Monday, April 11, 2005

Confessions of an Ex-Feminist

I got many comments to my posts about Muslim rapes and gang rapes of Swedish and Norwegian women. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were gang raped by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.

Why doesn’t the male protection instinct towards their women show itself? Some of this is simply because many people are not aware of how grim the rape statistics are. As I noted in my post, the numbers showing a high percentage of immigrants have been suppressed, probably with at least tacit support at the government level, because it would destroy the multicultural illusion. However, I think the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has been pervasive in Scandinavia for decades. The male protection instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole.

The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. On the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the multicultural society are dominated by feminists. I have heard that the Danish People’s Party, which has been instrumental in pushing for stricter immigration rules in Denmark, has a similar strong majority of male votes. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush. The standard reply in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy. Women are more naïve. Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because you wouldn’t sacrifice your own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what you are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be gang raping your daughters tomorrow?

Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world comes from Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim immigrants are “fellow victims” of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse than Western men. Many Western Universities have courses filled with hate against men that would be unthinkable the other way around. That’s why Swedish feminists don’t call for Swedish men to show a more traditional masculinity and protect them against aggression from Muslim men. They denounce Swedish men for being “just like the Taliban”, want them to pay special taxes and work to establish a purely feminist party to promote even more socialist feminism. Most Norwegian feminists don’t say a word about the grotesque Muslim gang rapes. On the contrary, they work to increase Muslim immigration. Totalitarian feminists are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007.

Feminists Pave the Way for Women to be Raped

In Sydney Australia, two Pakistan-born Muslims were found guilty of gang rapes of two teenage girls. Muslim men have been roaming Sydney gang, raping non-Muslim women, calling them "Aussie pigs" and "sluts" who ask for it. But feminist reaction was not praise; it was hostility. They were outraged over the “racism” of the strict punishments given to the Muslims rapists. Feminists pounced on the issue of rape not because they cared about rape victims, but because it allowed them to spread class warfare. Spreading scare tactics about rape allowed them to make women feel like “victims.” Victimhood is a precondition for socialism. Despite what Shirin Ebadi says, the problem for women in the Middle East is not “the patriarchy,” it is Islam. Muslims are literally given a free pass to do whatever they want – including raping women.

If all the oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and gender equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Scandinavian women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell. It is correct as feminists claim, that a hyper-feminine society is not as destructive as a hyper-masculine society. The catch with a too soft society is that it is unsustainable. It will get squashed as soon as it is confronted by more traditional, aggressive ones. Instead of “having it all”, Western women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gang of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina Monologues at them?

Utopian and Parochial - Why Western Feminism Won't Do

Feminists have destroyed the willingness of males in the chattering classes to talk seriously about the military as anything other than a manifestation of the fact that all males are bloodthirsty rapists, and if women had their way there would be no more wars. Mr. McCanles is sadly correct. The feminist world-view, which includes an over-the-top hatred of men and of all things male, is malignantly deviant from reality. In what has become the commonplace Alice-in-the-Looking-Glass metaphysic of American feminism, "masculine" does not mean assertive or strong, or capable. In their lexicon, masculine equals evil. And not just bad, either; men are also stupid, inept, and lost without a woman to somehow alchemize their base nature. Further, with women leading the way to utopia there would be an end to war because women are essentially peaceful and choose to work cooperatively rather than arrange themselves in a patriarchal hierarchy.

Muslims rapes in the West are a symptom of the breakdown of the Feminist Utopia. Women's freedoms need to be enforced, or they are meaningless. Even though women can take steps to protect themselves, the primary responsibility for protection will always belong to men. Women will only have as much freedom as their men are willing and capable of guaranteeing them. It is a major flaw in many feminist theories that they fail to appreciate this fact. Perhaps you can succeed in turning your men into doormats, but it will be on the cost of doing so to your nation and to your civilization as well. Male energy is a driving force of any dynamic culture.

Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male is having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it is for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall heavier on women than men. A modern society may lessen these restraints, but it will never remove them completely. For these practical reasons, it is unlikely that women will ever be as numerous as men in politics or in the highest level in business. Grow up, deal with it and move on.

"Martyr or moron? He dared to question feminism's big lie" by Charlotte Allen

Harvard University President Lawrence Summers gave a speech in January speculating that innate differences between the sexes may have something to do with the fact that proportionately fewer women than men hold top positions in science. Even if you're not up on the scientific research – a paper Mr. Summers cited demonstrating that, while women overall are just as smart as men, significantly fewer women than men occupy the very highest intelligence brackets that produce scientific genius – common sense tells you that Mr. Summers has got to be right. Recently, Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences passed a vote of no confidence in Mr. Summers. Wouldn't it be preferable to talk openly about men's and women's strengths and weaknesses? The lesson that Larry Summers has taught us is that our academic and intellectual establishment is in the grip of a poisonous feminist ideology that will not tolerate open and rational discussion or genuine inquiry.

The latest wave of feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children. And before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. There is nothing wrong with being single, but it should never be promoted as the ideal. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce. Given the high divorce rates and the financial losses men usually suffer after the breakdown of a relationship, quite a few Western men now hesitate to get married at all. As one man put it: "I don't think I'll get married again. I'll just find a woman I don't like and give her a house." Feminism has made marriage a risky enterprise for men, but also made it easier to have affairs without commitment.

Although feminism may have strayed away into extremism, that does not mean that all of its ideas are wrong. The women’s movement will make lasting changes. At a time when women make up the majority of University graduates in many Western nations, even the most hardened male chauvinist pig will find it difficult to argue that women are unfit for academic studies. Women have occupied positions considered unthinkable only a few decades ago. Some things are irreversible. I can still see things that make me feel like a feminist, such as the Indian movie A nation without women. According to an estimate, there are around 50 million women missing from the population of India due to gender discrimination. The sometimes funny, but first of all dark movie explores the impact of absence of women on men. It underlines how the absence of women inexorably leads to the debasement of men.

Most men know, deep down, that women are indeed superior to us in certain ways. Women pretty much run our private lives. Men need women more they need us, and our lives revolve around women the way the earth rotates around the sun. The sun can manage without the earth, but the earth cannot do without the sun. Perhaps that’s why we sometimes fear them so much. Marriage used to be a trade: Female nurturing and support for male financial and social security. In a modern world, women may not need men’s financial support quite as much as they did before, while men need women’s emotional support just as much as we have always done. The balance of power has changed in favor of women. This does not have to be bad. Women still want a partner. But it requires men to be more focused on doing their best. This apparent contradiction between female dominance on the micro level and male dominance on the macro level cannot be easily explained within the context of a "weaker/stronger sex". I will postulate that being male first of all is some kind of nervous energy, something you need to prove. This will have both positive results and negative ones. Male numerical dominance in science and politics, as well as in jail and war, is linked to this. Women do not have this urge to prove themselves as much as men do. In some ways, this is a strength. Hence I think the terms "The Restless Sex" for men and "The Self-Contained Sex" for women are more appropriate and explain the differences better.

Daniel Pipes keeps saying that the answer to radical Islam is moderate Islam. There may not be any such thing as a moderate Islam, but there just might be a moderate feminism. And a mature masculinity to match it. Even a more moderate version of feminism could prove lethal to Islam. Islam survives on the extreme subjugation of women the same way humans breathe oxygen. Deprived of this, it will suffocate and die. It is true that the West still hasn’t found the formula for the perfect balance between men and women in the 21st century, but at least we are working on the issue. Islam is stuck in the 7th century. Some men lament the loss of a sense of masculinity in a modern world. Perhaps a meaningful one could be to make sure that our sisters and daughters grow up in a world where they have the right to education and a free life, and protect them against Islamic barbarism. Are we up to the challenge? Or are the only men left in the West immigrant women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali?


At April 12, 2005 1:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting analysis. I agree that in today's day and age, men probably need women more than they need men.

I get your point, but be careful with your blanket statements about de-mascularization of men and the West.

There are still plenty of American men who have a protective instinct with regard to their women and aren't afraid to act on it. And, I'd wager, there are still a few Brits, Dutch, Italians, etc who'd do the same.

Though I'm a bit more pessimissitic about the Swedes. I met a Swedish guy once who declared his belief that all violence was wrong, even in self-defense. I decided to test him a bit, giving him hypothetical scenarios of him standing between a psychopath determined to rape and kill his wife and daughter. EVEN THEN, he swore it would be wrong to fight with the attacker, and he would not do so.

Un. Be. Lievable.

At April 12, 2005 2:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps your feminists might consider the possibility of defending themselves if they don't want the men to do it? Or is self-defense a no-no to them?

At April 12, 2005 4:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can only agree with your every word. You express exactly what I think, but can't explain without getting into a fight with women around me. It includes the part about the balance of power, at least "at the micro level", having swung towards females in western societies, even though I guess I could live with that if it was the only issue at hand.

Kathy, we must still defend our women even if they bite and scream, or else our people will be destroyed.

- Swedish (Post Viking) Male

At April 12, 2005 4:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and it's not that self-defense is not an option. If you're a really hard core feminist, kickboxing while wearing camouflage pants is about the noblest thing you can do (although it makes me want to puke).

It's just that they are so totally wooden-headed, they simply can't imagine their enemy would most surely have to be a Muslim immigrant or an African with 'beautiful dark eyes' and not a white male chauvinist pig. Just thinking otherwise would mean you're a RACIST, wanting to send all those people to Auschwitz all over.
The power of the Ministry of Truth (i.e the media) is simply amazing, and it won't matter if you show them statistics or anything either, because in the end there's always a weasel called Mark Twain who once claimed something about statistics.

- Swedish (Post Viking) Male

At April 12, 2005 5:33 AM, Blogger Elise said...

Let me get this straight. Muslim immigrants gang-rape Norwegian women, Norwegian men are too brainwashed by Norwegian feminists to defend them, and Norwegian feminists don´t know what´s for their own good.

First of all, I see no evidence to support your theory that most Muslim men are a threat to Norwegian women. I´m sure that there are some (like the cases you have pointed out), but there are also Norwegian men who pose threats to women. You seem to generalize all Muslims as extremists. I´d say that it is a very very small fraction of Muslims who are extreme. A dangerous fraction, yes, but small none the less. I think it´s much more harmful to generalize all Muslims as extremists than it is to attempt to understand their culture. The vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace.

I can agree with you on the point that Norwegian liberals have tended to tolerate intolerance rather than risk offending a foreign culture. I believe this has much more to do with the fact that immigration is still rather new in Norway and I believe that this trend is changing, that more and more people are voicing dissent with intolerance.

I´m a little lost on your assertion that Norwegian men are incapable of defending Norwegian women. That would imply that there are far fewer incidences of gang-rape and the likes in typical macho countries like Italy and Spain? How ´bout Mexico and Latin America? I have a feeling that women are better off AND safer in Norway.

I agree that there are a lot of whacky feminists out there. Like the Ottar group, who tried to shut down the Prosenter (a support center for prostitutes) last month. Kind of backasswards. They usually don´t get very far. I don´t know any Norwegian men who wouldn´t protect his loved ones (male or female), nor do I know any Norwegian women who wouldn´t do the same.

At April 12, 2005 7:02 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

"First of all, I see no evidence to support your theory that most Muslim men are a threat to Norwegian women. I´m sure that there are some (like the cases you have pointed out), but there are also Norwegian men who pose threats to women."

There were some staggering numbers revealed from Oslo in 2001:

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.

Despite the fact that the numbers of rape charges have continued to rise, I have not seen any references to the involvement of immigrants since 2001. I have written several times before here that I believe these numbers have been suppressed for political reasons. I think Minister of Justice Odd Einar Dørum should resign over this matter.

There are horrifying numbers of rapes connected to Muslim immigrant ghettos across many Western nations, richly documented.

At April 12, 2005 7:18 AM, Blogger Mike said...

I can't help but feel you overstated your case a bit -- interesting points but carried to too far an extreme?

A lot of feminism is downright daffy, but here in the U.S. the radical feminist nonsense hardly exists outside of college compuses, and it's beginning to come under considerable scrutiny on-campus as taxpapers are concerned about what they're funding.

You could probably find a wuss like your Swedish acquaintance in any country, but I doubt you'd find a majority anywhere. Women have a natural biological attraction to providers and "bad guy" types; I doubt your wussy Swede would rate high as either -- he'll be lucky ever to reproduce!

At April 12, 2005 7:31 AM, Blogger Mike said...

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.

I have to question if these numbers are really representative of the whole picture. In the U.S., most rapes are acquaintance rapes, or so-called "date rapes" in which the assailant was previously known to the victim. Traditionally there has been a lot of resistance & stigma with regard to reporting & prosecuting these cases in the U.S. It's a lot easier to pursue a stranger-rape case because it's easier to cut through all the he-said/she-said/we-almost-did-it-before/we-did-it-before nonsense.

Are Norwegians that different? I think there's a bigger picture here that's not being presented.

At April 12, 2005 7:59 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

"I have to question if these numbers are really representative of the whole picture."

They are for Oslo, released by the Oslo police, not all of Norway. And you should trust them. They fit perfectly the patterns from other cities such as Copenhagen. The numbers may even be worse now. Again, I haven't seen any mentioning of them since 2001. In all likelihood, this is because the numbers were politically inconvenient and have been hidden from the public since then. This is a national scandal that should have repercussions on the very top levels both in the government and the police. But as usual, Norwegian media don't seem to care.

At April 12, 2005 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you have pictures of these feminists? Do you have access to College campuses. Put up a picture that says "I support not talking about violence against women", and put a quote underneath of what she said.. Make it a college issue, thats the best place to start.

Then start a Free speech or DIE! movement."What are you afraid of" etc..

At April 12, 2005 7:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Elise and Mike V:

Re: Your statement Elise: "First of all, I see no evidence to support your theory that most Muslim men are a threat to Norwegian women"

The Copenhagen Post (English language) reported about two or three years ago that around 68% of rapes in Denmark were perpetrated by "immigrants" who were really identified as muslim. Given the percentage of muslins in Denmark is about 2% ( I would say that an overrepresentation by a factor of greater than 30 is statistically siginficant. Interestingly, Muslim spokesmen in Denmark who were quoted regarding this issue (always spokesmen - never spokeswomen) did not dispute this figure.

I tried to link the reference but the Post has just gone to a subscription basis in the past month or two. If you care to, you can check the article which published in late 2002 or early 2003.

At April 12, 2005 9:53 PM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

Maybe Sweden and Norway could use more women like SGT Leigh Ann Hester. She led a squad of military police to defend a convoy under attack by moving between the convoy and the attakers to take the incoming fire, began suppressing fire against the attackers, went on the offensive against them and killed 26 of them.

I pity the immigrant that tries to rape her!

At April 12, 2005 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that most of the rape-victims are not of the middle-classes where the Looney Feminists (as opposed to real ones) come from/live in. That makes it a lot easier to turn a blind eye to the real problems and the soaring crime- and rape rates, it is always the already underpriviliged classes that gets to carry the burden.

At April 13, 2005 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well European wimpy men, failing to protect their daughters Yikes.

First of all rapes don´t happen in broadlight in front of everyone, and if they did I would interfere, and I believe most men would.
Though there has been hard work going on trying to level the field since 1968. Men are still men, and they still come in those that are strong and physical capable, and those which are not.
1968 has made footprints lasting to this very day, and many young men would not make strong soldiers, or be able to take up a gang of 3-4 solo ( but few ever been able to that without lots of practise ) A lot would not know what to about a rape except yell and call the police, but then again some would. But still the male is a male, and much of his softness is pure acting, he thinks that is what women like, and there are plenty out there still who are tough and strong, work hard, takes risks at work, and won´t hesitate if need be.

Now close your eyes, Imagine a gang of Arabs raping a girl just outside the window of an English pub, what you think will happen ?

Are we expected to take revenge ? make honor killings ? burn and raze mosques, gather a huge crowd to go on a rampage through the ghettoes ?

That day may come but for now the politicians and police are getting their chance to deal with the problems.

Thomas Bolding Hansen

At April 14, 2005 3:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps Scandinavian men could start to learn to be a bit more unreasonable.

Sometimes our virtues are in reality vices, and our vices may in fact be virtues.

Right now, Scandinavian decency and reasonableness seems more of a vice. Turning the other cheek is a vice; tit-for-tat is the virtue.

Here's some more advice: download
Rex Applegates "Kill or Get Killed" close quarter combat fighting manual. Your enemies are already using it: without it you are dead.

At April 28, 2005 5:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the navajo indian culture has a myth of the first man and woman, who argue about: who needs who more? interestingly it concludes: women need men more much for the same reasons expounded in the beginning of your article. we men find "debasement" less stressful then murder or rape. perhaps true gender equality will begin when feminists cease to exist and both sexes agree to be equal.

At May 02, 2005 1:56 PM, Blogger AbbaGav said...

Regarding Thomas Bolding Hansen's question about what men are supposed to do if a woman is being raped outside a pub, honor killing? etc.?

No, I don't believe Fjordman is speaking of men's protective nature only in the physical, combative sense. If men were to acknowledge this problem (and women too), and assertively take control of solving the problem, immigration and assimilation issues could be dealt with in ways that fell far short of revenge lynchings. Hopefully its not too late.

At May 16, 2005 11:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feminism is not about suppressing men's healthy urges to defend and protect the ones they love. It's about countering the belief (very widely held until recently, I'm afraid) that all women are good for is making babies and being servants (or, if they'd like to get paid some dirt-cheap sum, being secretaries). It is generally agreed upon that men are usually physically stronger in brute strength for biological reasons- as women are the only ones equipped to have babies. Nobody is trying to take that away from men! Why do some people find it so "emasculating" to admit that the entire female sex as a whole is NOT generally inferior?

At May 19, 2005 8:05 PM, Blogger angryharry said...

Nice piece. But the notion that men need women more than women need men is ridiculous. It only seems this way because men are so heaviliy discriminated against.

Who do you think pays most of the bills?

And who is given most of the benefits?


Post a Comment

<< Home