Feminism With Its Overcoat Wide Open...

. . . and the sight of it is appalling enough to make you gag. . . but I assure you this is no "gag"! Decency might instruct us to avert our gaze, and yet, gaze we must!

When you study this PDF file which I am about to share with you, you might feel as though you've gotten hold of a classified document that was smuggled out of the Sisterhood Kremlin! If you have ever had the least doubt that feminism is a totalitarian ideology that could make the world into a nightmare police state, this ought to scotch your uncertainties -- and if you don't feel simultaneously numbed, fatigued in your brain, chilled in your veins and overpowered by despair upon reading this stuff, then I fear you are beyond all help, my friend!

What you will find is 149 pages of citations from hardcore, radical academic feminist writers -- including Catherine MacKinnon! Here's a little teaser for you:

". . .But when women are segregated in private, one at a time, a law of privacy will tend to protect the right of men "to be let alone" to oppress us one at a time. A law of the private, in a state that mirrors such a society, will translate the traditional values of the private sphere into individual women's rights to privacy, subordinating women's collective needs to the imperatives of male supremacy. . ."

Well. There is absolutely no way you can reason with a self-validating mindset like that, and it is fruitless to even undertake such. That is why I say: don't bother arguing with feminists! It makes more sense to simply trade with them in their own coin, which roughly means that whatever they do to us (morally and intellectually speaking) we are entitled to throw right back at them!

But ask yourself very, very seriously if you wish to live in the kind of world that you know feminism would ultimately create. And then, tell me if you think it is feasible to "persuade" feminism to NOT create that kind of world? No? Then what else might be the options. . .?

Anyway. . . in this same document, you will find many samples of feminist handwriting appearing as comments in the margins -- which might be of interest to all you graphology experts out there! (I've already tried "tracing" some of these cursives with a pencil in order to pick up an intuitive feel for the various personalities! ;) One interesting thing I noticed was that the handwritten word "women" had in several places been corrected by a later scribe to read as "womyn" -- by overwriting the letter 'e'!

Fair warning: This is a 7-megabyte file.

Very well, you have been warned. So here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/5tpwbz


I'm tempted to say "enjoy", but I'm not sure that's appropriate. . .

The Sector is a Gamut

Everybody knows that so-called men's "rights" advocates are just a bunch of uneducated, pot-bellied, right-wing traditional males! Right?. . . RIGHT??

Oh the saving power of clichés! Where would we be without it?

Prepare to get your stereotypes blown clean out of the water, for I am about to pound another nail in the coffin of the "hillbilly MRA". Today, I would like you to meet an MRA who is "way out there"-- why he's from south-central Asia of all the crazy places, and man, that's way out there all right!

Bhanu Prasad is a 26-year-old software engineer from Andhra Pradesh, India, and dig this: he describes his political leaning as "extreme left"! Now that might prove a trifle inconvenient for all of you thick-edge-of-the-knifeblade folk who favor a "stuck in the sixties" brand of pseudo-debate and faux-categorization -- but damn it all, I'm afraid there is just no help for this! There is no inherent reason why feminism and leftism must go together. (Sorry about that, Ampersand!)

Yes, Bhanu Prasad is an MRA. I can apply that label with scant hesitation and considerable assurance, because it factually and straightforwardly FITS. He actively advocates and agitates for men's rights! Ergo, he is a men's rights activist, advocate and agitator. Or some combination thereof, at any rate -- you know what I mean.

India is a land in which the feminist lamprey has only more recently fastened itself, and it is good to note signs of an incipient resistance movement. (Several Indian MRA websites can be found in the link roll at right.)

Bhanu Prasad has been good enough to include The Counter-Feminist on his list of "blogs I read", and when such linkage occurs I am most often pleased to reciprocate. I note as well that this non-Western MRA dislikes the same parts of Western culture which I myself find displeasing -- namely the crass, materialistic parts -- and yet enjoys the good parts. Such a "throw out the bathwater but keep the baby" approach is one that I can richly appreciate, particularly when it comes from a potential ally in a global struggle!

Mr. Prasad has posted a worthy string of articles which take feminism apart in a most incisive, sytematic, and curry-flavoured way. Below, I link you to one of these articles -- which takes "old-school feminism" quite handily to the cleaners. The title of the article is a gem -- and upon my word, rather Hindu-sounding!

Feminist Myth #2: Body, and body alone, seperates men from women.

And in case the link formatting gets "lost in syndication", here's a version you can cut-and-paste.

http://www.bhanuprasad.net/blog/index.php?itemid=66

Go now and enjoy!

Action Needed

The following arrived by e-mail today, from Rob Pedersen of the EPBT. Rob sent this message to Richar' Farr, the celebrated and nationally syndicated FRA radio broadcaster (think Krights Radio), and cc'd it to a list of other people, including yours truly! Granted, the message is a mite lacking in "intro", but I think you'll cop the grist of it. Here it is, verbatim:

Michigan N.O.W. got ahold of the survey and they are voting against it in a strong way. This is my hunch based on an email I received. I know for a fact that the Michigan FOC and DHS are circulating this article. The “no” number on the survey has climbed significantly since I last check. We need to have people vote ASAP to raise our numbers…similar to how we did with your Current video. I was told by Detroit News that the total responses on the survey AND comments help determine future articles based on the demand of the issue. Folks should comment in favor of shared parenting and in Detroit News covering this topic on the articles main page. The article and survey can also be accessed via the main page at Detroit News

which they just recently bumped us up to. It should stay on the front page, as long as it stays hot, for the rest of the day. Thank you Richar for all of your help and your continued help this week! It was a pleasure speaking with you and to hear your strong support and leadership on this. Thanks for helping out Michigan.

Robert Pedersen

Interesting Stuff About Larry Summers

Another CF reader comment promoted to 'post' status:

"'Pity that those professors had no fortitude to undertake similar discussions again. Call it the Larry Summers Syndrome! So how does it bode for us all, when the high priests of higher education do so cravenly cast away their torch and flee the sanctuary of their temple? Clearly, the mantle of their priesthood now devolves upon us library lizards, us cultured barbarians, us rough-and-tumble, self-educated street intellectuals -- we of the intellectual proletariat, we of the "Abraham Lincoln brigade", we who have no station, no standing, or in a word, no tenure. And therefore nothing to lose'!

"How true. Sometimes it's hard to imagine how an intellect can survive at all once it's become institutionalized.


