🌺

the right can afford to be openly male supremacist and still garner the support of women who comply, such as “trad wives.” the left cannot do this. the left cannot successfully pontificate about freedom and liberation while being honest about the fact that they too want women to remain in a subservient set of chains like their rivals do. only the orientation of the chains differ between the two rivals. so, the left has to obfuscate their male supremacist aims so women will still participate in organizing and building the left’s preferred utopia, a utopia that is bereft of social injury to men.

leftists generally don’t say “men ought to lead and dominate,” “women are inferior,” like their rivals do. leftists prefer to be wolves masked as sheep. instead, they’ll say “abolishing capitalism will put an end to patriarchy,” (translation: solve the problems that oppress men first, ignore misogyny, and we pinky swear we’ll help you after we get what we want at your expense), or “feminism is bourgeois” (translation: feminism is the enemy to working class men who want to keep their porn, wives, surrogates and prostitutes).

leftists are not uneducated. leftists do not need to be convinced of 12,000+ years of female subjugation. leftists simply need YOU 🫵🏿 to comply with their preferred brand of male supremacy, so they’ll placate you with falsehoods and platitudes about how feminism must wait, so you’ll be complacent. the reality is they want feminism to wait, indefinitely. men and their apologists are simply acting in the self interests of men. in our society, the only injury is male injury, which is why they will support every movement that improves men’s social status and reject the one thing that will abolish it.

ideally, men must never ever have their sexual access to women be compromised. this contempt for female sexual boundaries and contempt for female freedom from male supremacy animates our entire concept of morality. left, right, center, diagonal, up, down, no matter the political perspective—every movement is a male grievance movement first. only the aesthetics differ, never the result.

my type of carrying on, radical feminism, emerged when an increasing number of leftist women realized these facts of male supremacy—that the right was not our only enemy as women. this is the ultimate rupture of “left-right” liberalism. leftists resist feminism as much as the right, possibly even more, because our refusal to comply with their misogyny is extremely dangerous to the success of their movement. any sort of popularity or sympathy towards real feminism is extremely dangerous to the status quo. leftist men have no choice but to oppose it if they want to keep their wives, their porn, their prostitutes, and their sexual control. the rise of feminism in leftist movements has consistently, globally, led to defections, enabling us to create movements that dared to acknowledge the injuries committed against women. our ability to opt out of their political project after unraveling their trickery has always made us public enemy number 1. tee hee.

excerpts on the 56 year old, cyclical question that remains unaddressed: why are hordes of leftist women sympathizing with radical feminism?

dworkin spoke of this extensively (she was much more charitable than i am), but you’ll randomly see evidence of this from lesser known writers if you read the literature from that time period too. i’ll post some citations soon. but basically, leftists want you to have a radical critique about everything but gender, because anything that causes injury to men must be abolished, but anything that benefits men must be permitted. the entire political spectrum is simply different flavors of a male grievance movement. male victimhood generates sympathy. this is true now and it has been true for thousands of years.

the left’s refusal to contend with male supremacy is largely what gave birth to “second wave” feminism in america. this outpouring is going to keep happening so long as they are committed to this refusal, and they won’t be able to corral these women into a productive direction due to their insufficient politics and the loss of trust. this is a repeat of history, and the problem has not been properly addressed.

the people who claim to oppose capitalism will critique every billion dollar industry on earth except for the ones that give them orgasms at the expense of millions of women and girls. suddenly, for women, consent makes exploitation permissible. you wouldn’t want to be a reactionary. communism is just for men, but the most that women can hope for is libertarianism.

the people who claim to oppose sexual violence will keep their heads down if the sexual violence results in an orgasm for the participants. strangulation is domestic violence unless someone requests it. consent makes abuse impossible, after all. you can’t abuse anyone if you garner consent before you do it. these people will claim to be “materialists.” you wouldn’t want to be a prude.

the people who engage in “media criticism” and care about “representation” fall silent when the representation of women and children in porn is a topic of discussion. suddenly, representation doesn’t matter if the representation is intended to give you an orgasm. they simply want more diversity among the sexual slaves. you wouldn’t want to be exclusionary.