Feminism Is A Satanic Force

Over the last couple of years, as I have watched cultural marxists, and feminists especially, plunge the online atheist world into byzantine chaos, I have pondered the difficulty of vigorously repudiating the malign influence of feminism without resorting to crude personal attacks, and without using language that either absolves a feminist of responsibility for her actions or automatically imputes to her malicious intent.

This is not to say that atheists don’t or can’t object to the chicanery that now typifies Free-from-Thought Blogs (formerly known as FreeThoughtBlogs.com) -- for example, there is no shortage of backlash evident in the Facebook group, Anti-Atheism+. However, in the absence of the moralistic language available to devout Christians and Jews, level-headed atheists generally have to make do with epithets from psychology or epidemiology -- sick, perverted, disturbed, insane, sociopathic, cancerous, malignant etc. To make matters worse, many atheists are Leftists, and as such are mentally straitjacketed by political correctness into moral relativism. Consequently, they find it difficult to take a moral position at all, seeking as they often do, the mythical middle ground of conciliation, hand-holding, rainbows and unicorns.

Moreover, whatever the terms of choice, many critics of feminism blur the distinction between an individual feminist and a group, a specific feminist and a typical one, and women as a class and feminism as an ideology. For example, if you take individual feminists, it is easy to say that Ophelia Benson is a Machiavellian schemer, Rebecca Watson is a pie-faced charlatan, Adria Richards is a hysterical prude, Valerie Solanas was a homicidal sociopath, Arnita Sarkeesian is grievance-mongering swindler, Hilary Clinton is a criminally negligent megalomaniac, and Germaine Greer, who in her youth traded heavily on her supposed sex appeal is now a sad and lonely walking joke. (Although, it must be said, she does have a knack for writing)

However, if you try to extrapolate what is demonstrably true about these feminist icons, a feminist always has the NAFALT (Not All Feminists Are Like That) defence of distancing herself from prominent feminists who adhere too faithfully to the fundamentals of the ideology.

There are two key rebuttals to NAFALT:

Firstly, the feminists mentioned not only speak on behalf of their thousands, if not millions, of fans and supporters, who defend what they say, but actively effect feminist policies in the real world -- in politics, business, the arts, etc. So calling yourself a feminist, whether you like it or not, lends support to the banner under which these women carry out their schemes.

Secondly, even if a prominent feminist is demonstrably insane, the supposed empowerment of feminist doctrine in way alleviates her disorder, but in fact exacerbates it.

Usually the consideration of fair play in a debate with a feminist is a moot point, because few feminists of prominence are interested in an honest discussion of their cult, but to the extent that a feminist is willing to commit herself to concrete and therefore potentially rebuttable positions, the NAFALT defence has a measure of validity. No matter how reprehensible an individual feminist’s conduct, how bankrupt her philosophy, how unbalanced her mental state, she is an autonomous individual who deserves to be judged on her own actions.

Therefore I propose that a critique of feminism keep each of the following definitions clear, and the same applies to a critique of any form of cultural marxism.

A specific feminist is a woman or mangina who publicly calls herself a feminist, or who adheres to the central tenets of feminism. There are few feminists in practice who don’t call themselves feminists, although there are some misguided women who are in practice egalitarian but think the label is feminism. In my experience they are usually Leftists who cannot ignore reality but find it hard to let go of a word in which they are so heavily invested. I also suggest using the female pronouns with reference to manginas, who seem so desperate to join the club of female empowerment it would almost be cruel not to lump them in with their overlords. The specific tenets of feminism that she commits herself too will vary, but she will insist that some kind of unjust disparity between the sexes persists.

If you want to talk of what feminists do or say or think in general, I suggest using the singular third person. So rather than talking about feminists, talk about “a typical feminist” and her actions, words, and thoughts. As I said before, it is important to conceive of each and every feminist as an autonomous individual, lest you get carried away with a flabby argument about no-one in particular. I find that this requires a certain discipline of thought, especially in light of the way that feminist brainwashing has done much to obliterate the average English-speaker’s capacity to distinguish between the singular and plural third person.

Once upon a time, one could use the masculine impersonal third-person without the millstone of “he/she” or “they” around one’s neck. For example, "A man's home is his castle" used to inspire a warm pride in the heart of every man and woman; now, only the lucky few can say this adage without feeling obliged to qualify it in some way, lest they offend someone.

Therefore, let us shake off this self-imposed injunction against the singular third-person pronoun, and dedicate the feminine pronouns to feminists. Using the feminine singular third-person pronouns when talking of a typical feminist (for example, “A typical feminist will never commit herself to a concrete definition of feminism; it is always what she wants it to be”) is not only better English by virtue of its distinction between singular and plural (i.e. its avoidance of number confusion), it reinforces the inherent female-centered sexism of feminism and a feminist’s thinking. What’s more, it promises to grate on the ears of the politically correct and offend any feminist within earshot.

If you want to talk about feminists in the plural, I suggest that you restrict yourself to identifiable groups of feminists, whose activities, goals, positions, topics of discussion

can be defined in concrete and therefore rebuttable terms.

To talk about feminists as an entire class is futile beyond the most general of statements, not merely because it can be fairly dismissed by the NAFALT defence, but because feminists in general come in many shapes and sizes, with each feminist declaring that her feminism is The One True Feminism, and anathematizing any feminist who doesn’t belong to her madrasa.

Besides, there is no shortage of feminist groups to take issue with. In Australia, every local council has any number of programmes specifically for women, every university has a feminist club but no corresponding men’s club, and there is even an assocation of women legislators called EMILY’s List, whose two primary objectives seem to be discriminating against men at every turn and promoting abortion. In the US, a good starting point for the political influence wielded by feminists is the National Organisation for Women. (Or as Bernard Chapin from Chapin's Inferno calls it, the National Organisation of Wildebeests)

Finally, and most importantly, distinguish between a feminist and feminism, between the person and the ideology. My primary concern is not with what a feminist says, does, or thinks, but rather with the ideology that gave rise to her words, actions, and beliefs; and more broadly, to consider an individual feminist’s actions within the context of the phenomenon that gave rise to them.

So let’s take a step back from the actions of individual feminists and take a broad view of the myriad instances of bigotry, violence, calumny, hate-mongering, discrimination, fraud, pork-barrelling, deprivation of civil liberties, destruction of families, and robbing of generations of the desire and opportunity to enjoy a happy marriage and family in the flower of their youth. When you survey this wretched landscape, it is difficult to find the right words:

Describing feminism in terms of philosophy is too abstract;

Describing feminism in terms of social sciences is hazy;

Describing feminism in legal terms often involves an easily rebuttable imputation of malice;

Describing feminism in terms of psychology or epidemiology absolves individual feminists of responsibility for their actions by treating of them as mindless drones.

After pondering this question for some time, I realised that I needed to find a lexicon that satisfies the following two requirements:

Firstly, that it evocatively convey the full force of the speaker’s repudiation;

Secondly, that it do so without resorting to crudity, personal attacks, dehumanising language, imputations of malice, or the assumption that a feminist is not fully in control of her actions.

And one day, I thought, “What about describing feminism in terms of religious morality?”

If there is one group of women that a mainstream feminist hates with especial venom, it is conservative Christian women. The hatred a mainstream feminist has for conservative Christian women is four-fold:

Firstly, feminism being almost the perfect expression of Leftism, conservative politics is to a mainstream feminist as garlic to a vampire.

Secondly, in a similar vein, is the repulsion aroused in a mainstream feminist by the very sight of a crucifix pendant worn by a conservative Christian woman.

Thirdly, feminists reserve their most spiteful vitriol for women who “betray” their cause.

Fourthly, to return to my point about language, conservative Christian women have at their disposal an entire lexicon of religious epithets with which to blast feminists, without restraint by considerations of political correctness.

A good friend of mine is a conservative evangelical Christian who despises feminism. In a recent conversation, I said to her that although I don’t believe in the supernatural, the most accurate way I can describe feminism without resorting to epidemiology is to call it a satanic force. She replied that, as she believes in heaven and hell, feminism is literally the work of Satan in her eyes. One might say we arrived at the same destination by different roads. Or that many roads lead to Truth.

This raises an interesting question about the apprehension of objective reality. If person A correctly perceives the dangers of a phenomenon through the prism of a supernatural world view, and person B is completely blind to its dangers because he does not apprehend its machinations in the secular, material world, then who perceives objective reality more clearly? The person whose belief in the supernatural gives him insight into developments in the real world, or the purportedly skeptical, rational person who is blind to the approaching danger?

After all, feminism is a particularly malign breed of cultural marxism. It should be obvious to all and sundry that feminism seeks to split the nations where it has taken root right down the middle, from the naval to the chops, to destroy the family as the building block of society, to consign entire generations to parentless childhoods, to condemn millions of men and women to failed marriages, or no marriages at all, to spoil innumerable women in the flower of their youth, and condemn them to decades of miserably aping a naturally masculine way of life.

If there be a Satan, feminism would be the prize weapon in his arsenal.

Furthermore, describing the phenomenon of feminism in biblical terms is fairer to feminists than using the language of psychology, medicine, warfare, or criminology. I say this because it is important to recognise that practically no-one consciously does evil, and yet history is replete with atrocities committed by the most religiously inspired people -- to take one small example, the Salafis in Egypt who murder, rape, and abduct Christian girls in order to forcibly convert them to Islam genuinely believe they are doing the work of Allah.

Contrast this with describing the phenomenon of feminism in terms of psychology or epidemiology, which removes the locus of control from the individual feminist, and absolves her of responsibility for her actions. It reduces a feminist to nothing more than a drone, a gollum, a zombie.

Take for example the most recent scandal, Adria Richards of Donglegate fame. To say that she is hysterical or disturbed or perverted, which she very well may be, is to overlook the calculating nature of her actions -- she wrote a lengthy blog post about it, after all -- and to say that she was “infected” by feminism is not much better, although it does imply a call to action such as a “cure” or “quarantine”. But even those implications are measures external to the feminist.

However, to say that she publicly shamed the two developers simply in order to get them fired is to overlook the anguish, frustration, and religious zeal that were clearly present in her mind, as she describes in tiresome detail in her blog post.

So how do we convey that the ideology of feminism gives rise to women who knowingly wreak havoc in response to delusions of threat and martyrdom?

Here is where the satanic metaphor is so useful in directing our attention away from Adria Richards’ hysteria and towards the ideology that gave rise to it. The power of feminism becomes clear when we consider that she had no intention of wreaking havoc, and in fact believed herself to be like a defender at the gates of Vienna, smartphone in hand, the last line of defence against a horde as dangerous and rapacious as the invading jihadis.

Thanks to years of feminist brainwashing, Richards believed herself to be at the centre of a cosmic battle between good and evil. According to her own account of the events leading up to the incident, the slightest provocation threatened to spark a righteous conflagration, and as it transpired, the combination of innocuous jokes and the image of a young girl inspired such righteous fury in her that one can practically hear her heart pounding as she formulated her battle plan.

Consider how this ideology so brilliantly warps a grown woman’s view of the world, induces in her such fear and rage, and motivates such childish, reprehensible conduct, all the while convincing her of the untainted purity of her motives.

Now let us imagine the effects of these wicked ideas on a grand scale, what misery they sow once they permeate popular culture, insinuate themselves into the school system, become codified in laws like VAWA, and become a primary ingredient in the identity of millions upon millions of otherwise kind-hearted, desirable, beautiful women.

The evil genius of feminism is not that it makes women evil, but that it completely inverts the meanings of good and evil. I suspect that the most fanatical feminists are the most hateful, not because of their hatred of men, but their immense love of a impossible phantasy, the realisation of which is threatened by the existence and happiness and success of men. And to return to my previous point, it is insufficient to explain it all away in psychological terms, to say they all have "Daddy issues" -- even if it be true. The point here is that the ideology of feminism has evolved (or been designed) in such a way as to become irresistible to unbalanced women and manginas, and to retard the natural emergence of confident adulthood in otherwise good women.

But it is precisely at this point, where you might infer that feminists are "infected" by a cunningly designed mental virus, that you should see the limits of this metaphor. A feminist is as much a carrier of this mental virus as a smoker is a carrier of cigarettes. A feminist remains so only for as long as she reaffirms her commitment to a feminist jihad. The moment she takes the red pill, she is free to tear off the label of feminism and seek truth unfettered.

Whereas if you conceive of feminism as a satanic force, it describes not only the viral nature of its spread through society, but also the culpability of the individual feminist who allows herself to be taken in by its message. Each and every feminist has the choice to live a good life or fall into sin, to hold fast to a quest for truth or give in to the explanatory power of a conspiracy theory, to see every man as a fellow man or see every man as a member of a privileged class.

This is the nature of evil ideas: they are propagated and accepted on account of the apparent goodness and actual weakness of their minions' intentions, and induce hatred and violence by engendering victimhood, a desire for martyrdom, and a doctrine of salvation through jihad.

I do not believe that Adria Richards, Rebecca Watson, and all the other feminists who inspire nothing but enmity, actually delight in destroying communities and ruining people's lives. They might be excited by the prospect of battle, but they believe themselves to be making the ultimate sacrifice. Nevertheless, havoc they do wreak, and, whether you believe in the afterlife or not, the ideas according to which they live and do so much evil can only be comprehensively and accurately described as satanic.

As such, there should be no compromise in repudiating this ideology. If you believe in the supreme importance of truth, tolerance, justice, and love, look beyond the purveyors of deceit, bigotry, calumny, and hatred, and fight the ideologies that inspire them.