Comment Response 3 to Tereza Coraggio's Recent Post and Increasingly Long and Engaged Comment Thread

Woke Feminism: our love is being used against us. don't blame the love.

Left: Eugenicist and Abortion Advocate and Feminist Icon, Margaret Sanger. Right: Male Genocide Advocate, Miss Arkansas 2012. Music: Queen: Death on Two Legs.

Introduction

This is my third ‘too long’ comment for the size of the comment field that continues our interesting discussion thread with substack writer Tereza Coraggio. For her essay that got us writing an exchange of comments:

Woke Feminism

my comment that began the chain opens with

hola, tereza. i hope you are well. i haven’t dropped in for a while as i’ve been doing several deep dives and my yoga path has gone deep dive internal spiritual journey — 2028.10.17

There were several exchanges that began there before I wrote the first too long response. The first long response that became a substack post is:

Comment Response to Tereza Coraggio's Recent Post and Comment Thread

The second is:

Comment Response 2 to Tereza Coraggio's Recent Post and Comment Thread

Tereza’s latest comment that inspired me to write this again long response, #3, is in my substack, here. Or in her substack here.

This time I include more short quotations from her reply, which likely makes following my responses a bit easier than the previous two. However, for the full context of my responses and her completely expressed point of view, read Tereza’s comment.

Because this is a part of a comment thread, most of the resources are not hyperlinked. And there are only three graphics.

here is the today’s comment: let’s see where we agree, without anecdotes, data, and the opinions of others; although there are a couple of quotations

hola, tereza:

this time my responses carefully follow your points and questions. i’ve tagged the words you wrote with a ‘T’ and italicised the text. I’ve shortened most of your paragraphs to just the first sentence, or the first part of the sentence. a couple of times i include a line or two from inside your paragraphs. i’ve marked my responses with ‘G’.

T: Let’s start with where we agree, Guy. The way in which children are being raised by hired caregivers, schools and institutions, because both parents are busy earning a wage, is not healthy for children.

G: yes. and it is a long time ‘practice’ predating the ubiquity of oligarchic state ‘control’. the ‘controllers’ are well skilled at building obedience in the lesser-thans. when the church controlled the society, were they not using aristotle’s aphorism ‘give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man’? so part one of breaking the family as foundational to a healthy child hence society, is to split apart the family by separating the child from the parents by taking him or her out of the family home. break the child, destroy the society. even if the state school system started with ‘good’ intentions — which i doubt — it is now clearly the place of a sophisticated high pressure system of indoctrination.

“The Hand That Rocks the Cradle” as published in Loomis’ Musical And Masonic Journal (1898). Music: Amananti — Medusa.

T: if two people are equally the ‘owners’ of something or someone--a home or a child--neither one is.

G: i disagree with the premise of your question, although it goes to what my exploration of feminism has revealed. feminism, in conjunction with the debt-based capitalistic system, has morphed many/ most children and women to being closer to that of men. what that means is that women are commodifying themselves and their children because, when men are outside the home at work they are disposable commodities. have been for millenia. feminism, along with some forms of female biased welfare practices and family court, have been successfully pushing more and more good men and fathers outside the home family. without the home and family those who have been banished become only a commodity — in that he is simply a provider of wealth, like a kind of slave market factory that spits out stuff to indifferent or condescending consumers — perhaps a wife and children. he is no longer a father or protector.

i suspect that this is a significant factor in the sharp uptick in male suicide rates: broadly men have lost their meaningful place as fathers who protect and provide for their families. dull meaningless work now means just a dull meaningless life when there is no home to come to and the fathers are barred from seeing their children and stripped of their wealth. and as far as I have been able to determine, most women — not all, not all, not all — absolutely do not see that aspect of male psychology. and most do not want to.

do you? you write men as flat nothings, inhuman. that is also typical of what i have found in the last 10 months of research. it is well corroborated.

furthermore, once the child has been commodified, it can be owned and weaponised as leverage or as a disposable asset. and this happens in family court many times every day. (i wrote about that in a university paper in the late 90s — i saw that happening back then.) even this framing, as if the commodified child is ‘natural’ and ‘proper’ economics, removes from the parents their personal parental responsibility to the child — parents, not mother only — because the asset is no longer a dependent human.

is this true of all families? of all men, all fathers? all women, all mothers? of course not. yet it is clear to see, that this is an expanding family cancer. feminism’s desire to commodify women aligned perfectly with the capitalistic agenda to very successfully attack the family health.

so, i don’t agree because your premise is false and the comparison is therefore false.

T: Women, in unprecedented numbers, don’t feel secure enough to bring a child into the world.

G: only a very marginal qualified yes to that. i think that a bigger problem than the symptom of ‘insecurity’ is that feminism has misdirected women into believing that motherhood is a trap fraught with fears of not being strong enough to be independent of men, men who are at best inhuman rapist sperm injectors. with that, feminists have been directing a widespread, active and aggressive shaming program of propaganda against being mothers and women who want to embrace motherhood. my research on feminism clearly shows that this is significant. feminism/ feminists — male and female although mostly female — weaponised against women their natural motherly feeling of needing to be secure to have babies. the feminist cant to be free and independent of men is the result of that decades long intense propaganda campaign. you seem to be writing from that place, which is fundamentally wrong. my words, my ideas.

and part ii to my answer is that we have lived under systems of promulgated fear for many years — fear of hell, for example. and in the last one and half centuries, over-population, viruses, communism, acid rain, atomic destruction, climate change, and more. we have been ‘conditioned’ to be fearful and women, because of their biological imperative to feel safe and protected, who are already generally more fearful than men because of child birthing and its dangers and responsibilities, have become very afraid of being a women and even more so of being a mother. feminism has successfully filled women with enough fear of men for them to publicly declare that they would rather meet a bear in the woods than meet a man there.

evidence? yes, i will provide evidence despite your request that i do not. skip it, if so inclined.

margaret sanger, eugenicist, nazi sympathiser and founder of planned parenthood was open about this: ‘The kindest thing you can do to a child is kill it.’

I haven’t found this exact quotation, likely it is a paraphrase of ‘The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’ – Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” (1920) in Bartleby.

and if curious: 21 other equally or worse quotations by one of the academic icons of feminism.

T: To me, all three of these are problems.

G: only partially agree because two of your cited problems are an improper framing of the situation — it comes from the utopian idea that a woman with child is automatically a mother. and that that mother is automatically superior to the father, who is morally, spiritually and now physically the inferior. and it assumes all women are ‘good’ and are in a state of making responsible choices all of the time. that is just delusion because ‘no matter the circumstances’ infers by context and your argument, that always ‘bad’ circumstances are caused by men and are never a problem between father and mother or, omg!, the mother herself. very much confirmation of the information bias i discovered that erases the devouring mother out of the information space. you just did that, too.

T: Here are the solutions to this that I can see,...

G: I only marginally, hesitantly agree. as i wrote in my very long response, you are with trepidation advocating state sponsorship to help the mothers. i am old enough, as i think you are, to see that state sponsorship is a dangerous slippery slope into enslavement by dependency on the government. perhaps, as i also wrote, this could be, might be, necessary as triage. the problem with crutches is that they embolden the lazy and to the organisation that is proffering ‘help’, it wants to grow that dependency to enrich itself.

i don’t know how to address that so long as most people refuse to take full responsibility for their actions and continue to blame someone or something for their lack of wanting to be responsible for their life situation regardless how good or bad it began with, or before, birth. at what point do we leave that childhood and become adult enough to stop blaming and complaining? that is when maturity begins.

that is a key evil of the marxist-feminism you are arguing for: that the other is the problem, the evil bad irresponsible men, which includes all men, who have crushed women for millennia. even if that is true, which it isn’t except in a few cases, teach people, men and women, now, to stop blaming and complaining. and that is, obviously, the exact opposite of marxist, and marxist-feminist practices whose life blood is victim and victimiser. and that is super energised if the past can be brought forward to help blame the present. total poisonous mind fuckery and feminism is powerfully caught by that ideological grip.

to take responsibility cannot be forced, of course, no more than any human can force a horse to drink when it doesn’t feel safe to put tongue to water. so, a key part of ‘the’ solution is for the state, marxist organisations and much of standard psychotherapy to stop propagating fear and anger as ‘normal’ all the time, everywhere. that is a first step: stop encouraging as an emotional truth the self-righteousness of angrily blaming another. the second is to stop fear-mongering.

except that that is the marxist’s and government’s raison d’être, of course. so anyone who supports feminism as if it is a solution is deluded. it is the poison.

