Dear Feminists: Vodun People Accept Differences Between Men & Women.

A man traveled to a Toyota factory, the Yoshiwara Plant in Japan. He asked the plant manager why ONLY WOMEN did the final body quality check on the famous Land Cruisers. The Japanese man replied that ONLY WOMEN had the touch—kanjiru—necessary to truly understand whether the truck was truly ready for the end-user.

In Vodun, certain priesthoods are solely reserved for WOMEN. Only women have the sense or the understanding – gormesese – for certain spiritual encounters.

The sense of belonging to an Amaga Soceity even in the Ga-Dangme community is essentially not just a matter of being a member of a tribal organization with rituals and frameworks for action and understanding, but also having a shared, collective memory of the past.

Vodun people do not shy away from the past, and because they know the past, they are not afraid of the present or the future. Vodun people embrace natural difference simply because the historical past does not lie.

Only Feminazis, which is what Euro-American feminists truly are, shy away from the past and they fabricate lies about the present and the future for their own lustful, conspicuous consumption.

Women are not men. Men are not women. If they weren’t different nature would not make them so. Wherever there’s suffering and where there is a direct oppressor, a revolution is needed. ASAP. But the nonsense of saying WOMEN are MEN or that MEN are WOMEN is a contradiction of the first order.

Think of it this way: The cow and the human being are both mammals. That doesn’t mean the cow is a human being and the human being is a cow. You can ride this analogy to its logical conclusion and then you can appreciate how stupid it becomes. Here: The rock and the human being are both made of matter. Yet, a human being is not a piece of rock and the rock is not a human being.

Surely, there are many things that men can do well, that women can do better, like having the touch (kanjiru in Japanese or gormesese in Ewe). Such things in which one sex is better than the other, important to the community, differ from place to place. For instance, if you live in a cocoa farming village in Ntoaboma, Ghana, instead of work in a Yoshiwara Plant in Japan, perhaps men are better at digging the soil than women, and so the men must dig it! If you live in a country where people get paid for running around in circles then surely, men should run around in their own groups from women else the women will never get paid.

If you live in a country where men always pick men for jobs, then you need a quota system else the women will never get paid. If you live in a nation where white people (who own the institutions) always pick white people for the jobs, then you need a quota system, else Black people will never have jobs!

Feminazis, like their fellow full-blown Nazis (white supremacists) disagree with quotas. And this is what many of their supporters misunderstand. At the core of the feminazi movement is the ideology that quotas mean special treatment (since we are all the same there can be no quotas), and for that matter quotas are not ideal. But the world is full of quotas. You only need to look: Women run their own 1500m races, else if they were to run it with the men, women will never get paid. The Olympics is a quota system. Sports and revenue that accrues to sports is a quota system.

When you live in a nation in which only white people own every thing by force, that is a quota system by force. A unequal quota system at that. If you live in such a nation then that quota system needs to be fixed by force. But the feminazi ideology would not agree in fixing it since the very existence of quotas goes against the grain of the philosophy of no-difference (Nazism). When there is no difference between men and women, one cannot argue for equal quotas – one cannot argue to play in different leagues. When there’s no difference between Black and white, one cannot argue for equal quotas.

And that is the sum of the ideology of the feminazi. The feminazi is the fox preaching and voting on the idea that there’s no difference between the foxen and the lambs; that a fox is a lamb and a lamb is a fox; and for that matter it is okay to have a democracy in a forest of 20 foxen and 10 lambs.

Difference, to the idiot, implies inequality. But it is not. An idiot is an idiot. Difference implies that you need quotas. Better quotas. Difference implies that we accept difference, especially based on the historical data, and that we proceed with humility to ascribe better quotas in order to achieve a more egalitarian society. Vodun accepts. Feminazism disagrees. But an idiot is an idiot. So why bother?

13 COMMENTS

  1. My problem with the Feminists movement is that their arguments are contradictory and that logic and science play no part in shaping their views.Every single time I present scientific evidence from peer-reviewed journals showing the biological basis for men typically holding leadership positions across society they call it pseudo-science. Yet when you ask them how they plan on toppling the patriarchy in sports they admit it can’t be done because men have an advantage there. They have no problem embracing the reality of men ‘ruling’ the sports world based on biology but can’t bring themselves to extend the argument to the non-sports world. Emotions are guided their dialogue when it should be science and facts.

  2. Funny thing is, I have rather seen non-feminists claiming quotas and affirmative action are “special treatments.” Who are these “feminazis” you speak of? And where do they meet? 😂 Because the feminism I know actually acknowledges the “biological” differences and sometimes capabilities of both genders; the focus is on establishing the fact that we are “equal” in value (despite our differences) and that are differences compliment each other.

    • Jezebel Plange 3nfii no! The moment a person uses the word “feminazi” you should know he’s only afraid of assertive women. I haven’t seen feminists in Ghana or any African country for that matter welding enough power to even influence national laws much less being compared to the nazis.

      There’s witches camp still in operation in Ghana as we speak. These ones are uncomfortable about the potential of feminism. Asking for a seat at the table for women doesn’t mean men won’t be allowed to sit there anymore.

      And even if there’s no historical precedence for feminism we’re determined to create one anew. They will deal or keep gnashing their teeth

    • You confuse all activism against all injustice against women to be “feminism.” If that is your point then no one can argue against you.

      What I speak of, however, is feminist theory (by such scholars as Gloria Steinem, Judith Butler, Betty Friedan, Adrienne Rich), a new paradigm, a particularly insidious and pervasive one, that is masquerading in large part as activism for women, but deep down, when actually studied, reveals that it is an intrinsically capitalistic ideology that is extending its tentacles into societies yet to be completely tamed, conquered and dominated by the Euro-American Empire.

      Feminism cannot be accepted in its most general terms since doing that makes it lose all meaning. You need to be careful about differences in theory, ideology and practice. For instance, Women’s Abortion Rights is powerful. But when the idea of the right of the woman to her body and child is dominated by another ideology (such as the eugenics idea of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America by the likes of Margaret Higgins Sanger, which has culled so many Black babies in America), we need to identify it and call it out.

      What I drive attention to is not what you claim. You misunderstand feminazism. You are not fully aware of the dialogue around the theory, its insidious resultant ideology and how such ideas dominate policy in practice. I am simply calling your attention to the dangerous “Sangers” within the movement for justice for women. I critique the ideology of feminism, not what you claim to be feminism. In order to claim something, you need to make the point of defining what it is, and how it is different from the rest. I have given you the feminazism writers, theorists, and they need to be challenged even if that looks like I am against women’s rights in the same way that I challenge eugenicists even if that looks as if I challenge women’s rights to their bodies.

      The strength of feminazism, and in fact its most effect stagecraft, is that it portrays all critique against its paradigm as a challenge to women’s rights and to women’s liberation in places where women are oppressed. But, it is a craft. It is a crafty way to smuggle the ideas of the “Sangers of the feminist movement” into actual policy practice.

      On that note, either you accept Euro-American capitalism as a modus operandi or you don’t. For at the base of this argument is just that! Anything else is talk without a theory. Little results from that kind of discussion.

  3. I’ve made a number of observations in all the years I’ve studied, researched and taught race, class and power relations pertaining to African Gender Studies.

    * The political/ideological agenda of western Feminism as a cultural construct, is determined by white women, starting from the 1960-70s to date.

    The irony, regrettably, is African Feminists (but for a few who eventually left the functionalist white dictatorship of Feminazism), theory is based on the theoretical innovations of the Black Power Movement. Names: Rap Brown, Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) seminal book Black Power, Eldredge Cleaver’s Soul On Ice, etc.

    AFRICAN THEORETICIANS

    Amiri Baraka
    Audre Lourde
    Dudley Randall
    Gwendolyn Brooks
    Haki R. Madhubuti
    Hoyt W. Fuller
    Ishmael Reed
    Larry Neal
    Maya Angelou
    Nikki Giovanni,
    Rosa Guy,
    Sonia Sanchez and
    Murlana Kerenga.

    * Either oblivious, obstinate or careless of this historiography (white feminism borrowing from Black Power theory and praxis), some present-day African ‘Feminists’ have ideologically (unflinchingly) pushed a rather virulent version of PATRIACHY – central underpinning of western feminism.

    * Thus, they generate volumes of negative antagonistic energy towards African men. Their narratives ‘pepper’ every mussel of ofttimes justified attack/ofttimes not. Unfortunately their patriarchal ideology causes them to generalize and universalise their antagonism. This is the sense they are Feminazis.

    * Despite many attempts in discusses appealing to them to examine intersectional gender theories like Kyriarchy, Feminazis are intolerant to mediate their many unfair attacks on all African men:

    ‘Kyriarchy is a term that extends patriarchy to encompass and connect to other structures of oppression and privilege, such as racism, ableism, capitalism, etc.’

    Even when white women see the theoretical light to educate African Feminazis, their ideology won’t let them – as unflinching as far-gone African Christians!:

    ‘Schussler Fiorenza points out that “the theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for instance, black men do not have control over white wo/men.”

    * Lastly, as you also note, Feminazis are dangerously welded to the neoliberal (capitalist) western bourgeois LGBTQ queer agenda. They automatically lend it full credence despite well-argued opposition to it in Africa. Hence they fortify their Feninazi designation.

    Revolutionary regards

  4. Y’all wear me out for real 🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️

    • Intellectualism is a tiring business, especially when you come from a culture of Oral traditions like I have. You can get used to it.

    • Narmer Amenuti I’ve already explained to you what ‘intellectualism’ means in another post. You also post copious intellectual-like posts. I’ve expressed my view as coherently and sincerely as I can to the issue at discourse. I have not ensured against exasperation!

    • Jezebel Plange chaley I don’t know where these men meet these so called feminists ask them for groups and places and u get a whole load of internet information thrown at u.

      The fact that any man feels he should be advising feminists in the first place beggars belief. As one authoress said: as long as a woman thinks about a man no one objects to her thinking.

      Let me go lie on the beach I tire saf….

    • “The fact that any man feels he should be advising feminists?” That ‘s a bit unfair. I have a mother, I have a grandmother, I have aunties, I have sisters and I have daughters and nieces. That is my family too, and I think I am free to advice them and they, me!

      However, this is even far from being an advice. This is only a critique of feminist ideology (yes, the one on the internet for there’s none other!) So, I don’t think I am disqualified from critiquing anything on the internet.

      Plus, if there’s some other type of feminism that is different from the one on the internet, then obviously it has yet to develop any real philosophy. I wait on what that looks like. I have no criticism whatsoever for something I haven’t yet read. You know.

    • Narmer Amenuti this sentiment, that men must completely vacate space in gender discourse, is precisely the location of the petty bourgeois, monolinear Patriachy fixated exclusivism of Feminazism that GUILT-BULLIES ALL MEN FOR BEING MEN. No nuanced relook at INTERSECTIONAL perspectives which inform social-cultural progress?

      A complete monotone in reasoning. It does not occure to them that some women and men are incapable of dadactic public discourse…?🤔

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.