"For those scantly aware of the Larry Summers scandal, in January 2005, Summers suggested, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the possibility that many factors outside of socialization could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. He suggested one such possible reason could be men's higher variance in relevant innate abilities or innate preference. An attendee made Summers' remarks public, and an intense response followed in the national news media and on Harvard's campus.

"The full story is here:

http://tinyurl.com/gbpf7

"Nonetheless, the esteemed Steven Pinker
was among the minority of intellects who did come to Larry Summers defense.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/index.html

"PSYCHOANALYSIS Q-and-A: Steven Pinker
Published On Wednesday, January 19, 2005 12:00 AM
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED


"In an e-mail exchange with The Crimson yesterday, Johnstone Professor of Psychology Steven Pinker, who teaches the popular spring core class “The Human Mind,” opined on the latest flap over President Summers’ comments on women in science.

"CRIMSON: From what psychologists know, is there ample evidence to support the hypothesis that a difference in “innate ability” accounts for the under-representation of women on science faculties?

"PINKER: First, let’s be clear what the hypothesis is—every one of Summers’ critics has misunderstood it. The hypothesis is, first, that the statistical distributions of men’s and women’s quantitative and spatial abilities are not identical—that the average for men may be a bit higher than the average for women, and that the variance for men might be a bit higher than the variance for women (both implying that there would be a slightly higher proportion of men at the high end of the scale). It does not mean that all men are better at quantitative abilities than all women! That’s why it would be immoral and illogical to discriminate against individual women even if it were shown that some of the statistical differences were innate.

"Second, the hypothesis is that differences in abilities might be one out of several factors that explain differences in the statistical representation of men and women in various professions. It does not mean that it is the only factor. Still, if it is one factor, we cannot reflexively assume that different statistical representation of men and women in science and engineering is itself proof of discrimination. Incidentally, another sign that we are dealing with a taboo is that when it comes to this issue, ordinarily intelligent scientists suddenly lose their ability to think quantitatively and warp statistical hypotheses into crude dichotomies.

"As far as the evidence is concerned, I’m not sure what “ample” means, but there is certainly enough evidence for the hypothesis to be taken seriously.

"For example, quantitative and spatial skills vary within a gender according to levels of sex hormones. And in samples of gifted students who are given every conceivable encouragement to excel in science and math, far more men than women expressed an interest in pursuing science and math.

"CRIMSON: Were President Summers’ remarks within the pale of legitimate academic discourse?

"PINKER: Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa.

"CRIMSON: Would it be normal to hear a similar set of hypotheses presented and considered at a conference of psychologists?

"PINKER: Some psychologists are still offended by such hypotheses, but yes, they could certainly be considered at most major conferences in scientific psychology.

"CRIMSON: Finally, did you personally find President Summers’ remarks (or what you’ve heard/read of them) to be offensive?

"PINKER: Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is “offensive” even to consider it? People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don’t get the concept of a university or free inquiry."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505366

Hmmm.....yes! Steven Pinker, by all accounts, is a man to be reckoned with! And yet, I have seen him bend over backwards with elaborate rhetorical concessions meant to assure his readers or listeners that he thinks oh-so-highly of feminism! For despite having so much to say which is inherently "dangerous" to feminism, he tap-dances very carefully around the entire subject.

Another esteemed thinker of magisterial rank who is dangerous to feminism yet coy about it, is the philosopher Ken Wilber. If you are unfamiliar with his work, I would recommend A Brief History of Everything as a first read.

Plus ça Change, Plus c'est la Même Chose!

Hey, I just love it when somebody else writes the blog FOR me, and I have only to kick back in my swivel chair smoking Havana cigars sent to me by my good buddy, the other Fidel, and drink myself into a stupor with cognac. . . or absinthe. . . or something like that! ;)

Yes, the following arrived by e-mail recently, and to me it verily seemeth good! It was written in response to the recent CF article entitled Notes: Toward an Efficient Political World-View:

"A rather long diatribe Fidelbogen. You've tested my patience with this one. :)

"Suffice it to say that feminism is analogous to a religion, with it own origin stories and epistemic system. And yes, we need not be its worldly or philosophical adherents.

"For my own part, I am a non-feminist but not in the sense that I am entirely antithetical to feminsim. Rather, my main beef is that I find it disconcerting that feminist theory is not subject to the same standards of academic criticism as are other social theories. That it is allowed to slide so to speak. Also, I am at odds with what I see as little more than ideological misandry in the movement.

"As Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young point out in Spreading Misandry [1] [2] [3] [4] , feminism's sexual politics are entrenched in popular culture. That women's inequality has been the fault of men's not permitting women to do this, or not allowing them to do that, is common knowledge to most people. Of course, the implied corollary of this common knowledge is that women's equality is reliant upon men's allowing women to be equals. Naturally, most self-respecting feminists will not have this leaving only one other conclusion. Namely, that women are principally responsible for their own equality and always have been. Ouch!

"The presumption that men had the power to allow or disallow women to do what they wanted is essential to feminist theory. It is also a presumption predicated on an entirely Kantian view of women as passive agents. Just the sort of view feminists would deny and yet at the same time exploit in order to build their case against men as their oppressors. Everywhere in their ideology is poor, poor, helpless little womankind against the big, bad male beast. How Victorian!

"For me the victimology that is feminism has worn thin, as has the notion that women are an oppressed class. After all, if women are an oppressed class, they are the only oppressed class that can proudly say they bear and raise their own oppressors. In which case, I've little sympathy for them.

"IMHO, the view of women as victims is not unique to feminism. Neither was this view necessarily invented by feminists so much as borrowed from a Victorian heritage in which women were counted innocent. A cursory reading of that era's authorized moral vocabulary will show that it invariably blamed marital failure on the husband and premarital sex on the initiative of the male. In that era and up until the 1960's, moral belief was that women were in need of protection from aggressive male sexuality which was deemed by nature predatory, selfish, exploitive, and opportunistic. Then came the sexual revolution and feminism got a new shot in the arm.

"For men, feminism was a double edged sword. Surely, the sexual liberation of women was at hand. However, feminists judged this a liberation from male domination rather than the hypocrisy of their own sex. Where women once thought men beasts, now they were pigs! What a welcome transformation of female attitude!

"Feminists have sustained their view of a world in which men are the enemy by sermonizing on the sins of patriarchy. After all, this way of speaking absolves women of any responsible agency for history's prejudices. Imagine that! How liberated a feeling such an ideology would bestow upon its congregation! Not only are you, as a woman, empowered, you're absolved of any fault for the past despite the fact that the previous era of sexual hypocrisy is named after an English queen!

"In short, that feminism relieved us of our Victorian predilections regarding sex is a ruse. Not only has feminism predicated its movement on a view of women as victims and denied women's complicity in the traditional moral order, it has done so by faithful adherence to antiquated notions of feminine moral superiority and innocence. The song remains the same."

This same correspondent, in a later e-mail, shared the following highly revelatory anecdote. Revelatory of the occult truth about feminism, I mean:

". . .when I was in college, a couple of my anthropology professors held a symposium entitled Feminism: A Cultural Perspective. It did not go over well with the feminists on campus. The suggestion that their movement could be explained as "just another phenomenon within western culture" was untenable to them. They preferred to see themselves as external to culture, looking from the outside in with their meta-analysis of patriarchy and so on. They were argumentative to the point of rancor on this point. The professors said afterward they would never attempt a similar discussion again. "

Pity that those professors had no fortitude to undertake similar discussions again. Call it the Larry Summers Syndrome! So how does it bode for us all, when the high priests of higher education do so cravenly cast away their torch and flee the sanctuary of their temple? Clearly, the mantle of their priesthood now devolves upon us library lizards, us cultured barbarians, us rough-and-tumble, self-educated street intellectuals -- we of the intellectual proletariat, we of the "Abraham Lincoln brigade", we who have no station, no standing, or in a word, no tenure. And therefore nothing to lose!

But how true it is, that feminism has given us nothing new. It has merely gotten hold of certain things that have always been part of this world, and inventoried them, and amplified them, and reinterpreted them, and mixed and remixed them, and tinkered with them, and soldered them onto a new circuit board, and in the end politicized them. Yet prior to all else feminism is a religion, with its own origin stories and and its own epistemic system. Somehow, those words have a familiar ring.

So, men formerly were 'beasts', and now they are 'pigs'? I have also heard it said that 'men may be dogs (but we love them anyway)', or 'men are animals, don't you think?'. So what are we to make of all this? Esteemed reader, which would YOU prefer to be -- a pig, a dog, an animal, or. . . a "beast"? Personally, I'd as soon be none of the above. I'd much rather be what I personally and uniquely am -- for which there is no exact word in any language. However, if it's back to the wall with no alternative to that zoological catalogue save bootlicking, politically-indoctrinated servility and self-betrayal, then beast I shall be! Beast, at any rate, has a certain freedom and dignity about it. A certain grandeur. A certain. . . poetry.

But really, I'd rather not be a 'beast' either. Nor would many others who share my view of the matter. And if certain people will finally awaken and hearken to the wise words of warning wafting from certain sectors, it need not come to that -- and beastliness may be avoided all around. So shake the lead out of your britches and do the right thing, folks! You know who you are. . .

Hugo Schwyzer, What Did You Do..?

On your blog discussion thread, I mean:

counterfem.blogspot.com/2007/03/solid-gold-from-hugo.html

If you follow the link provided above, you will go to an old CF post from March, 2007. On that post, I pasted a lengthy (and very informative) comment which the super-MRA Marc Angelucci had made on Hugo's blog. Quoting myself from the CF post in question:

". . . the following was posted by the MRA lawyer Marc Angelucci on a discussion thread at Hugo's blog, waaaay back in August, 2005. In fact, it was the very last item on that thread! I repeat, was.

"And for an extra goody, there is a comment from yours truly about halfway up the thread!

"Anyway, the comment from Marc A. was so exceptionally fine I wanted to share it:"

And after that comes the long Angelucci quote. Now as I stated, this quote was initially the very last item on Hugo's blog thread. However, when I arrived at Hugo's to copy this item for pasting on CF, I left a very brief comment of my own -- praising Angelucci's words, as I recall! So at that point, MY item officially became the last item on the thread. Do you follow?

(Please note, I'm not referring to my earlier comment halfway up the thread!)

Anyway, if you visit Hugo's blog post and scroll to the very end of the thread, you will notice that BOTH Angelucci's comment AND my final brief remark are GONE WITHOUT A TRACE!

Once upon a time those items were present, and now they are gone. I repeat, they WERE IN FACT present; I will vouch for that in the name of all the Gods and all the Unseen Powers of the universe, yes indeed!

The items were present, but now they are gone, and there is only one plausible way that could have happened: Hugo Schwyzer removed those items!

Wassup with that, Hugo?

I know that Hugo is one of my readers, and . . . I know that he removed the items from his blog thread. Oh, it's no big deal, but I couldn't help noticing. And it tickles my curiosity. I mean, how could it not tickle my curiosity? Clearly, Hugo did what he did for a reason!

Boycott Florida and California!

The following arrived by e-mail a few days ago, from a fathers' rights organization in Florida. Boldfacings, as usual, are my own:

"One of the most underused but powerful weapons the individual has to effect political and social change in this money driven world of ours is their purchasing power. It’s underused because in America’s consumer obsessed society the relationship between "shopping" and “political action” is not an immediate connection to most people. This action also requires organizational and communications resources to implement. An article in the Financial Times (London) entitled "How should Companies Respond to Boycotts" (November 16, 1998, Monday) tells us:

The use of boycotts as a coercive marketplace tactic has increased in recent years and is expected to rise further. One reason for this is that consumer protests are proving more successful than in the past, both because those who organize boycotts are adopting more sophisticated tactics and because more consumers are supporting and joining organizations with explicit social and political agendas.
The prudent marketing manager no longer worries just about product and service quality. Monitoring deeper feelings towards the business and its home country may be critical in preserving customer relationships.

The single most important factor for the increasing success of consumer boycotts is the development of global communications; fax, email, satellites the proliferation of cell phones and the explosion of the internet. The internet alone has dramatically improved the opportunities for boycotts by providing individuals access to every kind of information imaginable and permitting individuals to disseminate their views world-wide through web-sites or discussion groups.

Even in the old days economic boycotts were conducted and often succeeded. Gandhi's Swadeshi campaign to boycott English textiles was the first effective demonstration of the shakiness of British rule in India. Gandhi's campaign caused a lot of suffering in Britain. Thousands were jobless and a large number of textile mills in Lancashire were closed.

The most recent demonstration of the power of economic boycotts was demonstrated in South Africa with the fall of apartheid. The boycott and international sanctions hurt the black community, nevertheless the resolve of South African blacks and their leaders never wavered. In the US, alumni and students insisted that their Universities divest their trust funds of large blocks of stock in companies doing business in South Africa. Even after Nelson Mandela was released and a number of important reforms put into place, the ANC called for the continuation of international sanctions until apartheid was completely dismantled and a transitional government was in place.

"Most of the activism for Fathers Rights has been on the symbolic level: Father’s Day Marches, parades, demonstrations, law suits, Press Grabbing Civil Disobedience, etc… All these activities are important. They are powerful on a symbolic level and serve to renew the commitment to the cause. They also attract sympathy and publicity for the cause of Fathers Rights and create a greater awareness of Fathers in the world. Yet after the event members and supporters go home, put up their signs and wait for the next event to happen.

"Another form of activism has been the petitioning of governments, leaders and world bodies to intercede on our behalf. All the letter writing campaigns to presidents, prime-ministers, senators, congressmen, governors, parliamentarians, are in effect forms of petitioning. Even our so called meetings with government heads, can be put in this category, as we bring no form of pressure or threats to bear in these talks. We as a group have to appeal to the other sides generosity, compassion or whatever for help. However important these efforts appear they are still passive and a form of supplication.

Its time we take a course of action that is not just symbolic or an act of supplication but a direct blow to Family Court tyranny. We must do something that causes a tangible injury, loss or disadvantage to the individual states. We must also think in terms of what causes pain to the individual states and not necessarily what gives us activists and participants satisfaction. Boycotts will empower our membership, their families and friends with an ability to strike back from their own homes. A direct action for Fathers rights and Equal Parenting. Right at this moment the States of Florida and California are incredibly sensitive to economic loss. Any type of economic injury would hurt both California and Florida. One person not buying agricultural products grown and processed in Florida or California and bypassing their Theme Parks would cause, let us say, a loss of $1000 annually to the Florida and California economy, which may not seem much. But the fact remains that it is a loss to both California and Florida. No matter how small it is at least real, tangible and quantifiable; and therefore far more valuable and effective than all the promises and assurances Fathers have received from National and State leaders, politicians and ‘experts’.

It is a solid starting point. If five thousand Fathers in the US refused to buy Florida or California goods we could be causing $5,000,000 loss to both of them every year, which may not seem like much, but if each of these 5000 people recruited ten friends each…? And so on?

On Fatherless Day we can move past the symbolic and begin a direct action that will empower our movement and lift us from the passive supplicate holding the beggars cup for our god given rights to be parents.

Take the next step and support the Boycott now!!

Well, I must say that I hugely enjoy the pull-no-punches way of framing the issues in this message! I find it refreshing -- we need more such "refreshments", all around! But anyway, in case you haven't noticed, fathers' rights orgs are springing up thick and fast like mushrooms all across the USA. At an accelerating rate, I mean. And they're building their lines of communication, too. Yes, we're looking at something REAL, folks!

The e-mail quoted above was sent to me by William Lake, who appears to be the main guy in a group called 'Fighting Fathers of District One' -- district one being the First Judicial Circuit of Florida. They have a website here:

www.fightingfathersofdistrict1.com

I would recommend that you spend some quality time upon that website -- really study it! You will be impressed, as was I. Here we have a group with a serious plan -- well researched and well thought-out -- and with serious motivation to put it over the top! Be sure you don't miss the following page. . .

http://www.fightingfathersofdistrict1.com/757.html

. . . where the boycott blueprint is laid out in detail, together with an expansive list of corporate targets and all sorts of contact addresses. If you look closely, you will discover that this action has even been projected on an international scale, for some of the addresses are UK and European ones! You can wager your last euro, yen or shekel that I'll plunk down nary a thin dime for any California wine or Florida citrus. And I'll naturally steer wide of those Disney places -- they're so mickey mouse anyway, what the hell!

And to get an overview of the political machinery which is now a-building, visit THIS page:

http://www.fightingfathersofdistrict1.com/799.html

Finally, let's not forget about the biggest overview of all. The struggle for fathers' rights is part of a much larger struggle, but any victory on this critically important battlefront shall be as a centrally targeted hammer-blow against the socio-political empire of FEMINISM itself!

Hey, I'm the counter-feminist, and that is MY agenda! ;-)

---------------------------------------

UPDATE: The following was left as a comment by Paul Parmenter, and it is so much in the spirit of the occasion that I feel like posting it topside:

"This is an important step forward: from complaint to direct action. And we can all play our part. I certainly will: no more Floridian or Californian products in my house! To go along with the total absence of other products from manufacturers who indulge in male-bashing adverts!

"It is interesting to note that those American states will contribute to their own downfall, by creating more recruits to the cause. Every new divorced dad who gets screwed by the system now has an organisation to join and a battle to fight, with a coherent strategy. Where else do you encounter an enemy that insists on generating new recruits every day for its opponents? This corrupt and rotten system must fall because it is planting the seeds of its own destruction.

"Push hard guys, and keep pushing."

Verily! So we have the Equal Parenting Bike Trek (which looks set to grow year by year, gathering media attention like a snowball!), and now we have THE BOYCOTT too! Now that's a one-two punch all right! And I am honored to have the opportunity to promote both of these actions here on the 'Counter-Feminist'!

Oh No! The Dreaded F-word!

The following comment by 'Angela and Robert Pedersen' appeared in the immediately foregoing CF post:

"Can you believe comment #12 on the About.com article that you linked for your readers? [Link to About.Com article, edited for brevity]

"'Equal parenting time is not the issue. The issue stems from parents inability to cooperate and work together in the best interest of their children. I am not exactely sure what the situation between Robert Penderson and his child’s mother is but I can guess they don’t get along or appear to agree on whats best for their child. Thats the issue and thats what does the most harm to children caught in the middle of their parents inability to agree. No change in law will ever stop this. The parents need to change their attitudes!'

'Comment by Shelia — April 28, 2008 @ 5:12 pm'

"It is sad to me that someone can be so comepletly off. I hope more of your readers will comment at the About.com article similar to how you did - excellent job."

Well. I don't know if that's Rob talking, or Angela -- and I'm pretty sure it can't be both. But I'm guessing it's Rob. Sounds like his "voice", anyway!

And yes, I can certainly "believe" comment #12. Sadly, it doesn't tax my power of belief by so much as one tiny faith molecule! For it is lamentably certain that I've seen far, far worse! Haven't we all. . .?

But I would sharply remind 'Shelia' that equal parenting IS the issue! If it is not the issue, then why the HELL are they talking about it so much, eh?? It surely sounds like somebody thinks equal parenting is the issue, even if it's not an issue for Shelia!

Now, in terms of posting words elsewhere on the web, I really don't "get out much". I'm largely a CF homebody. In this case however, comments 16, 45 and 50 are my own. I got a little bit carried away on comment #50, but that's how it rolls sometimes, eh?

Comment #45 is the most significant of the three:

(Parenthetically speaking, I cannot help but wonder if Shelia would classify herself as a feminist . . .?)

Comment by Fidelbogen — April 29, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

Please note, this is where the fun begins! All you crafty MRAs out yonder will twig to what I'm saying: the F-word -- feminism -- does not appear anywhere on the thread until my short statement cited above. Somebody had to break the silence, so I took the task upon myself. And man. . . it was easy!

Almost as easy, would have been to launch into a standard feminist-bashing MRA rant. I can do such rants very well when I'm so-inclined! But much of the time -- even most of the time -- I don't. And that is not because I'm inherently polite and civilized, but rather because we are playing a game of strategy which requires that we suit the measure to the matter!

In the comment thread, the word "misandry" occurs along with several open acknowledgments that MEN, specifically as a sex, are getting a raw deal. And yet. . . nobody speaks of feminism! Nobody links the dots into any larger pattern that would embed fathers' rights into an explanatory context, or cast light upon the source of all that man-hating which the various commenters have pointed out!

For it is not merely in the realm of divorce law and custody procedure that men are getting the short end. That may be the most visibly dramatic and structurally significant way, but it is far from the only way. In point of fact, the male-bashing disease is endemic clear across the social landscape, and powerful forces are at work to see that it worsens steadily and spreads into every possible corner. And over the course of many years, MRA analysis has shown the source of this contagion to be precisely that organized system of thought and political energy known as feminism.

So why the silence? Why is it virtually taboo, across large sectors, to even lightly mention the dreaded F-word in the course of a discussion about men's griefs? Why is it only in the MRA clubhouse on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak, that a more forthright style of conversation seems to flourish?

Right off the top, I can think of three reasons:

1.) Because some folk are just plain naive and thickheaded, and honestly don't know what the hell is going on. They are viewing the problem as if through the cardboard tube from a toilet-paper roll.

2.) Because some folk feel that feminism is fundamentally a Good Thing. And that appearances notwithstanding, the source of the problem must therefore lie in a direction other than feminism. And that this point is so axiomatic it's not even up for discussion.

3.) Because some folk know perfectly well what's up in regard to feminism, but choose for discretionary political reasons to buckle their lip, so as not to upset certain delicate applecarts in their working arrangements.

People in the third category have my respect and understanding. People in the first and second categories have what is left of my patience -- and that is not much!

But the thing which intrigues me first and foremost, is that this vexed silence concerning the word feminism encompasses nearly ANY emotional context or tone of voice. You needn't even be excoriating feminism. The taboo, in most cases, extends to any mention of the subject whatsoever within certain realms of conversation -- namely, as I said earlier, where men's difficulties are the topic. For it seems that ANY reference to feminism in such proximity would invite speculation as per a causative nexus.

So, when I posted my comment on the About.Com discussion thread, I did very little more than type the word feminism, plus some frills. Oh, certainly I was disingenuous as hell, and not intending to be subtle about this either! But nevertheless, I violated the taboo so very, very lightly that I might as well have been brushing it with a feather -- it amounts to little else. That my words were freighted with insinuation in no way cancels what they ostensibly intone -- and they ostensibly intone nothing prejudicial as concerns feminism.

And yet, I broke the silence -- and that is what counts! I placed a whirring moth in the mental bonnet of every person reading that thread. They experienced, if only for a moment, a certain thought of considerable heft. And. . . having once thought that thought, they can never again NOT have thought it.

One needn't break silence with a gong when a mere whisper or witticism will suffice. And from thenceforth it is simply a question of easing the volume up little by little.

Your written contributions to the discussion thread in question would arrive most timely. And if in the course of your remarks you wish to insert even once the word 'feminism' ( howsoever blandly and nonchalantly voiced!) that too would be of service.

Instapundit AND About.Com!!

. . . and even more, by the looks of it! Yes, the publicity for the second Equal Parenting Bike Trek is getting truly ferocious. And I am told that the radical femmeroids at N.O.W. headquarters are SO unhappy about this that their brains are boiling like soup inside their skulls, squirting out their ears under pressure, and painting miraculous pornography pictures on their office walls!

But here is the latest, direct from EPBT Central:

Last week we had the incredible experience of having Instapundit, one of the world's top ranked news and political blogs, cover the 2008 Equal Parenting Bike Trek. This single post by Instapundit exposed thousands upon thousands of people to this inspirational story. So many news blogs are covering the 758 mile Equal Parenting Bike Trek that we are finding new coverage on a daily basis. OVER One Hundred blogs have already covered this event. ABOUT.COM, owned by the New York Times and recognized as a top 15 content site, just covered the 2008 Equal Parenting Bike Trek. In less than 24 hours, thousands of readers have visited the main event page for the Equal Parenting Bike Trek! Please take the time to thank author Wayne Parker for covering this important human interest story. (Fidel's note: I just left a comment there myself!) Commenting does NOT require you to sign up for an account so it is very easy. If you utilize Stumbleupon, Digg!, Mixx or other social bookmarking please do so on Wayne Parker's story. View the always updating list of media and blog coverage for the 2008 Equal Parenting Bike Trek. View the media and blog coverage from the 2007 Equal Parenting Bike Trek. Please take note of the following: 1) We have many upcoming radio interviews and several magazines that will be publishing stories about the Equal Parenting Bike Trek. We will keep you informed as they occur. 2) We are in need of donations in order to fully fund this event. Please consider donating any amount to help our cyclists and chase vehicle crew. Please do so via the secure Chipin (paypal) in the middle of this page. 3) If you live in Michigan you should seriously consider joining our Meetup group. There is a reason why our ratings are so high! 4) Ask off of work now to attend the August 7, 2008 departure of the Equal Parenting Bike Trek for the Lansing Michigan Capitol. Dance4Equality and CRISPE will be present. Dance4Equality will be performing their Pow-wows of song and dance!!

Sincerely, Angela Pedersen, R.N. A Child's Right

Holistic Gender

Well, it looks like Kuuenbu, an occasional CF commenter, has decided to take his part in helping to gain some solidarity for non-feminism. His own non-feminist blog, entitled Holistic Gender, may be found here:

http://holisticgender.wordpress.com/

Kuuenbu's most recent post, called 'Thank You, Feminism', is especially worth reading in my opinion:

"..Thanks to feminism, we are now able to recognize ways in which society disadvantages males and privileges females. Thanks to feminism, we are now able to apply a critical analysis to aspects of society from a distinctly male point of view, exposing how they portray and effect men. Thanks to feminism, we are now able to theorize the systematic oppression of men in a matriarchal society.

"Of course, this is all in the realm of theory, much like feminism. Which is why I am not a mascul(in)ist in addition to being a non-feminist. But if women are going to have their own political consciousness, then so should men. If women are going to publish material and engage in activism designed to gravitate society towards their own interests, then so should men. Feminists clamored for equality, that they could do all that men had done. Well, now it is time for men to partake in that same equality, doing what women have done in the field of self-serving gender philosophy."

Now those are sentiments which I can very readily "drink to"! I am reminded of my own (reluctant) conclusion that men and women have effectively become separate political parties, and that men had better get this through their collective noggin and modify their collective outlook for the sake of their own well-being, and that if they fail to so adjust their world-view (however distasteful it might seem to them) then well and truly they are patsies! They are marks!

I would make clear that I have not always held such an "extreme" position. My thinking upon this point evolved quite gradually and, as I say, reluctantly. But I find myself unable any longer to overlook the objective historical situation, and in good conscience I cannot counsel others to do so.

In a related vein, I will state for the record that the terms "masculist" and "masculinist" have never held any interest for me. My thinking is purely political and pragmatic -- it concerns itself with the workings of power. And although I am not averse to philosophical speculations about the nature of 'manhood', I refuse to spotlight such personal interests in the form of a political label or platform. To do so would generate a mirror counterpart of feminism, which I have NO intention of doing -- for this would only perpetuate a cycle which I have every intention of breaking and terminating.

Finally, I should add that I appreciate Kuuenbu's slyly ironic remark concerning "the field of self-serving gender philosophy." Such wit, in my opinion, is of a spirit that will empower the non-feminist sector, or any proposed sub-sector thereof.

Here again is the web address for Holistic Gender:

http://holisticgender.wordpress.com/

Feminist Plans Begin in High Places. . .

. . . and cascade down the mountain slopes like melting snow-water into the deep, shadowed valleys where we, the little people, struggle and toil. Look out for that water!! It's polluted with intestinal parasites and toxins you'd rather not hear about!

Feminism is not just a state ideology, it is a world state ideology, deeply entrenched at the level of global policy and politics. Big powerful people are making big powerful plans, and those plans include feminist-based reconfiguration of human life right down to the very root-cellar!

No, they are not content to leave us alone in the working-out of our own little relationships and our own little destinies. For you see, they are wiser than us! They are more clever than us! They are better educated than us! And not only that, but they are just plain better than us!

And so, clearly, they know better than we do what is best for us!!

I share with you now a 38-page PDF file, published under the imprimatur of the United Nations, entitled 'Gender Mainstreaming':

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/e65237.pdf

And what is this 'gender mainstreaming'?

"The ECOSOC agreed conclusions 1997/2 defines gender mainstreaming as: “…the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.”

I trust that you, gentle reader, will not be led astray by those cute little rhetorical dollops about "women and men", nor overtaken by the intellectual narcosis inherent to the term 'equality'. Note the item in the URL path which says "womenwatch". Note that it does not say "womenandmenwatch".

What these people are really talking about is direct, systematic and forcible implantation of the feminist world-view into "all political, economic and societal spheres". Social engineering in other words. And nowhere do they pause to consider if such a thing is actually WANTED by all the little guinea pigs - meaning you and I - who will get such baggage hoisted into their lives. It has evidently never occurred to these people, that some of us might not agree with their analysis. Or then again, maybe they just can't decipher that we even have minds in the first place!

So yes, they do have big plans for us because they, being more evolved and more educated, know more than we do!

However, in order to swing their big plans, they will need to swing the power of the state in a big way -- both nationally and globally. Which means: more agencies, more bureaucracies, more committees, more sub-committees, more laws, more by-laws, more enforcement apparatus, more punitive apparatus, more indoctrination, and more state or quasi-state control of every kind. And once they have bolted their machinery into place, who then would have the power to unbolt any of it? And who then would have the fortitude to raise any objection when they wheel in the next batch of machinery?

Because after all, it is all for the cause of gender equality, yes? And who could possibly object to gender equality anyway? Doesn't gender equality sound like a good thing? And doesn't everybody know exactly what "gender equality" means? And if there still wasn't quite enough gender equality, who could possibly object to MORE gender equality? Eh? Seriously, can there ever be enough "gender equality"? And can there ever be enough new policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres to enforce all the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation necessary for all the new integral dimensions of gender equality of which there will never be enough?

You know what? This is all making me very, very tired!

How can we instruct these people to FUCK OFF and stay the hell out of our lives??

I am certain that we cannot accomplish this by argument or persuasion. No, we must morally and intellectually turn the tables on them. We must aggressively throw them on the defensive. We must block their path, refuse to budge, stare them down, and then ask them in a nonchalantly ice-cold tone of voice what they intend to do about it. . . .

Oh, the Rolling Miles. . . !

Hey! Do you remember the EQUAL PARENTING BIKE TREK, which took place in August 2007? You know, those two crazy guys, Rob & Robb, who rode their bicycles from Michigan all the way to Washington, DC? Remember that??

Well guess what folks, they're at it again in 2008!! And by Jove, this time it looks like they're crazier than ever... yes indeed! I share the following, extracted from a recent e-mail:

"Traditional Media will fall in line as we move closer to the August 7th departure but ALREADY New Media coverage has exceeded our expectations with over 85 blogs buzzing about the 758 mile Equal Parenting Bike Trek. We are not just talking about fatherhood related blogs! Cycling Blogs, Political blogs, News Blogs have already covered this exciting human interest story with more being added to the list of coverage daily!!

"Blogs such as:

"Dr. Helen - Forensic Psychologist

"Instapundit - One of top ranked blogs in the world

"Protein Wisdom News Blog - Very popular with online traffic that dwarfs others. Post#2

"Akindele Unleashed - Detroit political pundit

"Roger Kramer Cycling - top ranked cycling blog

"News Tin

"Cozy Beehive Cycling Blog - top ranked cycling blog

"Dean's World - popular

"Lansing State Journal Online - Already 97 readers have recommended this article!

"...See the complete and always updating list.

"Michigan Bicyclist Magazine will soon be doing a story about the 2008 Equal Parenting and a nationally distributed cycling magazine has expressed interest in covering this story. One of Michigan's top tier newspapers has expressed interest in covering the departure event of the Equal Parenting Bike Trek at the Lansing Capitol on August 7th. Be sure to attend this exciting event and cheer on our cyclists. Plus, Dance4Equality and CRISPE will also be present.

"For more details about the departure event on August 7th at the Lansing Capitol.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have been amazed by the coverage and support of the news blog Protein Wisdom. Each time they cover the Equal Parenting Bike Trek thousands of unique visitors learn about the EquaParenting Bike Trek.

"PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS (REQUIRES NO ACCOUNT) TELLING PROTEIN WISDOM WHY YOU ARE GLAD THEY COVERED EQUAL PARENTING AND THE EQUAL PARENTING BIKE TREK. THOUSANDS WILL READ YOUR COMMENTS. COMMENT HERE"

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Please show your support for this event and make a donation. No amount is too small or large. The date we need this event fully funded by is rapidly approaching.

"2008 Sponsors/Donations

"Why should you consider donating?

"This event has a solid track record of obtaining media coverage in a big way. Do you want the issue of equal parenting to be covered by TV News, Radio, Newspapers and New Media in a big way?

"Look how well our 2007 event obtained this goal!

"2008 we are off to a strong start in traditional and new media coverage.

"2007 Event Photo Slideshow

"2007 Event Videos"

Rob Pedersen himself informs me that this year there will be not just two, but five, count 'em FIVE CERTIFIED RAVING LUNATICS who will undertake the arduous, perilous, desolating journey through the bleak & tortured badlands of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland! Oh, and probably through that little northern finger of West Virginia too - I'm not sure of the route.

So, it looks like this will be a regular thing, every year? I certainly hope so. And a growing thing, too! The number of cyclists has increased by 150% since 2007, so, does that mean the trend will continue and that we can expect to see maybe 13 cyclists next year? And then more and more each year until it starts looking like the Tour de France?

Remember, this shines a media spotlight on the issues. This attracts the eye of the world. And the more that it grows year by year, the more that it will set the issues on the front burner of the public mind. And this should be of interest not only to solid-citizen parental types, but even to all of you hardcore MGTOW Ghost Nation marriage-strikers out yonder, on the margins and in the shadows! Yes, we all know who our Mortal Foe is -- the one who called for the destruction of marriage and family! And we shall all be deeply gratified, I am certain, to strike a "socko" propaganda blow at such a vital sector of our Mortal Foe's political empire!

Yes, these things have a way of snowballing, don't they? The media, the word-of-mouth, the number of cyclists -- all of it!

Notes: Toward An Efficient Political World-View

The movement to oppose feminism and its damaging consequences, operates in varied and fragmentary fashion across the social landscape. This "movement" ( if I may so term it ) is lacking in cohesion. Both in point of ideology, and in point of political strategy - to say nothing of actual lobbying machinery or practical organization "on the street" - it resembles nothing so much as a disjointed rabble of separate and distinct mobs, often at cross-purposes, armed with staves, pitchforks, and inarticulate anger. Briefly, a peasant rebellion.

Hence, our movement is no movement at all, but a plurality of "motions" whose aggregate total amounts to a sloshing chaos. This condition puts us at a disadvantage, and NOT chiefly because it is inefficient of itself, but rather because it offers our enemies a compromising spectacle which they are only too happy to turn against us in their propaganda.

I've said it before: our "movement" is a broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population. To even call it a movement whatsoever is a linguistic convenience, a manner of speaking, a way to circumvent clumsy circumlocution. Yet our enemies want very much to proclaim this thing of ours as a movement in some orthodox sense of the term. That is quite to their advantage, for it simplifies matters and sets their side in a stronger attack posture by making our side look amenable to customary formulae - easier to deal with, and easier to discredit.

The so-called "men's movement" is paradoxical because it both is and is not monolithic. Every kind of person, man and woman alike, is active within this socio-cultural ORGANISM. I say every kind of person, and that embraces the full moral spectrum of human nature from the mediocre to the sublime, to the appalling, to the merely absurd. Yes, every kind of person. And apart from the obvious fact of being monolithically human, there is nothing monolithic about the moral spectrum of human nature.

What is significantly monolithic about our so-called movement is, that for all of its multiplexity it nonetheless unites upon the anchorage point of shared opposition to feminism and its damaging consequences - whether this opposition be openly articulated as manifestos, or complicitly manifested as a deep-seated aversion to something unnamed yet profoundly anti-natural.

Hence, if we seek unity, it is already ours: opposition to feminism combines our energy at the very root of our endeavor. This does not yet make us collectively a "movement", but it does make us a community of shared intention - which is a foundation not to be neglected, since for want of it nothing further could be built. But bear in mind , that our shared intention is only a foundation, since intention alone is stationary until it is joined to motion. In our case, the shared intention joins severally to such a disunity of motions or proposed motions that it does not form the animating principle for any shared motion across the board, of the kind that would usefully define a movement. Hence it is only a foundation for a horde of heterogenous motions, and being stationary across the board, can serve only as a grouping device, like a fenced field.

However, it is precisely our lack of unity in motion which our enemies would work to our detriment - NOT through the game of divide-and-conquer, but through pejorative imputation on the basis of a wrong assumption. The case is this: that no so-called MRA "speaks for the movement", because there is no movement! That very point is precisely the wrong assumption - that a "movement" exists. But our enemies seem not to have cognized this, and they are forever casting about to discover some imaginary "official voice of the men's movement", so that they can hold ALL of the so-called movement accountable for any indiscreet utterances this so-called voice might make, or be interpreted to have made.

But again, there is no "movement" - only scattered motion in scattered modules. And while these modules may or may not converse to some degree, they share very little common directive - and hence, no unity of accountability. The lack of unity in motion equates to a lack of any horizontal transmission belt whereby such accountability could be shared across the modules. This thing of ours - it is simply a growing fermentation of disaffection, joined to an evolving consensus as regards the objective nature of the difficulty. But once again, it embraces the moral spectrum of human nature - which, let it be remembered, is sometimes commendable and other times otherwise.

But the fact remains that nobody, commendable or otherwise, enjoys being trodden on - and the more so if they have committed no verifiable offense that would justify such treatment. And when a targeted population - in this case a birth group equal to half the human race - is subjected to such treatment arbitrarily, on a systemic skew, it should come as no surprise that this group will manifest displeasure in many ways, and that when it does, some of the action at times might be blameworthy or even downright evil. Truly, we are confronting the full spectrum of human nature here: there is no doubt the world contains all manner of men, and you mustn't expect all of them to react morally when they are treated immorally - although quite a few of them might struggle heroically to do so.

So the unity of our cause inheres in our shared opposition to feminism and to its damaging consequences. Such is the bedrock we stand upon. That alone - no more, but certainly no less. For it comes to this; that our shared opposition draws us all into a shared perimeter of operations or, if you will, a sector. And please note that a sector is not a movement, but rather a charted space that renders movement intelligible in terms of its progressions.

Given that the prefix anti is understood to signify opposition, to say that I am "opposed to feminism" amounts to saying that I am anti-feminist. However, prior to opposition (and a necessary precondition to it) is simple negation. Hence, to declare that I am non-feminist is to assert a thing of greater latitude, greater profundity and, as it may prove, greater utility.

The term non-feminist etches a line through the middle of reality, and by so doing draws into the light of discourse a region of existential space which is not feminism. This act is decisively consequential, as I hope to show. It is of course a political line in the sand - that much verges on the self-evident. Yet the thing is not merely political, but in addition metaphysical.

The category of non-feminism, as we understand it and would have it understood, poses a counter-claim against feminism's usurpative self-investiture of hegemonic privilege. This counter-claim operates elegantly, simply by directing attention to a quintessentially constitutive fact about feminism: that it both claims universality and aggressively aspires to it. We consider feminism's claim to be grandiose, and we believe that it crosses into the territory of hubris. And we consider feminism's aggressive pursuit of its claim to be pernicious.

But to say that feminism "claims universality" - what meaning has this? It means that the partisans of feminist doctrine assert that a certain body of theory - of which they are the custodians - has the legitimate sovereign right to subsume all of human life within the purview of its explanatory discourse.

And to say that feminism "aggressively aspires" to universality - what meaning has this? It means that the partisans of feminist doctrine seek by all possible contrivance of law, pedagogy and propaganda to advance feminism's claim into the realm of WORLDLY FACT - both within the fabric of cultural and institutional life, and within the private lives of as many private citizens as might feasibly be drawn into the moral gravity-well of feminist theory.

Non-feminism both bears witness to these facts about feminism, and stands as a roadblock against them. The minute you say "non-feminism", or "non-feminist", you are (so to speak) advertising a competing product and demanding a rightful share of the market for that product. Feminism, you see, not only claims a monopoly upon truth, but likewise claims a mandate to exercise unhindered political muscle on behalf of that monopoly. But the claim is spurious; the claim is a bubble. A way is needed to pop this bubble -- and the simple notion of non-feminism is just the pin for the job!

When the term "non-feminism" presents itself without explanation and yet apparently demanding respect, how can a feminist argue against it? The answer is: uphill, and with difficulty.

"Non-feminism" says both a lot, and not much at all. It says a lot because it surveys a lot of territory, but it says not much because we are not told much about what that territory contains. We are told only that it does NOT contain feminism. But to a feminist, such negative presentation offers a slippery wall with no grappling points - there is nothing positive to be asserted against non-feminism simply because the term itself asserts nothing positive in the first place. Moreover, the term itself bespeaks nothing judgmental - either good or ill - as regards feminism. It bespeaks only ALTERITY.

Non-feminism says nothing about itself other than to assert its otherness. It says to the feminist, "you are feminism, and I am not." That is ALL it says. Yet this deceptively simple message places a burden of proof upon the feminist IN PERPETUITY to establish feminism as inherently more desirable than a lack of feminism, or with more inherent right to cultural sovereignty.

Simply stated, non-feminism places feminism permanently on the defensive - by default. And it does so masterfully, without assuming any aggressive posture!

Non-feminism is not a person, not an organization, not an ideology, not a doctrine, and above all not a movement. Non-feminism is simply the universe exclusive of feminism - and that is a portion of the cosmos greater than 99%. Therefore, non-feminism need not and cannot answer for itself. How can 99% of the universe "answer for" itself? What in heaven's name could such an action possibly entail? No, only persons, organizations, ideologies, doctrines and so-called political movements need to "answer for themselves", because only entities such as those are constricted enough to embody the possibility of transgression.

Those who speak on behalf of feminism cannot hope to gain the initiative against non-feminism without FIRST making it clear why the rest of the universe ought to be filled with feminism, or interpreted by feminism, or overshadowed by feminism, or by whatever means brought under the sceptre of feminism's imperium.

Tersely stated, feminism must first explain itself. And regrettably, self-explanation constitutes a position of weakness because it differs by merely a shade from self-justification - and self-justification is a defensive posture. Thus, to be under obligation of explaining yourself is ipso facto to be on the defensive. It is the thief who must explain himself; the magistrate need not. It is the courtier who must explain himself; the king need not.

So, if you simply declare yourself "non-feminist", others have no warrant to interrogate you in quest of further particulars. Your non-participation in feminism, your non-alignment in the polarity of its discourse, your cavalier refusal to take its issues as points of decisive personal or spiritual significance, are simply not open for discussion unless you - in your own good time and at your own sovereign pleasure - feel so disposed.

Still, you may anticipate occasional opposition to this scheme of politesse. A customary knee-jerk response by the typical feminist foot-soldier is to rattle off a list of talking-points pertaining to women's issues. In the mind of the speaker, such a list passes for a "definition" of feminism, and the speaker wishes to drive you into a corner by suggesting that your aloofness toward feminism mean