The ever so common feminist mantra in our misandric society is “men bad, women good.” To put it another way: men are inherently bad by nature, and women are inherently good by nature. If a man or boy ever displays a positive trait, or if a woman or girl ever displays a negative trait, it’s then identified as a social construct. In the mind of a feminist, and someone who believes feminism, women are the embodiment of everything good about the human species, and men are the embodiment of everything bad.

	Male	Female
Positive Trait	Learned	Innate
Negative Trait	Innate	Learned

Feminists switch between believing that all human behaviour is socially constructed, and believing that there is innate human behaviour, depending on whether the belief will support the “men bad, women good” mantra. They deny that there may be any innate positivity in males, or any innate negativity in females, by psychologically projecting any negative female traits onto males, and any positive male traits onto females. This way, they can continue to take down males.
How traits become male traits
Whenever someone who possesses male genitalia (that is quite literally the one and only requirement, a male personality isn’t even needed) displays a negative trait – it is a male trait. When someone with that same genitalia gets angry, it is “male aggression.” When a male does something stupid, it is because males are stupid.
This does not just apply to traits that are actually associated with maleness. The trait does not even have to actually be masculine for it to be seen as a typical male trait. As long as it is negative, and the person is male, it is a male trait. Even if it is equally likely to be displayed by females, it is still viewed as male behaviour. In fact, it could even be a typical female trait that is rarely displayed by a male, and feminists and other gynocentrics will still view it as a male trait, simply because it is something they don’t like.
The negative trait, whether it is typical male behaviour or not, gets attributed to the male gender. Even if it is only one person who has displayed it.
Of course, it is a common mistake for someone to attribute traits to someone’s gender, age, race, religion or other group, even if it is not a typical trait of that group, and this is a mistake that most people, regardless of their own gender, age, race, religion or other group, make. However, feminists and other gynocentrics not only go overboard with shaming the male gender in any way possible, but they even institutionalized their beliefs as the norm that men are bad and women are good.
Phrases such as “men are stupid”, “boys will be boys”, “*sigh* boys”, “all men are jerks” and many others can be used for any purpose, as long as the person they are used on has male genitalia.
Another thing worth mentioning is how male-on-male conflict is viewed in regards to gender. In a negative situation where both the perpetrator and the victim are male, it is often that both are blamed, even if the victim does everything he possibly can to avoid the situation. If a male so much as explains a lie that’s been told about him by another male, he is accused of retaliating, as a result of his maleness of course. The term “boys fighting” can be used even if only one boy is actually doing any fighting, though a male being a victim of male-on-male violence can be viewed as violent.
What they say about females who display negative traits
When a woman or girl displays a negative trait, unlike a man or boy, it is viewed as a social construct. For example, if a female ever perpetrates any kind of violence, it is always because a man wound her up (even if it is something stupid like not getting her the right gift, it is still the man’s fault.) Some feminists even blindly blame negative traits displayed by females on patriarchal discrimination. Negative traits displayed by females can also be portrayed positively. For example, when a female attacks a male, even for a stupid reason, it is sometimes considered perfectly acceptable, and in our society where everyone has been poisoned with misandric views, it is assumed that the male deserved it.
When a male and female are in an argument, the female is usually the one believed by default. Why? Because according to feminists, females are never wrong, only males are. If the female is reacting negatively, it must have been because the male did something very bad, whereas if a male is reacting negatively, it’s his nature. Some feminists even consider any male who dares say no to a female to be a misogynistic woman-hater.
Some people make jokes about how women and girls who do show negative traits or do stupid things are acting “like men/boys.” This label can be applied whether the behaviour is masculine, neutral, or feminine. It just has to be negative to be seen as a male trait.
In situations where both the perpetrator and victim are female, unlike where both are male (which was mentioned above,) it is seen as a social construct and that both parties have suffered problems in their life. Many feminists try to label this as a result of the so-called patriarchy. Generally, neither are really “blamed” for the situation.
So, an outline on who is by default blamed for problems…

• Male problem: It is a result of his male stupidity.
• Female problem: It is a result of the patriarchy oppressing her.
• Male-on-male conflict: Both are to blame.
• Male-on-female conflict: The male is to blame.
• Female-on-male conflict: The male is to blame.
• Female-on-female conflict: It’s a social construct forced by the patriarchy.

So remember, the feminist mentality is that there are no positive male traits or negative female traits, and anything that contradicts the “men good, women bad” mantra is a social construct. That, folks, is how feminists define gender traits. Anyone who dares to question it will be labelled a misogynist by feminists.

Violence is a foundation of modern feminism. I have argued this for a long time; that violence and hatred form feminism’s ideological core. While many men’s rights advocates will agree, to the general public, the ideology claiming to pursue that moving goal of equivalence is still seen as good, noble, and diligently egalitarian.This is manifest in opponents of the men’s rights movement attempting to discredit men’s-rights arguments by calling them “anti feminist.” The anti-feminist claim is strictly correct, but intended that a listener should hear “anti human rights,” when the “anti-feminist,” claim is made.
It would have been impossible to drive the Klu Klux Klan into it’s current secretive incarnation without wide understanding among the American public that the group was fundamentally anti-human, violent and hateful. Early incarnations of the KKK operated openly in the Southern United States, often with the tacit or direct cooperation of law enforcement agencies.
Now I’ll pause here to give everyone a moment to tut tut and claim some variation of Godwin’s law. “Oh no! He compared feminists to the Klan!” At which point I should dutifully back-peddle with some weasel-talk.
In fact, I’m not tip-toeing around this comparison – I am directly comparing big-feminism to the violent, racist, supremacist hate organization commonly called the KKK. To some readers, this might seem like an extreme exaggeration. I’m making this claim, aware that the argument may be dismissed out of hand. However, individuals incapable of evaluating a claim outside the zone of their own comfortable reality won’t be convinced by any evidence whether it’s presented in large or small doses. If that’s you, tell yourself that the author of this piece is a whiny woman hater. Stop reading, go back to watching TV, shopping and eating Cheese Covered Wacky Fries.™

In comparing feminism to the identified violent hate movement of the Klan  it’s necessary to identify some details and differences.

The Klan is certainly not defunct in 2011, but has lost much of its former perceived legitimacy. The Klan was and is a movement built on hatred and violence – and this is the basis for comparison to big feminism. Where the movements differ is in sophistication, brand-perception and successful occupation of the public zeitgeist.
Feminism capitalizes on our built-in wiring to protect women against threats. In a modern culture with a comparative absence of threats to women, feminist ideologues have drafted up the endlessly shapable threat of “patriarchy” and all the attendant imagined manifestations of danger. They have instructed our culture that men, the doers of the human race, are the source of all evil. Once identified as enemy – the violence at feminism’s core can be easily expressed while avoiding public recognition. The significant difference separating feminism’s violence from that of well-recognized violent movements such as the Klan is that feminism’s violence is largely indirect, rather than direct.
Big feminism is the ideology occupying the centre of public zeitgeist. I’ve made this claim before, as have others. [1][2][3] The only reason feminism is even identifiable as a point of view separate from “common sense” is because it has no end point, and keeps moving forward. Rather, the “goals” of feminism are slowly but endlessly expanding. No matter what advances are made on behalf of women – it will never be enough, and new distortions of reality will be conjured which must be corrected by elevated affirmative action, funding, protections and so on. The violence at feminism’s core will continue to be hidden behind language, and mis-attributed to that omnipresent bogeyman; the patriarchy. Violence is both the centre of feminist doctrine – as well as the key to publicly discrediting an ideology of hate. Due to the dominance of public narrative by feminist doctrine, a perceptive block obscures comprehension of the violence that doctrine depends on and creates. This brings us to the need for some explicit discussion of just what constitutes violence.

Direct Violence Disguised.

Obviously, direct and overt violence should be recognizable to most people. Punching, slapping, kicking, blunt trauma, as well as violence done with sharp objects – and in some cases , firearms. This is easily recognizable – although weirdly, even such direct actions as that just listed is often not identified a violence when committed by a female.
Recall the cheering and giggling over the pre-meditated severing if a man’s sexual organs by the violent offender Catherine Becker on the daytime show The Talk. Of the show’s five hosts, only one, Sara Gilbert seemed aware that cheering over mutilating of a human being was the behavior of a psychopath. Her observation that a case involving a female victim would be distinctly unfunny was brushed aside by the other hosts with some variation of the dismissive “it’s different.”
The Kool Aid of mainstream feminist doctrine runs deep when aggravated assault and permanent grievous body harm is mistaken for slapstick comedy because the victim happens not to own ovaries. The mostly female studio audience thought it was hilarious as well, and when CBS broadcast the false apology of Sharon Osborne, she couldn’t stop giggling long enough to make it through her 2 minutes of stage-managed contrition. This spectacle is far from unique – violence done against men is routinely explained away as anything except the obvious. But excusing direct and overt violence with rationalizing language and cognitive smog is only one area that a rational evaluation shows feminism to be an ideology built on violence.

Violence under the aegis of big feminism takes several other forms as well.

Displaced Brutality
Because continuous exposure to derogation can render the offence perceptually invisible, it’s necessary to directly identify here, a number of types of violence.
These acts are all /still/ violence when they’re done by somebody else, on behalf of the person who initiated it. For example, if a woman in a fit of pique calls 911 and tells the police she has been attacked by her husband – whether the complaint is based on truth or not – functionaries employed by the state will attend the scene – will manacle the husband, and depending on his submission to this treatment, may also baton him, pepper spray him or use high voltage to subdue him. This will all usually occur prior to investigation of the claim’s veracity, if indeed that is ever examined. Then they will lock him in a cage.
To state the obvious – this is all violence – enacted on the behalf of a woman, and it follows a version of the provided script because law and law enforcement are governed by our society’s mainstream ideology – and that is feminism.
If the state’s armed enforcers are summoned by a man victimized by direct violence from a woman, she may be arrested. This is not the usual outcome, but if a violent female is arrested, it will almost always be done with extreme caution and care for her physical safety. A more common result for a man summoning police for his own protection in a case of assault-by-wife is that he is arrested, barred from returning to his home, pepper sprayed, baton-ed, and publicly excoriated by local news media.
The social dynamic between the class of humans called women and the police is similar to that between royalty and palace guards. Certainly, occasionally misbehaving royalty are chided and sometimes physically restrained by the palace guards – but this is a qualitatively different dynamic than enforcement of social caste between royalty and the grimy peasantry.
Violence enacted at one remove by state funded enforcers is not the only example of displaced brutality.
Besides the physical displacement of violence, our culture psychologically displaces violence by pretending to oppose it in narrow areas, and willfully ignoring it where it is much more prevalent.
Are we doing enough to stop violence against women?
This rhetorical question is routinely asked in public service campaigns organized and paid for by everybody from the united nations to the local women’s shelter in your city. The question suggests that violence against women is prevalent, and that a non trivial fraction of our culture resources are not already devoted to addressing it. Both of these implied premises are false. A visit to the bureau of justice statistics website[4] shows that men are now, and always have been the principal victims of violence in society, and a large body of peer reviewed research shows in domestic violence, both men and women are victims, and in reciprocally violent relationships – women are as aggressive, or more aggressive than their male counterparts[5].
So why are public campaigns to reduce social and domestic violence never about stopping violence against men and women? Why are we endlessly bludgeoned with the imperative to stop only the violence against women? Nobody producing such messaging can reasonably claim ignorance of the overwhelming male victim demographic, or the coequally male and female victim demographic in domestic violence.
The answer is simple. Addressing only half the problem in DV, and wilfully ignoring the overwhelming male victim demographic in general violent criminal victimization is a strategy designed to not only fail in reducing violence, but to escalate violence within society. In fact, the domestic violence grievance industry pursues this plan-for-failure with the unstated, but real intent of producing more female victims of violence. The grievance industry generates a great deal of public sympathy and associated donation on their manufactured narrative of battered women, but nothing creates moral panic and open wallets as fast as real female casualties. This also produces battered men, obviously, but bloodied and broken male bodies don’t pay any bills at the women’s centre – so male casualties are simply collateral damage.
But isn’t that insane and monstrous? Yes – but it keeps the money flowing.
This is also one of the drivers behind big feminism’s ongoing campaign to eliminate due process, habeas corpus and reverse the burden of proof in accusations of rape. This would obviously have profoundly negative consequences to men in sexual relationships – jail would never be more than a whispered accusation away. But the longer term result would almost certainly be female corpses.
The importance of the law as an equal arbiter of grievance between individuals cannot be overstated. Without a mostly impartial legal system for nonviolent redress of grievance, human societies have always, and will always find an alternative resolution to disputes. Without nonviolent legal resolution, what is left? Retributive violence. Feminists such as Jessica Valenti – who are vocal proponents of the abrogation of due process in accusations of rape quite obviously want women to be killed.
Violence also exists behind feminism’s ongoing complaint about the supposed wage gap. That the wage gap exists as an imbalance in average lifetime earnings, is used by feminists to pretend that on a job-for-job basis men earn more than their female colleagues. This is a false premise, but its accepted as normal because of 40 years of endless repetition. However, obscured behind this narrative is the ugly reality that of the work place deaths every year – 94% of them are male – and this brutal fact is never addressed outside the framework of mens rights forums.
In fact, mainstream feminist reaction to complaints of the normalized disposability of human lives are answered with standard shaming language that men should man up. Men dying on the job? Quit whining! This goes beyond adhering to a mainstream ideology of violence, it’s the wilful reinforcement of killing men for the convenience of a society which discounts their humanity.
In matters of sexual violence – the ideology of feminism surpasses every other area of violence previously mentioned. This too is obvious once identified, but remains smogged behind a cultivated cloud of disinformation. For more than 3 decades – feminist ideologues have indoctrinated the public into a grudging acceptance that the physical expression of sexual love is not the deep connection of interdependence, trust and affection between men and women. The idea that physically expressed love is not the intimate, beautiful act of the genesis of new human life. Rather – feminists ideologues have laboured strenuously to normalize the idea that physically expressed love is actually violence.
The idea that sexual congress is fundamentally an act of aggression and brutality is the most perverse and vile violence against a sane culture, against women, and in particular, against men.
The shaping of adult sexual relations into a framework of perceived brutality and aggression is the realized goal of feminist ideology. This pits women and men against each other not only as competitors, but as enemies in a framework with no resolution, because the expression of biological basis for sexual identity is defined as crime. The only resolution is for our culture to recognize the violence at the root of its now-central ideology. Feminism will continue to shape human society into a brutal and increasingly violent mold, until it is universally repudiated and abandoned.
[1] http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/whos_oppressing_who/
[2] http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/sommers.html
[3] http://www.warrenfarrell.org/
[4] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm
[5] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm