Not enough hate in the world for New Statesman’s @suzanne_moore

On my ‘to do’ list for tomorrow was a link to an appalling recent piece by Suzanne Moore in New Statesman. Fortunately Paul Elam has spared me the task, and added some insightful commentary on the harridan, here. An extract from her article:

All the man victims, trapped by masculinity. Who could hate them? Their oppression is structural. You can’t hate them individually, can you?

You know what? I can. Please don’t confuse that with bitterness. I am in touch with my emotions enough to know the difference between personal hurt and class hatred.

As a class, I hate men. I’ve changed my mind. I am no longer reasonable. I want to see this class broken.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Not enough hate in the world for New Statesman’s @suzanne_moore

  1. epistemol says:

    I quote from Paul’s own item;

    “here she is, writing on a computer that was made easy enough for her to operate without understanding, by men; enjoying a career in a civilization that men built well enough to allow people – even those who can build nothing — to earn a living by tapping keys on a laptop; and whining about all of it through a worldwide technology that would not exist save for the men she hates so much.”

    Now here we have, I suggest, the beating heart of the whole problem which may be summed up in a single word,

    RESENTMENT.

    Her comments positively boil, bubble and froth with this most pernicious of emotions to the extent that I imagine she would be shocked if she could but see how completely and unwittingly she has revealed herself more grievously than any merely physical nakedness.

    Now, I’ve said this before and I will say it again as many times as is necessary – I respectfully offer ‘Epistemol’s Law’ to help understand the situation.

    Many women (and a few men too for it is a human failing)
    suffer from what may be called
    ‘the three I s’;

    1. Insecurity
    2. Inadequacy
    3. Inferiority

    These feelings hurt and must be mitigated by resort to ‘the three R s’;

    1. Rage
    2. Resentment
    3. (Thus leading to), Revenge.

    The more emotional and less rational any given individual is, the more they will be prey such symptoms.

    Sound familar?

    Which is why Suzanne Moore finds it so cathartic and apparently so easy to write that she hates all men and wishes to see them “broken”.

    Interestingly, she also espouses that old saw, class warfare once more but with men as the bourgeois this time, a good reason to refer to those of her as pursuasion as ‘femarxists’.

    Which brings us back to our old friend, ‘Resentment’ once more.
    In this case against her father for not being there when she needed him, and she thinks everyone should be made to suffer for it.

    How solipsistic can a person get?

    • There’s no doubt most radical feminists are the products of ‘broken homes’. You have to wonder, though, how many had perfectly good fathers who were driven out of the home by malicious wives, then had their minds poisoned by their mothers exercising parental alienation year after year. It must be very difficult for women raised in such toxic environments to have healthy relationships with male partners, let alone men in general.

      • epistemol says:

        Yes, quite so, and the damage is deliberate, planned and orchestrated too – the better to weaken our (relatively) free society and replace it with something MUCH nastier.
        Are we up for that?

  2. John Jeffrey says:

    Welcome back Mike.

    That’s an appalling article. But I guess it’s the right sort of hate speech. I’m tempted to report her for hate speech but it’s a dilemma as that colludes with the state apparatus of hate speech!

    • nrjnigel says:

      I don’t think it colludes if the “hate speech” causes confusion. In essence it shows it up. For either they have to take action or explain why its ok to hate men. Maybe Hequal will have a go.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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