More Evidence of the Ties Between Feminist Ideology and Marxism.

You want a concrete connection between feminist ideology and Marxism? Well look no further than Standpoint Theory. It basically argues that women have access to knowledge that science does not due to their unique experiences. This is part of the framework of modern day feminist scholarship. Quote:

"Standpoint theory, a feminist theoretical perspective that argues that knowledge stems from social position. The perspective denies that traditional science is objective and suggests that research and theory has ignored and marginalized women and feminist ways of thinking.

The theory emerged from the Marxist argument that people from an oppressed class have special access to knowledge that is not available to those from a privileged class....

American feminist theorist Sandra Harding coined the term standpoint theory to categorize epistemologies that emphasize women’s knowledge....

Standpoint theorists also question objective empiricism—the idea that science can be objective through rigorous methodology....

According to standpoint theorists, when one starts from the perspective of women or other marginalized people, one is more likely to acknowledge the importance of standpoint and to create knowledge that is embodied, self-critical, and coherent." 

The theory emerged from the Marxist argument that people from an oppressed class have special access to knowledge that is not available to those from a privileged class....
American feminist theorist Sandra Harding coined the term standpoint theory to categorize epistemologies that emphasize women’s knowledge....
Standpoint theorists also question objective empiricism—the idea that science can be objective through rigorous methodology....
According to standpoint theorists, when one starts from the perspective of women or other marginalized people, one is more likely to acknowledge the importance of standpoint and to create knowledge that is embodied, self-critical, and coherent." 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1983538/standpoint-theory

Feminist Professor Joyce Trebilcot, Claims Knowledge, Science and Logic Oppress Women.

Joyce Trebilcot, feminist professor emerita of philosophy and of women’s studies founded the Washington University St. Louis's Women's Studies program. In her book "Dyke Ideas: Process, Politics, Daily Life", she claimed that men oppressed women by using truth, knowledge and science. Peer into the twisted mind of one of the lunatics who shaped modern day feminist ideology. Quote:

"By means of the apparatuses of II truth," "knowledge," II science," "revelation," "faith," etc. (it matters little whether the methodology is scientific or religious), men are able not only to project their personalities as reality, but also to require that other people participate in those realities and accept them as their own.
Recipients of the" truth" (i.e., all those not certified to create it)
are expected to long for truth, to respect it, to bow down to it,
and, especially, to honor-and obey-those who are authorities
on it.Recipients of the" truth" (i.e., all those not certified to create it)are expected to long for truth, to respect it, to bow down to it,and, especially, to honor-and obey-those who are authoritieson it.The system is thoroughly corrupt; it hurts me, angersme, and, when I have my wits about me, strikes me as silly.How ridiculous, for example, for men to go on an archaeologicaldig and report that what they have found is what is there,when I would come back with quite a different story were I todig, and other wimmin would come back with yet other stories."

Dyke Ideas: Process, Politics, Daily Life By Joyce Trebilcot

And before any feminist make the claim she was just another isolated radical, here's what her legacy was:

"Trebilcot, who joined the University in 1970 as assistant professor of philosophy, helped found the women's studies major in 1972 and the program in 1975. She served as coordinator of the program from 1980-1992. Trebilcot was named associate professor of women's studies in 1992 and became emerita in 1995."

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/14297.aspx

Exposing the Feminist Conspiracy to Demonize Video Games and Male Gamers.

Feminist Icon Anita Sarkeesian who together with SJW Jonathan McIntosh, run the feministfrequency.com page, which is dedicated to supposedly expose the sexism and misogyny in video games and the gaming community. Other feminists borrowing from her claims, also preach that video games normalize sexism and violence against women and typically some reference to Anita Sarkesian's videos are used as "proof" that video games contribute to a culture of misogynistic violence.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/video-games-normalize-sexual-violence/

Now, together with the ADL and Common Core, Anita drafted a school curriculum for grades 11 to 12, in order to brainwash students with this so-called pervasive hated of women in video games and gamers. Let's read their first claim on page 1 of the ADL's pdf of the curriculum:

Here, they right off the bat, that video games were created more towards boys, but they complain it's not inclusive, which doesn't make sense to complain, since they already admitted in her premise it's a boys' club, why would it be inclusive then? According to their faulty logic.

And on page 3, they completely contradict themselves. They claim girls are half of the demographic of gamers and buyers of games, but games are not inclusive?

Now on page 4 of the pdf, you can find a link to one of Anita's videos where offers anecdotal  and subjective evidence to her harassment and that of what of other women. She cites no numbers of police reports where threats have been verified and arrests have been made, confirming the epidemic hate she and other women face in the gaming community.

And right below, are the leading questions they further will ask the students based on that poor evidence alone of how women are hated in the gaming community.

Here's a video by her associate Jonathan McIntosh with other anti-GamerGate video game journalists and developers using logical fallacies and confirmation biases to sell us that men have "invisible benefits" white gaming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E47-FMmMLy0

This entire video can be summed up with a intellectually dishonest form of dialectic called "Weasel Word" or " Anonymous Authority":

"A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term^[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is synonymous to tergiversate.^[2] Weasel words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being made.^[3] Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects".^[4]Weasel words can be used in advertising and in political statements, where encouraging the audience to develop a misleading impression of what was said can lead to advantages, at least in the short term (in the longer term, systematic deception is likely to be identified, with a loss of trust in the speaker)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

And to counter-act their ambiguous claims, famous YouTuber and anti-feminist Karen Straughan, uses facts and logic to debunk their dishonest claims. You can watch part 2 right on the side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAF2UmyXe-4

When we think of online harassment, we have been conditioned to conjure up images of the female gender receiving most of the harassment. And certainly women do receive their fair share of harassment especially in terms of messages from people infatuated with them. 

However, the Pew Research Center reports that men are more likely to experience instances of online harassment that women are overall and this flies directly in the face of feminist propaganda claiming that it is almost always women who are the victims:

"Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats."

If men receive most of the online threats? How come we don't ever hear feminist s like Anita Sarkeesian and Social Justice Warriors like Jonathan McIntosh speaking out against this greater number of harassment towards men? Don't they belong to movements that supposedly promote equality and justice for all demographics?
The Pew Research gives us some answers of why men don't fall victim of self inflicted hysteria that feminists tried to brainwash women with. Women don't have the same emotional and psychological fortitude compared to men when it comes to harassment:

And to further into the research, they reveal a quite telling statistic that women and men welcomed in online gaming communities equally by 51% of participants of the surveyed poll:

Source: Pew Research Center: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

And to further drive the dagger into the heart of this despicable conspiracy we will further investigate the results of a 3 year study have been published on the findings of the relationship between depictions of sexism against women in video games and what effect it has on the player's attitudes towards women in the real world. The findings reveal that there is no relationship between the two. Quote:

"From the oversexualized characters in fighting games, such as Dead or Alive or Ninja Gaiden, to the overuse of the damsel in distress trope in popular titles, such as the Super Mario series, the under- and misrepresentation of females in video games has been well documented in several content analyses.
Cultivation theory suggests that long-term exposure to media content can affect perceptions of social realities in a way that they become more similar to the representations in the media and, in turn, impact one's beliefs and attitudes....
Enlisting a 3 year longitudinal design, the present study assessed the relationship between video game use and sexist attitudes, using data from a representative sample of German players aged 14 and older (N=824).
Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes-measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society-were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25844719

So next time we are told by the feminists that video games and gamers are sexist misogynists, we can objectively and factually slap these statistical studies onto their faces.

Exposing Jessie Bernard's Lies About The Oppression of Married Women.

        Feminist sociologist Jessie Bernard, one of the iconic feminist figures during the 60's and 70's claimed in her book, " Future of Marriage", that married men fared better than married women emotionally and psychologically. She even went as far as calling happily married women "slightly ill mentally", which she justified by using flawed studies of the times. Despite many scientific studies debunking the correlation of marriage with the mental and emotional instability of women, gender studies professors continued to use her theories as part of the curriculum. Below are her claims that married women suffer more from psychological and emotional disorders than single women, despite her bold claim, she could not explain what tied those disorders to women as genders and marital status. It's impressive that a book filled with cognitive somersaults and unanswered questions, became a best seller and was prominent in academia and passed as truth. You can read this on 

       

                                       

Here in page 53 of her book, Bernard goes as far as to claim that married women should literally have their cake and eat it too, declaring that women should be less "constrained" by the responsibilities of marriage, which she claims are causing the psychological and emotional detriment of married women. 

Her double-think throughout her book, is blatantly observable, that despite her claiming married women suffer more mental illnesses (page 50) and anti-social behaviors (page 35-36) in comparison to unmarried women ,

she previously cited a comprehensive study by R.R Wilsoughby that concluded exactly the opposite in page 31-32, of what she asserted after in the above pages

Bernard (as we can see), dealt with the whole issue of marriage in such subjective, relativistic sophistry, that one clearly feels gaslighted by such contradictory and indecisive jargon. She never gets to an objective point, and certainly her solutions end being as she previously stated, that women should have their cake and eat it too. This is the type of insipid poison that is permeating academia since those times and it's time we finally put down the myth of the mentally ill housewife Bernard wanted us to believe. And to put this argument to rest, let's explore the most extensive study on the welfare of married men and women from La Trobe University in Australia. Here's what The St. Augustine Record, reported on it. They go as far as calling out the studies Bernard used in her book "flawed" as they point out, that many scientists pointed out when she received criticism for her work:

"Emotional problems are equally common among husbands and wives, new research shows -- a finding that challenges the long-standing feminist belief that marriage makes men much happier but women more miserable.
The results of the largest study to investigate the question were published in the current issue of the Australian journal Family Matters  

Feminist scholar Jessie Bernard was among the first to to postulate that men benefitted emotionally from marriage while women suffered. Her research, published in a 1972 best seller 'The Future of Marriage,' fed into the evolving feminist belief that the institution of marriage oppressed women.

The theory has persisted, despite scientists' subsequent findings that her studies were flawed, and more recent research that has contradicted the 30-year-old results. But the latest research -- involving 10,641 people -- is the largest, and particularly rigorous. 

'This view of the effect of marriage on men and women has been enormously influential and has become part of the 'common knowledge' about marriage,' said David De Vaus, a professor of sociology at La Trobe University in Melbourne, who conducted the latest study. 

'But the patterns that were suggested by people like Jessie Bernard .... (are) just not true. The evidence is unequivocal,' he said.
'What the early studies did was center largely on typical female disorders -- anxiety, depression, phobias,' De Vaus said. 'What they ignored are the types of mental illness more common in men, such as drug and alcohol abuse.' 

Bernard, who died in 1996, found that married women were more depressed than married men or single women. Married men, by contrast, were less depressed than bachelors. 

De Vaus' study involved 10,641 Australian adults who were interviewed personally to establish the state of their mentalhealth.
The survey classified people as having a mental disorder based on the World Health Organization definition after asking whether certain symptoms and incidents had occurred in the 12 months leading up to the interview. 

'What's very clear ... is that if you look at male typical and female typical disorders and combine them, then men and women in marriage have the same rates of mental disorders. They just have different disorders,' De Vaus said. 

David Popenoe, co-director of the Family Research Project at Rutgers University, said U.S. researchers have reached similar conclusions but the scale of the Australian study was particularly impressive. Popenoe was not involved in the Australian study. 

The study found mental illness in 16 percent of the women and 16 percent of the men. Depression and anxiety were more common among women, while drug and alcohol abuse tended to afflict men.
Divorced people fared the worst, with 25 percent of both the women and the men suffering emotional problems.
Singletons fared slightly better, with 22 percent of women and 26 percent of men afflicted with mental disorders.
Married people were best off, with only 13 percent of women and 13 percent of men suffering emotional disorders. 

Experts say that while it is now clear that married people are emotionally better off than divorced or single people, it remains to be proven that marriage itself reduces the risk of an emotional disorder.
It could be that people with better mental health are more likely to get married, while those with problems shy away from marriage, are not able to attract partners or end up divorced.
'Certainly that's a factor, but it's not just that,' said Popenoe, a professor of sociology.'"

Sources for the study: Research Design in Social Research By D. A. De Vaus, Professor David de Vaus

Marriage as a perceived panacea to mental illness in India: Reality check

Marriage and Mental Health- Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Debunking Feminist Theory of " Sexual Objectification".

We've all heard the feminist movement claim that when women pose nude or use their bodies for profit, we men are are singling out women for sexual objectification and sexually exploit consenting women to perform jobs despite these women clearly accepting propositions of employment and being considerably paid more than majority of men. Here are some figures of the earnings of some of the currently highest paid models from page 3:

'Michelle Marsh (topless) and Lucy Pinder (nipples covered, so far) - can earn in excess of £100,000 a year.  

Twenty-one-year old blonde Michelle (vital statistics - 32G-24-34) says such sums should serve notice to anyone who wonders whether all Page Three girls are not bright. 

"At the end of the day I could work nine to five, but I would not be travelling the world earning such good money and meeting brilliant people," she says.  

They think it's normal and acceptable to carry daily pictures of half-naked women, which is still revolting - but I'm still glad they're supporting us"  Clare Short, in 1997, after the Sun backed LabourLike many girls, she got into Page Three through a local modelling agency and also works for the lads mags.  

She says there have been catty comments from one or two women offended by their boyfriend's wandering eye and the odd time when she's wished the men would stop paying her attention, but most people respect her choice - including her family.  

"My mum and dad are absolutely fine about it, they collect everything I do," she says. "When they saw how happy I was they were really pleased for me. My dad runs my website." 

Michelle, the proud owner of her own house and a sports car, knows she won't be able to continue in her line of work for ever and plans to work as a carer for the elderly.  

While she can probably afford to pick and choose, even averagely successful Page Three girls make between £30,000 and £40,000 a year."Page Three girls are in demand with magazines right now," says Edwards.'

That should put to rest the idea that these women are being exploited by being somehow brainwashed to serve at men's leisure.

Now let's see the how feminists describe "sexual objectification" shall we? Here's Everyday Feminism defining sexual objectification:

"Sexual objectification and sexual desire are two different things. Sexual desire and attraction is a normal and natural part of life. It involves two (or more) people stating their desire for one another and consenting to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.  

So in the case of someone “using” the other for consensual sex, it’s not true objectification because both parties have agreed (hopefully!) to engage in the act.Sexual objectification, however, puts one person in the role of subject and the other person in the role of object. 

 In heterosexual coupled relationships, these roles are usually assigned to the man and woman, respectively.  

Sexual objectification requires that one person choose what they want sexually and the other person is required to perform to their standards."

This  nonsensical garbage is what is destroying the relations of the genders and natural human sexual instincts. This is the same as arguing that consensual sex is the same as sexual desire and that “using” someone for sex is not sexual objectification because it is consensual…

 In reality, according to a study published in the international Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, sexual desire is a motivational state and an interest in “sexual objects or activities, or as a wish, need, or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in sexual activities."  

Also, the definition of sexual objectification is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a “sex object” and is not defined as one person choosing what they want sexually and the other person being required to perform to their standards, as reported by everydayfeminism.com. According to merriam-webster dictionary a sex object is “someone who is thought of only as being sexually attractive or desirable.”

This famous feminist magazine literally wrongly defined what sexual desire is in order to make it seem like sexual desire is not sexual objectification, when, by its very definition it is. Sexual desire doesn’t involve consent, it involves one person having the desire to have sex with another. When a man’s sexual desire for a woman is driven by her physical attractiveness, feminists freak out and say that he is sexually objectifying women. And they’re right, he is, it’s completely natural, and there’s nothing wrong with it. 

And this is typically the instances where feminism reveals its true colors. The reason why feminists  wrongly defined sexual desire was to make sure the real definition wasn’t revealed, which would have brought up some very concerning questions about the feminist ideology. According to this ideology, sexual objectification is worthy of condemnation, meaning that anyone who has found another person sexually desirable based solely on their physical attractiveness is guilty, i.e majority of the human race. Indeed, men are frequently more guilty than women about their sexual desire because men tend to be more open about their desires than women as we've posted on this blog. But women also are susceptible to the same levels of intensity and lust as men are, as a sexologist describes in a book. 

Recognizing that sexual desire drives the sexual objectification of women, some feminist philosophers have stated they believe the whole concept of physical attractiveness is problematic. Feminist John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn sexual fantasies which involve the visualization of women. You read that right! This is the feminist agenda that demonizes and tries to monopolize normal male sexuality. In fact, feminists are now attacking the gaming industry for the sexual objectification of women in video games in the same way social conservatives were attacking them for their portrayal of violence. Who would have guessed the cultural marxist ideology of feminism would have so much in common with social convservatism?

At its core, feminism is a double-think/speak/discourse, supremacist ideology of forced equality, chivalry and political correctness which will ultimately strangle free speech if society as a whole does not reject it.

Only 7% of Female Rape Accusers chose not to Report due to Intimidation; Rapists Motivated by Looks

     Major criminology studies on rape and what motivates rapists, have correlated thoroughly that criminals do prefer younger and more attractive women as targets and are way less likely to choose from older victims. This is yet another feminist myth is put to sleep. Feminists have long described that the motivation for rape is not or less likely to be due to sexual arousal and female attractiveness but to be about power and control; they also have mentioned that vulnerability is a main issue, which is true, but when it comes to younger women, not older. This data shows that women in their fifties and above are way less than 5% of rape targets (Lennington, 1985: Thornhill & Thornill, 1983)

We can read on the information above that they accounted for variables and compared studies, and came to the consensus that rapists are definitely motivated by a victim's youth, physical attractiveness and not a psychological thrill about having power and control over a victim. 

This information can be found in the book. Social Psychology and Human Sexuality: Essential Readings  By Roy F. Baumeister, page 232

And now to this is another very telling piece of information. The feminist movement has alluding about the social stigma that rape victims face due to public and law enforcement unbelief in their stories, but data from the U.S Department of Justice only points out that only 7% of alleged rape victims never reported due to fear of facing skepticism. This is something every time feminists bring about, we need to counter right away. This table comes from the same report from our previous post on this blog. Check out exhibit 17 on Page 50 of the report.

Men are more heroic and generous towards strangers and close ones than women, and give out more help than women.

The American Psychological Association, carried out significant studies on the social role of male empathy that we hardly hear in our mainstream media. They analyzed 172 studies of helping behaviors between the genders and concluded that male generosity is over- represented in studies simply because men tend to be more helpful towards strangers and familiars alike than women; and women received more help than men. All the while, women are nurturant and caring towards people in long-term relationships with them: 

"Contends, on the basis of posited social-role theory of gender and helping, that the male gender role fosters helping that is heroic and chivalrous, whereas the female gender role fosters helping that is nurturant and caring. In social psychological studies, helping behavior has mainly been examined in the context of short-term encounters with strangers. This focus has tended to exclude from the research literature those helping behaviors prescribed by the female gender role, because they are displayed primarily in long-term, close relationships. In contrast, the helping behaviors prescribed by the male gender role have been generously represented in research findings because they are displayed in relationships with strangers as well as in close relationships. Results from a meta-analytic review of sex differences in 172 studies (appended) in helping behavior indicate that in general men helped more than women and women received more help than men. Nevertheless, sex differences in helping were inconsistent across studies and were successfully predicted by various attributes of the studies and the helping behaviors."

This can be also be corroborated by the fact men comprise most of the police force, fire departments, military and paramedics. All life risking professions which main purposes is defense and helping others.

More and more, we keep exposing how the feminist movement helped to twist the social perception towards men, that our grandmothers knew were bold faced lies.