Dammit, Smitty! How Many Times Must I Tell You, ‘No Quarter to Feminists’?

Posted on Comments

HOLLIS, N.H.
The sun is shining this morning in New Hampshire, but the shadows of gloom still threaten to swallow my soul. First, I couldn’t get a “Roll Tide” from Rick Santorum and now . . . Et tu, Smitty?

“Roxeanne gets me thinking with this one,” indeed!

The redheaded temptress has evidently beguiled and confused you by asserting that it is “downright sexist” to assume “that men can do things competently but women cannot.”

Obviously so, and this is exactly the point: What Roxeanne pejoratively styles “sexism” is the only possible resistance to the deceitful strategic attempt at gynocentric hegemony commonly known as “feminism.”

Don’t you see, Admiral Smith, that feminists are lying when they claim to want mere equality? Do you suppose that the Fair Sex shall be content to get 51% of everything and leave us with a respectable remainder? Hell, no, sir.

They want it all or, at least, they want everything worth having — every position of prestige and influence — and if their ruthless power-grab is not strenuously resisted, we shall be left only the most ignoble duties of society. Men will be hewing wood and drawing water for Our Omnipotent Feminist Overlords, tugging the forelock to beg crumbs from the distaff banquet table.

It’s a zero-sum game, you see, as any Womyn’s Studies major would be happy to inform you. Any power exercised by any man over any woman under any circumstance is, according to feminist doctrine, the Unjust Misogynistic Oppression of the Patriarchy.

Call a waitress a “waitress”? SEXIST!

Glance twice at a long-legged beauty? MISOGYNIST!

Ask your wife to wash your socks? OPPRESSOR!

This endless hectoring — the constant accusatory finger-pointing intended to shame men for their natural masculine impulses — is part and parcel of feminism’s totalitarian quest for complete dominance. And the fact that feminism, as an ideology, represents only the selfish hatefulness of a relatively small number of embittered hags does not make this totalitarianism less dangerous.

Remember that the Bolsheviks were but a tiny fraction of the Russian populace at the time of the October Revolution, and yet their radical ruthlessness enabled them to seize power. In much the same way as the Bolsheviks claimed to speak for the workers and peasants, feminists nowadays claim to represent the interests of all women. On the basis of that usurped authority, feminists wield the awful fury of revolutionary terror against their enemies, so that even Jeff Goldstein seems afraid to openly oppose them.

Am I alone in seeing this? Is there no one else who recognizes the dictatorial ambitions of feminism, the steel fist inside the velvet glove? Do you not understand, Smitty, that you can no more placate these would-be tyrants with soft words of reasonable compromise than you can negotiate with a ravenous shark?

Rebuke them! Expose them! Defy them! Denounce them!

Never show fear in the presence of feminists, because your fear is their second most powerful weapon, and nearly as dangerous as the first.

IYKWIMAITYD.

31 comments

  4. Linked ya in a couple articles. Good job. I hate that you have to take time off of more important pursuits in order to defend your stance on the use of the word “feminist.” It shouldn’t even be in the Conservative lexicon. It should be scrubbed from the conservative dictionary.

    Well, now I’m off to buy a case of ammo for my wife’s pistol. 😉

  5. No quarter asked, none given. Trumpeter! Play cutthroat! Headsman, sharpen the blade for business you will soon see!

    Sic ’em Stacy!

  10. Don’t you see, Admiral Smith, that feminists are lying when
    they claim to want mere equality? Do you suppose that the Fair Sex shall
    be content to get 51% of everything and leave us with a respectable
    remainder? Hell, no, sir.

    Because, ya know, men certainly shared equally in the spoils before feminism.  :p

  16. Whereas I misread it as ‘gyrocentric hegemony’ and was imagining a society ruled by gyroscopes.
     

  19. You are not alone! Feminism SUCKS, it is not just anti-male, it is anti-female also in that it is opposed to all things feminine, and it is anti-family too, therefore it is anti-human.

    They are a miserable horrid lot and I still do not understand why any self respecting decent persons would want to align themselves with them or defend them for any reason. They can take their bullying totalitarianism and SHOVE IT.

  20.  No it shouldn’t be in the lexicon of the right, which is why over a year ago, I helpfully offered up a better word, one that I was recently attacked for even suggesting, FEMININICAN. It’s in my December 2010 archives if you want to learn more.

  24. So you’re agreeing that human beings of either sex (or is it gender?) are not content with equality? If so, we might conclude that, although RSM is engaging in a bit of amusing hyperbole in this post, you agree with the main crux of his argument.

    The point isn’t to return to pre-industrial sexual relations, which were not all that conducive to prosperity for either males or females, but to resist efforts by some parties to drag us over the other side.

  25. If “feminists” would attack Islamic 7th century misogynist savages with the same zeal (or for that matter, at all), as they attack modern American (white) men, I could at least give them some respect. Instead of that, a modern feminist is far more likely to don a hijab out of “solidarity”. So fuck feminists. They need to keep on getting abortions, and since they are so supportive of Islamic swine, maybe a clitoridectomy wouldn’t be a bad idea.

  31. I kinda doubt that you’re well-informed on ‘Feminist Doctrine,’ considering that Gender Studies is an entire academic field….

Comments are closed.