Monday 12 January 2015

Feminism ~ A Masterclass In Manipulation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23488550


This article on the BBC is entitled "Twitter abuse - why cyberbullies are targetting women".

1. The BBC is not best placed to offer constructive critiques on any subject given its  facilitation of liberal concepts and ideas.  

2. As a result, even if there are some within the BBC who do not subscribe to those values, anything it says must be first be thoroughly assessed to establish the validity of its claims.

"Twitter abuse - why cyberbullies are targetting women".

This is what the BBC - and presumably those being targetted, would like to encourage people to think and believe.   If successful, this would then justify the response to any criticisms being made of those women.

'Cyberbullies' are targetting 'women'.

If that is so, people's understanding is being deliberately established on an idiom as what is being stated is not a wholly accurate representation of facts to begin with.  As such, this negates rather than substantiates all subsequent responses put forward by the general public, if they have first been misinformed.

3. 'Cyberbullies'.  Who has already decided that those who engage 'women' with words via Twitter should be labelled as 'bullies', and why have they made this assessment?


4. 'Women' does not actually mean 'women'.  Despite the BBC suggesting that any abuse that occurs is targetting women, it is not specifically 'women' who are on the receiving end - it is solely those women who have embraced feminism who are.

However, if such a distinction was made clear, then questions would be asked as to why that distinction existed.  One suggestion might be that there are groups of men who seek only to target those women who are feminists, who themselves randomly target all 'men'.

Generally speaking, men do not behave like that.  Men, for the most part, are far more tolerant and indulgent of women and our peculiar ways than we are of theirs.

But if it could be ascertained that men, in a general sense, appeared to only react to those women who happened to also be feminists, then it would strongly imply that those women must first be acting in such a manner as to provoke a response from them, whoever 'them' might turn out to be.

Knowing full well that 'men', generally speaking, do not respond when provoked - when any response will manifest itself all the more firmly as a re-action.

If that which is antagonistic is perceived as being deliberately provocative, it will wound all the more deeply and any man (or woman) so aggrieved is much more likely to react more vociferously than if that initial provocation was not present.

5.  This is the brilliance of the art of manipulation - that, I am sorry to say, all of us females, feminists or otherwise have been imbued with in ample measure since the womb.

We naturally skew facts to such an extent that we think little of deflecting responsibility for our actions away from ourselves if we think we can get away with it.  In some instances, we have become so adept that our talent has superseded art and become a quasi religion.

6.  Feminism - and by definition, those who embrace it, is an extreme form of fundamentalism in all but name that unlike true religion - seeks to counter male dominance and influence and to replace it with a skewed representation of what it is to be a woman.

True religions adopt and encourage the use of moral codes as a means to peacefully coexist with each other, so despite their often conflicting ideologies, it is adherence to those codes that enables them to acknowledge or facilitate many of those differences.

Adherents to feminism on the other hand, seek only to undermine 'men' - and at times, actively seek means to destroy that which it is not willing to acknowledge, as if doing so furthers its claim to be more predominant than any ideology that 'men' subscribe to.

Yet it is the very nature of its assertiveness that highlights its inner weakness ~ that in order to survive, it can only do so by killing off all its rivals.

Feminism is not founded in any specific moral code but upon the premise, loosely speaking, that there is no reason why women should not be in charge, or be in charge in equal measure to men.   Rejecting 'men' becomes justifiable simply because men are not female.

This is the main reason why feminism has proven to be so devastating over the past 40 years or so.  Women - unlike men, who generally speaking, sort things out with their fists - are adept at inflicting great pain without ever needing to resort to physical contact.

Women use words as a means to inflict pain.

Whilst there are many laws to challenge men who fall foul - increasingly, those who are challenged for that which is referred to as 'domestic abuse' - there are as yet no laws that hold a woman to account, when she uses words as a means to destroy human beings.

The status quo as it was worked pretty well for many thousands of years, until feminism sought to challenge it.  Perhaps being on the receiving end of being bashed was not the best way to sort things out, so it is understandable that some women might wish to challenge such behaviours, if or when they were present.

However, seeking to change the way of the world is neither the right thing to do, nor should it be attempted if it only results in a mindset that declares women know best. 

We don't.

If all women understood what it is to be a woman, instead of challenging men for being men, they would be respected more and would not have to seek ways to demand respect.

Feminism - with its antagonistic core, is designed to elicit a response from men (and women), who consider it wrong to be required to respect that which they neither believe in or accept, especially when it seeks to replace them in the order of things.

Feminism is based upon the 'rights' of women - whereas womanhood, in a more natural sense is based upon an acceptance and more significantly, an embracing of those responsibilities associated with what it is to be a woman.  

People should not be labelled as 'cyberbullies' without examining more closely why some people feel so aggrieved - what it is that provoked them so.

That such scrutiny does not occur ensures that no genuine debate regarding 'abuse' can happen.  The person who is aggrieved will become more so, for being found guilty before the facts have been wholly established.

If feminists do not wish to attract criticism, perhaps they should be willing to offer due consideration as to how repugnant feminism is to most men - who do not care for having such ideas forcibly applied on them.

Men are not designed to sustain or withstand such an onslaught.

Doing so is an act of psychological sabotage but it is only when men, and sometimes women react to that threat, that the real menace of feminism manifests its ugly head.

Feminism - whose natural womanhood has been abandoned understands exactly how to taunt and hurt a man.

When he cries out in pain, he does not cry as a woman would - he reacts in an entirely different way altogether.  He either says nothing at all - or he reacts, with anger.

Feminists know this, and use this knowledge to inflict pain.  Because men for the most part, react, it is this 'threat' that must be contained rather than any provocation that preceded it.


Feminism is then able to absolve itself of all responsibility.

Adapted from an article originally published on my former blog, Sunday 4th August 2013