7 lies of neofeminism exposed


The following article is an English translation of an original article by El Tivípata, a Spanish blogger specialized in antifeminism. Originally published on 11th February 2016. Published with his explicit permission. Link to the original in Spanish:



  1. Feminism is an equality movement

Feminism is not an equality movement. Most of the readers of this blog already know, or at least suspected, that contemporary feminism is not an equality movement. Actually, it never was. Not even the so called First Wave feminism was an equality movement. Feminism always was —and that includes all three waves— a pro-woman movement. Of course, this doesn’t mean that suffragist feminism (the so called First Wave feminism) wasn’t a great social movement with legitimate vindications. It accomplished important and necessary social progress, but it was not an equality movement, because it focused on the specific —and multiple— female problems, but it never pointed at specifically male problems, like the forced draft, a particularly serious problem in times of war (two world wars that ended up with more than seventy million deaths), or the existence of legislation that increased the penalties for crimes committed by a man, such as the “disdain of sex” act [a law that increased penalties for crimes committed against women], in times of Franco [Spain’s dictator who ruled from the 1940s to the mid 1970s], or its predecessors in times of the Republic. Therefore, and with no intention of undermining the struggles of the original feminist movement, it never was an strictly egalitarian movement, but a movement that advocated exclusively for the rights and interests of women.

  1. Contemporary feminism is the heir of suffragist feminism

That’s false. Feminism as a movement took shape at Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, and it disappeared in the 1930s when they conquered their main vindication: the right to vote. For years, there was no feminist activism, until the 1950s and the emergence of the so called Second Wave of feminism. By calling itself Second Wave, they posthumously baptized the original feminism as First Wave. However, it was a totally different movement, financed by eugenic organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and made into a state institution. Some of their leaders were women like Andrea Dworkin or Jilly Cooper, who never concealed their hatred of men.

  1. Contemporary feminism is a social movement

According to Prado Esteban, only 1,7% of Spain’s population identify as feminist. Therefore, it is not a socially supported movement, at all. The only reason it exists is due to subsidies and protection of the bureaucratic apparatus of the State. It is not a social movement, it is a State movement, and as a result, it doesn’t serve society; it exclusively serves the State. Is there any intelligent person out there who is naïve enough to believe that the State would subsidize a movement that didn’t work in its own favor?

  1. Feminism is necessary

Feminism is not necessary, because it doesn’t solve any of the problems it allegedly addresses; it even makes them worse. Gender ideology educates in sexism instead of equality. Among many other things, that’s because it radically opposes shared parental custody, which would help tear down gender roles and educate people in equal parental responsibilities. Instead of that, they strongly and fiercely advocate for maternal single-parent custody, which helps perpetuate the primitive role of women as caregivers for their offspring, as well as hindering her competition in her workplace. Also, it promotes the image of women as victims; it builds the idea that she lives in a hostile society that oppresses her, and points at men as solely responsible for everything that is negative in society. It’s a movement that educates in hatred, it educates in a world view of men and women as antagonistic figures, as a duality of oppressors and oppressed. Therefore, men become the enemy, promoting segregation. That reinforces the current growing hostility against neofeminism , which they skillfully use to claim persecution by the “Patriarchy”, thus justifying its existence. It’s not a coincidence that an increased number of male chauvinist attitudes are being detected within the new generations. The same generations that, ironically, have been educated in gender ideology.

  1. Feminism is not authoritarian

Contemporary feminism is inquisitorial [El Ratel’s comment: Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition!]. Anyone who dares to question it, even if they use logical reasoning, will be considered a misogynist, and will be slandered and pointed at. In fact, misogyny has become the new original sin. Using quasi-religious dogma —like “we live in a misogynist culture”—, they draw the conclusion that we are all misogynists, even if we have never displayed any attitudes that could be objectively perceived as misogynist. Feminism presents itself as the only movement that can “free us” from this new “original sin”. If we do not accept it, we are misogynists and we are persisting in our misogynistic attitudes. Feminism is an authoritarian, ultra-orthodox movement.

  1. Radical feminism doesn’t exist.

Actually, MODERATE feminism doesn’t exist nowadays. “Moderate” feminism is responsible for the discredit, defamation and censorship campaign suffered by Erin Pizzey for admitting abused men into her shelters. “Moderate” feminism passed legislation that violated men’s right to the presumption of innocence, a universal human right. It’s “moderate” feminism that whisks away suicide statistics, false reports and murders of men by women. It’s “moderate” feminism that censors any news that contradicts gender ideology. And, of course, it’s “moderate” feminism that denies the existence of “radical” feminism.

  1. Feminism seeks the liberation and empowerment of women.

In fact, neofeminism seeks women’s obedience. This interest in instilling the false idea of women living in a hostile territory is just seeking her dependence on the State, its institutions and tentacles (including neofeminism itself). It’s the same strategy used by every discriminatory and authoritarian movement in history. Are we doomed to repeat history time after time?

El Ratel
Follow me!
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

El Ratel

El Ratel ("The Badger") has helplessly seen the rise of politically correct nonsense, inclusive language and feminist ideology in his native country, Spain. After getting in contact with the MRM and antifeminist ideas, his attempts to talk about it were met with disdain and disgust. That is why he adopted a secret identity and started doing what he does best: spreading information by means of writing and translation.

El Ratel ha presenciado el auge de las estupideces políticamente correcta, el lenguaje inclusivo y la ideología feminista en su país natal, España. Tras entrar en contacto con las ideas del Movimiento por los Derechos del Hombre y el antifeminismo, sus intentos por hablar de ello fueron recibidos con desdén y desprecio. Por eso, tomó la decisión de adoptar una identidad secreta y hacer lo que mejor se le da: difundir información a través de la escritura y la traducción.

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="154209 http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/?p=154209">1 comment</span>

  • Excellent but as I’ve repeatedly offered until the evil of feminism is in main stream media and conversation then they will sadly continue to get away with it

By El Ratel

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Brian, Prim and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather