A guest post by Juggernaut: “Thoughts on feminism”

The following is a guest post by Juggernaut, where he shares his thoughts on feminism.  While I may not agree with all he says, I do think it is thought-provoking:

I think feminism is often misunderstood, and no matter what stance you take on feminism, there is a degree of controversy. Hardcore feminists will probably see me as a chauvinist or misogynist. Hardcore anti-feminists will probably see me as an emasculate wuss indoctrinated by leftist propaganda. In the end though, there are merits to feminism, but some feminists do go to unhealthy extremes in their beliefs.

There does seem to be an aura of belittlement and disrespect toward women in our culture (a.k.a. much of our movies and music). When feminists mention a human history where males have forcefully dominated and cultural barriers have prevented women from excelling in careers by giving them the expectation to be stay-at-home mothers, I listen and openly accept these criticisms. The guys who automatically write off feminists and see these concerns as silly, do seem to be in an overall state of justified ignorance. A person who doesn’t feel threatened or guilty will gladly welcome even more questioning and probing.

Men, instead of taking offense and immediately jumping to conclusions and saying something like “well, if it were a man, then ____”. Openly listen, and who knows, you two may actually be on the same page.  This is in the same way that some feminists need to be more open in taking criticism.

There are gender roles in our society. And there are two kinds of traditions. Some traditions are useful. Other traditions are not so useful. My belief is to adopt the useful traditions and abandon the less useful traditions. Everyone has different needs and a different lifestyle. If women want to adopt male gender roles and men want to adopt feminine gender roles, I have no problem with that. In some cases, it’s best for a woman to work and in other cases, it is best for a woman to be a stay-at-home mom. In the end, it’s a woman’s choice (as well as a man), in what she wants to be and what she wants to do with her life. Whether the traditional gender roles of women cooking/cleaning and men doing handiwork are adopted into a family or not adopted into a family, I respect their decision. Live and let live. Everyone has their own choice, and I won’t judge them.

Keep in mind that feminism is not a church. There is not one set of tenets you have to believe in order to be a feminist. And there are different kinds of feminists. Some of them happen to be the most extreme feminists (and I’m not condemning their lifestyles at all; but I will start to ask questions when they start condemning others). Some people believe in feminism and support feminism, but it isn’t their entire life. Other people eat sleep and breathe feminism. They spend a lot of their spare time protesting and they study feminism in school. A good amount (but not most) of the latter kind are found in colleges. And some of them are very extreme. If you go to college, you may hear a lot of feminist protests and feminist professors, and therefore conclude that most or a lot of women are like that.

But the most hardcore feminists are only a minority, and don’t represent most women at all!

I have a lot of respect for feminism, but not the extremists. That is in the same way I have respect for people in pursuit of their religion, but not the extremists.

Here is what I don’t like about the most hardcore extreme feminists:

1. They are more judgmental on women than men are. If a woman likes to live a lifestyle that is in line with what women have traditionally living, they will see those women as being brainwashed, as if they didn’t have the capacity to make a decision themselves. Basically “all women should be like ____. if you aren’t like ____, then there is something wrong with you.”

So, if a woman actually likes living within the gender roles, and actuallys want to be a stay-at-home mom, she should not be seen as brainwashed or too intellectually inferior to make her own decision. Her decision should be respected because she is intelligent enough to decide what she personally wants.

2. They are overly politically correct, take things too literally, and have no sense of humor. If they hear a joke that is mildly inappropriate, they will act uptight and decide the joke to be misogynistic. These people are much harder to have fun with, especially if you have a broader sense of humor. You can’t have casual small talk with them about having a long philosophical discussion about feminism. Everything leads to feminism and they sound like a johnny one-note. You can’t listen to the radio without them giving you a complete dissection of every lyric.

They don’t grasp the difference between words and actions. Actions matter more than words. If you say an off-color joke, it doesn’t represent who you are or what you think of women. It’s how you treat people that truly matters.

Again, these aren’t all feminists. Just maybe the minority of the most extreme feminists, who are ironically the most vocal. Most people who believe in feminism, believe in it, but they don’t commit the time to attend feminism events every week, they don’t study feminism and they don’t talk about feminism constantly.

Why is this bugging me?

Because some men are being trained to tailor themselves to the most hardcore feminists, thinking that those extreme beliefs represent ALL women.

Generally, I’d say dedicated feminists are no more than 10% of women, but 90% of women don’t subscribe to all of the things that hardcore feminists believe. That’s what angers me. A minority of women can’t speak for all women! The same way a minority of black people can’t speak for all black people. Or the same way a minority of muslims don’t speak for all muslims.

Most women do generally believe in feminism, but they are far from the hardcore extreme branch of feminism.

Most women actually don’t feel like them being a woman is restricting them in any way.

Most women actually like an inappropriate joke now and then. A lot of women will laugh hard at them. They can laugh at a “thats what she said” joke. They like being teased every once in a while. They do not mind at all having the passive role of waiting for the man to call and wanting the man to set up the date. Most women expect all of that! They don’t want a man who is boring, play-it-safe, over-apologetic or politically correct all of the time.

When it comes to sexuality, some women are more sexual than others. Some women resent the idea of pre-marital sex (and the idea of one night stands). Some women are perfectly okay with pre-marital, if it is with a guy they are attracted to. Women neither deserve to be labeled as a slut or a prude.

I say this to both men and women, don’t ever feel like you are doing something wrong by feeling attracted to someone. Don’t ever feel guilty about wanting sex, if that’s truly what you want. There is a huge difference between treating someone like a sex object (with no regard to anything else) and appreciating someone as a whole (including sex).

Most women WANT a man who is traditionally masculine, rather than boring, neutral or effeminate. They want a masculine man who is assertive and acts in a leadership role. This does not mean bossy, intrusive and manipulative. What I’m saying is that they want men to be the initiator, a protector that can provide a feeling of security.

A guy may talk to or get to know a woman who is a die-hard feminist, and therefore tone down his masculine qualities, in belief that he is belittling or insulting a woman by being traditionally masculine. But in the end, that is what most women like and are attracted to.

If you are surrounded in an isolated atmosphere of a vocal minority, it is easy to see a distorted view of what women are like. But in the end, each woman is different. There is no one formula that can be agreeable with all women. Some women are non-traditional and other women are more traditional.

In the end, accept people for who they are and let them make their own choices. And don’t get pressured into making a lifestyle choice just because someone doesn’t like what you are doing.

8 Responses to “A guest post by Juggernaut: “Thoughts on feminism””

  1. CodeSlinger Says:


    Your complaints against feminism are well founded, but don’t go nearly far enough. It is long past time to cease being intimidated by the ubiquitous feminist bias of society and call a spade a spade. It is long past time to pull the blinders from our eyes and realize that feminism is not about raising women up, it is about pulling men down; it is about destroying Western civilization by undermining its principal foundation, the family. It is long past time to stop believing the lies promulgated by feminists.

    The oppression of women by men, as touted by feminism, has never existed in the West. Go back in history and you find the tradition of romantic love, and before that you find the courtly love of the troubadours — both of which held women in the highest regard. Before that we had the Roman empire, and under Roman law, women were equal to men in every respect.

    In contemporary Western culture, it is men who are belittled, demonised, ridiculed, vilified, exploited, and downtrodden. Women are portrayed as smarter, more practical, morally and intellectually superior, and lately, even physically tougher.

    Gender roles are not primarily social constructs (any more than morality is). Gender roles are derived from human nature and the human condition (just like morality is). Within the similarities that stem from their common humanity, men and women are different creatures, with differently constructed bodies, brains and psyches, which lead to different strengths, weaknesses, needs and desires. It is these differences which drove the socialization of gender roles, not vice versa.

    The idea that gender roles are primarily social constructs has only one purpose, and that is to justify attempts to modify them by fiat to suit some ill-conceived concept of utopia. But any attempt to upset the natural balance between men and women leads only to grief and ruin. This is clearly proven by the fact that the more modern Western women get what they think they want, the more miserable they become.

    This is because what feminism teaches them to want the opposite of what they really need. And because feminist-controlled indoctrination and peer pressure virtually force them to deny their true inner natures. Nothing shows more clearly that feminism is far more inimical to women than anything it purports to oppose.

    On top of all that, birth control pills upset women’s hormonal balance to artificially make them gravitate to weaker, softer men. Not until they go off the pill to have children are they gob-smacked by the fact that they really wanted a strong, masculine man who leads from the front. That’s when the painful slide into divorce begins.

    You should overcome your squeamishness about condemning the lifestyles or beliefs of extreme radical feminists. Few things are more contemptible. Take for example Valerie Solanas and her Society for Cutting Up Men, who writes “to call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo”. Or Robin Morgan, with her claim that “rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman.” People like these are beneath contempt.

    To emphasize that these miscreants represent a relatively small lunatic fringe among feminists is to ignore the real damage they do. Namely, their position is so extreme that other (only slightly less extreme) feminists look moderate by comparison. Add to that the strict silencing of even mild anti-feminist opinion (notice that we don’t even have a word for it!), and the apparent centre of mass of the debate is shifted so far into the territory the feminists want to take that they are guaranteed a victory, whatever the outcome of the debate.

    The majority of women, whom you describe as the moderate, are not moderate at all. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want men pay for the dates, but they refuse to play the supporting role that once made that a fair deal. They want to have unrestrained sex and, if it results in pregnancy, they want to have unilateral control of how this effects the father’s life. Then they want the government to step in and raise their children so they can neglect their children in favour of a job.

    In no way is this moderate. It is extreme, man-hating feminism, promoting women’s interests and trampling on those of men. And it would clearly be seen as such, if it weren’t for the rabid bleatings of the feminazi lunatic fringe.

    In consequence, we have a society in which schools, laws, workplaces, and mass media are all tailored to suit women, and anything that caters to men is branded as misogynistic. A woman who goes after guys much younger herself is praised as a cougar; a man who prefers younger women is reviled as a predator, even if they are only a little younger then he is. Women initiate the vast majority of divorces, and men pay the vast majority of child support even though the majority of the jobs lost in the last recession were lost by men, and the majority of the jobs gained in the so-called recovery were given to women. Women have the 9-1-1 husband removal service at their beck and call, while the vast majority of the homeless are men. And so on.

    It is no accident that this happens at a time when black power is lauded as progressive, but white pride is deplored as racism; when gay pride is extolled as constructive, but enthusiasm for heterosexuality this branded as bigotry.

    All of these are examples of the divide-and-conquer agenda of cultural Marxism in the service of the plutocratic globalist collective. The fact that feminism fits perfectly into this diabolical scheme is perhaps best expressed by arch-feminist Andrea Dworkin:

    “The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the oppressor inconceivable.”

    Xanthippa says:

    Like I said (privately) Juggernaut – you are a bit too nice to feminazis…

    • Juggernaut Says:

      No apologies for anything I wrote. I’m not worried about the feminazi’s. They can continue to live their miserably uptight paranoid lives.

      We are both fundamentally against the feminist culture of emasculating men when most women prefer (and expect) men to be traditionally masculine, and that’s what matters.

  2. CodeSlinger Says:


    Well I am worried about feminazis, for the same reason I’m worried about gay activists and militant minorities: they all share a goal, and that goal is to tear down Western civilization.

    That means our civilization, brother!

    How do we know this? By reading their own published words. The proof that this is a real agenda begins with the fact that cultural Marxist apparatchiks have combined the feminist, queerist and racist dialectics to coin a name for their shared enemy.

    The call us the heteropatriarchy.

    In the Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories, Sarah L. Hoagland defines heteropatriarchy as follows:

    “Heteropatriarchy ensures male right of access to women. Women’s relations — personal, professional, social, economic — are defined by the ideology that woman is for man. Heteropatriarchy is men dominating and de-skilling women in any of a number of forms, from outright attack to paternalistic care, and women devaluing (of necessity) female bonding. Heteropatriarchy normalizes the dominance of one person and the subordination of another. Carol Pateman argues that social contract establishes men’s political right over women and orderly access by men to women’s bodies.”

    In “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy” (chapter 6 of Color of Violence: The INCITE! Anthology, South End Press, 2006), Andrea Smith writes

    “Heteropatriarchy is the logic that makes social hierarchy seem natural. In order to colonize peoples whose societies are not based on social hierarchy, colonizers must first naturalize hierarchy through instituting patriarchy. In turn, patriarchy rests on a gender binary system in which only two genders exist, one dominating the other. Consequently, Charles Colson is correct when he says that the colonial world order depends on heteronormativity. Just as the patriarchs rule the family, the elites of the nation-state rule their citizens. Any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy.”

    She concludes as follows:

    “Unfortunately, in our efforts to organize against white, Christian America, racial justice struggles often articulate an equally heteropatriarchal racial nationalism. … The response is often increased homophobia, with lesbian and gay community members construed as “threats” to the family. But, perhaps we should challenge the “concept” of the family itself. Perhaps, instead, we can reconstitute alternative ways of living together in which “families” are not seen as islands on their own. Certainly, indigenous communities were not ordered on the basis of a nuclear family structure — it is the result of colonialism, not the antidote to it.”

    These quotes show very clearly how cultural Marxism mixes fact with fiction and combines the Marxist dialectic with Freudian psychology to produce that exceptionally corrosive concoction called Critical Theory, which it uses to deconstruct Western culture and values by rewriting history in terms of sexual and racial power struggles.

    They illustrate the exact mechanism by which Feminism, Queer Studies, and Critical Race Theory interlock to become essential elements of a concerted and deliberate attack — in their own words — “against white, Christian America.”

    Cultural Marxism has quite correctly understood that the family is the foundation of Western civilization. And this is why it attacks the family from all sides: by using financial, legal and cultural pressures to turn wives against husbands and children against parents, and, further, by debasing the meanings of the words, husband, wife, parent, and child.

    The intent is not merely to deprive us of our civilization by depriving us of our families, but to deprive us of the very words we need to express the danger!

    Defending against this attack is the single most important task facing the West today.

