What do Slutwalkers Have in Common? They're Dogs
May 6, 2018
(Loveless women vent their frustration)
Mike Stone says most slut-walkers
are feminists starved for male love.
"Are All Feminists Attention-Seeking Whores Who Can't Get Laid?"
By Mike Stone
(henrymakow.com)
Well, maybe not all of them, but certainly the vast majority. How else to explain their behavior?
That feminists are attention-seeking goes without saying. Look at some of their antics: slut walks, women marches, topless protests ... This is attention-seeking of the highest order. So the question is why?
"Because we're angry," the feminists say.
Well, so what? We're all angry to an extent. Some of us are angry because we've been red-pilled to the reality of the world. Others are angry because they've swallowed the propaganda of the left and actually believe they're being oppressed by evil white males. In either case, why demonstrate your anger to the world - unless you're crying out for attention.
Me, I don't want the world to know when I'm angry. When people get angry, logic goes out the window and they become a slave to their emotions. Look at what happens when road-rage occurs. People fly off the handle to the point of murder, all because someone cut them off in traffic. Anger can be a useful tool if it is channeled into productive outlets. But taking to the streets in loud, shrill, angry voices is a sign of emotional immaturity. It's no different than a child who misbehaves in order to get attention.
Is it true that feminists are angry, because they can't get laid?
I would say yes. Take a look at the pictures in this article from various "slut walks" around the world.
Now I want to ask the men reading this: is there a single female in any of these photos that you find attractive? A woman that you would actually want to fool around with? Seriously?
Or are you like me and go immediately limp when you see these pictures?
I mean, who in their right mind would want to have anything to do with any of these women?
Sure, if you search through enough of these pictures you're bound to find at least one attractive girl. You'll look at her in the way that a half-naked hooker on the street corner will draw your attention as you drive by. I think the black girl holding the sign in the last photo is attractive but look at the anger in her face. Who would want to date that? It would be a 24-hour a day job putting up with all the anger, the arguing, the animosity.
I'm reminded of a lecture I once heard by Marianne Williamson. Marianne was speaking of her single women friends, all of them angry and contemptuous of men. All of them putting up armor to protect themselves. These women all had the attitude that someday a man would come along who would see the real woman within and who would fight through their armor to win their hearts. Marianne's response was, "No, he won't. You're not worth it. On some level, you're just not worth it."
I couldn't agree more.
Again, compare the behavior of these protesting women to children who act up and throw tantrums in order to get attention from their parents. Is there really any difference? Think back on all the women you've known in your life and ask yourself, "Is there a single one who would embrace modern man-hating feminism if she really liked herself, or if she was in a healthy relationship with a man, or if she at least was being asked out on dates on a regular basis?"
The answer is no.
I guarantee you that no woman who embraces feminism and behaves in this manner is being asked out on dates by healthy heterosexual men. I absolutely guarantee it. They might have weak beta males in their life asking them out, but no healthy normal men.
They carry signs demanding not to be raped, but no healthy white male in the world would ever dream of touching them, much less engaging in any kind of sexual act with them. As Archie Bunker famously said in an episode of All in the Family that has been pulled from re-runs: "Who'd want to rape you?"
They demand the right to dress however they wish. Well, don't they already have that right, short of going topless or nude? And what's the point of that, unless it's strictly to attract attention? What they fail to understand is that a lot of people wouldn't mind seeing them topless and nude, if they were the slightest bit attractive. But they aren't attractive. And nobody wants to see an ugly body in a state of undress. Nobody wants to see their skinny bird-like legs or their rolls of fat. It's offensive. Not to mention the negative effect it has on children, poisoning their innocent minds.
When feminists dress this way, all it does is make people judge them by their appearance, which is not flattering at all. (Of course, they could all be lesbians, trying to turn heterosexual women into lesbians, but that's a subject for another article.)
I look at the world today, of which feminism is one aspect, and I seriously wonder if over half of the human race is insane. I mean that literally. Either insane, or under a Satanic spell, or both.
What would drive a woman to behave this way? What inward pain are they overcompensating for? What kind of mothers (and fathers) did they have that raised them to embrace such ugliness and filth?
If you're a feminist reading this, I urge you to think about what you're doing. For the sake of your soul, I urge you to embrace traditional Christianity (Catholicism) and discover the honor and respect the traditional Church has for women. Don't believe the lies your Marxist professors and the brain-dead adults in your life have told you. Visit www.MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com and learn about the great female saints. Your life - and more importantly, your afterlife - depends on it.
Mike Stone is the author of It's Okay To Be White - and A New America the first novel of the Alt-Right - - Available Exclusively on Amazon.
GW said (May 8, 2018):
in your essay about the slut walkers, you ask "What would drive a woman to behave this way? What inward pain are they overcompensating for? What kind of mothers (and fathers) did they have that raised them to embrace such ugliness and filth?
derived from my experience of a few years on the front line of the ( so-called ) Pro-Life thing in Vancouver BC, back in the 1990s, my answer is :
The very first encounter with the depth of that hatred, was : being thrown to the floor at an NDP rally, in the BC election of 1991, after I'd heckled Moe Sihota. Pan-demon-ium broke out. A woman jammed her face in mine and screamed "are you sexually frustrated?!" Processing that bizarre remark over the next few years, along with going nose-to-nose with the extreme nastiness of plug-ugly women on the picket lines around the abortuaries, I realized the root of the anti-abortion thing, was = and continues to be = artificial birth control. The genocide upon unborn children is a direct, fore-seeable, consequence of women being rendered childless.
I go back so far, I can remember the girls in my high-school cohort, giddy with glee when they found out they could take a pill then have sex with no consequence. Or, so they were told by the Father of Lies. Consciously or not, women want to have children. As we baby-boomers wasted our semen and our very selves, we disobeyed our God Who directs us to "go forth and multiply". Today, deranged feminists target men with their hatred ... especially white Christian men ... because they blame us for having cheated them out of holding the babies they long to hold in their arms. Feelings buried alive never die. The anti-abortion strife = and the homo-sexual confusion, too = are the in-evitable con-fusion from perverting basic life energies.