Tag Archives: feminism

Marriage – Both Feminists and MRAs Get It Wrong

In the war for righteous affirmation of the sexes, marriage so often comes up as a bone of contention, both parties trying to agree on who and why is more oppressed by this arrangement.

Feminists usually argue the following:

  • Women are oppressed by marriage and motherhood as a cultural prerequisite for becoming respectable;
  • Unmarried women are oppressed by the stigma sex out of wedlock puts upon them;
  • Some married women are expected to remain in the home and are therefore oppressed by not fulfilling their potential;
  • Married women who work are expected to fulfill both the traditional role of homemaker at the same time as working;
  • Women are regarded differently when they commit infidelities;
  • The physical and emotional abuse of married women is very prevalent and generally overlooked.

Meanwhile, MRAs have arguments of their own:

  • Women demand fidelity while growing farther apart from the traditional mandates of a wife (perpetual attractiveness maintained overtime, efficient homemaking, motherhood, behaviour);
  • Women’s demands have increased substantially overtime, culminating in their current attempt to dominate men;
  • Women use their sexual appeal to ensnare men in the disadvantageous legal arrangement called marriage;
  • Marriage limits men by stigmatising their natural poly-amorous nature;
  • Women are culturally brought up to expect too much out of men;
  • Women are ravenous when it comes to divorce and are favoured in terms of child custody.
  • Women often make false claims of abuse in court.

Arguably, one cannot reach an informed conclusion without considering all the available data, from the origins of marriage to present day. When diving into history, it appears that marriage was, primordially, a form of ownership (the physically dominant sex, namely the male one, owning the physically weaker one, namely female). Later on, through religion, this was consecrated as a divine bond, for the same purposes of control through the control of sexuality (which has been one of the main focuses of Abrahamic religions). It is fair to say that in past times, marriage has been a form of ownership and enslavement; in certain societies it continues to this day (Islamic theocracies, for instance).

Today, in civilised countries, marriage is voluntary (excluding cults, which make their own constrictive rules, as well as religious minorities, which preserve their foreign traditions).

However, both men and women enter it with preconceived ideas regarding the ideal spouse and the perfect life they envisage. Both men and women, therefore, enter this arrangement with a set of illusions, which do not match the reality of their ancestors, nor the one of their peers and therefore, their own.

Women’s typical marital illusions are as follows:

  • A man will not fall out of love when initially in love, unless they do something major to cause it;
  • A man will not lose interest (sexually or altogether) when her body modifies, through pregnancy, age or otherwise;
  • A man will reject thoughts of infidelity as well as resulting actions, out of love;
  • A man who has pledged his role as the head of a family will always comply with it out of duty, where his children are concerned;
  • A man who has not been violent has no potential to become so;
  • Kindness, attentiveness and fidelity on her part ensure that a marriage will not fall down the drain, at least not without attempts of it being rescued.

Men’s illusions, as far as my modest observations go, tend to be these:

  • A woman will do her best to remain as attractive and sexually interesting as initially for the whole duration of their marriage (for life), expecting competition and being fully aware of it at all times;
  • A woman biologically yearns to please men and will do her best in that sense;
  • A woman is less likely to cheat and more likely to forgive if she is being cheated on;
  • A woman is primarily emotional, not practical, and that aspect can be used, in terms of making her happy regardless of reality (his thoughts, intentions and actions);
  • A woman should be protected from the truth and in doing so a man is succeeding in creating a harmonious environment.

Marriage is changing because the roles of the sexes are changing, as well as the general perception on fidelity. These alterations are proving dramatic compared to a few decades ago; some for the better, and others, perhaps, for the worst.

With the constraints of religion no longer applying, morally or socially, this union is therefore being put through the fine test of reality. Free will at its best. It is free will to remain devoted to someone even if they treat you badly, and free will to cheat or become disengaged.

In a way, both men and women cling to a glorified mirage of what the opposite sex thinks and behaves like, partly based on tradition, partly on fictitious narratives, and partly on religious ideas, where that applies.

Culture fails young women

When a girl swaps her taste for fairy tales for syrupy novels, poetry or soap operas, the narrative remains the same. That she will find “the one” who she can “dedicate herself to”, which will result in reciprocity in turn.

Whereas, in reality, men are simply biologically programmed to not remain monogamous.

That doesn’t involve a fault or vice on their part; it is simply their nature, restrained, if barely, so far, by religions (some of them, anyway) and social norms, which are now almost gone.

Monogamy is a conscious choice and an effort for men (and I say this after observing generations I’ve lived among). And infidelity is not some far distant threat but a high probability, always lurking in the shadows. Try as you might, you will never change someone’s nature and neither can society, through laws and ideologies, gods and threats of hell.

The men whose instincts are overcome by devotion, for one reason or another, are few and far between. And typically, they are not the ones women tend to go for (the alpha males), but rather the introverts, the artists, the ones who reach beyond the material realm.

Women are not equipped to deal with this sort of thing; to accept it and move on. They tend to hold on to an illusion, a complete reciprocity that never was, or existed fleetingly, in many cases. Sadly, all the drama around men cheating is needless heartache on the woman’s part.

The answer to this is not the SJW hysteria that all men are potential rapists and sketchy sexed-up animals, which is a sad cheapening of human nature, but the simple realisation and acceptance that this side of them is much stronger and regardless of a man’s intellect or personality, it is likely to someday kick in.

Culture fails young men as well

By not telling them their wives will not necessarily be like their mothers or grandmothers, in the way they organise and conduct themselves. Times have changed and women have changed; that much is true. When men decry that, they decry the traditional feminine ideal, which is under ripples of transformation. And although I do not agree with feminists, in their radical aspiration to elevate women above men, I do agree that the tendencies young women embrace nowadays are not their fault, as they are culturally-induced. These trends may change their attire or superficial behaviour but do not change their biological instincts. Men are taught to separate “good, obedient women” from “whores”, neither one being a realistic label for someone’s actual nature.

The objectifying, self-gratifying side of life advertised to boys and men is also hardly realistic and plays on their instincts (or preys on them, better yet). And therefore, they expect their wives to be the fulfillment of their intimate fantasies, to the letter, and remain as such throughout the years, which, when pregnancy appears, tends to swiftly modify. This is turned back not on questioning the unrealistic expectations they have of one individual, but on the individual in question, should she fail to meet them.

And nowadays, it fails them by telling them their nature is somehow defective and they should embrace a feminine perspective, which is contrary to their biological inclinations. Which is not the answer to anything and only results in a poisonous backlash of anger, sometimes manifesting as variations of the Alt Right.

The truth is no side, male or female, can dominate and change or subdue the other if equality really is sought. And the truth hurts. You cannot mould someone into an ideal partner. You either take them as they are, with the good, bad and ugly, or move on. No social or political movement will ever manage to change human nature to the advantage of one sex.

Those who have genuine intentions, aware of the effort they will be engaging in, and manage to find each other will thrive in it; those who do not, will fail at it. It’s as simple as that. Mutual love and respect can be achieved, enabling people to work through their differences with no authority hanging over their heads but these two concepts. Marriage isn’t even necessary for that to take place; it simply grants legal advantages.

MRAs And Feminists – Finally Equal (In Giving Up On the Species)

Far from claiming finding a partner is the paramount of happiness or a sine qua non, I must admit the prospect of half-arsed, semi-contractual romance as a default for the future is indeed dystopian.

Regarding the opposite sex with distrust, as a habit or acquired reflex, diminishes (or destroys) the chances of natural bonding, which has been known as unreserved throughout history, at least as a matter of principle. When this is caused by the effects of artificially created conditions (laws, education which pushes women to believe they are typically victimised etc), acquiescence to an “us and them” stance is capitulation to this transitory, blatantly artificial nonsense.

Nature will obviously prevail in the end, as it always does. But given the general consensus that we only live once (though I don’t personally believe that), does it make any sense to sabotage our lives by not fully engaging, mentally and emotionally, with the opposite sex, just because our current culture prods us towards distrust?

Convincing yourself that this is how things genuinely are – that the opposite sex is disingenuous, profiteering, destructive and downright dangerous – is a bit like shackling yourself inside Plato’s cave, with the full awareness that there is another world outside, one of infinite nuances and choices, allowing you to be selective without barricading yourself for presumed self-preservation.

As humans, we are all aware (well, most of us anyway) that we are more than a cluster of basic needs, and that the people around us are more to us than those who happen to meet those needs at one point in time. Otherwise, we could all safely (clinically even) refer to ourselves as sociopaths. Which most of us, I dare hope, are not.

 

Given that third wave feminism was the first to poison the well in recent years, one morally tends to empathise with men’s activism as a stance of supporting the underdog, considering how much influence feminists have garnered lately. Except, when analysing their discourse, one can’t help but detect this tinge of bitterness, even anger.

The MGTOW movement for instance generates the most peculiar mixture of repulsive arrogance, heartbreaking defeatism and underlying psychological issues you can ever imagine.

Just like feminists picking on innocent men, these men have the full potential of rejecting (not necessarily sexually but as a chance of bonding) and vitriolically mocking women who have nothing but the best intentions towards them.

Cui prodest, you might wonder? What do men or women actually gain out of thinking this way? Who are they really getting back at by hardening their hearts in this manner?

My experience of life is, of course, subjective; by no means do I claim everyone naturally places the same empahsis on being open to others.

But I suppose if ever there was an actual effort to destroy the nuclear family, this would be the ultimate goal – getting men and women to give up on each other.

Some people acknowledge that and still play the game.

 

P*ssy Hat Protest (Satire)

This satire was inspired by the SJW protests around Donald Trump’s inauguration, where many protesters showed up with “pussy hats” and giant vagina costumes. Besides engaging in frivolous rhetoric, some carried out acts of pointless destruction of public and private property alike.

 

Come join me, fellow sisters, in a majestic screech

The seals of the Antarctic could never hope to reach!

We’ll drown out all their hatred and stomp any adherent;

Just like the Wooly Mammoth, we’re slow but perseverant!

 

Do not be shy to handle my polyester tw*t;

You can’t get hepatitis or herpes from a hat!

Though some do say it gives them, if I may be so blunt,

A never-ending licence to label me a c*nt!

 

Last week I was a victor, I marched from dusk ‘till dawn,

I trampled the begonias on some cis white male’s lawn,

And after manly pummels, which left my muscles sore,

In Herculean struggles – his trash bin is no more!

 

I ran back in full glory after this brave foray,

Though covered in cat faeces and three-day-old soufflé;

This proves beyond suspicion, and please spare no applause,

That I’d decline no effort to further our cause!

 

We broke a good few windows, they cursed at us with pathos

And called for paramedics and cops to please sedate us;

I thrive in cis despair and in patriarchal dread!

We are the revolution, comrades! Full steam ahead!

 

We’ll show these cunts what love is, for unity we aim,

Our chants, group hugs and dances put any cult to shame!

Their faces are so pasty – but with a punch or two,

We’ll make them into rainbows, with shades of red and blue!

Male Privilege: Non-oppressive Urination Techniques. Seriously!

This is for real.

I’ve never witnessed a man have a mental breakdown before, but I imagine it starts with overpowering confusion; he might, for instance, feel the need to ask a feminist how many times he should shake before zipping up, when going to the bathroom. Because he’s aware feminism can’t leave anyone alone – not even in there.

You see, urinating is part of power dynamics between genders. I bet you thought these matters would be more sophisticated and more on the philosophical side, but hey – the toilet bowl is equally relevant. That’s how we have evolved as a species – by focusing on what really matters.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating stinking bathrooms here – but mixing this base issue with pompous feminist language truly sounds like a parody of everything the social justice movement has become.

It should be framed and preserved for posterity, as a symbol of the times when feminism declined so much it ended up regulating piss and farts. Literally.

Though many people have penises and/or stand up to pee, for this article I want to focus on ways that cis men can be better allies to the other folks with whom we share a bathroom.

Allies. What a degree of solemnity in wiping up urine stains. Everything in these people’s lives is so overblown, it sometimes seems like they’re having a maniacal episode.

While the constructs of the gender binary continue to evolve and dissolve, male privilege does not. We know that patriarchy and male privilege appear in all aspects of society, and the bathroom is no different.

Of course! Male privilege must start in your bladder! How come no one’s ever thought about this before?

I feel lucky that I even have regular access to gender neutral bathrooms in my own life – so, in these spaces, I want to make sure I’m respecting the space that many people fought so hard to create.

Lucky…? Are these spaces sacred now? As for fighting to create them, I’m pretty sure most of those toilet stalls were there before; they just have a different sign on the door now. And I’m pretty sure those using them have used toilets before that; it’s 2016. Isn’t the level of reverence a bit queasy?

You are a cis man. And to some degree (especially if you are a white cis man), society promotes an idea that we are entitled to absolute freedom of movement. You deserve, among so many other things, to pee freely and have no one tell you about the consequences of your poor aim.

Reality check: This is patriarchal logic, if not completely representative of the world in which we live. There are consequences.

Fuck’s sake… all I can say. I’m lost for words.

This should go without saying, but never, ever – and I really mean never – attempt the dangerous feat of peeing without lifting the seat up. For some of you adventurous people who want to prove yourself to the world, I understand how tempting this might be. (…)

Newsflash: This is a cis male-entitled delusion. No one, least of all you, has aim that perfect.

If that’s the standard of proving yourself to the world… This is not a joke, by the way. It’s on a feminist website. Toilet training for adults.

Similarly, a study found that peeing while sitting down may be easier on your prostate and allows for your pelvic and hip muscles to relax in a more neutral positions.

…So you can feel the unseen hand of feminism fingering you. Because let’s face it, it has already fucked you in any other imaginable way.

So in the bathroom, don’t be afraid of the sounds of people of different genders. It’s normal.

I wonder if they teach that in gender studies. No, honestly, imagine someone who claims to be an intellectual, in an intellectual space, talking about bathroom noises.

Don’t be another guy who doesn’t wash their hands. And don’t just wash your hands because someone else is there in the bathroom with you.

Do it when no one is looking. Do it because you care about gender politics in the bathroom and beyond.

I’m not sure why, but I’m quite confident handwashing was invented way before gender politics.

Don’t make folks feel unsafe or trapped by hitting on folks, following them in and out of the bathroom, or asking folks lots of personal questions.

Does that happen often? Do you even need to tell someone not to do that?

On the flip side, don’t run in and out of a gender neutral bathroom because it makes you uncomfortable or you’re afraid to find someone of a different gender inside.

No; by all means, just read a book in there. It’s not like public toilets are made for running in and out of. It seems now it’s an experience you have to think about and be nervous about.

As a cis man, people may not want to interact with you because of safety concerns or harm they may have experienced in a bathroom setting previously, so it’s important to have an awareness of this.

OK; so now you’re perceived as a potential threat as well. You don’t have the right to feel uncomfortable around them, but they are justified in feeling that way around you – even if it was them, not you, who insisted on that arrangement in the first place. Congratulations, cis man! You are now a pariah even in the lavatory. Looks like you’ve pissed away too much of your cis male privilege.

The bathroom can be a place of liberation. It can be a place of cleanliness and peaceful relief if we all do our part to create that.

And with that melodramatic statement we reach the end of yet another article on male privilege – which, sadly, can’t even be recycled into toilet paper for a supermarket cubicle.

 

 

 

 

“It IS All Men”: Misandry With The Masks Off

In case you were against stigmatising an entire category of people due to the actions of some (which is the foundation of what feminists abhor, such as racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination – unless it’s against Christians  – etc), rest assured it is legitimate when it comes to one category – men.

Not a big deal or a massive generalisation; after all, men only amount to half of the people on this planet. It’s only fair to assume that regardless of their culture, upbringing, level of intelligence, genetic tendencies and personal values, deep down they all pose the same level of threat.

We know what you mean by “not all men” – because on a basic level, we agree with you.

But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

“These behaviours are normalised through patriarchy…”

Like, you know, rape, assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence – which are all illegal in the west, as opposed to other parts of the world, but never mind. It’s not like by passing laws against violence the patriarchy is trying to make these behaviours seem abnormal and is discouraging them, as opposed to normalising them.

“In a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors…” 

No mental health issues here… none whatsoever. And needless to say, none can result from teaching young people where nature has positioned them through birth – into one category or another. No persecution of innocent people will arise from this black and white thinking, by assuming there is no middle ground and whoever doesn’t automatically side with leftist radicals is by default an “oppressor”, even if they mind their own business and don’t bother anybody’s life. You are with or against the revolution, comrades.

So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

Again, no mental issues, nothing to see here. It’s perfectly normal for a group of women to feel threatened in the presence of any man, ranging from their family members to strangers encountered in a public place. All men, at all times, have the potential to harm them, by default. The men they sleep with, as they share a bed. The men they grow up with (who are by nature usually very protective of their sisters, as are fathers of daughters, in civilised countries anyway, unless a rotten character is involved). The men they give birth to and raise.

At this point, one should differentiate between potential and likelihood. A car has the potential to get you killed, but you still get behind the wheel. What feminists are doing is pushing potential towards likelihood where men are concerned, which is why they feel they must take action.

Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

The link is to an article in which – no kidding – the author blames even Islamic terrorism not on religion but on masculinity.

This makes me boil, perhaps because without intending to, in an alternative news report, I came across very disturbing material today, about a rise in public floggings in Indonesia, including of women, for “crimes” such as standing too close to men or being in a room with a man they were not married or related to, which might lead to adultery, just like these feminists say a man’s presence might lead to violence. All I see is paranoia and fanaticism, to the point of insanity, in both cases.

It made me sick in more ways than one. But what is relevant to this article is that in those countries men and women think this is normal. Women gather by the dozen to watch their fellow “sisters” being tortured in public and being put in the hospital, not a trace of empathy on their faces or outcry that this is in fact unnatural and abnormal, an utter abomination. They have been desensitised to cruelty.

This is a cultural issue, not one related to sexism. Brainwashing can make men and women capable of the worst kind of violence. Those who perform FGM, by the way, are traditionally female.

I remember Thomas Sheridan making a video on this subject – that even though not all people identifying with a sick religion are extremist and capable of committing acts of violence, many will passively – or even gladly – stand by and watch. Never mind the power-drunk system and its enforcers – to see a crowd stand by and watch that with no reaction is shocking. It’s medieval.

They live in an absolutely sick culture.

Here’s the truth: Most of the time, when we generalize and use the word men, what we’re actually referring to is the effects of patriarchy. What we’re actually intending to communicate when we say “men are horrible,” for instance, is “the ways in which men are socialized under patriarchy, as well as how that benefits them and disadvantages everyone else, sometimes in violent ways, is horrible.”

But that’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? So we use men as a linguistic shortcut to express that.

Forgetting for a second about all of the above, so that I don’t actually vomit when comparing these grievances to actual oppression (because the sight of that is still fresh in my mind), am I reading this correctly?

If I am, let me put it this way. If I think the effects of feminism are horrible, I am therefore free to go up to any feminist, indiscriminately, and say “you’re horrible” to their face, without them having to take it personally. Because what I’m trying to communicate by calling a human being horrible is that I disagree with their politics and impact on society. And apparently, that makes it OK to insult them.

The thing about privilege is that it’s often invisible from the inside. It’s hard to see the scale and scope of a system designed to benefit you when it’s as all-encompassing as patriarchy. And that might lead you to buy into the idea of “not all men.”

What if it was “female privilege”? Would feminists be able to see that from the inside, if this applied to human nature in general? If “privilege” was comparable to sin and sometimes went unacknowledged by the one sinning?

Privilege is not invisible from the inside. People in the western world know they are privileged compared to others who were born in less fortunate circumstances and are subjected to trauma daily, through wars, extreme poverty or religious oppression and violence, either directly or by witnessing it. Wealthy people are also aware they are privileged compared to others who are less fortunate.

These are logical observations anyone can make, not the result of some Freudian analysis or some revelation. They only involve a minimum of intelligence and realism, which most people have. It is impossible to be genuinely privileged and not aware of one’s advantages in life.

To those on the outside, however, the margins are painfully visible. That’s why men who really want to aid in leveling the playing field have a responsibility to listen to people who can see the things they can’t.

Again, assuming complete idiocy on the part of these men, some of whom have propelled our species forward through their intelligence.

Religious fanatics do the same, claiming to see the evil and the sin others cannot even understand or recognise in themselves. What all these fanatics (feminists included) want is for everyone to hand over their mental faculties, their very perception of reality, to their brainwashing.

When gender minorities tell you that you’re harming them, listen. Listen even when you don’t understand. Listen especially when you don’t understand.

People can listen and understand, open-mindedly, to the other side of the debate. But they can still choose to disagree in the end. That’s what leftists don’t get.

Picture this: A well-meaning man offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into men, she’s just not interested), the man feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it. (…)

Such a man isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down.

The man in question might be disappointed for a minute, if he’s not the stalker or general weirdo type. And I imagine that happens all the time in that sort of environment.

But rest assured that a lot of men do not expect (and in some cases want) all women to be available to just everyone. Do you think men would by default jump right into intimacy with someone who was married or in a relationship? Unless they were into cheating, would they expect their own prospective wives and girlfriends to behave like that at a bar? Would they think women should naturally be like that? Would fathers expect their daughters to reward any complimenting man because it should be female nature according to patriarchy?

To use one of feminists’ favourite expressions, men do not exist in a vacuum.

They don’t just have wives, girlfriends or fuck buddies, or whatever you call them. Their approach to the female nature is complex and complicated. They have mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters as well.

And “patriarchy” plus “male entitlement” aside, they would not expect all women, especially the aforementioned, to cave in to just any creature sporting a dick, due to a compliment in a bar.

As such, when we generalize and say, “Men feel entitled to our bodies,” this man would be wrong if he said, “Not all men are like that – I’m not.” He just doesn’t connect the bitterness of rejection with the broader sense of entitlement he’s learned and internalized. Furthermore, he may not realize how this sense of entitlement is symptomatic of a larger patriarchal culture in which men are taught that they’re owed romantic and sexual interest from women.

Logic, dear logic, where are you. The same point as above.

And here’s a quote about “mansplaining”:

Here’s the thing about opinions, though: They’re actually not all equally valid or worth sharing, no matter what you were taught in grade school. You’re actually not automatically entitled to share your opinion; in fact, your opinion might be pointless or even harmful in some conversations.

Isn’t that equality. Surely there are times when opinions should be reconsidered, such as the time when someone knows they have insufficient information and said opinions might be superficial. But harmful? Let’s be serious for a minute.

Propagandising a superficial opinion might be harmful. Expressing it in a certain circle, or even less, to one person – definitely not.

This well-meaning man thinks he’s contributing to a discussion, which he feels entitled to do, because he has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t see the pattern of being talked over, belittled, or dismissed that his female friend daily, to which he’s just contributed.

Which basically means do not contradict a woman even if you know she is wrong. And there I was thinking conversations were meant to lead to intellectual progress for all involved, and not some masturbatory gratification of being listened to. I’m now starting to understand why these people are routinely called regressives.

 

Fair enough, no one tried to contradict Elena Ceausecu when she spoke. Though she was obviously a half-wit and deranged in all sorts of ways. But still, she had gained the privilege of being able to speak uninterrupted and unchallenged.

According to feminists, all women should have that right, regardless of the bullshit they might be spouting.

To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.

Women are not a gender minority. They represent half of the population of this planet. I can’t believe I even have to write this.

So no matter how well-intentioned you are, you’re not off the hook when you hurt people. And because of everything we’ve discussed above, you are likely (yes, all men) to hurt and violate. And you need to be willing to take responsibility for that.

Apparently, you need to take responsibility for someone else’s feelings, which you never meant to cause. Any hysterical harpy can jump out of the woodwork and drag you into her imagined drama for a simple comment.

My best response to that consists of two words: Hugh Mungus.

The deplorable scene which unfolded when a shrieking SJW accused an innocent man of sexual harassment over a joke proves just how far this subjectivity can go. No harm had been done to her and yet she went as far as trying to press charges because she felt offended. No, people’s feelings are not absolutes. There’s this little thing called reality, one that we all share and need to acknowledge, otherwise we will have to indulge all the Caesars and Napoleons of the world as well.

Being a “safe” man – hell, being a feminist man – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).

Boy, you’re not asking for much, are you?

The average feminist must be imagining that men would be so desperate to be accepted by her crowd, as if there were no women left in the world, that they would humiliate themselves to the back of beyond in order to be considered “safer”.

Because here’s the truth: Even when it’s not conscious, male entitlement is a choice – a choice to be uncritical, a choice to continue to passively benefit. And attempting to fight that entitlement is also a choice ­– one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.

That’s the first I’ve ever heard of an unconscious choice. Because there is no such thing. A choice entails analysis, weighing different options, using one’s judgement, making a decision.

Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate patriarchy – it enforces it.

Right. Just like denying that you’re a racist makes you more of a racist than if you actually admitted to being one. That’s the type of reasoning we seem to be employing nowadays.

Fighting learned male entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other men. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.

It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

Let me get this straight. His humanity is valuable and inviolable, after you’ve called him a threat to all women for possessing a penis, denied him the right to assess his own judgement and personality and told him you’ll police his head for mental impurities 24/7? What’s “inviolable” about that?

And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

Again, not asking for much. Just complete control over his mind, every single moment of his life.

We don’t want to fear or distrust men. We don’t want to have to perform risk assessments on every man that we meet. Trust us – it’s a miserable life! We’d gladly abandon this work if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to our survival.

And since they will not feel safe until every last man adopts this way of thinking, which will never ever happen, this is basically a declaration of perpetual misery.

To recap, what these men would gain by selling their souls and dignity to feminism would be the company of permanently miserable women who will always see them as a threat, regardless of their intentions, words or actions.

Totally worth it, right?

“Intersecting Identities” And Public Representation

One little, two little, three little hipsters
Four little, five little, six little hipsters…

Actually, there’s just one and he/ she/ ze seems convinced to have multiple personality disorder.

Much is being written today about intersecting identities; apparently, each of us have them, based on race, sex, gender (different from sex as they say), sexual orientation, country of origin, social status, financial situation, physical ability, physical aspect etc. Each of them comes with its little label; when listed, labels enable others to judge us in a second as one would evaluate a product according to its factory description.

They help a progressive determine whether you are, overall, marginalised or privileged, depending on how many oppression points you can score for each identity. In other words, whether you have the right to speak about social issues or you should just shut up, because the voice of your ilk has been heard for far too long on this planet.

It seems in 2016, no different than two hundred or a thousand years ago, people can still be shut up based on inherent traits, which they have no control over.

This, of course, leads to a problem, as individuals tend to collect privileged and marginalised labels, according to their particular circumstances. After assessing that those who only have privileged identities are not entitled to opinions at all regarding minority-related issues (unless they’re some kind of allies treading on thin ice to make amends for their existence), what’s left to do is dispute this right among themselves, censoring each other constantly; one could joke that the Earth’s surface could melt under their feet and they’d still fight over a microphone, on who should make the announcement.

The truth is there are no intersecting identities. Every person has one identity encompassing many traits, traits which they have the full right to prioritise or ignore. 

One does not owe allegiance to any group claiming to represent them and most certainly does not have a duty to engage in activism with said group, due to “sharing an identity”.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, “identity” means:

The characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is.

Plurality is unnecessary in order to emphasise the complexity of human beings; an identity is presumed to be complex from the start. Your “identities” do not switch on and off according to your environment; you can still be perceived as a full human being, an individual, regardless of where you are and what you are doing.

This is however useful to cultural Marxists as it divides people into strict categories, determining when they should speak and what their claims should be. Putting them in their presumed place, that is, by forcibly bringing a trait or another to the forefront as if the holder were defined by it at that particular moment.

For instance, progressive groups organise events for people sharing specific traits, events which are becoming exclusive to them, everyone else being barred from attending, as they would be violating the “safe space” of said “community”. Obviously, for those participating in multiple events due to multiple oppressed identities, a clash of interests and priorities arises.

The label collection is without doubt divisive, emphasising WHAT someone is instead of WHO they are as a person, how they think and how they could meet these activists halfway. For instance, one is likely to be shunned by them simply for being male, white and middle class, regardless of their beliefs and intentions.

Instead of disputing the claim that their movement is increasingly fragmented, this article actually proves it:

Glossing over the issues faced by specific groups of women for the sake of unity centers the feminist movement on those who have the most privilege and visibility. It allows those who already take up a disproportionate amount of space in the movement to look as if they’re making room for others without giving up any themselves.

It departs from a standpoint of some taking up a disproportionate amount of space due to having the most privilege and visibility, which does not show a desire for collaboration but adversity from the very beginning.

So make an effort to avoid centering feminism around yourself or people of privilege. Because society is more likely to listen to a White woman talk about racism than a person of color, for example, White feminists need to be mindful that they’re not talking over or for people of color.

No matter what work you do or what your privileges are, take care to step back when things aren’t about you, educate yourself on things that don’t affect you, and pay attention when people speak to their experiences.

Aside from claiming that society is more likely to listen to a white woman (which I’d like some actual evidence on), this is a clear call for others to shut up, and a line drawn between groups to establish what they are allowed to discuss in their activism.

The funny thing is leftists do a very poor job of paying attention when people speak to their experiences, if  they are not suitable for leftist exploitation. Let’s take gay conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who are open about their lives and dispute the rhetoric of current activists in the field.

So when you inevitably mess up or are called out for something, how you respond matters.

When people call each other out in social justice work, it can be an act of love. It’s about holding people accountable and making sure that the work they do is actually of value to those it’s meant to serve.

When cult leaders and religious extremists in general hold people accountable for every trifle, they also refer to it as an act of love. In Jonestown, as I recall, the act of love involved some wooden planks and public beatings. Although this comparison might seem out of place, it isn’t. It’s a matter of establishing oneself as the holder of absolute truth and moral authority over others. 

The resulting atmosphere is not one which is conducive to ant kind of progress, but one of tension, passive aggressiveness, lack of real bonding and stifled resentment, which is so characteristic of militant groups with a fixed doctrine (and ultimately ends in their dissolution).

 

To conclude, here is a true-to-life account from Gavin McInnes, describing the effects of “sensitivity training” on the work environment, amounting to members of any minority being feared and avoided, which is the exact opposite of harmonious integration.

 

 

What SJWs Call Sexual Harassment (Hilarious Though Quite Disturbing)

When a woman mentions being the victim of sexual harassment, unless she elaborates on it and her account is visibly exaggerated, one tends to believe her, out of the sheer belief that she would know how to differentiate that particular situation from others.

Nowadays, however, one has to be very cautious, as it seems some women (young in particular) are very confused about this notion.

The level of hysteria in the videos below has a hint of pathology, but it might as well be extreme entitlement, as well as the typical SJW attitude.

In the first situation, an SJW was filming an event based on people’s appraisal of how the local police were performing, looking for stories on police brutality or incompetence. There she came across a man who was appreciative of the job they had done helping his daughter, once addicted to drugs. A positive story didn’t sit well with her so she started verbally attacking this complete stranger. When aggressively asked for his name and unwilling to give it (for obvious reasons), he made one up on the spot, jokingly: Hugh Mungus (which is now an internet meme, thanks to said damsel). To that, she reacted hysterically, with shrieks, insults and accusations of sexual harassment, suspecting the man was alluding to his privates, which seems to be a traumatising crime even when said in a playful manner.

She had an absolute fit, insisting she was the victim of a sexual attack, then had a go at the security guards and police officers present for letting her “attacker” walk out the door. Amazingly, after leaving the place, she later pursued the case and attempted to make a formal complaint, as the second video shows.

Pathology might be involved of course, since she failed to realise that none of the people present (aside from a couple of fellow SJWs) interpreted the situation as she was. Perhaps it was more of an attempt to discredit the man (whom she kept referring to as a “sexual harasser” afterwards) to nullify his credibility because she didn’t like his pro-cop attitude.

 

The next one is a lady with an awfully SJW-ish rhetoric, accusing an innocent man of sexual harassment and racism for… saying hello to her in the street. She threatened to call the police as well because he had dared to address her, then fled when he threatened to do the same for her crazy behaviour (which anyone can see is far from normal).

Whereas one might think feminist articles referring to men approaching women as “street harassment” are just inconsequential drivel no one would take seriously, this seems to be the frightening result.

Every frustrated harpy out there can start making these serious accusations out of the blue and even follow through with her delusion.

“Building A Consent Castle” – Parody-Like, Creepy Feminist Guide

This Metaphor for Consent Might Be Just the Thing You Need to Make It Click

Trying to decide what is creepiest about this comic is a bit difficult. The presumptuousness of humans needing help to understand how not to rape (that’s what I get from someone’s attempt to explain consent to me), the otherworldly ideas or the way the text is formulated.

It is evocative of a parody as it seems so derisory, infantilising and exaggerated all throughout you’d think its purpose was to generate an awkward laugh. Unfortunately, it seems this person just might be serious.

Gear up to build the Consent Castle! It’s an awesome metaphor for how to establish consent before and during intimacy – and how to change the negotiation terms as you build a relationship.

We hope this can give you and the people you share it with a solid foundation for fun, healthy, and mutually satisfying intimate relationships.

I was managing just fine until present day, thank you, like most people who are not psychos or severely mentally impaired as to not automatically discern when consent is present or not.

My partner and I give workshops on consent. We talk a lot about consent activities – things to think about and things you can talk about to establish consent before and during intimacy.

Again, our species seemed to be managing just fine without tutorials. There’s something called a brain which provides us with enough skills to decode the signals received from others; humans generally don’t need an instructions manual.

Then comes a list of boxes to tick:

  • Talking
  • Texts
  • E-mails
  • Checking in before
  • Checking in during
  • Checking in after
  • Touch
  • Body language
  • Sharing fantasies
  • Setting boundaries and limits
  • Safe words
  • Power dynamics
  • Drug and alcohol use
  • Emotional and mental state
  • Triggers

Obviously, it reads like a list of steps to complete a project, mechanically and meticulously. Which is the opposite of passion and spur-of the-moment decisions, often involved when two people become intimate. It might come in handy to non-humans wanting to live on Earth in disguise, after doing some studying. But not much else.

Social justice warriors don’t seem to get the difference between intimacy, largely based on instincts and intuition, and bureaucracy, which is all about ticking boxes on a piece of paper.This behaviour is highly unnatural. If anything, this objectifies others, as opposed to the natural way people behave.

Consent isn’t a checkbox. And it isn’t just a legal entity.

That’s funny enough after listing all mandatory aspects to be discussed.

You’ve met someone awesome and you decide to build a castle together/ plan some sexy times. You’ll probably talk about what you want and what you don’t want.

This is followed by a parallel between the so-called castle building and organising the “play date” – I choose this specific language as the whole thing, although addressing people who are over 18, infantilises them to the point of insult. There is no need to make such allegories when approaching an adult theme.

And, the author should have considered the implications of “probably” when listing imagined conversations which are off this planet in most cases, between people who have recently met and are trying to get to know each other (and are of course represented in the images as genderless so one can’t really tell what’s going on there).

    “I’d really love to give you a blow job.”

“I’m not really into getting oral, but I love giving it.”

I’m not sure what happens where the creator of this wonderful comic lives, but in a lot of places that would not be a starting conversation between people who barely know each other. Unless a lot of alcohol consumption was involved. And I mean a lot. And for most people, not even then. These things are rarely discussed in such a blunt manner but rather happen as matters evolve. Having this sort of conversation, especially in a public place, where strangers generally meet, would be very inappropriate, to say the least. I would not recommend trying to “earn” someone’s consent by outright offering them oral. However, this is not the creepiest suggestion by far.

      You might even draw up some diagrams…

“So, I was thinking about…”

“Ooooh! That looks neat!”

The text is on an image of an individual holding a piece of paper where they’d drawn what the act would look like, showing it to the other person, with arrows pointing to certain body parts.

Who does that? Who the hell does that? 

That’s like drawing a sketch of building a machine, indicating where every part should go.

It’s even weirder than showing someone porn or the Kama Sutra and asking them to imitate what they see. Actually giving someone personalised, illustrated instructions of what to do with you?

      And it’s a good idea to check in to see how it’s going.

“How does this feel? Is this okay?”

I don’t know why, as the questions are innocuous in and of themselves, I get a strange vibe when reading that correlated with consent. It indicates a certain power dynamic and is a bit suggestive of manipulation – perhaps an older person trying to talk a much younger person through a sex act they’d never experienced. It’s the whole idea of “checking in” to make sure one isn’t doing anything the other might perceive as wrong (maybe because it is wrong?), and is calculatedly asking questions to feel safe in that sense. Maybe I’m exaggerating but that’s the feeling I get.

        The point is, when you’re building something with someone, you           usually start out by being really careful.

Like offering them oral when you hardly know them.

The great thing about consent castles is that they are always works in progress. You may need to do some maintenance.

“I’ve been feeling really self-conscious about my body during sex lately.”

“OK. Can I help with those feelings?”

“I think… I think I’d like to try using a strap-on with you.”

“That might be fun! What does that look like for you?”

I’ll tell you what it looks like to me.

The article is clearly not written for heterosexuals, though apparently it addresses everyone, and seeks to convince that this is the way most people actually behave. The person wanting to use that type of thing is clearly not male, and heterosexual men (who are the majority by the way) generally do not enjoy being fucked up the ass with a toy by their girlfriends or wives.

In fact, on the website this is published on, it’s very difficult to find an author who is not part of a minority based on “gender” or sexual orientation. And yet they claim to understand the psyche of the average individual and proselytise about how things should be in everyone else’s lives. They clearly have little understanding of that.

After a quick reinforcement of why negotiating sex with someone is always necessary and positive, the finale is an image of a construction worker in lingerie holding yet another sketch of two people and some instructions on what to do.

“So gear up! Because this is going to be a lot of fun!”

Fucking creepy.

Utterly creepy.

This is what “education” is coming down to nowadays.

 

 

“Healing From Toxic Whiteness” – Social Justice And Religion

You won’t be surprised to hear that besides toxic masculinity, sectionable intersectional feminists have come up with the concept of toxic whiteness. In fact, Everyday Feminism is holding a free workshop for those interested in healing from it. It might not involve the handling of live snakes, convulsions and speaking in tongues, but the message is the same – you were born a sinner, you must repent, convert and make amends in order to be saved from yourself.

Like original sin, toxic whiteness goes unnoticed without the sufferer presenting any symptoms; however, akin to chlamydia, that doesn’t mean that it’s not there. In fact, it largely affects those who’ve never suspected they have it – all white people who have not yet repented of their melanin privilege, that is.

And doing healing work in community and not alone makes a big difference. So having a separate anti-racist healing space for white people, led by a person of color who can hold them accountable, is important for white supremacy to be dismantled.

Much like manginas, self-flagellating white people who have not committed one racist act in their entire lives seem to be affected by some sort of masochism, acting as vaseline to help the Marxist bullshit funnel slide down their throats more easily.

What radical socialists want is an enormous mass of converts, regardless of the type of guilt they insidiously instill into their minds. The so-called privileged are not the enemy but a recruitment pool of gullible fools who cannot see beyond adopting a trendy facade, even if the end result is the opposite of what they claim to be supporting – division, segregation and the breeding of actual racism.

It’s difficult to ignore the cult-like nature of social justice activism, if only for the crazed, manic looks it imprints on some people’s faces.

Submit. Repent. We will teach you. Will will heal you. We will deliver you from evil and show you the right path. Fight the good fight with us.

I for one am opposed to the notion of anyone being racist without knowing it or in spite of constantly analysing their potential racism. It seems to me that the people going to that type of event are the last ones needing “reeducated” in that sense.

The whole thing is reminiscent of how Christians go through their every word and thought with a fine-tooth comb, in search of any trace of sin, despite knowing they had no foul intentions to begin with.

Some become fevered with the obsession of being able to participate in changing the world, when in fact they cannot even get passed their own daily trivialities, such as microaggressions or, where Christians are concerned, anything from having wanked the week before to having sworn at an asshole in traffic.

Social justice activism demands total submission and dedication, 24/7. 

People are advised to disassociate from their significant others for contrary views, Scientology-style.

When some of them realise the farce they allowed to take over their existence, it will be too late to undo the damage done to their personal lives, never mind their sanity.

 

 

 

Women Pressured Into Abortion – The Subject Feminists Avoid

We read so much these days about women’s rights and how abortion should always be portrayed by the media as the right choice in difficult circumstances. We read about how too much counselling before an abortion is an infringement on these rights, as it might get some to reconsider (as if this were a bad thing) or feel undue remorse afterwards.

However, there are sides to this subject feminists just won’t touch (just like, due to the marvel called intersectionality, they don’t go near the horrors suffered by women in Islamic theocracies). Besides ignoring the facts of the procedure (going as far as defending late term abortions), they also ignore an important part of the cause – which is external pressure.

There are shelters for women who are physically harmed by partners; there is protection from so many types of abuse except one – the psychological coercion of a woman to abort her baby, sometimes relentless, which often involves threats of divorce, homelessness, abandonment and the withdrawal of minimal support for her to have the child or even sustain herself. 

Pro-life activists are covering this intensely; the debate however does not reach the mainstream, as abortion is seen as a “woman’s right” almost exclusively (excluding the rights of the women being “terminated”, as abortion survivor Gianna Jessen points out).

Again, feminists tend to think this is the right choice in a seemingly impossible situation, such as the father not wanting the child, the economical situation being precarious, the mother being underage and unable to support the baby or herself.

But is it really the woman’s choice of what to do with her body when all the negative factors influencing her are external? When she feels she has to make this decision as she has no alternative, because there is no support available? 

Is the only road a woman felt like she could take at one given time the right one for her? How is this defined as her choice in the first place? Saying there was nothing else I could do at the time does not equal this is what I wanted – and yet, this sort of decision would be commended by feminists as mature and brave under the circumstances, without taking the woman’s suffering into account.

People pressuring a woman into an abortion is not an unavoidable fact of nature. It’s a matter of power imbalance, which feminists love to mention every time they feel hard done by when a man gets them to take on more “emotional labour” then they are getting. Power imbalance is mentioned so often – and yet there is no greater power imbalance than the ability to get someone to kill their own child under extreme threats.

I witnessed a similar situation which still makes me boil. It did not involve abortion but the forced giving of a newborn up for adoption. The mother was in the same hospital ward as me after giving birth. She told me, as well as hospital staff (and eventually the authorities, which did not lift a finger) that her hubby – a piece of scum beyond redemption – was forcing her to give the baby up, under threat of eviction and separation from the three children they already had together. He’d previously tried to psychologically force her to have an abortion but had not succeeded. She wanted to keep her baby girl and raise her, but was dependant in every way on the husband’s family, whose home she was living in; the scumbag’s family agreed with him that the child should just disappear. She faced having nowhere to live and no income. Besides that, she already had three kids at home and did not want to be forcibly separated from them as she was their primary carer. All I could do was try to put her in touch with charities and similar organisations; I’m not sure she ever contacted them. I also asked a relative of mine who was a lawyer for advice and he called the police; he said she was entitled to state protection. It went nowhere; it spun in a bureaucratic circle for the few days we were there. Unfortunately, I was in no position to help either as I did not have the living conditions or financial stability at the time (although looking back I feel like kicking myself for not trying to figure out a way; perhaps it wouldn’t have been absolutely impossible). In the meantime, hubby dearest kept phoning her to call her names (as she was lying on a hospital bed recovering from giving birth). At one point he even suggested she put something over the baby’s face and leave her somewhere. I felt like cracking that man’s skull with my bare hands. She kept on taking the calls for some reason and was distraught the whole time, trying to sort out accommodation and figure out a way to care for all her kids. The bastard swore he’d make her life hell; she couldn’t take her kids back from him as she had no income or housing. Even if someone had taken her in with the baby she wouldn’t have been financially stable enough for it to matter in court. Eventually she decided there was no other way than to give her baby girl up for adoption and go back to the bastard to raise her other kids in the only home she had. It took her days of constant crying, barely any sleep and being given no hope by those she appealed to. What would feminists say before that type of case? Many would say an abortion would have been better in the first place.

This was absolutely not her choice. It was a horrible experience to even watch, never mind live.

Nor is it the choice of so many women who decide to abort their babies because those around them threaten them constantly.

Helplessness is not empowerment. 

Instead of advocating for women’s right to abort their babies (which they’ve already got), why not also advocate for women’s right to keep their babies when facing this sort of trouble, which I’m sure is not uncommon?

What exactly is feminism’s stance regarding the situation in China, where forced abortions are carried out and newborns are drowned in buckets or dumped in fountains for being female? They say nothing as they want the word “abortion” to build this positive aura around it – which most people viscerally reject, even when meeting others halfway ideologically. I believe little concerns them if not directly relatable.

I can also share a different story – a story about real systemic oppression.

During the later part of the communist period, abortion was forbidden in my country. So was contraception; it was not available. The purpose was to produce as many people who would increase the workforce. Of course the absolute cretins did not ensure that those children could be provided for and looked after since both parents were forced to work and the country was in dire poverty for a long time. That’s how women turned to back alley abortions. Not because those abortions were their choice, but because the nature of the system made it so that they could not have a normal couple life (denying their husbands sex would have ended in being left eventually) or a normal family life (many children brought up in those times were raised by grandparents, part time or full time, myself included).

My brother’s bones lie somewhere in a communal skip outside Bucharest. So do those of most of my brothers and sisters, whom I don’t know the exact number of and will not ask again, not wanting to cause trauma. That’s what they used to do in those days – and still do in China now. Finding out shocked me but did not make me pro-life; that had been my conviction all along; it absolutely strengthened my conviction. Whereas I can understand the pressure of the times and the motivation of the women seeking these abortions (some to later regret it, especially when babies were delivered alive and still moving), I cannot understand those who “helped” them do this – who could have easily killed those women, under the guise of friendship or for some money. Some had no medical training whatsoever. My brother was killed with the “help” of a nursery teacher – who was also my Godmother. She Christened my sister, then killed and dumped my brother in the trash, then off she went back to church to Christen me a year later. It turns my stomach. I don’t ever want to see the woman again but if I did I might just spit in her face (for the first time to ever behave that way). Although if I asked for details she might just tell me how she did it in the most callous of ways.

Feminists would jump at this opportunity to shout that making abortion legal and accessible would have solved the problems of women who “clearly wanted abortions”. 

Except those women didn’t.

They were forced into poverty, forced into work instead of being home makers and forcibly denied contraception, though it was available at the time (at least condoms were being marketed in Europe but could not be sold here). Those women did not choose abortion because it was “right” or “something they wanted”. Some lived in perpetual hope they would never have to have another one again.

That is a true example of systemic oppression when it comes to reproductive rights. 

I also want to share an uplifting story of refusing abortion and sending children away despite very difficult circumstances. In my grandmother’s day abortion used to happen (feminists often dismiss today’s gruesome statistics by saying it has happened since times immemorial). She never had any (and told me for a fact, without me asking). She had nine children. Lost one to measles in infancy and one to a motorbike crash. She was widowed twice – once by war and again by a construction site accident. She was offered help by the state in terms of taking some of the children into state care and categorically refused. A few decades later, her children have kids and grandkids of their own, most having gone through higher education and established a career. All originating from sheer poverty and destitution. My sister and I were also raised by her while the system did not allow our parents to do so, and for some years after. If anyone asked me the childish question of who my hero was I’d say definitely my Gran. It seems natural instincts are so strong in some people that they fear nothing and stop at nothing for their families.

Spare the family anecdotes, some might say – the world is immense and diverse. And so it is.

What I know for a fact is that no woman ever plans to have an abortion at some point in her life. No woman grows up picturing abortion as a part of her future.

Circumstances cause this and some of these circumstances need addressing.

Feminists often speak of the emancipation of teens and the authority teenage women should have over their bodies – especially in terms of being able to access abortions. How aware are they that so many young women undergo abortions pressured by their families, in order not to lose face or not risk compromising their daughters’ academic future?

Many types of pressure are considered criminal and decisions made under duress are not always considered valid.

However, trying to corner a woman in this manner is merely frowned upon in some situations and even commended in others.

It should be criminal. Women who are financially or otherwise dependent on the person trying to coerce them into an abortion should be protected. It should be a basic human right. End of story.