    Xanthippa says:
    While I may disagree with some particulars, I do agree with the central thesis.

    And, I’ve been saving this link for a discussion just like this: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html

  3. CodeSlinger Says:


    That’s a very interesting article, but very strongly biased. It is clearly pushing the anti-heteronormative agenda, and this leads the author to adopt some rather contrived positions. Why is it, for example, that a hermaphrodite who views his/her vagina as a meal ticket is described as striking “a heroic blow for self-interest,” but if a biologically normal woman takes the same view, she is a whore or at best a gold digger?

    The fact of the matter, which is being down-played to the point of denial by Fausto-Sterling is that hermaphrodites suffer from congenital deformities of the reproductive tract. Their case is morally and practically no different from that of people born with any other kind of congenital deformity.

    Such people have the same rights and responsibilities under the law as anyone else, and any legal matter involving them, the court must consider all relevant facts, including the nature and extent of the deformity.

    In some situations, we will require special facilities for such people. Like handicapped washrooms, for example. No one has a problem with this.

    What we don’t need to do is undermine the normality of normal people by pretending that deformed people are not deformed.

    Every language that has ever existed recognizes exactly two sexes: male and female. This means that seeing people in such terms is an inherent, essential part of human perception and conceptualization.

    Any attempt to change that is an attempt to rewire the human psyche at its most fundamental levels.

    No good can come of this.

    Xanthippa says:


    like I said: I have been saving this link up for a while specifically for when this topic came up. And, to be perfectly honest, this article has gone far to persuade me to your point of view…for the very reasons you touched on.

    Still, I have a fundamental discordance thingy bugging me: once a person’s gender is legally (not biologically, but legally) changable, it seems very unsound to base laws on treating this (now, legally) variable as a constant.

    This has nothing to do with biology or psychology – but strictly the application of laws.

  4. CodeSlinger Says:


    I’m not sure that the law does treat this particular variable as a constant.

    Where necessary, we have laws that apply differently to males and females, and we have laws that apply only to one sex and not the other. However, I don’t think any of these laws are predicated on the proposition that every person has only one sex for life.

    If a person has a sex change, there is no reason the law can not apply to that person as it applies to a female during the time the person is legally female, and apply to the same person as it applies to a male during the time the person is legally male.

    Is that not how it works?

    If a person is part male and part female, there is no reason the law cannot apply to events involving that person’s male parts as it applies to a male, and apply to events involving the person’s female parts as it applies to a female.

    How else could it possibly work?

    I suppose the advent of sex-change operations is still new enough that there may well remain legal aspects of making the change that are not yet fully worked out. In this regard, I think situations without legal precedent will continue to crop up for the foreseeable future. But this is a different issue.

    Xanthippa says:

    I agree with you completely.

    The law I was referring to was the marriage law, which in many jurisdictions still treats gender as a constant by saying that marriage is a union of one man and one woman – without making provisions for how the situation would be handled should one of the partners change their gender afterwards….

    Luckily, in Canada, this is no longer a problem.

  5. CodeSlinger Says:


    Let’s be realistic here:

    If a man’s wife decides to become a man, the marriage is over anyway.

    If they really want to, the two of them can enter into a homosexual union after the sex change. This will most probably be extremely rare, however. In the vast majority of cases, the two people will want to go their separate ways.

    One novel legal issue that arises, in the unlikely event that the couple wants to continue with a homosexual union after the end of their marriage, is that there should be an orderly way for joint assets and liabilities to be passed forward from the preceding relationship to the subsequent one.

    Similar reasoning applies, mutatis mutandis, to every combination of initial and final sexes.

    I don’t know if the Canadian Civil Marriage Act of 2005 is consistent with this reasoning. But if not, then it is gravely flawed.

  6. CodeSlinger Says:


    As a follow-up to my last post, I decided to have a look at the federal Civil Marriage Act (S.C. 2005, c. 33). After a preamble which is mostly not too unreasonable, even though it (wrongly) claims that the rights of homosexuals would be infringed if their unions were not called marriages, I found this:

    4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

    What the hell–?

    This means a man could marry a woman, who could then unilaterally decide to have a sex change, and a heterosexual man would find himself married to a man.

    Not only that, but he would have no legal grounds for divorce!

    This is the sort of trash that passes for jurisprudence in this country?

    What a nightmare!

    Xanthippa says:

    So, you have found the flaws in the statute – thank you. I had erroneously thought that this would have been fixed by now. Sadly, I was wrong.

    All along, my position has been that it is the laws that have to be well and clearly written to embody ‘natural justice’…and not break down in even marginal circumstances – where our poorly drafted laws fail!

  7. Benito Says:

    What’s up, of course this article is actually fastidious and I have learned lot of things from it concerning blogging. thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: