.

 

It doesn’t bother me at all that feminists are well-fed and rich, what bothers me is that they are well-fed and rich but then they sit there and complain about being “oppressed.”

 

That American women are not “oppressed” is the most obvious, uncontroversial statement in history. But what about oppression within the philosophy of Marxism?

 

Whenever the average feminist complains about “oppression,” it isn’t a philosophical statement about Marxism – it’s just provincial ignorance. The average American feminist wouldn’t know Karl Marx from Richard or Groucho Marx.

 

Guideline 2b: For feminists, once “oppressed,” always “oppressed.” Feminists demonstrate this guideline whenever they complain about something that might have happened over 100 years ago.

 

Guideline 2c: For feminists, if it (“oppression,” “discrimination,” “sexism”) happened to just one feminist, they act as if it happened to all of them, or that it could theoretically happen to all of them. So they all start complaining now. 

 

Women aren’t “oppressed” and neither are men. Men aren’t “oppressed” and neither are women. If you can reach the conclusion that women aren’t “oppressed,” then the feminists’ game is over.

 

 

Guideline 3a: Omni-“Discrimination”

 

Feminists work endlessly to create a syllogism for women:

All women are “victims” of “discrimination.”

I am a woman.

Therefore, I am a “victim” of “discrimination.”

 

There are two things you need to know:

 

We are discriminating massively in favor of women, not against them. It’s called affirmative action. White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.

 

There is no discriminatory wage gap. Oh, there’s a wage gap, but it is not a discriminatory wage gap. In other words, it is a fair wage gap.

 

Any causes for the gap in wages have been thoroughly explained by Warren Farrell and many others. Here are just a few places to get started.

 

Books:

 

Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It. By Warren Farrell.

 

The Declining Importance of Race and Gender in the Labor Market: The Role of Employment Discrimination Policies. By June E. O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill.

 

Articles:

 

“The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth.” Diana Furchtgott-Roth. Manhattan-institute.org. July 26, 2012.

 

“Wage gap myth exposed – by feminists.” Christina Hoff Sommers. AEI.org. November 04, 2012.

 

“There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap.” Carrie Lukas. Wsj.com. April 12, 2011.

 

“Why the Gender Gap Won’t Go Away. Ever.” Kay S. Hymowitz. City Journal.

Summer 2011 Vol. 21 no. 3. RealClearPolitics.com 8/4/2011.

 

 

Guideline 4a: Omni-“Sexism”

 

Feminists work endlessly to create a syllogism for women:

All women are “victims” of “sexism.”

I am a woman.

Therefore, I am a “victim” of “sexism.”

 

“Sexism” is an all-purpose conversation stopper. It is frequently used whenever anybody disagrees with the feminists’ sense of political correctness or core-selfishness.

 

Unlike the first two cornerstones, “sexism” can be used as a personal insult. Feminists would like “sexism” to have the same impact as accusations of racism but it doesn’t.

 

In a world awash in Hollywood sewage, the word “sexism” is a bit passé. Their new phrase is “war on women.” Expect to hear and see a lot more of it in the future.   

 

 

Guideline 5a: Omni-“Equality”

 

Feminists work endlessly to create a syllogism for women:

All women are “victims” of “inequality.”

I am a woman.

Therefore, I am a “victim” of “inequality.”

 

The trick here is that feminists know perfect equality can never be achieved, which guarantees they will always have something to complain about.

 

Not all individuals, or demographic groups, will be exactly equal to each other.

 

As long as women on average are shorter than men on average, feminists will never stop complaining about “inequality.” What does height have to do with anything? Nothing. It’s like the story of the farmer who went to a neighboring farmer and asked if he could borrow some rope. The second farmer said no because he was using the rope to keep milk tied up. Milk can’t be tied up with rope. The lesson is: if you don’t want to get along with somebody, any excuse is as good as any other.

 

Feminists don’t want to get along with non-feminists and any difference of any kind, for any reason, no matter how irrelevant, superficial, or unchangeable, will be used for something to complain about.

 

It is impossible to make everyone equally able so feminists developed methods such as the government school system to try to make everyone equally unable. 

 

Guideline 5b: Tear down boys and men at all costs

 

This is one of the main goals of feminism. The rules of political correctness state that feminists can say whatever they want to about men, even if it’s a lie, as long as it tears down boys and men. For example, they might try to portray men as more manipulative than women.

 

Sometimes feminists can tell the truth, as long as it tears down boys and men. For example, they can correctly state that men commit more violent crime.

