Lethal Misandry and the Legacy of Eleanor from Aquitaine in the Modern Welfare State


How Social Work became the Spearhead of the War against Boys, Men and Masculinity and How Male Suicide Serves the Feminist Cause of Gender Cleansing!


In my research on the nature of social work I tried to show that the whole field as well as the main incentive of the profession and its practitioners is fourfold in its nature:

A) Being the main field of spreading the toxicity of vile feminist misandry

B) Being the spearhead of the actual war against men and boys

3) Being the main reason for the current suicide epidemic among men, social work reveals its nature as being an ally and supporter who creates the condition for gender cleansing by creating a social and cultural environment in which misandry thrives and flourishes through the popular discourse

D) As being a direct successor of the courts of love created by the misandrist queen Eleanor from Aquitaine, it completes the misandrist equation as being the main field through which the dynamics, ideas and perceptions created by Eleanor from Aquitaine and implemented through her courts are practiced and applied today in the same way through the feminist welfare state in their crusade and war against boys, men and masculinity. Those are the same dynamics that stand at the core of the social work profession which continues the misandrist legacy of Eleanor from Aquitaine.

Furthermore, one of the main problems that I had to solve was the lack of information and especially exact and targeted research on the nature of social work. It is due the need of the gynocentric and feminist establishment to hide its mercenaries which is done by the state apparatus and its feminist PR machine. Very often it's done by describing the social workers as performing a sacred job (in helping people). Among the different skills and being an information specialist I used methodologically a meta research approach to retrieve and find the data. In my previous post I mentioned alongside with two other researches specifically one important paper that was titled "The unheard Gender: The Neglect of Men as Social Work Clients where I brought links to some more information and studies. The research I'll be using here to further research the topics and to cement the conclusion that social work is a field driven by extreme misandry, a deeply ingrained man hating culture as well toxic gynocentrism in form of radical feminism comes from an extensive research done in Finland. The Finish research is an extensive work about nearly 500 pages that deals with all aspects of discrimination against men and misandry. It has mainly dealt with Finland however as we will see its conclusions are universally valid. For the purpose of our work I have compiled from the Finish research the relevant material about social work and have elaborated on it in my analysis. The passages with the citations and quotation marks are those from the Finish research, everything else are my elaborations. So, I want now to give a credit for the Finish research for doing a great work and begin our elaboration itself.

One of the lethal aspects that social work exhibits is what I call its chameleon nature that makes it possible to hide the fact that or if you want the two aspects of feminism, namely its more traditional gynocentrism and misandry as well as the more modern left wing misandry and gynocentrism. Without deviating to much into historical research which I did in many of my previous posts, we will only mention here that the proto feminist roots reach as far as to the phenomena as the troubadours, the cathars, queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, religious gynocentrism and misandry as expressed by Agrippa, the KKK, the Nazi ideology over this connection and the modern day the Marxist socialist shaped feminist movement and ideology. However, there are deeper influences which reach even into mainstream religious gynocentrism itself. Thus the Finnish research correctly states that "conservative maternalism seems to have been revitalized in the 1970s and 1980s, when father’s right activists required that men should have an equal right for custody as mothers. This led towards feminist perspectives, in which fathers were perceived as a threat to the joint interests of mothers and children. This means that conservative maternalism found allies among feminists and female psychologists. Feminists such as Ruddick began to dream about a fatherless society, and some female psychologists gave strong statements about the unsuitability of men to the role of a single custodian". This is exactly the discourse that used by feminists, their allies and supporters as well as the average modern day women to deny men of their parental rights,

For example, according to Professor Annica Dahlstrim, “men can hurt children” and “the bizarre odor and low voices of men do not suit young children” (Dahlstrm 2007, see Solfors 2007)". Besides the dehumanizing rhetoric which reminds us of the Nazi demonization of Jews (men as having bad smell and being dangerous aka. the low voice), the interesting thing here is the threefold coalition of psychologists (today a completely feminized field), family courts and social workers that are not just simply female dominated fields as were the courts of love of Eleanor of Aquitaine but continue the monopoly, privileges and dynamics granted to women by Eleanor from Aquitaine through her courts. Thus the preservation of the most important female power which holds all of those privileges namely the informal power that enables women to control over the most crucial and important aspects in society namely all the financial finite sources, children as well as being the ones who control sex, led all of them to join forces against men. In a sense, this was a mistake they didn't anticipated. It shouldn't have happened. Women were used to see men as the thing of the woman, her sole property, through Eleanor's heritage in form of the code of Poitevin which served as the legal codification of her misandrist courts. True equality was never the goal of feminism. So, when men really asked for true equality it is then when things turned ugly and the true face of feminist misandry was revealed. Social work was the field that was designed as the spearhead aimed to fight this tendency. It is no coincidence that in those female dominated fields many women are traditional and religious.

As elaborated in the previous paper (the unheard gender) which I mentioned in my previous article "In the conversations of mothers and female social workers, the joint experiences of motherhood played an important role (Ollila 1994, Forsberg 1995). This led to the spreading of a discourse, which presented fathers as brutal villains and as threats to the well-being of the mother and the child. These maternalist ideas were also amplified by the feminist theory of social work, which claimed that the interests of women and children are synonymous, and that female social workers should identify with their female customers (see 7.5.5.1). The discourses of men as brutal villains were also amplified by the (false and already refuted) feminist theory of gendered violence (see 7.3.2.4) and by the misandric stereotypes of men and women (see 7.2.2)". As I already mentioned there, most men whether completely consciously or just intuitively sense this misandry and public discourse. Some men are married to such man haters (don't ask me how), many of us know such man hating women in our social circles, from time to time we encounter such women and generally we hear it in public. Men are doing a logical decision and avoid these abusers to prevent a bigger harm. The reason for the male refusal to seek help is not toxic, hyper or hegemonic masculinity but toxic misandry, hegemonic gynocentrism and poisonous feminism. "The combined effects of these maternalist discourses in the context of custody and divorce" are known all too well. For the better understanding, this maternalist-feminist misandry can be put into the following incentives to be carried out and applied in society through social engineering and conditioning by social workers:

1. Belief in the superior psychological importance of the mother to the child

2. Belief in the superiority of women in childcare

3. Stereotype of fathers and men as selfish, cold, irresponsible, violent and sex crazed (villains)

4. The favoring of mothers as custodians

5. Severe role pressures for women to fight for custody

6. The fact that over 85 % of divorce children live with their mother (it is the result of the main incentive to deprive and deny men from their parental rights (an unspoken incentive)

7.The belief that fathers are only secondary parents

It is important to understand that through extreme indoctrination and social engineering this type of misandry has crossed already long ago just the field of some exotic academic interests but through this indoctrination as well as cross fertilization or pollination this misandry is now deeply seated in the average woman whether she defines herself as feminist or not. Those are not second sort class activists but even a usual discourse over the internet will show these tendencies that affect as I said the average woman. It has become and turned into popular discourse and narrative. The field of social work is the force that drives this misandrist discourse from behind the scenes. "For example, according to Vuori, family professionals such as social workers and psychologists tend to emphasize the importance of mother–child relations, while perceiving the father as a potential threat to this symbiotic dyad (Vuori 2001, p.148–155). It is also common that the social workers indirectly encourage the customers in the production of a “villain discourse” which pictures all men as irresponsible, selfish, violent and possibly also sex crazed villains112". If we thought this is some theoretical stuff than we are wrong: "This sexist discrimination of men still appears in the gendered practices of social workers, who tend to recommend custody to the mother even if the mother and father, objectively thinking, are equally capable custodians (Antikainen 2004, p. 3)"

"According to Antikainen, the main argument concerning the superiority of women in custody seems to be the belief that mothers are better at the organization of the daily routines that are needed for children’s welfare (Ibid). This maternalist argumentation is also apparent in the conclusions of court judges, who often base their decision to give custody to the mother on arguments such as “due to the young age of the mother, it is in the best interests of the child to be given to the custody of the mother” or “as the child is still very young, she needs a lot of maternal care” (Saikkonen vs. Saikkonen 2006, p. 9)". These observations and respectively the following conclusions made in the Finish study are extremely important. They do in fact exhibit and proof the misandrist lineage beginning in Eleanor's of Aquitaine courts of love which continues into these modern days. Those courts where actually formed in the same way as all the other feudal courts were formed. They simply dealt with family and relationship issues, the same way modern family courts do and they show the same contextual division. In other words, they deal with same substance and the same way. Social workers are nothing more than the other part of this misandrist equation. In fact, I see their role as more vicious and important. The courts are what I describe as rubber stamp. They do what the social worker say. They stay in the front so that the true villain can undisturbed continue his work. In fact, family courts and social workers are the two sides of the same misandrist coin that is Eleanor from Aquitaine's court of love.

Anyway, "these maternalist arguments seem to construct a large part of the informal organizational culture of the social service organizations, although the official guidelines of the social service organizations emphasize (as lip service) the importance of fathers in the life of children. For example, according to Forsberg, it is not uncommon for social workers to perceive fathers as incompetent custodians, who are actually “big children” themselves, requiring maternal care and supervision (Forsberg 1995, p. 143–144). The maternalist ideology is also present in the tendency of social workers to maintain a glorified perception of maternity, in their discourses with female customers (Kuronen 1994, p. 116–126)." This is an example of a "chauvinist and femininely biased memeplex that appears in the tendency of social workers (who are mostly female) to identify with their female customers in a manner that promotes a femininely biased stereotype of men as “big children” (Forsberg 1995, p. 143–144)". It is often followed by social workers which also "develop a culture of laughing at men’s “pathetic” attempts to perform childcare tasks (see Forsberg 1995, p. 143–144). This culture created by social worker is indeed a well-known misandrist meme that is implemented in all modern sitcoms which portray the man as nothing but a primitive ape devoid of any ability to do something for home and children while his all-powerful wife is juggling it all alone.

Another example is when "female social workers may deduce that women are better suited as custodians of children, since they are ‘more loving’, ‘have more experience in domestic work’, and ‘are far more experienced in childcare’ than men. As a conclusion, female social workers may tend to recommend custody to the mother, although the father, in objective terms, would be an equally suitable custodian for the child (Antikainen 2004, p. 3)." On top of this, another method that is used against men is when "social workers or psychologists may claim that children, in divorce situations, should be given to the parent which has spent the most time with the children. Although this policy seems fair on the surface level, it may still be discriminative against men, as childcare tasks tend to be segregated in such a fashion that women spend more time with children when they are under 3 years old, while men may spend an equal or even larger amount of time with them when the children are over 7 years old (see McKee 1982, p. 120–138). This means that such a policy, especially when applied to children under 3 years old, may be indirectly discriminative against men." This is followed then "by the final weapon against men, in the context of divorce, within the context of the feminist theory of social work, which pressures social workers to identify with their female customers, and which suggests that the interests of women and children are synonymous (see 7.5.5.4). This theory leads to the conclusion that the interests of the child may be found out by interviewing the mother. Together, these ideas inspired by the difference theory, have led to the weakening of the status of men in the context of divorce, custody disputes and criminal court, although the original ideas of the equality feminists might have had the opposite effect to the status of men."

"This feminine bias in social service organizations seems to be mainly based on maternalism, but it can also be fueled by unintentional feminine bias, and by the professional ethics of social work. Due to the unintentional feminine bias, the female social workers seem to be at relaxed ease with their female customers. According to Kuronen, most of the discourses seem to be conversations between “two mothers” who can easily create a mental bond with each other (Ibid)". While I do believe that there is unintentional bias at some basic level, it still is tightly connected with biologically and evolutionary conditioned gynocentrism. As I outlined in many of my other discourses, gynocenteism at this level means that all of us inherit the female worldview. This is true for both boys and girls. However, later true social conditioning and construct especially the culturally conditioned gynocentrism things tend to get out of control and lean towards misandry. And on the top of that comes the feminist materetnalism in form of eco feminism which describes men as being inherently evil by its nature or the testosterone poisoning which later becomes the basis and explanation for the discourse mentioned above.

However, as mentioned in the unheard gender" review "a similar bond with male customers is not created as easily". What the "the unheard gender" review didn't mention and I explained in the previous article is further explained in the Finnish research: "instead, social workers may characterize their male customers as “enclosed” or “strange”, due to the fact that spontaneous conversation is more difficult between a female social worker and a male customer (Forsberg 1995, p. 143–144). In many cases, the social workers also refer to their male customers without a name, calling them “the father” or “the Moroccan” in their reports, while female customers are referred to by their full name (see Sund 2007, p. 69). The creation of this kind of feminine and maternalist bias against men is actually supported by the professional ethic of social work, which requires that social workers identify with their customers, trying to understand their motives, behaviors and interests (Forsberg 1995 and Kitunen 2007). Although this principle of social work seems egalitarian and rational on the surface level, it may induce indirect discrimination against men, as the vast majority of social workers are female, and as women contact social service organizations more commonly, in the context of family problems and divorce, than men. 131. It is likely to be very difficult for female social workers to treat the wife and husband of a divorcing couple in an equal manner, especially if it is the wife who first contacts the social workers"

