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

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

Hola humans.

Tereza Coraggio’s recent feminist post, Woke Feminism: our love is being used against us. don’t blame the love.’

Woke Feminism

has generated between us an interesting back and forth comment thread. My latest response is too long to fit as a comment. And too long to fit as a Note. So now, an actual post — simple one. The thread starts with my response to her post, here.

Note: because this is a response to a comment, I’ve not included here all my resource links.

Here is my next instalment of the comment thread:

Hola, Tereza. Another fascinating and stimulating response. Gracias.

Before I go on with your current comment, in my previous response I forgot to include that I found your inclusion of the Edward de Vere (Shakespeare) reference to A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream kind of funny. Why didn’t you pick Lady Macbeth or Katherine from Taming of the Shrew? Or Innogen from Cymboline? Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing? Or even Viola from 12th Night, or Rosaline from As You Like It? They all undermine your contention that de Vere was describing a social norm. All the various ways that women and men have been and are being hurt by social and cultural norms can be anecdotally and historically endlessly listed.

🙏 If this comment gives you some pleasure, and/or an ‘aha’, extend our human intimacy and become a paid subscriber.

Or click on the coffee if you would like to buy me a coffee:

All the best with what is changing. Everything changes. Peace, respect, love and exuberant joy. 🙏

My current dive, to be posted soon, I hope, looks at the feminist — comprised of men and women — lies around foot binding and female genital mutilation/ cutting.

Also, I forgot to ask you, who often criticise people for ad hominem attacks, why did you slyly do that with this passive aggressive comment: ‘And women who love men and trash other women, like Janice Fiamengo, self-professed man defender, and Hannah Spier who co-authors the podcasts, “What Should I Tell My Daughter?” and “Psychobabble.”’ Your brush is incorrect and an odd and subtle ad hominem attack. I’ve read and listened to both and you mischaracterised them both. Provide your evidence that Fiamengo and Spier are women trashers (haters).

As has been my experience with women, recently, whenever I suggest that feminism and feminists are malevolent, women take it very personally, even when I carefully include the fact that many feminists perhaps even most, are men. In practical reality, if men were not active feminists feminism wouldn’t exist: the power of the oppressive men would have shut it down — if they were as oppressive as the feminist trope avers. Instead of passively aggressively dismissing these women as haters of women, consider that they are actually questioning the truth-tropes of marxist-feminism.

Note: in a way, you have done to them exactly, albeit more cattily, what the feminists did to Erin Pizzey in the 1970s when she questioned the feminist truth-trope of domestic violence. The difference in the outcomes of that violence is men’s strength, not the proclivity or frequency of violence that is extant in both men and women. (I provided more on Pizzey’s experience with battered women and the violence that women are prone to do in my last essay, referenced in my previous post.

---

It's Been a While. Where Have I Been?

September 2025: Yogic Life Update with ClearVision Eye-Kriya and I Introduced My Self to Feminism And Am Surprised to Discover it to be Evil Incarnate)

---

And in my upcoming one, I include some aspects of m/f differences and sameness that is described in the The Big Five Personality Traits: The 5-Factor Model of Personality. Under neuroticism, which women consistently and significantly score higher on than men do, is the following description:

The one facet of Neuroticism in which women do not always exhibit higher scores than men is Anger, or Angry Hostility.

So, women and men are almost equally prone to anger and, by inference its expression. And all data on domestic violence supports that: both men and women are about 50-50 with the initiation of domestic violence. Again, this is data that time after time, feminists deny or deflect away from by pretending the Pizzey’s and others like her are ‘man loving women haters’ and not speakers of the truth of their experiences. A truth that all data supports.

Anyway, back to my response to your current comment.

I loved your yoga anecdote. I may remember the phrase yoga as a blood sport! My own phrase is competitive yoga. And it is worth considering the following: who made it competitive, in general, men or women? Hmmmm. Women, of course, since they comprise 80-90% or more of the competitors in contemporary western yoga. In my year of actively teaching yoga, I’ve had just one man and 30+ women. In India, because of patriarchy(?), men were the primary practitioners of ‘real’ yoga as a calming ‘sport’.

It is fascinating that one of the greatest lies of feminism is that women are not extremely competitive with each other, and never viciously so. That is, from long experience and more recently with my deep dive, an absolute lie. An early read of this, for me, was in a curious book, What Do Women Want? by Susie Orbach and Luise Eichenbaum. It explores the question: why is it that female-led organisations typically — not always not always — fail? What struck me as odd when I read it in the late 80s was that neither authors could conclude that women together frequently (normally?) create a form of intra-personal competitiveness that self-destructs. Like the yoga ‘joke’ infers. I don’t remember how, because it was nonsensical, they typically blamed it on the patriarchy, if I remember correctly. Now, 30 years later, that evidence is even more clear. An anecdotal contemporary example you may find interesting and/or amusing: What HAPPENS When WOMEN Try To Do A Man’s Job:

And when I worked in an engineering office, I asked one of the women I worked with which she preferred, working with men or women: ‘Men! OMG, men! Working with women is f*ng horrible! They are total f*ng bitches!’ (She dressed as a woman to a T and swore like a man. Interesting and very sharp woman.) Other women have said the same thing to me less colourfully over the years. That was confirmation of my early (1980s) experience when I worked in IT in a female dominated work space — as buyers for the logistics part of the phone company. The women in the typing pool, who typed the purchasing contracts, actually had a schedule to change themselves out every 6 weeks from working for a particularly horrific buyer they all called ‘the dragon lady’ because she was a shaming b*tch. Lots of other anecdotes and, now, statistical evidence. I mentioned Dani Sulikowski last time. I do so again, this time to a different interview: Female Psychology & The End of Empires | with Dr. Dani Sulikowski:

This doesn’t include the well know reality(?) that women dress competitively too, between themselves, not in competition with men.

Will you defend the women being b*tches because they are working within a soul destroying economic debt system that men created? Women as victims to men, not active participants in a soul destroying system that the boys, that women raised, created after they became men? Men created a self-benefiting system that f*cks women? Hmmmm. Soul destroying as a result of men unconsciously rebelling against the mothers who raised them so lovingly? Hmmmmm. In the beginnings of the industrial economic system, it was primarily the men who were destroyed by it. Women were mostly sheltered from the literal injuring and killing nature of it. Industrial wealth and man-soul destroying labour grew the number of middle-class women who were so sheltered that they had time to gather and maline men and create feminism.

I am not sure you ascribing to or inferring that it was the Millet family as being the source of Kate’s mental confusion/ psychopathy is entirely on point. When Mallory told the nun she was going to college the nun sighed, and said, paraphrased. ’Too bad. You will go there a good person and leave it a marxist-feminist [looking to destroy society] and not wanting children’. (The Charlie Kirk ‘debates’ with college students certainly confirms that the stupification and marxist indoctrination of university students that the nun feared would happen to Mallory is alive and well.) And, Mallory, in her post-feminist essays, acknowledged that that is exactly what had happened to her.

Was that what happened to her sister Kate? Did that Kate become a living example of the Kate of Kiss Me Kate, an emotionally and psychologically unstable human? Or, if we take your inference as true, was it the loving nurturing mother’s fault — OMG! Not possible — that her daughter became mad, since you contend that it is the mother who is responsible for being loving and creating the ‘goodness’ that ‘naturally’ arises, especially in females? Or, as I’ve seen over and over again in my 8 month dive, that the only reason women fail to be ‘good’ mothers is because of the evil men who ruin family and society? Which is a picture perfect example of the marxist victim-victimiser narrative — and evidence of, if not proof of, the National Organisation of Women’s goal of destroying the family by destroying men and with it the so-called patriarchy.

This reminds me of the media’s elision to avoid being truthful about SNL comedian Darrell Hammond’s narcissistic mother being the main source of his 30 years of intermittent mental hospitalisation. All references that I found in an hour of searching his documentary Cracked Up have left out that his recovery was from mother. Instead his struggle was ascribed to family or subtly inferred that it was his father who was the source of his illness because, as all good feminists know, it is men who are evil. (I have described that in my post

---

Dogged Dogma Dogmatism Perception Nuance Pt 2

When Gautama Woke Up Was His First Thought ‘OMG, Where Am I Now?’ Or ‘Who Are You, Really?

---

And you are somewhat familiar with my own history from my Dear Terry posts

Dear Terry: Epistle #2 To A Dead Mother

Freud and Kinsey are Dead! I’ll Manga¶ Out the Inflated Penis’s Envy of Edie’s Puss.)

---

And the data about the outcomes on children of single families, that most feminists ignore or deflect or decry, is that the single loving mother is significantly and consistently associated with worse outcomes for their children than those of single fathers. And often, the deflection is something like men earn more money than women and that is the cause. Except that even now, that earning’s data is basically and measurably incorrect. The aggregate pay gap is a misleading figure. Today, and for some years, ‘professional’ women are making similar wages as are men in similar positions — and often more. (One of the most astounding delusional feminist deflections can be seen here. And unless seen and heard, it is unbelievable: Andrew Wilson EDUCATES Feminist Degen until She SPAGS:

Which household is the most violent: male-female; female-female; male-male? [Jeopardy clock countdown.] F-F, of course. The most violent, contentious and divorce prone. Which is no surprise to Erin Pizzey, who opened Britain’s first women’s shelter for women as victims of domestic violence. She was shocked at the violence she saw with the women in the shelter. She had, like most of us, fallen for that feminist trope-lie.

In response to what she saw and experienced, she began to question the feminist tropes about domestic violence. She even did the unimaginable, let alone unthinkable: she began to open a shelter for battered men who were subjected to abuse by their wives. What happened? She was immediately, viciously and persistently threatened with death by feminists. It was so persistent and intense she was subjected to living under police protection. Eventually feminists infiltrated her organisation, pushed her out, and she fled Britain because of the continued death threats. Hmmm. Reminds me of early feminist Emma Pankhurst who put bombs in mailboxes and organised the arson of homes and of enforcing a protection racket against local business. “Terrorists?”: The Suffragette Arson and Bombing Campaign. And an early introduction to women as violent came to me, in the ‘80s, in Frances Farmer’s biography, Will There Really Be A Morning?

Back to Pizzey. See Erin Pizzey: The Story of the Feminist Who Was Threatened for Acknowledging Male Victims. And a google AI summary of her experience and activities typically softened the feminist malevolence and violence or threats of violence:

Erin Pizzey stated that many women who came to her refuge were as violent as the men they had left, leading her to conclude that domestic violence was not exclusively perpetrated by men. She faced significant backlash from the feminist community for this view, including her book Prone to Violence being met with outrage and her receiving threats, according to The Centre for Male Psychology and Wikipedia. Pizzey’s work highlighted the existence of male victims and her observations challenged the prevailing view that women were only victims and never perpetrators.

Where did I condemn mothers? Didn’t. Yet you feel free to condemn men and castigate me for judging mothers. And you provide condemning judgment against women who argue for men’s rights. Curious.

The debt-economic system is an attack on the family for sure. It attacked the family as a whole unit and so had only a limited success breaking it. And for a bunch of years, until the late 60s, that economic attack didn’t actually successfully break it — bent it for sure. Feminism did that, though. It was part of the weaponisation of victim-victimiser that directly assaulted the structure of the family by vilifying men and the so-called patriarchy with the narrative-lie that women are oppressed and men are the oppressor. Sure, we can point to the exceptions for that lack of uniform male oppression. Yet those exceptions actually prove the rule.

You avoided my comment about the ‘reality’ that welfare, the system of welfare that, for example, LBJ gave the black community was destructive. That welfare system to benefit blacks against oppression has been associated by many welfare critics with the destruction of the black community. Welfare as a temporary measure is important, absolutely. As a structured solution welfare creates children to government largesse. Yet is that your solution to the problem of female poverty and their absolute requirement for abortion? That kind of created dependency is that upon which the necromongers feast. Proof: the abortion rates in the black communities is the highest in the world, with 1 of 3 pregnancies being terminated. And that in that community welfare is directed to the women primarily. These people were subjected to a double attack: paid to be without husbands by structured welfare and encouraged by eugenesist Margaret Sangor’s Planned Parenthood to remove blacks from America.

Regarding funding of NOW and other organisations: likely the promoters of marxism were active, including the CIA. The George Soroses of the world of that time, perhaps including people like George Bernard Shaw (fabian), etc. As noted in my last essay, Sangor was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, for example. I’ve not really begun a deep investigation into that part yet. And I want to look at how closely the 19th century feminists were connected to marxist organisations and associated funding. An interesting introduction to some of the black roots of feminism are in Rachel Wilson’s book Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women’s Liberation and Carrie Gress’s book The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us.

You with a weird kind of smugness castigate me for not providing a solution. Yet I did. When the lie is seen, the solution comes about naturally. So long as men and women are marxist-feminists, that lie precludes all solutions except false leads and SJW activism. And that is no different than any proposed solution to the economic system we have. So long as the lie that it is truth continues to be, there is no solution except toothless protests and socially destructive SJWarrioring. I have supported your carat proposal because you recognise that economics as practiced is a lie not dissimilarly to how I see it. So your solutions has some weight. Yet your critics, and they are the majority I suspect, cannot see your solution because they already have the (false)truth. Nothing to see, here, folks. Carry on. Seeing the lie is the solution.

Fascinating times. The great apocalypse: to see the big cultural lies that keep us enslaved to the necromongers who promulgate the great cultural lies, especially the most powerful one: that of we all being in a tribe, the morally correct and the morally incorrect. Who are in the promoted victim-victimiser, oppressed-oppressor, democrat-republican narratives? To be on the right side of history is to propagate the marxist lie of oppressor and oppressed, in any and all of its guises. It is that that keeps the puppet masters happy.

Great stuff, Tereza. A rich vein of deceit to be mined and milled and then discarded.

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.

🙏❤️🧘‍♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘‍♂️❤️🙏

🙏 If this comment gave you some pleasure, and/or an ‘aha’, extend our human intimacy and become a paid subscriber.

Or click on the coffee if you would like to buy me a coffee:

All the best with what is changing. Everything changes. Peace, respect, love and exuberant joy. 🙏