 

Guideline 5c: Build up girls and women at all costs

 

This is one of the main goals of feminism. The rules of political correctness state that feminists can say whatever they want to about women, even if it’s a lie, as long as it builds up women. For example, they might try to portray women as more logical than men.

 

Sometimes feminists can tell the truth, as long as it builds up girls and women. For example, they can correctly state that women are better looking or more compassionate than men. One caveat here, attractiveness and compassion are seen by some feminists as being “traditional” feminine characteristics, and thus may violate their rules of political correctness.

 

 

Guideline 6a: Deny and Reverse Accuse

 

Feminists simply deny they have personality flaws. Then, they put you on the defensive by accusing you of having their flaws.

 

Here are a few samples:

 

Deceitfulness.

“We never lie, that’s just an old stereotype. We, feminists, love nothing more than an honest, forthright debate about the facts. Do you know who lies a lot? Men. They never give a straightforward answer.”

 

Manipulation.

“We never manipulate, that’s just an old stereotype. We, feminists, always say what we mean and mean what we say. Do you know who manipulates a lot? Men. They never stand behind what they say.”

 

Gossipy. Bitchy. Catty.

“We never gossip, that’s just an old stereotype. When we, feminists, are at work we’re all business, and when we aren’t at work, we’re too busy thinking intelligent thoughts to gossip. Do you know who gossips a lot? Men. They’re always standing around at work, saying, ‘did you see the pants that guy’s wearing? It just makes his butt look huge.’” 

 

 

Guideline 7a: Feminist Media bias by uneven number of, or use of, experts.

 

Here is just one example. The TV show “Inside Washington” on PBS features three flaming liberals against just one Charles Krauthammer. Among the regularly appearing feminists, liberals, and socialists, are Evan Thomas, grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, Norman Thomas, and Nina Totenberg and Jack Germond.

 

Guideline 7b: Feminist Media bias by uneven number of, or use of, non-experts.

Guideline 7c: Feminist Media bias by omission.

 

-1. Omission of facts detrimental to feminists.

-2. Omission of facts beneficial to non-feminists.

 

Perfect example:

 

An article about the “wage gap” on Forbes.com by Jayne Black on 04/30/2012, titled, “My Happy Mother’s Day Wish – Pay Equity!”

 

She omits any mention of the Equal Pay Act of Congress from 1963. No writer can include all information in an article, but the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is the single most important and relevant fact in the whole “wage gap” debate.

 

Black knows that any acknowledgment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 weakens her case, and any exposition on the Equal Pay Act destroys her case, so she simply omits it.

 

Guideline 7d: Feminist Media bias by complicity.

 

-1. They promote the talking points of FLSUGbDpp* and the FLSUGbDpp promote the talking points of the Feminist Media. 

-2. They accept the face-value statements of FLSUGbDpp.

-3. They ask softball questions of FLSUGbDpp.

-4. They ask hardball questions of Republicans.

-5. They ask questions from the extreme left-wing of both the FLSUGbDpp and Republicans.

-6. They complain FLSUGbDpp are too conservative or not liberal enough. Republicans are always portrayed as too conservative.

-7. They conceal, cover-up, and de-emphasize scandals and bad news for FLSUGbDpp, but relentlessly hound Republicans. Examples: John Edwards’ and Jesse Jackson’s children resulting from adulterous affairs, which took the National Enquirer (Way to go, guys!) to uncover.

 Conservative writers will often mock feminist writers who commit this bias with the stock phrase, “nothing to see here, folks.”

-8. They engage in character assassination against the opponents of FLSUGbDpp.

 

Here are a few websites specializing in exposing media bias that I frequently visit. BernardGoldberg.com, Breitbart.com, and MediaResearchCenter.org.

 

*For an explanation of FLSUGbDpp, see Political Matchups page. 

 

 

Guideline 8a: In the Feminist Media, women may be portrayed as better than men, but no worse than equal to men. This is known as “Difference or Cultural feminism.”

Guideline 8b: Men may be portrayed as worse than women, but no better than equal to women. This is known as “Equality or Radical feminism.”

 

If women are better than men at something, then the Feminist Media puts forth “difference feminists” to boast about how great women are.

 

However, if men are better than women at something, then the Feminist Media puts forth “equality feminists” to nag about how the sexes are equal. If men are clearly better at something, feminists go all-out to play for the “tie,” the draw.

 

And, if men are clearly and undeniably better at something, then feminists just make excuses. It’s because women are “victims” of “oppression,” “discrimination,” and “sexism,” or of not enough government enforced “equality.”

 

Notice how, to feminists, if women are better than men at anything, the test, data, or measurement tool is perfect; but if men are better than women, then feminists always, automatically, declare the test, data, or measurement tool is biased.

 

 

Guideline 9a: In the Feminist Media, it is allowable to praise or celebrate only women, or to criticize or insult only men. But if they praise men in any way, they must find a way to praise women. If they criticize women in any way, they must find a way to criticize men.

 

 

Guideline 10a: Why doesn’t anybody ever say that to feminists?

 

Perfect example:

 

There is a website called “The Good Men Project”. Goodmenproject.com. The website can best be described as feminism for men. I read an article there titled, “Guys, Stop Whining.” By Ken Solin. The article is dated December 18, 2011.

 

Wait a minute. Guys, stop whining? Guys, stop whining? Damn it! Why doesn’t anybody ever say that to feminists? Don’t complain so much is good advice for everybody – men and women. So, why doesn’t anybody ever write an article for feminists called, “Shut Up! Bitch”? 

 

 

Guideline 11a: Omni-attribution bias. If a man can’t get a job it’s his fault. Feminists blame him. If a woman can’t get a job it’s because she is a “victim” of “oppression,” “discrimination,” and “sexism,” or of not enough government enforced “equality.” Feminists blame everybody else.

 

If a man succeeds, feminists are quick to undermine his accomplishment (they might say he benefited from “white male privilege”), but if a woman succeeds, it’s because she did it all by herself. Feminists give her all of the credit.

 

 

Guideline 12a: Feminists get to self-define: “All women are oppressed.” But they also get to other-define: “Men have it so easy.”

 

We, men, need to start doing both things too – but with truth. Men aren’t “oppressed” and neither are women. Women aren’t “oppressed” and neither are men.

 

Something I say a lot is, I don’t care which way they want it, but they can’t have it both ways. We, men, need to start self-defining and other-defining.

 

 

Guideline 13a: The 75/25 imbalance in favor of feminists.

For an individual feminist, “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is ours.”

For groups of feminists, “what’s ours is ours and what’s yours is ours.”

Guideline 13b: For problems and “struggles” it’s the opposite, then feminists say, “what’s ours is everybody’s but what’s yours is just yours.”

 

 

Guideline 14a: Warren Farrell, “Men are biologically programmed to compete to solve women’s problems. But there’s no equivalent in reverse. Women are repulsed by the idea of men asking for help.” The goodmenproject.com, August 9, 2011, “Learning to Row From Both Sides of the Boat”.

Men help women but women refuse to help men.

 

 

Guideline 15a: Selective logic and thinking. Feminists argue logically and intelligently against men, but when complaining on their own behalf, they throw their brains out the window.

 

This one is yet another facet of deceit and manipulation and it really bothers me when feminists do this. 

 

I once took a course with a black professor of sociology who made the observation that comedians are some of the world’s best sociologists, because they get to say some controversial things that if anyone else said would get them fired.

 

To that end, here is part of a Chris Rock routine. (Picture him in your mind in front of a large audience in full-stride and mid-show.)

“You can never beat a woman in an argument. You can never beat a woman in an argument…”

The audience gives supportive applause because what Chris Rock is saying is politically correct. (Women are just so smart and logical and perfect at everything.)

Then he yells, “…because men like arguments that make sense!”

The crowd erupts with genuine, pent-up, politically incorrect laughter.

 

It isn’t that feminists aren’t logical or intelligent; it’s just that they only think logically and intelligently half the time – against men.

A feminist might say, “I work with a few men and some of them are paid more than I am, so I’d say I’m discriminated against.”

But if a man says, “well I work with a few women and some of them are paid more than I am, so I’m discriminated against too.”

That’s when a feminist all of a sudden starts thinking, lists a bunch of factors, and says, “no, because maybe some of the women are older than you, have more experience, have more education, better education, better skills, maybe they’re just better at the job.”

You know what? That is the smart and correct answer, but if you try to turn it around and show how it applies to her situation, then feminists throw their brains out the window.

It’s because feminists’ core-selfishness is involved. So it is all deceit and manipulation from then on. It is all complaining and excuses.

A Feminist will say, “all of the factors don’t matter. Some of the men are paid more than I am and I’m a woman and they’re men so that is discrimination.”  