The place where this dynamic is exhibited at most is in the context of the welfare state whether it is the more European one or the more liberal states and where it all turns into a potential discriminator of men. Such kind of "radicalized welfare state ideology and the professional ethics of social work may lead to indirect discrimination of men in the context of divorce and custody. According to the radicalized, left wing interpretation of the welfare state ideology, social groups can be divided into disadvantaged and privileged groups. Based on this dichotomic thinking, one can then conclude that it is the task of the state and municipalities to help the members of the disadvantaged groups by creating a systematic bias in favor of the disadvantaged groups. This means, in practice, that reverse discrimination is applied against the members of those social groups that are dichotomically categorized as privileged (see 5.8.3). This line of argumentation is also likely to lead to the perception of the privileged social groups as “oppressors” of the disadvantaged social groups. This is likely to induce hatred and rage against the members of the privileged groups. For example, the Marxist tradition contains an element which encourages the members of disadvantaged groups to value their own rage, as this rage can be converted into the changes of the society (see 5.8.3). If these arguments are connected to the assumption that women are the disadvantaged gender and that men are the privileged gender, the memeplex of the radical welfare state ideology is likely to induce reverse discrimination and female hatred against men.

"This discrimination and hatred may appear in an intersectional manner, in such a fashion that women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities are perceived as disadvantaged, while heterosexual men of the ethnic majority are perceived as the privileged group, which is a free target for all criticism, hatred, and reverse discrimination". I will add here that even while hatred and revenge will never solve any problem but will only create the next cycle of violence in which the one oppressed turns into the oppressor while the oppressor turns into the oppressed, breaking the cycle whether socially or personally requires to apply the antidotes which are wisdom, compassion and generosity. However, while this might be true in SOME cases as we have seen here as well as in all other areas, fields, research, study and work the whole feminist discourse and narrative is false and bogus. Not only women were never the oppressed class in fact but as Martin van Creveld and all our other researches point out that women were always the privileged sex of society. When all the evils are combined we see a society like ours where men have no other choice but to go their own way, to choose a celibate life, to give up on any relationships with women and abandon society.

Furthermore, "these radicalized elements of the welfare state ideology are easily connected to the professional ethics of social work, which encourage social workers to identify themselves with their customers and with disadvantaged social groups in general. If women are (falsely) assumed to be a disadvantaged social group (whereas they've always been the privileged ones) the professional ethics of social work are likely to pressure social workers towards the favoring of women in custody disputes (and practically in whatever the dispute deals)". Anyway, even those radicalized elements within the modern welfare state that embody the fallacy of female oppression while favoring them over men have their roots in Eleanor's courts of love. Although women were the privileged sex (see our research on medieval gynocrntrism) and had the monopoly over the gender narrative) Eleanor's courts not only took the position of the women but in fact oppressed men with state violence that in medieval time used the same violent methods as the modern welfare state uses today. As the Finish research states "this form of memetic reasoning is likely to amplify the maternalist and feminist bias.

So "based on this radical (and false) feminist legacy, the equality officials have not taken the removal of the potential (and actual) discrimination of fathers (and men) onto their agenda". Being rooted in a bogus interpretation of history, "this discrimination of men is not even actively researched by the scholars of women’s studies, although some scholars in social work have pointed out the maternalist, femininely biased and discriminative practices of social service organizations (e.g. Antikainen 2004, p. 3)." In such environment of academic and intellectual fraud, women studies have nothing to do with science and research but political indoctrination of their man hating narrative for the sake of securing more unearned female privileges to women. "The reluctance of equality officials to work towards the reduction of discrimination against men in custody disputes, for instance, is also supported by those feminist discourses, which (falsely and wrongly) suggest that childcare and custody are the only areas in which women dominate, and therefore, it is not in the interests of women to give up this power too easily (Snitow 1992, see Warshack 1992, p. 22–23). The (false and already refuted) "discourses of patriarchy and male dominance also induce discrimination against men and fathers due to their tendency to create a very negative stereotype of the tyrant and violent “hegemonic masculinity”, which is often assumed to be the most common form of masculinity that men express".

Thus being rooted not only in false but also a hateful misandrist narrative, they also mix up the horse with the rider, the cause and effect and thus describe legitimate, good, contributing and loving hegemonic masculinity as bad and the deviating vile feminist forms of toxic masculinity as good. In these vile and hateful "discourses, men’s expressions of paternal love towards their biological children are perceived as patriarchal gestures, which work towards the patriarchal possession of children by their fathers. For example, according to Hearn which exhibit the vile and toxic feminist type of masculinity this loving type of traditional masculinity turns to be demonic while it doesn't miss to de-humanize men. Hearn writes then: “Most importantly, the notion of fatherhood must be smashed or more precisely dropped bit by bit into the ocean. Parenting yes, child work yes, but fatherhood is the most pernicious part of the whole mess. (Hearn 1983, p. 51.)" This is the epitome, the most distilled form, of men hate and misandry that social work and social workers endorse.

Anyway, "although, Hearn seems to promote men’s involvement in childcare, he perceives fatherhood as something extremely negative: Something that cannot be reformed by the appearance of “new men” and “new fathers”. Instead, the monstrous institution of fatherhood needs to be completely destroyed and revolutionarized. When these radical (left wing) feminist discourses are connected to (the gynocentric traditional) maternalist discourses, they form a basis for the belief that misandry is completely ok, and that it is actually a rational and realistic approach towards men (E.g. Kramare & Treichler 1985). In the context of social work and family professionals, this line of argumentation is likely to strengthen the negative stereotypes of men. This hypothesis seems to gain support from studies, in which the discourses of family professionals have been analyzed (e.g. Vuori 2001, p. 148–155). In these discourses, mothers are commonly pictured as the primary parents, while fathers are placed into the subject position of a somewhat incompetent secondary helper. In many cases, the discourses of family professionals even picture fathers as outsiders, who pose a potential threat to the well being of the symbiotic dyad that is made of the mother and child (Ibid, see also Lehtonen 2003)."

These discourses seem to have a clear connection to the (bogus) theory of patriarchy and the (already refuted) feminist study of domestic violence, which both picture women and children as collective victims of the selfish, patronizing, aggressive, and violent men - see 7.3.2.4 - (while the truth is the opposite one. "The findings of Vuori, also suggest that the “villain discourses” (Natkin 1997, p. 195– 197), have actually managed to establish a relatively influential position in the organizational culture of social service organizations. In fact, this connection between feminism and the discriminative double standards in social work appears even stronger in the feminist theory of social work, which claims that the basis of all social work should be the shared feelings of femininity between the social worker and the customer.134 (which proves that social worker are pro women and anti-men aa a starting point). This means that female social workers are encouraged to create a special bond between themselves and their female customers. In the context of divorce and custody, this theory encourages social workers to apply a feminine and feminist bias in favor of the divorcing wife, and against the interests of the divorcing husband".

Again, this is clearly a dynamic that is rooted in Eleanor from Aquitaine's courts as we have seen and discussed above. "From a legal point of view, such a bias in favor of women is against the laws concerning the fair administrative treatment of customers by the public administration (e.g. the Finnish Hallintolaki). Additionally, the feminist theory of social work also claims that mothers and children have joint interests (see Kuronen & al. 2004, p. 16). This idea is based on the sexist and feminist interpretations of (pseudo) psycho analytical discourses, which emphasize the symbiosis of the mother and child during infancy" (which is mainly expressed in maternalist and eco feminist discourses which see men as inherently by their nature). "This belief in the joint interests of women and children may lead to severe discrimination against men by social workers, as the laws concerning custody require that the decisions concerning custody should be made according to the best interest of the child (see Kurki- Suonio 1999, p. 225–227). If mothers and children are assumed to have joint interests, one can deduce that the interests of children can be found out by interviewing the mother. This very easily leads to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of children, to be given to the custody of the mother – if the mother wishes so.

As we have said "Social workers should identify with their female customers". In this bigoted and false narrative those social workers endorse the following wrong perception to condition misandry at its popular level:

1. "the interests of women and children are synonymous

2. "Utopias of a fatherless society".

3. The vile and men degrading narrative of "women's body, women's choice" while denying the sane rights and choices from men.

4. "Women are the sole proprietors of their children" (the Golden Uterus syndrome)

5. "women are superior care takers of small children"

6. "Women are more tender and less violent than men"

7. "Men are aggressive and violent"

8. "Men are irresponsible risk takers "

9. "Men are calculative and uncompassionate"

10. "Women's stories of men's violence should not be questioned"

11. "Women's negative claims concerning their husbands should be believed without questioning" - another clear resembkence with Eleanor from Aquitaine courts of love

12. Radical (bogus) theory of patriarchy (that was already refuted)

In this context it is important to examine the feminist theory of social work and its connections to Maternalism. "In summary, the feminist theory of social work tends to put women and children into the subject position of the customer, while the father is presented as a potential threat to the well-being of this customer (see Kuronen & al. 2004, p. 16). The feminist theory of social work also has indirect consequences: The strong identification of social workers with their female customers is likely to lead to feminine bias. Thus the interpretation of men's issues and women's are subjected to the tendencies of the female social worke to believe everything that their female customers say. This is likely to amplify and support the villain discourses that divorcing women commonly apply to their ex-husbands. The results of the feminist theory of social work are found in many reports and recommendations, written by social workers in the context of divorce and custody settlements. For example, it is possible that children are recommended to the custody of the mother “as the granting of custody of the children to the mother will reduce her risk of problematic consumption of alcohol” (see Sund 2007, p. 64). Similar arguments are not used for granting custody to fathers, who have problems with alcohol. The anti-male bias can appear in any case and any kind of custody dispute"

"Although it is especially typical that social workers recommend custody to the mother of small children, it is also possible to find recommendations written by social workers, claiming that puberty is such a difficult phase in a girl’s life that it is recommended that custody is given to the mother (Ibid, p. 65). Similar arguments are not used in favor of men. This seems to suggest that the female social workers tend to identify themselves too strongly with their female customers. The radical feminist discourses that present men as a threat to women and children have also led to a situation, in which social workers tend to believe the accusations that divorcing wives target against their husband, without giving the men a chance to defend themselves, or to present their own version of the developments and incidents. This also applies to accusations of rape, domestic violence, sexual abuse and incest."

There is of course another side of the misandrist coin. It is the discrimination of male employees at the core of the gynocentric feminist matriarchy which serves alongside with the social engineering as a means of indoctrinating men into the matrix. This is also why the few males in the system are worse than any female. "In social service organizations, not only male customers can be discriminated. Male employees may also face gender discrimination. Such discrimination would be a logical consequence of the fact that social service organizations are matriarchal, and therefore are likely to develop a femininely and feministically biased organization culture. In a femininely biased culture, it is likely that male social workers are pressured towards the more masculine jobs, while women wish to protect the maternalist core of social work from male intruders. This means that men are subtly pressured towards the more ‘masculine’ tasks, such as social work with male alcoholics – and not some more feminine work with female customers, or with families (see Holter 2004). This pressure meets the definition of gender discrimination, in those cases in which the man would like to do some tasks that belong to the ‘feminine core’ of social work. If men attempt to enter the feminine core, they are likely to face strong resistance, especially if they question some old femininely biased traditions, policies or routines of social work.

"In these cases, the treatment of male social workers is likely to resemble the treatment of female policemen during the last millennium, as male social workers are still as rare as female police officers used to be. In general, the male intruders, who try to change old femininely biased traditions of social work, are likely to be labeled as difficult and uncooperative – just as ambitious women are labeled in male dominated organizations, if they try to change old traditions in the core of masculinity. This feminine bias of social service organizations, however, is matched with a strong feminist bias. This means that all male social workers, who wish to question the demonizing stereotypes of men that appear in feminist discourses, are likely to be perceived as unprofessional, old fashioned or chauvinist (see Kitunen 2007, p. 113–114 and 118). Although these findings are not sufficient for proving the existence of widely spread discrimination against men in social service organizations, they are sufficient for making an explicated hypothesis, according to which social service organizations, in general, tend to discriminate male customers and male employees far more commonly than female customers and employees." In the bottom line what this last aspect shows that the feminist matriarchal grip is pervasive and it includes not only the traditional men but also feminist feminists white knight that are used as Trojan horses against the other men. The only way to oppose it is either challenging the system or completely removing yourself from the oppressor. Collaboration will never work.

Reference: Pasi Malmi Discrimination Against Men Appearance and Causes in the Context of a Modern Welfare State https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30083956.pdf

0 views

​FOLLOW ME

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon

© 2023 by Samanta Jonse. Proudly created with Wix.com