T: None of these are what I’d suggest.

G: yes, i wouldn’t suggest them either. see above.

T: My position is that a mother has the right to take responsibility for herself and her child, ...

G: no, not automatically. that aligns with your child as commodity and denies the importance, to the child, of a whole family. and it is an absolution of the responsibility to do the best for the child. if you were to have included something like ‘and, equally, the father has the responsibility for the well being of the child when the mother is unfit’ i might have gone along with that.

because this assumes the mother as perfectly capable and willing to take and be responsible. some are, some aren’t. your advocacy and rationale are getting close to inane. the removal of the man so casually confirms, yet again, you have dehumanised men and voided their desire, willingness and capability to be responsible fathers. not all, not all, not all, although likely the majority. it is simply not true, a feminist trope-lie and delusion. you have amply displayed that you have bought the feminist lie that men are non-human and disposable, that they have no desire or drive to protect responsibly mother, child and family as a whole. some men, likely most, and some women, likely most, do that reasonably well. not all. and a few of each are likely significantly better than the good enough parent. your entire argument rests on the delusion that women are automatically ‘best’ and men are automatically ‘worst’ child rearers. neither my personal experience, nor evidence, supports that in anyway.

T: To take responsibility for a child with a father is overwhelmingly the best way...

G: a subtle, very subtle misandrist stand. if i hadn’t read the rest of your argument i wouldn’t have spotted it. why didn’t you state ‘for both father and mother to be equally responsible for the child is overwhelmingly best’? again you have with great subtlety prioritised women as superior humans to men. and displayed the lie that feminism is about equality.

T: ... Where we differ is that you would take that option away no matter what the circumstances are that drove her to it...

G: i didn’t say that and don’t think that.

T: In your very long article, I could only find two places...

G: my long essay was a refutation of your argument as whole about the saintly superiority of women and the dehumanisation of ghastly men. no, you didn’t use those ‘words’. and yet your entire essay was exactly that.

T: You object to the term ‘sperm injector’ for a man who impregnates a woman. What’s your alternative?

G: lol! i am amazed that you would repeat that sperm phrase again. it is a bullshit statement that furthers my perception that you have dehumanised men, women and now even the child — the child as a commodity. it is further confirmation of your commodification, ie dehumanisation, of men and children because it is as black and white transhumanist language that it is possible for me to imagine. perhaps you aren’t aware of that.

that you have repeated it and question my questioning your use of it has firmly moved that language into being not that different from sanger’s, which likewise dehumanises children — and unborn infants. yup, as has been shown throughout history, the ease with which people, men and women, can kill another human, is first to dehumanise them. which feminism has done to both unborn children and to men. and female anti-feminists as well. and as you have done here.

there are many phrases that are ‘better’, meaning more human and compassionate. perhaps the most straight and simple is ‘fathering the child’. or, perhaps, ‘impregnating the woman’ (or more ideally, that would be the mother or mother-to-be).

T: ... The questions remain about what rights of ownership of the child are conferred by sperm contribution.

G: more commodification language. without sperm no child. no egg, no child. no womb, no child. sounds like pretty close to 50/50, to stay within your commodity language. you have commodified the difficulties and risks of pregnancy and turned it into a business leverage that can be used as a weapon against the father and the child. and frequently that is exactly what is happening with the misandrist feminisation of the family court system. some (many?) women use the child as leverage, a tool, to hurt the fathers and/or enrich themselves with lies to others and themselves about it, especially the father. and often their divorce sturm und drang is simply to pursue hedonistic better opportunities and grass is greener mirages of happiness elsewhere. not all, not all, not all. yes, women are abused and have the responsibility to get themselves and their children to safety. so too the men who are abused, and who see their children being abused by women. both men and women are abusers and to deny that is delusion. and because of feminism, that is exactly what is happening. and it is exactly what you wrote.

it is a divisive marxist utopian argument/ tool that one group is oppressed and cannot in turn be an oppressor. to remove that false dichotomy is to remove women from sainthood and return men from purgatory. until that happens inter-sex conversations are going to be fraught with a plethora of women — not all, not all, not all — screeching their angry vitriol and misandry into the media-scape with celebratory joy while men in greater and greater numbers turn away, go quiet, and kill themselves. and you, i suspect, as a good feminist have at best thought of that in passing without compassion or thought of the role that feminism has had in increasing the depression of both men and women.

T: Do you call Terry your mother?

G: what does that have to do with anything here? oh, right, right. silly me. my mother was bad so my anti-feminist stand is because of her. as i have written, my mother was hurt so she hurt her children. her mother hurt her. and, like my father with me, her father didn’t or wasn’t able to protect her from that bad mothering. look in the mirror and ask why you are so comfortable dehumanising men. although you sort of weirdly unconsciously admit, this time, that there are bad mothers! well, maybe only just mine. wow, that is amazing. although it feels to me that you included it to be a tool you could use to rationalise my misogynistic psyche, and not as the possibility of humanising a narcissistic mother as bad, and find compassion for how that hurt much of my life. nope. my narcissistic mother was a commodity tool you could to dismiss my argument. prove me wrong.

and what about my mother, her mother, my father, remaining in a traumatised victim state? my father was a blamer too, a socialist marxist looking to solve the evils of capitalism. my mother narcissistically ruled her (and our) social world with a diamond hard fist blaming her husband for her living in less-than conditions and the oppressed mother of four her used her children as, commodified, show pieces as proof of her excellence. she died without repentance of what she did wrong, because she had done nothing wrong. i was to blame; my ex was to blame, etc. likewise my grandmother, ad infinitum.

that dynamic is what feminism creates in the society. blaming and refusing to take personal responsibility to change themselves out of the events of their lives that have become their rationalised heroic victim-stories. and victims, men and women, use crying, lying, deflection and other tricks in order to keep their privileged status as victim. you are undoubtedly aware of the woke spiral into who can be the most victimised and thereby garner the most privilege and prestige. women have been riding that feminist propaganda since at least the 1800s. and with technology and the refinement of psychological manipulation through propaganda and advertising, that pressure has been huge. unfortunately two measured characteristics of women make them more susceptible to that than are men. that is why advertising overwhelmingly, not solely, targets women. and a reason why the victim-mind of feminism is so deeply entrenched in especially women.

you like looking at society. perhaps do an experiment. pretend to be have become anti-feminist and see the reaction you get. caution, if you do this experiment seriously, that is likely to be a brutal shock, because most women do not understand how lacking in compassion women are. they turn on a dime and kill their own. societally we have conflated maternal instinct with compassion. they are not the same.

the mindset of i am a victim is a psychological addiction that infantilises the self-declared victim. that idea pisses most women — not all, not all, not all — right off the deep end. how dare you victim-blame!? you misogynist rapist you. that is not what that is. so long as people, men and women, see themselves as a victim of the events in their lives, they have given away personal responsibility. end of story. my events include having been born with a narcissistic mother. take responsibility and address it as an adult. that i did. i am not a victim of her. she, unfortunately, remained a victim of patriarchy, a devouring mother and a crippled father until she died.

T: Your definition: “feminism ...”

G: you chastised me for not defining feminism, even though i did. so i did my best to unambiguously define it. now in typical marxist fashion, you have shifted the goal posts. that is a practice that i have read you complain about against other people often.

T: Can you share some direct quotes of mine for why you’d apply this definition to me?

G: i didn’t apply it to you. why did you take it personally? this is another peculiar and reliable characteristic i have experienced a lot now: women, especially although not solely feminists, take criticism of feminism as a personal attack against themselves. it is absolutely knee jerk and very common. not all, not all. so you have provided evidence of that yet again.

however, to address your question, i haven’t read very much of your feminist writing. i only began reading your stuff a couple of years ago. there hasn’t been much in that time frame, maybe in your earlier writing. however, i would pretty much quote your entire previous reply as 100% misandristic feminism, knowing that as a devout feminist you are unlikely to see it. and that is what my criticism was comprised of. i won’t go through your essay to pick those out, although there are many there too. and similar to my earlier criticisms. although your writing has put it between the lines, under the lines, somewhere hiding beneath actual words. and that requires some analysis to extract — which is what i did and why it was a long response. and why provided evidence, even though i have become confident that as a feminist you would deny it and cite anecdotes. which you did. the interesting thing about people blind to their ideology is that they are predictable.

every reference you make to men has dehumanised them. that is always the first step towards attempted genocide, which i’ve seen many fully fledged feminists, including academics, advocate as the logically best final solution. as it was done in germany, was done and is still being done with the unvaccinated, is being done in gaza and by the democrats against maga and the republicans.

T: The only part of that definition that’s related to our argument is ‘men ... need to be outed from being fathers.’ To clarify, you are defining any man who impregnates a woman as a father, with no distinction being made for his relationship to the child or the mother.

G: no. i didn’t write that. and you moved the goal posts. again. perhaps i echoed your own energy in my language because of your advocacy that all women who birth children are mothers. so, i would say that all who father a child have the responsibility to be a father. not all take it nor are all capable of either taking it or of being even a good father. and i apply that to the human female, too, not your utopian version of birthers as automatically being saintly mothers. do all women who give birth automatically become mothers willing and able to take on that responsibility? no. it is feminist delusion to think otherwise, and a denial of reams of historical evidence.

T: Why would I want to ‘out’ men from being fathers? We need more men stepping up and being fathers.

G: great question. so why is your entire argument taking the stand that removes men from the family? and dehumanises them? sanctifies women and commodifies children. yes, great question.

T: To you, there’s no distinction to be made between a man who has a genetic link to a child, through his sperm, and a father who’s invested time and money into raising a family with his wife.

G: i didn’t write that and don’t think that. you, on the other hand, have here argued that all women are saintly mothers who do. that pregnancy and birth of the male genome in the child has no weight or bearing in that ‘commodity’. that is a female-feminist lie and a delusion. perhaps the responsibility isn’t about what the man gave, per say, nor the challenges of the woman, per se: what if we argue that since each contributed half of the genomic make up of the child, it stops being a commodity and becomes an expression of union at the deepest physical and spiritual level where both the father and the mother are equally responsible for birth and continuation of life? what do you think?

T: And for me to say there are men who physically abuse women or children is to say that all men are abusers. Is that how you’re making that jump?

G: that is how you wrote it. yet you make the ‘jump’ that all women are mothers. hmmm. odd hypocrisy there. perhaps my ‘jump’ was your dehumanising men and women, as i clearly stated. not once in your essay or responses have i seen you humanise either sex. saints or beasts. pure marxist-feminism. and with this response you wrote, you have also dehumanised the child. amazing.

T: So I have not a single anecdote, not a single statistic, not a single quote from someone else. These are my answers to the best of my ability. Respond to what I’m saying and asking, in your own words.

G: with two small dismissible evidentiary exceptions, i’ve done as requested. my words, my ideas of my being shocked and stunned into awakening to the absolute evil malevolence of feminism. i have come to think that it is, in some ways — not all, not all, not all — even more pernicious than the convid. it is a far deeper and more subtle social poison than was the convid. adherents of marxist-feminism are more asleep and equally blind to their ideology than vaxxers. the convid was mostly slow death by clever poisoning and, except for the unvaccinated being shunned, the family as a unit of life and spirituality wasn’t under such a direct attack. mostly ‘just’ their lives.

feminism attacks the family, creates despair in men and women. now with abortion being post pregnancy birth control and asked for as casually as buying new shoes rather than just after a rape, very likely that expressed form of feminism has in total killed more humans — not commodities — than the convid and its poisonous injections did. dehumanise life to kill it, which now includes full term babies in many states and in the uk.

finally, again, i really appreciate your push back. you helped clarify some subtle points, sharpen with more experience the feminist (female) tendency to not see men enough to think of them as even disposable. i hadn’t thought of the connection between the female tendency — not all, not all, not all — to commodify men, hyped by feminism, as the same commodification energy being applied to children who can then be morally used as weapons against men and killed in the womb.

great conversation. muchas gracias y hasta luego.

Left: Rapist, Torturer, Serial Killer Karla Homolka with her Accomplice Husband. Right: Lady Macbeth After the Deed with her Accomplice Husband. Music: The Northern Pikes — She Ain’t Pretty (She Just Looks That Way).

post post synchronicity addendum

A couple of days after posting this, a synchronicity. as noted, Tereza didn’t want me to cite facts or other people’s opinions. Just my ideas. An Alexander Grace video on the differences in argument rules and dynamics between men and women is well described by him. And it is easy for me to see that dynamic happening in Tereza and my exchanges.

If curious:

Thank you for reading.

we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.

🙏❤️🧘‍♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘‍♂️❤️🙏