 

 

Guideline 16a: Feminists use diametrically opposite starting points in a debate. Feminists assume that all women are “victims” in every situation, but that all men are never victims in any situation.

 

Notice the pattern to how feminists play the game. They stake out the most extreme position possible for women’s perceived weaknesses and “struggles,” but they also stake out the most extreme position possible for men’s perceived strengths.

 

 

Guideline 17a: Selective research. Feminists never (and I mean NEVER!) acknowledge an opposing argument, fact, or statistic, when their core-selfishness is involved.

 

Feminists know any acknowledgment of an opposing argument only weakens their position. And, any agreement with an opposing argument destroys their position. And, they never voluntarily contribute any information contrary to their position in an argument.

 

I’ve heard individual men carry on whole debates by themselves going on-the-one-hand on-the-other-hand. About the death penalty, for example, you’ll hear men say, “it’s more expensive, but on the other hand, life imprisonment is also expensive. But maybe the felons deserve the death penalty, but on the other hand it isn’t much of a deterrent, if any…”

 

A feminist would never do this on a core-selfishness issue. To do so -- voluntarily contribute information contrary to what she wants -- would undermine the whole goal of deceit and manipulation.

 

A feminist would never say, “There is a wage gap between men and women. On the other hand, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 says that pay is equal when the factors are equal, and there are lots of factors that account for the wage gap.”

 

Let me repeat the lesson of when feminists’ core-selfishness doesn’t apply using the death penalty debate. The average soft-core feminist doesn’t care much about this issue. Why not? Because her core-selfishness isn’t involved – she doesn’t have anything to gain from it financially or in future interpersonal leverage. Hard-core feminists will care about this issue because they are political and the Feminist Media advocates for the Underclass.

 

 

Guideline 18a: Omni-complaining. Feminists can, and do, complain about anything and everything.

 

Feminists complaining about everything is the background noise of our lives. To cease complaining is, to a large extent, to cease being a feminist. We’ve all heard the cliché, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Feminists keep the focus on themselves -- and all of the money, resources, and services going their way -- by constantly complaining that things are never good enough. So everybody is always trying to make them happy. 

 

Feminists complain that all women are “oppressed.” Think about what an extremely ignorant complaint that is. It is extreme both quantitatively and qualitatively. An example of actual oppression is the Holocaust Jewish people suffered through during WWII.

 

Understand that “oppression” is the most extreme complaint feminists can make. If they can get you to believe in that, then they can easily manipulate you into believing all of their other slightly less extreme complaints.

 

There is a quote attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche, “Every complaint already contains revenge.” Awesome quote for both accuracy and parsimony of words.

 

Understand that feminists’ complaining about everything is their revenge against you. Feminists say, “we do all of the work, we are oppressed, we are victims…” Obviously, they aren’t being very subtle. No. It is in fact hateful revenge.

 

I’m a fair-minded guy. Sometimes women have valid complaints – as do men. If you had a hard day at work, or if you broke your leg and it hurts, that is a valid complaint.

One thing is certain, men don’t complain to the same excessive and extreme degree feminists do. Men don’t sit around and complain that men are “oppressed” – and that is a good thing. Our goal should not be to increase the amount of complaining coming from men; our goal should be to decrease the amount of complaining coming from feminists. Yes, we have our work cut out for us, because to cease complaining is, to a large extent, to cease being a feminist.

 

I think some of us thought feminists would eventually wise-up and stop complaining so much if we were nice and voluntarily conceded ground. I’ll have to admit that I thought this way, but they never wised-up and now I feel like such a fool for having thought they ever would. I should’ve known better.

 

 

Guideline 19a: Omni-Revenge. Revenge is a virtue in feminism.

From their perspective, they’re always just trying to balance out the universe. Because of omni-“oppression”, they feel their hatred is always fully justified.

 

 

Guideline 20a: A favorite trick of feminists is to nag, blame, criticize, and complain about everything, then deny that they’re nagging, blaming, criticizing, and complaining about everything. 

Omni-nagging, omni-blaming, omni-criticizing, omni-complaining, and omni-denial.

 

Why do they deny all of that? Because they know it looks and sounds bad and people won’t like it if they own up to it. So when feminists say, “we do all of the work, we are oppressed, we are victims…” if they are challenged, they will say, “oh, but we’re not blaming you, we aren’t criticizing you. We would never do that.”

But that is exactly what they’re doing. They are getting revenge on you by blaming and criticizing you. But feminists know they can’t directly blame and criticize you, or men generally, because men won’t like it. So they will oftentimes add another layer of deceit and nag, blame, criticize, and complain about the “patriarchal society.”

 

 

Guideline 21a: Feminists can be extremely vindictive.

Guideline 21b: Feminists can hold a grudge for an extremely long time.

Guideline 21c: Feminists nurse their grudges and they constantly rehearse their grudges. They remember all of their grudges against men, but they know men are too nice to do that to them.

 

This type of thing can be seen with married couples when they have an argument. Men have told me that afterwards, “she needs to stay mad for awhile.” And, I’ve heard women say, “we have a fight and 10 minutes later he walks through the room and acts like nothing happened.” 

 

 

Guideline 22a: On the other hand, feminists have a very selective memory. They remember all of the nice things they did, and do, for you, but they forget about all of the nice things you did, and do, for them. They remember the mean things you did to them but they forget about the mean things they did to you.

 

They do this to try to gain the high ground in manipulating you. They constantly rehearse this type of thing in their minds, so when they need to manipulate you, they can list the nice things they do for you, and, if necessary, the mean things you did to them. They know men don’t constantly rehearse this stuff so we don’t have a whole list of things ready to say. 

 

 

Guideline 23a: Feminists love to second-guess men, but they hate to get second-guessed.

 

Men usually use the power of proposal and action. Women prefer the power of selection and second-guessing.

 

 

Guideline 24a: Mean girls and even meaner women. There isn’t one woman out there who hasn’t been mistreated by another woman.

 

There isn’t one woman out there who hasn’t been mistreated by another woman. I want to be clear. I don’t want to see women mistreated by other women. But I do like the fact that women have been mistreated by other women for one reason, because that way I know for sure women are at least getting a taste of what they’re like to deal with.

 

Here is an important application of this guideline. Sometimes when men are talking about how they were mistreated by women, feminists simply deny it and suggest it is an impossibility because women never mistreat anyone.

 

It is important to understand that women can be awful to other women and they can be awful to men. And every feminist knows it!

 

I’ve heard so many stories from work and I will share a few of them here.

 

I was talking to a woman in her 40s and she told me she didn’t like going to a certain floor in the building because some women there weren’t nice to her. I asked her what they did and she said she would say “hi” to them but they would ignore her.

 

At the same workplace, another woman in her 40s came back from lunch and announced, “boy, my sister-in-law couldn’t turn her head fast enough to act like she didn’t see me in the skywalk.” Her own sister-in-law!

 

At a different workplace there was a situation similar to the first one. A twenty-something woman told me another twenty-something woman wouldn’t respond to her. 

 

At that same workplace a forty-something woman told me she thought a woman intentionally gave her a bad haircut because of a personality conflict.

 

I have more stories but I think you get the point. It should be noted that I didn’t put any effort into hearing these stories. Stories like these are in the air that we breathe. The women worked in cubicles near mine and women talk. It makes me wonder about all of the other women in the office. What about women two rows over, or four rows over? I’ve worked in some big places. What about the women six rows over, or eight rows over? What about women one floor up, or one floor down? There must be millions of stories like these.

 

Feminists try to portray themselves in the best possible light and admitting to cattiness ruins the illusion. But sometimes they will admit to half of this personality flaw. They will say, “Yes, sometimes women can be awful to each other.” They are doing two things here. Portraying themselves as double victims. Victims of both men and women. And, they are locking out men. The implication is women don’t mistreat men so men can’t be victims of women. They don’t want to validate your experience of being temporarily victimized by a woman or women. They don’t want to have to care about you because it takes the focus off of them.

 

So when a woman says, “sometimes women can be awful to each other.” You need to say, “yes, women can be awful to women and they can be awful to men.”

 

 

Guideline 25a: Hairline loyalty/treason. Feminists can be very loyal -- all the way up until the moment they sell you out.

 

 

Guideline 26a: Self-report bias. Feminists always try to portray themselves in the best possible light, not just a good light, the best possible light.

 

The Feminist Media has recently changed its strategy. They don’t dwell as much as they once did on women as “victims” of “oppression,” “discrimination,” and “sexism,” or of not enough government enforced “equality.” They feel they have poisoned women to the point where enough women believe they are “victims” that “victimhood” has taken on a life of its own.

 

Their new strategy is to tell us how great women are at everything. So they portray women in the best possible light.

 

                                                                     *** 

 

Some of you have seen the illustration where an average woman looks into a full-length mirror and sees her physical flaws. In the next panel, an average man looks into a full-length mirror and sees a perfect physique.

 

I think the illustration is true up to a point. Society puts a lot of pressure on women to be beautiful. Of course, if a woman is beautiful, it is a huge advantage. Society does put some pressure on men to be physically strong and able. A smaller, weaker boy’s self-esteem can suffer in a similar way a less attractive girl’s self-esteem can suffer.

 

But I’ve always thought another illustration could be made. If a mirror could be held up to reflect personality, the results would be reversed. An average man would see his personality flaws, but an average feminist sees herself as God’s gift to the world. She’s very “bright,” “beautiful on the inside,” right-down-the-middle fair-minded, a perfect daughter, wife, mother, and employee.

 

I don’t mind women being portrayed that way, but why, why oh why, can’t the media ever say anything nice about men? Of course, the answer is, men must be torn down at all costs for the sake of “equality.”             

 

 

Guideline 27a: Feminists have such reasonable standards of achievement for themselves. “She’s trying to be the perfect wife and mother.”

 

I’ve heard women talk where one woman says she needs to pick up her kid and another woman says, “It sounds like you’re trying to be a perfect mother.” That’s it? That’s all it takes to be perfect?

 

We, men, need to start doing this. Have you stayed faithfully married to your wife? Well then, it sounds like you’re trying to be a perfect husband. Have you ever picked up your kid from practice? Well then, it sounds like you’re trying to be a perfect father.

 

 

Guideline 28a: Feminists think all women share the same “struggles,” such as “oppression.” Feminists think all women share good characteristics, such as “all women try to be perfect.”

 

Interestingly, feminists don’t think all women share bad characteristics, such as deceitfulness and manipulation. They can’t have it both ways. 

 

Notice the pattern, feminists expect constant pity for their “oppression,” while at the same time, they expect constant praise for their “perfection.” What a deal! They expect us to simultaneously pity and praise them.

 

 

Guideline 29a: Feminists, liberals, and socialists see it as the government’s job to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.

But don’t take my word for it. Here is a quote from:

Jaggar, Alison. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Page 175.

“In both the political and the economic realm, contemporary liberals see it as the responsibility of the state to impose just burdens and to allocate just benefits.”

 

 

Warren Farrell Guideline 30a: “Men’s weakness is their façade of strength; women’s strength is their façade of weakness.”

Warren Farrell Guideline 30b: Glass floor.

Warren Farrell Guideline 30c: The Lace Curtain.

 

 

Guideline 31: "Privilege"

 

The phrase “check your privilege” isn't as popular as it once was, but accusing people of having “privilege” is a permanent part of feminism.

 

Think of feminism as a playbook in a game of socialist, liberal, and radical feminist women vs. men. An accusation of “privilege” is a reverse option for the cornerstone of “oppression.” Instead of, “all women are oppressed,” it is, “all of our political opponents have privilege.” It is an easy play to defend against after you understand its scheme.

 

Of course it boils down to simply, left good/right bad, but it has a few options you need to understand.

A right of center white man has “privilege.”

A right of center black man has “privilege” because he has male “privilege.”

A right of center white woman has “privilege” because she has white “privilege.” The twist, here, is a feminist might tempt the woman by telling her she has less “privilege” than right of center men and she should complain about it.

 

What about right of center Hispanic, Latina, or Asian women? This is why feminists have a playbook. They can avoid using the word “privilege” and say that these women are “victims” of “oppression” but they just don't know it yet.

 

However, in a pinch, a feminist can still attempt to make “privilege” work. If a feminist is in a debate with an Asian woman specifically about “privilege,” the Asian woman could be accused of having come from a two-parent household, or having a college education, thus having “privilege.” It doesn't matter if the feminist is a white woman with a college degree. If her “privilege” is pointed out, she will say, “Oh, I know. Isn't it awful? We need more socialism to help the underclass.”

 

Do you see the direction of this play? Instead of complaining about being a “victim” of “oppression,” this play lets feminists accuse others of “privilege.” The word “privilege” is similar in one regard to the cornerstone of “sexism” in that it can be used as a personal insult.

 

However, feminists strongly prefer playing the role of “victim” rather than making accusations. Why? Because they know people hate being falsely accused of such nonsense and won't put up with it for very long. Playing the role of “victim” is more general, so the implied accusation is more general and less of an insult. Also, playing the role of “victim” is feelings-based instead of intellect-based and so it is more difficult to argue against.

[Added February 23, 2015]

 

March 27, 2013