When someone on an Internet forum called Donald Trump a misogynist because he called some woman a dog, I pointed out that the fact that he did not like one woman did not mean that he did not like any of them. Someone responded by saying that if he says that about any woman he is a misogynist. By that standard just about any woman is a misandrist because she would call Ted Bundy a dickhead. When dealing with human beings, it is to be expected that they will like some people and not others. That is the case both with women and with men. Some people appear to be of the opinion that liking women who act in the way of which one approves, and disliking those who do not, are an attempt to control women. Yet women, too, like men who act in a way of which they approve and not men who do not. Similarly they extend the same partiality to women who act in a way of which they approve and not women who act in a way of which they do not. Expecting anything else is not enlightenment or anything of the sort. It is failure to understand people. People will like those who act in a way of which they approve, and they will dislike those who act in a way of which they do not approve. The feminists of course do the exact same thing. So for a long time these women have claimed anyone who had disagreement with their party line, no matter how minor, as a misogynist or worse. Yet they have themselves proven to be completely misogynistic as well as more abusive than most men. They have been viciously abusive to women who were nicer and prettier than themselves. They have been viciously abusive to men who like such women. They have fomented the worst hysteria in the history of America, claiming cruelly and in violation of all reason that some people are basically inhuman and can only be evil whatever they do. As for their claim that beauty is relative or anything of the sort, it is refuted by their own behavior. They attack women who are attractive and not women who are not attractive; which means that they know what beauty is and what it is not, and their claims on this matter are a pack of lies. In the process they claimed themselves to be enlightened. In fact the women whom they attack are vastly more enlightened than they are. The “feminists” come from a place of hatred and viciousness. The women whom they attack, for the most part, bear them no ill will and, in my experience, have even been willing to help them. They think that they speak for humanity and that attractive women are basically not human. They think that many men are basically not human. Meanwhile they have themselves shown what is often exceptional cruelty; and it is in every way correct that such women be called femi-Nazis. Why am I writing this? Mostly to get their crap out of my head, which has been stuck there since mid-1990s. Also to help others get their crap out of their heads as well. It is valid to forgive one's transgressors, but it is not valid to allow fascist attitudes to dominate the society. It is important that more people repudiate this fascism and overcome it. It is important that freedom, honesty, and – yes – love and beauty – have currency in the world. At this point these people will say that I am dangerous. I hope to be dangerous to them; I hope that more people be dangerous to them. Once again, we are seeing here a very real fascism. And it then becomes incumbent on anyone who holds things such as liberty dear to fight this fascism. Is all feminism bad? No, there have been good things that have come out of feminism. This direction however is wrong absolutely. This is fascism done in the name of feminism. And that is no more valid than what existed in the Soviet Union. If there is such a thing as danger to the institutions of liberty, this is it. Now I started out on the Left, but I have come to respect a number of people who are conservatives. I would most certainly rather be dealing with people such as the conservatives I know than with such women. A former classmate of mine has become a successful salesman and manager and married a Russian woman. He says that their marriage is great. I recommend that more men in America and other places in which these ideas propagate go with women from places such as Russia, who have much more of a sense of perspective and know what abuse and misogyny is and what it is not. Back to the original point, is Donald Trump a misogynist? I do not believe that he is one. He does not hate women. He likes some women and dislikes other women. That is not misogynistic. That is human. Once again, most women like some men and not others, and that does not mean either that they are misandrists or that they are seeking to control men.
Feminism like Black Lives Matter is a political movement focused on grievance-based leftist ideology. Had Hillary Clinton won then by now we as a nation would be wallowing in leftist generated shrieks of "Misogyny!" and "Chauvinist!" just as under the Obama regime the nation heard almost nothing but "Racist!" for eight loooooooooooooong years. It's what fanatical and radical leftists AND their ideological tools do, and is as predictable as the arrival of heat during a south Texas summer. The nation SAW and HEARD and READ what true leftists were like when it came to Sarah Palin a -- arguably -- comely looking and independent-minded Right of Center political figure who rose to political prominence to challenge both Biden and Barack Obama during the presidential election cycle of 2008; and the Left AND their feminists went insane with full bore misogynist-based attacks on her and equally vicious attacks on all members of her family, but especially on the young females. The Left collectively went Wide Full Open misogynistic and many of the worst such offenders were self-declared feminists. But the thing to remember is that feminism and BLM and La Raza and other grievance-based leftist movements are just that . . . movements. Remember the artificially generated Occupy Wall Street movement from Obama's first term? It lasted roughly one year and then vanished. Take Black Lives Matter. It was all set to ROAR across this nation, but came into POLITICAL existence too late in Obama's second term to become much of anything substantial or financially sustaining before he belly crawled out of office. Then there is La Raza. The bigotry-based Hispanic movement ONLY has any political teeth when there is some South of the Border type issue that they can make into national news. But when they sided with the NAACP instead of with Brown Hispanic George Zimmerman back when Obama was attempting to poison a jury pool and politically control a potential judge by declaring that, "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon", La Raza shot themselves in the foot with much of the nation's Hispanic community who watched in silence as Brown Hispanic George Zimmerman was turned into a White guy by the Left so that he COULD be spit roasted for political reasons. The same with the Feminist Movement. The Feminist Movement wholly depended on the accession of corrupt Hillary Clinton to the presidency for a flood of new members and for the accumulation of substantial political clout. But no President Hillary, no attendant rise in political influence, power, or wealth from taxpayer's coffers. Hence the feminists are essentially toothless in a world of political predators -- or at least they collectively are very small predators indeed. So . . . not to worry.
` ` Considering the misogynistic postings I've witnessed here, No. He's an immoral pig but doesn't hate women. `
Dang, the Dodgers could have used a Homerun or two like this last night. Well said and precisely on point.
Without the woman’s movement you wouldn’t be complaining about Hillary because a woman would never have even been considered to run for president. The feminist movement that you obviously feel threatened by has empowered women
If that is what you got from what I wrote then I pity your old school teachers. Flunked critical thinking, eh?
