On how I was insulted by a statement by Hillary Clinton – feminist egocentrism – feminist equality

The other day I heard a quote from Hillary Clinton that infuriated me.  She said:

“Women have always been the primary victims of war.  Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.  Women often have to flee from the only homes they have every known.  Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims.  Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.”

Can you believe it?

Women are the “primary” victims of war?!!!

What about the men?!!!  What about the men who die in combat? What about the men who are maimed?  What about the men who develop mental trauma?   What about the men who are repetetively thrown into a deadly situation?  What about the work and turmoil the men go through?  She didn’t even so much as acknowledge the men, the true victims of war.

This infuriated me.

This is practically a complete refuting of the existence of the male!  It is a refutation of the work the male does.  It is a refutation of the suffering of the male.  It is a refutation of the sacrifice of the male.  It is a refutation of what the male does for society.

That is unacceptable!

But, like most feminists, she only notices what concerns her, as if they are the only ones in the world.  This ‘egocentrism’ is very typical of feminism.  Their whole point of view is only about THEM.  Anything else is either non-existence or bad.

I had heard that there was an article in a paper back east where the feminist author was complaining about how horrible it was that more females are getting killed on the job.  She, I was told, made a big deal how we need to make regulations and such to prevent this IMMEDIATELY.  Never mind that something like 20 times as many men are getting killed on the job!   Never mind that men have been dying on the job for centuries.  But, yet, a few more females get killed and we have to stop and change everything!  This point of view is similar to the point of view Hillary Clinton stated above:  everything for the female and forget the male . . . and this from people who profess equality!

I have found that, “Equality”, to most feminists, does not mean ‘legal equality’, as they claim, but other things:

  • That the situation revolves around their issues.
  • That the situation is the way they want it to be.
  • That they are IN CONTROL of that situation. 

If it does not fit one or more of these points of view then it is ‘sexist’, ‘oppressive’, ‘tyrannical’, etc.  In other words, if things do not go their egocentric way then they are ‘oppressed’, they are ‘victims’.  Since things seldom go the way we want it, this means the feminists are continually being ‘oppressed’.

I’ve even heard many people, including females, admit that when feminists say they are “equal” it really means that they are in charge or in control.  If they are not in this position, then they are ‘oppressed’.  How do you deal with people who only have two perspectives:  I’m in control or I am oppressed?

Some feminists even think that the male is ‘no longer needed’ in the world anymore, that the female is so great that she can do everything and that the male is going to become extinct.  I couldnt’ believe it when I heard these things.  I’ve heard of feminists who want to turn the male into a slave, that this “is all we’re good for”.  I’ve even heard of feminists who want to eradicate the male, as if to exterminate him . . . a new female Nazi regime!  In my life I’ve never heard more hate and the battering down of other people than by the feminists and all “in the name of equality”. 

I heard, on a radio station, an interesting conversation.  They were talking to a feminist.  She was saying the usual feminist droll:  females are nothing but oppressed people, yeah, yeah, yeah.  The radio host said that this is not true, that females have all these special privelages, law is in their favor, and such.  He went on to mention how there are more females in colleges than males.  If I recall right, the conversation went something like this:

“If there are more females in the colleges, don’t you think you should be working to get more men in college, since your so committed to equality”.

“But its not half female in all fields.  In some areas the male is still dominant.”

“Yes, but you can’t have a continuous 50/50 ratio in all fields.  That’s not realistic.  They’re still more females than males in the colleges.  What do you want, the female to be dominant in all fields?”

“I would prefer it like that.”

There’s your ‘feminist equality’! . . .  Right from the horses mouth.

I heard of some men at a University back east that started a group for men.  It was some sort of a Masculinist group.  According to what I was told, feminists actually marched against it, carrying signs and chanting chants!  They were apparently upset because they were not CONSULTED about the groups formation and that they did not approve of the NAME.  It’s OK for them to do it . . . but not for men!  Whats even more pathetic is that they think they have the RIGHT to tell the guys what to do, as if we guys need to get “BIG SISTERS” approval.  These people preach freedom and equality but they don’t practice what they preach.

I heard that there was a convention on ‘battered husbands’ in a city back east.  During the convention some feminists came in and condemned it, saying it was all wrong (remember, according to feminist doctrine, females are the victims, males are the victimisers).  I saw some of the footage.  They were yelling and screaming in the auditorium and disrupted the whole thing.  Yeah, they can have all that but we can’t (if you want to see some more absurd claims from the feminists look at another article I wrote called “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists“).

These are some examples of TRUE ‘feminist equality’.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that this isn’t about equality.  They use equality, the law, and politics as a means for some other motive.

Some feminist egocentrism is so bad that I’ve heard them say – and get this – that a child is a ‘parasite’.  Can you believe that?  What kind a female says that a child is a parasite?  They’re so egocentric that nature – childbearing – is a threat to them!  I’ve even heard them say that nature was ‘sexist’.  So what’s next . . . taking nature to court for oppressing them?  This just shows how ‘far out’ this nonsense has become.  They’ve taken ‘feminist doctrine’ so seriously that they think everything . . . the male, society, law, and even nature . . . is supposed to follow its beliefs, as if ‘feminist doctrine’ is above it all! 

Added February 7, 2017

Take a look at this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/hillary-clinton-addresses-the-women%e2%80%99s-march-the-future-is-female/ar-AAmGHHf?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp.  Here Hillary Clinton says, “Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that yes, the future is female.”  There’s your feminist equality for you, a “female dominated world”.  Wow!  And this from a person professing equality.  This statement shows aspects of the true intentions of about Hillary Clinton, feminism, and female “equality”, that everything must revolve around them and they must be in charge.

Typically, from my experience, feminist egocentrism is so bad that there is no ‘bending’ on the part of feminists (at least, I’ve never seen it).  Its their way or the highway.  Some feminists, I’ve found, think this ‘narrow mindedness’ is a ‘strength’ and ‘prooves’ their strength.  All it is, really, is a horrible narrow mindedness.  In my opinion, the feminists are the most narrow minded people I’ve ever seen.  Their whole lifes agenda is based in a narrow conception of the world, themselves, and everyone else.  With a true feminist, they never waver from this narrow agenda.  It gives feminism a quality of something like a mania as well as an obsession.  Its like they are “fixated” on these themes, unable to get it out of their minds.  This makes feminism look, to me, like a mental illness.  From what I have seen, it probably is.


Take a look at this reply I received on January 19, 2015:

Thanks for the most unintentionally hilarious thing I’ve ever read.

1) Who started the war? The men.

Men LOVE war. They love playing with guns, and bomb, and killing people. Men practically jack off to war movies, and play war video games all day.

And who has to pay the price so you can enjoy your childish war games, and play with your guns and bombs? The women and children must pay.

That is the point.

When women finally run things, there will be no war. You will have to make due with the kind of violent movies and video games you enjoy and leave real humans out of it, you little shits.

2) Women serve in the military and right now there is a woman protecting YOUR ass.

This isn’t new. Women have always fought next to men in wars, due to simple necessity, because there weren’t enough men for them to stay home with the children. Even back in the days of Joan of Arc, it was not actually uncommon for a woman to join the military. So typical really, you start the shit and we have to pay the price, fighting your stupid wars and raising your children alone.

You mess it up-we clean it up.

Unlike you, I have actually known a *real* female war victim, from the Bosnian wars. Go read the horrors of what they did to the women in their rape and impregnation camps. Something you will never face because you cannot get pregnant. This is exactly how our society goes down, when men start wars and the most violent ones spread there genes through rape.

I asked her “What was the Bosnian war all about?”

She answered “It was something stupid the men came up with and a lot of people got killed.”

This is quite revealing and very reflective of this whole mentality.  I say ‘mentality’ because it is a mentality, a way at looking of the world.  My experience is that it tends to influence their whole interpretation of the world making it more than an opinion.  As expected, it shows many traits of feminist mentality.  Many of these same themes can be seen in many of the statements stated in “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists“.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is an anti-male orientation.  It, in many ways, is just a statement of accusation and blame, commonly seen with feminists.  As it typical, the male is at fault . . . the female stands by innocent.  It was actually this type of endless and nonsensical accusations and blame that first appalled me about this mentality when I first saw it over 30 years ago.  Only after all this time am I beginning to realize how appalled I was by this.  When I was going to trade school I can remember, on a daily basis, hearing females accuse and blame us guys of just about everything.  We enslaved them, oppressed them, victimized them, and the list goes on.  As I’d find out there would be a great psychological drama behind this, going to the depths of the female character and reflective of a general problem with the female (see “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“).

A very revealing statement is “You mess it up-we clean it up.”  This is more or less saying that the female is victim of the male.  As I mentioned in my article on the absurd claims of feminists the theme of female-as-victim is a dominant one with feminists (also see “Thoughts on the female ‘drive to be a victim’” and “Thoughts on the ‘female-as-victim-of-the-world’: “feminism”, a poor way to look at things“).  This theme would be returned again, at the end, with her mention of rape.   As I have mentioned in a number of articles I have found that the theme of female-as-victim tends to revolve around childbearing and menstruation and the viewpoint that this somehow “hurts”, “damages”, or “harms” the female (also see “Feminism and menstruation” and “Thoughts on menstruation, feminism, and why girls like jerks“).  Because the male is innately associated with childbearing, the male has this uncanny ‘knack’ at being at fault for this problem and, of course, the male has this ‘knack’ at somehow always victimizing them in some way or another.  Also notice the statement “Something you will never face because you cannot get pregnant”. This shows the sense of envy or jealousy many females have toward males as the male is not the ‘victim’ of the “horrors”, so to  speak, of childbearing and menstruation, which so plagues them.  This often causes, as it has in this case, a hatred toward the male.  Remember:  the male victimizes the female!  To be frank, in my 30 years of observing this mentality, this female-as-victim theme, with its association with childbearing and menstruation, appears to be the base of the problem.

Another interesting point is found in this statement, “Unlike you, I have actually known a *real* female war victim, from the Bosnian wars.”  How would she know?  More importantly, why did she assume that?  This is not the first time I’ve seen this.  What she’s doing is making things ‘personal’ (“Unlike you . . .”).  This shows that she has a sense of the ‘personal  hurt’ of having female problems (which I, of course, don’t have).  She is obviously struggling with it.  The difficulty with struggling to be female, along with female problems, tends to make feminism appeals to the girls who struggle with it, with its line of male-hate, “I’m a victim”, as well as a ‘female first perspective’, which dominates this philosophy.

The theme of males-are-just-maliciously-causing-wars-cause-their-idiots-and-love-war is really a remnant of the cold war.  Its really just an excuse to condemn males (I wrote an article that involves this called “Thoughts on the “male panic”“).  During the cold war the feminists began to use the political/legal viewpoints, and social mood, to justify their ’cause’ and to give it validity and authority.  As a result they literally fabricated all these conditions that did not exist.  A good example is how they turned everything female as “oppression”, exactly in line with the mentality of the times (freedom and democracy!).  I will never forget hearing females tell me that “cooking and cleaning is enslavement” as if the male conspired to enslave the female by making her do household chores.  Basically, what they did is fabricate a false condition to fit the ‘freedom and democracy’ mood of the times:  the male was fashioned into a tyrant who oppressed the females, generally by making them do female things and, of course, the females were all yearning for freedom from the tyrannical control of the male!!!  As I’d later learn this point of view would entail almost every female thing, especially if it is ‘traditional’.  In other words, they used the political/legal viewpoints to as if to “give them authority”.  The threat of nuclear war during the cold war, which caused anti-war viewpoints, just gave many of these girls a new “authority”.  Since males are involved with war they made the equation:  war=male=bad.  The male is obviously bad.  Since they were not a part of the equation, they made this equation: love=peace=female.  As a result, they painted themselves out as the ‘bringers of love and peace’ as opposed to the ‘warmongering love-to-kill male’, which is what the author of the reply more or less said the male was.  The female as representative of ‘love and peace’ is seen in this statement: “When women finally run things, there will be no war.”   The female as savior!  To me, this statement is not unlike me running for President and claiming that “I will solve this countries problems”.  But the problem is that this is an unproven statement, just as her claim is.  I cannot make the claim that I can solve the countries problems because I have never done anything like it . . . its an empty boast.  To be frank, its an arrogant and naïve statement.  Its like making big promises with no proof.

As with many feminists statements she has some weird logic.  She goes on telling us how bad the ‘war mongering’ male is (“Men LOVE war.”) but then, and even with a bullet point, she mentions that “right now there is a woman protecting YOUR ass.”  If I’m not mistaken she just contradicted herself . . . wasn’t she condemning war?  Not only that, the theme went from ‘war is bad’ to ‘protecting our ass’.  I guess that when females get in the military its for good reasons, huh?  But, really, shouldn’t we start speaking of the new ‘war mongering’ female who LOVES war!!!

Another weird logic is the statement that “you start the shit and we have to pay the price” and “You mess it up-we clean it up.”  That doesn’t make any sense.  The male starts it and they pay the price . . . ?  What about the soldiers?  In addition, when has the female ever cleaned up after a war?  In my 20 plus years studying history I am unaware of females cleaning up and rebuilding after a war.  Like I said above, these statements are more or less making the female out as a victim of the male (cleaning up the males mess is how the male victimizes them).  But, lets just say the female has to clean up the mess for the sake of discussion, they still are not the primary victims of the war . . . soldiers died for crying out loud!!!

As is typical with feminists there is a complete lack of any appreciation or gratitude.  My first confrontation with feminism was exactly on this point.  I opened a door for a girl and was called a “male chauvinist pig”.  Feminists are the most ungrateful people I’ve ever met.  Sadly, this whole article is nothing but writing about the complete lack of appreciation or gratitude on the part of these people.  Isn’t that really what Hilary’s statement says, more or less?  There’s no gratitude, appreciation, and a lack of understanding that maybe these wars were fought for THEM.

Notice, also, the name calling, which is common with feminists.   Notice how she called me a “little shit”.  Yes, me, another ‘war-mongering’ male who LOVES war.

The statement at the end obviously shows an overall general anti-male perspective as well as a naiveness toward historical events . . . I think there’s a little bit more about war than “something stupid the men came up with”.  I can understand that statement for the lady who was raped (I guess???) but its only being used by the author of this reply as a form of “authority” for her anti-male viewpoint.

These lines of thought are very much in line with feminist mentality.  My god, according to the feminists, the male is a bunch of tyrannical, oppressive, war-mongering, violent, hateful, enslaving people who conspire to victimize them.

That’s ridiculous!!!


Here’s a reply I received on May 1, 2015:

“Im sorry but do you realize  how many women and little girls are raped by soldiers.  The rape of nanking, the rape of berlin, to modern day wars, women are raped by enemy and ally soldiers.  Women are the biggest victims.”

I think anyone, with any sense, would find this statement sort of appalling.  I see three reasons why:

  1. It completely disregards all the other tragedies, trauma’s, and horrors of war.
  2. It completely disregards the fact that people have lost their lives.
  3. It places the female body (and emotions) as the only thing that matters.

I first want to point out that I am not devaluing rape.  I am continually surprised how many females seem to think that males don’t care about rape.  My conversations with many males have shown this to be otherwise.  I’ve heard a number of males say that if one of their close family were raped (sister, wife, daughter, for example) they’d probably beat the guy to death, regardless if they had to go to prison for it.  I’ve also heard a number of guys say that the rapist being in custody will be the thing that saves him as it will protect him from them.  I, myself, have similar feelings.  I always said that it scares me what I might do if I found out one of my close family was raped.  These examples show how many of us males view rape, to the point of beating and even killing the guy (I don’t think any of us would actually do that though . . . its just an expression of outrage).  Those are deep feelings.  So I want to point out that I understand the concern over rape and have similar feelings.

Having said that, we must remember that there is a whole wide world out there.  There are many other tragedies and trauma’s that take place in the world.  Rape is only one of many things that could happen.  This is especially true in war.  The fact is that war causes many horrible things, on many levels, affecting many people and in many different ways, such as:

  • Maiming, loss of limb, etc.
  • Loss of home, livelihood, possessions, etc.
  • Loss of security and safety.
  • Lack of food, shelter, etc.
  • Starvation.
  • Disease and infection.
  • Mental trauma.
  • Stress and fear.
  • Loss of life.

To say that rape makes females the “biggest victims” of war is naïve and narrow minded.  It shows a lack of “getting the big picture”.

For some females, they simply don’t “get” the “big picture”.  This is why they think this way . . . they don’t realize all the things that take place in war.  A lot of females, from my experience, are not overly aware of all that takes place in war nor do they realize how many different ways people are affected by it. 

But my experience is that there is another side to why they think this way:  innate traits of the female character.  A number of themes appear that reveals this:

  • The tendency to place the female body as the only thing that matters. 
  • The sense of being a victim.
  • The concern over rape (sexual violation).
  • The narrow mindedness.

Over the years I’ve begun to associate these themes with manifestations of the mother instinct.  Because of this, most females will reflect them at least occasionally at various points in their life.  Many females will reflect these same themes in everyday life but in a mild way.  Sometimes, they will be emphasized to excess to the point of being neurotic.

The mother instinct is a very strong force in the females life.  It is an innate tendency in females.  It is, in actuality, an instinct and behaves in that way.  As a result, it creates feeling such as:

  • A feeling that they have no control.
  • A feeling that “something” controls them.   Generally, females do not know it is the mother instinct that does this.
  • A feeling that they are compelled to do what “it” commands.
  • Because they feel controlled it often creates a “fear of something” which is the thing that controls them.
  • All this helps create a sense of being a victim or somehow victimized in some way.
  • Menstruation, a major “unspoken” element of the mother instinct, further instills this sense of being victimized.  This is because many females perceive it as “damaging” to their body (bleeding, bloating, pain, etc.) as well as doing emotional “damage” (mood swings, etc.).  It also causes feelings of being enslaved or ‘controlled’ by its continual monthly repetition which they cannot escape. 
  • Because they feel controlled by “something”, and don’t know what it is, they usually need to find a scapegoat, someone or something to blame for all these feelings.
  • Because the mother instinct is so intimately associated with the male, the male is often the scapegoat and is blamed and viewed as the “something” that controls and victimizes them.  This shows the innate tendencies of the mother instinct as it unconsciously “assigns” the male a role in all this.  This is so strong that it is often done when the male has done no act or behavior to instigate it, as I have repetitively observed in my life.   Not only that, it is so deep, and innate, that the female isn’t even aware of it . . . the assumption is automatic.

With these feelings we can see that the mother instinct can cause unique problems for the female.  That is to say, its not “all good” but has a dark side to it.  In fact, I tend to feel that the mother instinct can create illnesses and sicknesses of its own.  Perhaps we could call it the ‘mother instinct sickness’?   Some of the effects of this sickness is that it can make the female do a number of things, such as:

  1. They fabricate threats.  They see threats where there are no threats.  I’ve been around girls who see threats coming out of the woodwork.
  2. They fabricate damage that has been done to them.  They think they have been damaged or harmed when nothing has happened.  Some girls will believe it so much that they will react as if it is a traumatic event . . . but nothing has happened!
  3. They fabricate enemies.  They see evil things and people intent on hurting them all over the place.  A good example of this is the claim that males are trying to do them harm.
  4. They fabricate defenses against all this.  Some good examples are trying to be a man (thinking that this will save them) or making a political/legal issue out of it (as with the feminists).  These are supposed to protect them against something that hasn’t happened.

In short, they create, in their mind, all this stuff that isn’t taking place as a manifestation of what the ‘mother instinct sickness’.  In short, the ‘mother instinct sickness’ often makes them delusional.  When they see threats and victimizing coming out of the woodwork, and it becomes particularly strong and dominant in the females perception of the world, I often speak of this as the ‘female-as-victim syndrome’, a type of ‘mother instinct sickness’.   I consider this syndrome to be an epidemic in the U.S.

The females concern over her body also stems from the mother instinct.  Innately, the mother instinct views the child as an extension of the female body.  It is an unconscious automatic assumption and appears naturally.  This is why adolescent girls become preoccupied with their body.  In actuality, it is like a “pre-mothering” as once they have children this concern over their body generally passes onto the child, who is an extension of their bodies.  In this way, “motherly feelings” are really an “extended body concern” through the children.  For many females, though, this may not happen or only partially.  As a result, they become overly concerned with their body.  This can turn into a strong ‘female conceit’ or ego-centrism, which can be like a vanity, self-concern, self-absorption, or similar thing.  When this gets really bad they may start to see the world as revolving around their bodies, as if their bodies is all that there is in the world.  It becomes the center and focus of everything in life.  As a result, they interpret the world this way.  This makes females think as described in the statement above, as if their body is all that matters.

This ‘female conceit’, egocentrism, and concern over her body, tends to create a narrow minded attitude and a lack of regard for the other people and things in the world.  They will often act as if nothing else exists.  In many cases, they are completely oblivious to the rest of the world.  This general attitude is reflected in the statement above where the primary concern is over the female body with complete disregard for everything else.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that rape (sexual violation) is also a reflection of the mother instinct, as sex is intimately associated with childbearing.  Because of this, it gives that particular subject a special “emphasis”.  As a result, any “harm” or “violation”, from the sexual context, is viewed particularly bad and especially victimizing to them as it draws in all the emotions described above and gives it a strong outlet.  This great “emphasis” tends to make it so that it is the main and only concern.  This is seen in the statement above where it is of first importance regardless of all the other things that can happen to the female in war.  We must keep in mind that the statement above is completely disregarding all the other horrible things that can happen to a female in war (maiming, mental trauma, death, etc.) as if they don’t even exist.  All that matters is their sexual violation.  In actuality, this statement (as well as the others in this article) are not over war, as it appears to be, but are actually using war as a medium for ‘female issues’.  This is one of the reasons why their statements are so ‘out of whack’ and out of context with the real-world situation.

Interestingly, these themes, the ‘mother instinct sickness’, and the ‘female-as-victim syndrome’, often make it so that the female has a hard time being female.  One of the ironic qualities of the mother instinct is that it can make the female have problems being female even to the point that they see everything female as bad and even try to be a man.  Some females will practically make a life out of this female-as-victim point of view.  The most dramatic version of this is feminism who have made a legal/political issue out of it.  These girls tend to get out of control with it as they use the legal/political authority to “justify” it making it seem as if their feelings of victimizing is real.  But, most of the time, it is a fabricated in the females mind or an exaggerated claim somewhat similar to the statement above.   The use of legal/political views, though, makes them think its real.  As a result, feminists tend to become particularly delusional, thinking everything under the sun is plotting against them.  Because of this, it can reach the point of paranoia as I, myself, have seen many times.


Take a look at this remark I received on December 3, 2015:

“BlackLivesMatter is still so much less important than Feminism! As long as ALL women are oppressed by patriarchy why do we even worry about a very narrow oppression example – just a single race?”

Here we see many traits I’ve discussed above:

  • The female-as-victim.  I like the statement:  “as long as ALL women are oppressed by patriarchy” . . . yet again the male is the victimizer and ALL women are the innocent victims . . . good going girls!  Yeah, that’s exactly what’s going on.  Its a conspiracy.  History is nothing but the oppression of the poor female by the tyrant evil male.  That’s utterly ridiculous.
  • The female as all that matters.  Notice how she downgrades other people (black people in this case) and exalts the female, as if they are above everything.  This is a good example of feminist egocentricity.  She just gave another example of it!  This is the same logic that Hilary Clinton used when she said that the female is the primary victim of war, completely disregarding the male.

We can see that these add up to a particularly strong self concern at the expense of others on the part of the female, a worry over themselves as the most important thing.  I generally associate this attitude with the mother instinct (in fact, all the themes of this whole article revolve around it).  In many ways, it is an “exaggerated and distorted mother instinct” which usually hints at some sort of a problem, such as identity problems or an insecurity of some sort.  I’ve spoken of the association of identity with the mother instinct in my article “Thoughts on female identity problems – an example of how females are losing the ability to interpret their own naturally appearing motherly feelings, the ‘alienated mother desire’, and other things“.  In this article I discussed a number of things, which we have seen in this article, and the responses:

  • Of how the mother instinct requires a strong identity to give it direction.
  • Of how females who have identity problems often get alienated from the mother instinct and how this makes many females often view motherhood, and femininity in general, as a threat.
  • Of how this helps undermines the female identity and creates a low view of themselves.
  •  Of how the male, especially, tends to be viewed as a threat.

The end result of all this is a delusional image of the world (such as that females are “oppressed”) and a distorted view of both male and female (such as that the male is a threat).  In short, something like a very neurotic view of life is created that has no basis in the real world.  As a result, many of these girls are literally living in a false reality.  Because it tends to involve this idea of them being a victim, at least in some way, it tends to take on the quality of a paranoid world view.  I’ve been around many girls who think like this and those that are extreme are not much different than a paranoid schizophrenic.  What this reveals, really, is that the mother instinct can cause mental problems and a distorted way at looking at the world.

One aspect of what this shows is the power of the world view one takes.   Basically, once we take a world view we become “bound” by it and, in a way, enslaved by it.  This is because it becomes the basis of how we view everything.  This is seen quite extensively in this mentality.  Once they take the world view that the female is oppressed and a victim, and the male is at fault, they see it everywhere and in everything.  Take a look at some of the statements that were said by feminists in my article on the absurd claims of feminists stated above . . . EVERYTHING violates their rights and was a form of oppression:  cooking, cleaning, doing their hair, having children, etc.  They begin to see victimizing coming out of the woodwork.  In this way, these girls are really victims of their own thinking.  But while they take these views they do not see this as they believe it is true.  Once they quit taking these views they quit seeing them.  The oppression disappears, the victimizing disappears, etc.  I’ve seen many girls literally “grow out” of this point of view and when this happens they quit seeing it.  This shows, even more, that this mentality is primarily a mental fabrication and not something that “actually exists”.

But one things that is hard to overcome with this mentality, and that makes many of them think it “actually exists”, is their use of politics and law.  They think that this makes them “right”.  They’ve used politics and law quite extensively because it is the only thing, really, to give a “legitimacy” and “authority” to their claims.  As a result, they whip it out like a weapon whenever they can.  To be frank, their over-extensive use of politics and law is further proof that it does not “actually exists”.  In some respects, it shows that feminism is nothing but a “handmaiden” of the political and legal philosophy and is, in actuality, unable to stand on its own.  It is dependent on them to make it valid for it is the only thing that gives it a legitimacy.  This fact reveals that feminism is not an inherent condition of humanity but, rather, a condition created by the American political and legal points of view and, therefore, dependent on them to be legitimate.   Once these points of view ends, or change to a new form, feminism will lose is legitimacy as the philosophy that sustains it, and which it is dependent on, will no longer be there.  In fact, all one has to do is to look at the political and legal points of view even a little differently and its amazingly easy how their whole justification comes crashing down.  I get the impression that none of them realize how fragile their “legitimacy” and “authority” really is . . .


What we are really seeing is that, behind all that is said and its close association with the mother instinct, THE “REAL” RAPE OF THE FEMALE IS MOTHERHOOD.  In this way, MOTHERHOOD IS THE “REAL” VICTIMIZER OF THE FEMALE.  This is one reason why it hits so “deep” and why it entails so many emotions.  What this means is that we are seeing nothing but manifestations of the mother instinct.  The effect of this particular form of manifestation is that it causes a weird, and often bizarre, preoccupation with “victimizing” in many females (the female-as-victim syndrome).  This preoccupation often appears in ways such as:

  • An obsession.  Its always on their mind, a perpetual theme that they can’t get out of their heads.
  • A paranoia.  The feel as if “something” is trying to hurt them.  Often, this is interpreted as if it is deliberate attempt to hurt them.  Sometimes they think there is a plot against them (such as that males are trying to enslave them).  Some girls will even think that there is a conspiracy against them.
  • A form of interpreting the world.  They see it in everything everywhere and interpret the world from this context.

In ways, such as this, this problem can completely DOMINATE the female.  I’ve been around girls whose whole stance in life is based in “I’m a victim”.  Its unreal.

Common appearances of this problem include:

  • Any reference to being a “victim” causes them problems.  This can have quite a range, from war to something as small as being “offended” by someone.
  • If they are “hurt” in some way they “jump on it” and make a bigger issue out of it than it is.  In short, things are heavily exaggerated.  Remember the saying “a women scorned . . .”.
  • They see victimizing in everything.
  • They seek to be victimized.  Some girls will want to be victimized.  This is commonly seen in girlfriend and wife abuse.
  • They desire to escape being a female.  This often appears as trying to be like a man.
  • They accuse and blame people.  My experience is that this is usually the male.  Society is second.

These themes permeate all the statements, and replies, coming from the female in this article.

Basically, we’re dealing with girls who have problems being female and have a contempt for everything female.  To be more precise, we’re dealing with a problem with the female identity and females who are struggling with that identity.  Females with “stable identities” act differently.  A “stable identity” creates a stable self which creates a good healthy view of ones self and ones place in the world.  A good healthy view of ones self creates self-respect and self-respect creates respect of others.  When they have problems with their identity they develop poor views of themselves (the female is a victim, for example), of others (the male is trying to degrade them), and the world (that the world is trying to oppress them).  In the U.S. these qualities are very prevalent showing that there is a problem with the female identity in the U.S.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

This entry was posted in Feminism: a destructive philosophy, Modern life and society, The male and female, The military and war, The U.S. and American society and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to On how I was insulted by a statement by Hillary Clinton – feminist egocentrism – feminist equality

  1. Bob says:

    What about the men?!!!
    They just don’t care about us, we are nothing they are everything. For them we are a disposable commodity, they own us, we are their slaves and notting more. Our feellings, our dream, our suffering or our death is without interest unless in away or another that affect them. Like a slave owner who loose is slave they are the real victim of our death… The primary victim of war…

  2. Nathan says:

    I agree with this article. The true meaning of feminism has vanished long ago and now women are using it to gain superiority over men. I agree for equal rights for both sexes, but some of the absurd examples include to lower the standard norm for women for certain jobs such as the military, the fire department or the police. These are jobs that human lives depend on, and I don’t care whether it’s a man or woman, but both should meet the requirements needed to perform well enough so no lives are at risk. If the bar would be set lower for women, this would mean that you increase the risk of death for other people. THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT and has nothing to do with equality. It is an egocentric problem that should be diminished as much as possible.

  3. Ji Gragerd says:

    Oh wow, so the men that got bullets in their head aren’t the victim? Wow what an asshole, they gave their lives for the country and to insult them is just bull shit, repect the people who died for the country and yet want to be the president of the country. Seriously that kind of logic is unfit to be the president. A president who see every people equal but for what I can see when she becomes the president, its either female domination, sex wars or men are completely ignored and treated as thrash.

  4. Jack O'Connor says:

    Hillary Clinton…as President of the United States? She will undoubtedly be a master of massaging her past (current?) sexist image so as to tightrope walk the gender vote in the U.S. as we approach the 2016 election cycle. That is, she will now have to cover-up her human rights abuses against men, at least until she gains power. For instance, when she made this statement in San Salvador in 1998:

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.”

    Women are not the “primary” victims of war, Hillary C., president-elect. But a bunch of really dumb American men are going to forget you said that and vote for you in 2016. When I heard Hillary C. say this, I guess I could have responded like that MIT child, Nancy Hopkins, did in reaction to Lawrence Summers suggesting a possible reason women are underrepresented in hard science positions, namely:

    “I felt I was going to be sick,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biology professor at MIT who stormed out of the meeting. “My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow,” she informed reporters. “I couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill.” Why, had she not left the room, she “would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

    The big difference here is that Summers made a suggestion—and kept apologizing ad nauseam for his purported indiscretion—whereas Hillary C. made a statement, and is absolutely devoted to her female chauvinism. Ironically, they were both making essentialist assertions. Hillary C. was utilizing the banal, entirely unproven aphorism, “men wage war; if women were in power…,” while Summers was fiddling around with bell curve quasi-genetic statistics. Why do we tolerate Hillary C.’s essentialism and annihilate Summers? What is even more important is that, as our diplomatic influence begins to inevitably wane over the next decade , rising powers will associate American feminism with people like Nancy Hopkins and Hillary C.. If they do not already (and most of them do), they will realize the U.S. does not represent a beacon of equality, but merely power-hungry politicians willing to say anything—just about anything—to galvanize the vote: and in Hillary’s case, the female vote. Sure, men of America, vote for Hillary C., and watch your human rights disappear even more than they already have.

    1. Conference on domestic violence in San Salvador, El Salvador (17 November 1998). http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html (last accessed April 20, 2015)
    2. Townhall. “Ladies, please …”. Diana West, January 31, 2005.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2005/01/31/ladies,_please_/page/full (last accessed April 20, 2015)
    3. Geniuses like John von Neumann predicted this, inter alia, back in 1955. See, e.g., “Can we survive technology?” (Fortune, 1955), reprinted by Fortune, January 13, 2013.
    http://fortune.com/2013/01/13/can-we-survive-technology/ (last accessed April 20, 2015)

  5. Ron Glaze says:

    There are no “Winners” in a war. In a war there are only the dead and the survivors. I was a Marine in Viet Nam in 1966, 1967 and 1968. I was only a survivor. That’s all! I still have a South Vietnamese flag and my jungle boots hanging on the back wall of my garage. Every day they remind me of the human lives I have taken, the human lives that were lost and my being a survivor. I am not a religious person, but will take to my grave the horrors of war that I have seen, endured, participated in and survived.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s