Confessions of an Ex-Feminist

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

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

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

Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world comes from
Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim immigrants
are fellow victims of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse than
Western men. Many Western Universities have courses filled with hate against men that
would be unthinkable the other way around. Thats why Swedish feminists dont call for
Swedish men to show a more traditional masculinity and protect them against aggression
from Muslim men. They denounce Swedish men for being just like the Taliban, want
them to pay special taxes and work to establish a purely feminist party to promote even
more socialist feminism. Most Norwegian feminists dont say a word about the grotesque
Muslim gang rapes. On the contrary, they work to increase Muslim immigration.
Totalitarian feminists are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to recruit
at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007.

Feminists Pave the Way for Women to be Raped

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

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

Utopian and Parochial - Why Western Feminism Won't Do

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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