Sep 282011
 

I found this at The Manboob:

Now, of course, they only really take this libertarianism stance on things they hate (for example, women). I’m pretty sure they’d be willing to fork over our “hard-earned tax dollars” to start government agencies and programs they’d like. For instance, a bunch of fedora wearing G-Men–the mostly manly of many menz–who’d track down all those false rape accusers like Ness did with Capone.

Putting aside the fedora and manly men garbage, and the libertarianism since the MRM has a much broader political base than that, this shows what feminists are all about.  This feminist is arguing that the government should give women money, but not engage in LAW ENFORCEMENT when women commit crimes against men.  The government should be going after false rape accusers, women who commit paternity fraud, etc.  Law enforcement, not transfer payments, is the government’s primary job.

When someone talks about a “government program”, they are referring to some sort of socialist transfer payment system or something like socialized medicine.  Things like law enforcement and the military aren’t considered to be “government programs” in common language.  This means that this feminist could not come up with a government program that men would actually want.  Instead she had to shove law enforcement into the definition of “government program”.  This allows us to show a very compelling contrast between feminists and MRAs.  Feminists want large oppressive government to give them money, which can only be done by theft from men, whereas MRAs just want women who violate the reasonable and just laws against false accusations, perjury, paternity fraud, other forms of fraud, etc. to be prosecuted.

  9 Responses to “A Feminist Says That The Government Should Give Women Money Instead Of Prosecuting Female Criminals”

  1. RedandGonzo: “I’m pretty sure they’d be willing to fork over our “hard-earned tax dollars” to start government agencies and programs they’d like.”

    The best arguments always contain tautologies like this one.

    It’s impossible to conceive of someone who wouldn’t be willing to put taxpayer funds toward a government program they like.

    The use of tax dollars is integral to the concept of a government agency or program. Willingness to use tax dollars is directly implied by support of government action.

  2. I wouldnt worry about the Manboobz site. I came across it recently. The guy writing that crap is a feminist puppet. Most of the commentors their are female chauvinist pigs (in other words they are feminist). I dont think the average man even knows about the site & I dont think Futrell has much influence on gov policy.
    I’m more copncerned about feminist groups that actually control the gov ( for example, in the US, the AAUW and the Womenss Law Center controls education). These are the groups which are doing serious damage to men and society in general.

  3. “hard earned tax dollars” in quotations say’s all we need to know about this person.

  4. I am a libertarian but I am disappointed in the unwillingness of fiscal conservatives and libertarians to seriously challenge Big Government Feminism. I was told flat out by a major libertarian blogger that “We probably should, but we need to appear inclusive to women if we want to grow the movement.”

    News Flash, it does not help the libertarian movement to mandate “safe space” for women wanting their government cheese.

    • Like Eincrou, I don’t identify as a libertarian despite being one for the most part because of this reason. I have heard the same thing from libertarians about not challenging feminism because they wanted to be “inclusive to women”. That’s when they’re being honest. When they’re not they will accuse you of supporting big government because prosecuting false rape charges, paternity fraud, etc. requires more law enforcement/more government than not doing that as a means to deflect the issue (and I have had this happen to me too).

      Libertarianism has always had a problem opposing big government feminism, but I think it has gotten worse in the last 10 years. Since 9/12/2001, the Libertarian Party has given up domestic libertarian issues entirely or reduced their work on them effectively giving up on them. For the last ten years all I have heard from libertarians is patriot act this or war on terror that. This is much bigger than anti-feminism. Things like drug legalization seem to have completely fallen off the libertarian radar screen. What has happened to libertarians is that they have become “liberaltarians” trying to make common cause with leftists. This means that libertarians are now “feministtarians” too. And a lot of this has happened to Ron Paul as well. He spends his time on foreign policy gobbedygook working with people like Dennis Kucinich instead of anti-feminism and other domestic libertarian issues. Dennis Kucinich and other leftists aren’t going to support anti-feminism so Ron Paul and the liberaltarians are giving the left support for nothing in return. What they are doing, if successful, will not help anti-feminism or domestic libertarian issues at all. Instead it will give leftists more power so Ron Paul and the liberaltarians are shooting anti-feminism and domestic libertarian issues in the foot.

  5. Herbal Essence: “I was told flat out by a major libertarian blogger that “We probably should, but we need to appear inclusive to women if we want to grow the movement.””

    This is why I don’t identify as a libertarian, despite being one. The libertarian movement claims to resist government power, but they are completely oblivious to how women have used the political process to empower themselves over men.

    Libertarian women won’t even acknowledge this fact. They tend to have the same views as feminists about women’s equality and oppression.

    If the Libertarian party swells its female numbers, those women will ensure that the party is incapable of doing anything that would combat misandry. This, despite the libertarian platform being theoretically very good for men.

  6. […] fact yet like with Republicans, most Libertarians refuse to deal with it.  They will come up with excuses like “the libertarian movement needs to grow first”, which is an admission that Libertarians will not reduce government if a woman complains.  Or they […]

  7. So let’s see : the following ideologies stop short of their goals when the prospect of female shaming language appears :

    1) Libertarianism.
    2) Social Conservatism
    3) White Nationalism (a bad ideology anyway, but still)
    4) Transhumanism (which talks about exterminating men until the only ‘humans’ left are female).

    Haven’t all 4 of these shown themselves to be female-centric?

    So isn’t misandry the DOMINANT ideology of this age.

    I would add fiscal conservatism to that list because I haven’t seen much anti-feminism from fiscal conservatives. Even the black and hispanic counterparts to white nationalism are misandrist. It’s like you said. Everything is infected with misandry except the MRM (such as it is) and MGTOW. At this point the MRM and MGTOW are the only two “movements” that are pro-freedom.

  8. The natural progression after democracy is a feminist police state (which can only last for a brief while). After that, a reset (whether hard or just semi-hard).

    One could argue that we’re already living in the feminist police state at least in part. A true feminist police state will die quickly after its born. It would be too tempting for some General or Generals in the military to overthrow it and setup a military dictatorship. Regardless of whatever else they’re about, those Generals would be guaranteed to have support from most of the male half of the population. I’m sure we will see that or a similar reset in our lifetime.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: