Monday, January 26, 2015
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Posted to AVFM: Foundational Points of Counter-feminist Philosophy
Article, by me, posted on AVFM: Twelve Foundational Points of Counter-Feminist Philosophy:
Friday, January 16, 2015
Friday, January 09, 2015
A Feminist Manipulates us with Language Tricks. Again.
Okay, now my comment. The italicized bit is a statement by a feminist, and the rest is my words:
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
The Feminist/Non-feminist Cooperation Spiral
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
Articles: On AVFM and Nicht-Feminist
Another article, by me, is posted in German translation here:
Monday, December 29, 2014
Feminism is not Monolithic, but it Might as Well Be!
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Anita Sarkeesian on the Grill
Go there, if you wish to read it.
Also, retweet the following if you are so inclined:
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Yes, Hatred of Men is a Thing. Don't Believe Me?
First, go here:
Once there, you will need to sign in, probably with Facebook. After you have done that, you will arrive at a page with a lot of menu icons. Scroll down carefully until you arrive at the playlist titled "I hate men". Tag line: "It's not you, it's men. Fuel your misandry..."
Click on the icon, and bon appetit!
I have noticed that this playlist has 11,000 followers.
I thank Nicht-Feminist Berlin for bringing this to my attention.
So...if anybody notices an "I hate women" playlist on there, do let me know. I would have no objection to such a list, if somebody created one. I mean, free expression, right? If some women want to hate men, and some men want to hate women, I'm all for "letting it all hang out". Equality of opportunity, don'cha know? ;)
But now, for realz homies, here is a wonderful, delightful flute sonata by Telemann - and no, I am not being sarcastic:
Monday, December 22, 2014
Amanda Marcotte Tells the Truth About Feminism
Amanda Marcotte pretty much admits this, in the following article that she wrote in 2013:
But she's wrong about one thing. Anti-trans feminism (the "TERF" faction) is as radical, and as feminist, as they come. Their rejection of transwomen grows from their hatred of men -- transwomen were born male, after all, and still have those XY chromosomes!
As a rule of thumb, the "radicalness" of feminism correlates to hatred of things male, however discreetly this might manifest itself in any given case.
Radical Feminism is the Real Feminism
Radical feminism is feminism's rotten core, and the source of feminism's life. Without it, feminism at large would amount to little, and scatter to the four winds.
That is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However. . . it is a truth which plenty of people won't square up to. It is quite fashionable nowadays, especially in the wake of the Agent Orange scandal, to brush aside radical feminism as outdated and popularly disregarded.
When people do this, they are trying to change the subject and gain control of the conversation so as to remove the feminist project, at large, from the critical spotlight.
Radical feminism - by which I mean chiefly the man-hating kind - is a standard which sets the measure for feminism as a whole. All brands of feminism are either more or less relevant depending on how closely they approximate radical feminism.
Radical feminism is 100 proof, and a radical feminist takes her feminism neat.
All other feminists take their feminism watered down - but it's all the same drink.
People love to tell you that the radfems are "just fringe extremists" - as if we were standing in a field and the radfems were some tight little group clustered in their own world near the perimeter. What the speaker fails to consider is that all feminism is on a continuum whose unifying principle is disaffection toward men and things male. That's all it is, and if you study feminism objectively you can reach no other conclusion.
Hence, there is no gap, no discontinuity between radical feminism and the rest of feminism. For every foul man-hater, there is a slightly less foul man-hater, and then one slightly less foul than that . . . and so on down the line. Thus, for example, Amanda Marcotte is indeed a foul man-hater, yet she is only half as foul as Mary Daly.
In one way, the apologists and deflectionists are right: we oughtn't be so fixated on the extremists. After all, the rot extends clear through the feminist organism to some degree, and examples closer to home are not lacking. What we should point out every chance we get, is the pervasive anti-male bias - be this subtle or brazen.
Anti-male bias - whether in the form of hating men, or in looking the other way when evidence of man-hating crops up, or simply in the prevalence of double standards which favor women - may safely be described as the defining feature of feminism.
Anti-male bias - culminating in outright hatred of men - is the core principle which makes feminism feminism. This principle, more than anything else, binds the feminist project together, moves it forward, and explains the complex reality of its evolvement through time.
The feminist project seeks to expand the power of women with no limit, and anything like ethical regard for men and maleness would impose a formidable barrier to such expansion. Remove that ethical regard, and the frontier is wide open. Hence, so far as the feminist project is concerned, ethical regard for men and maleness has got to go - and what better why to shuck off ethical regard for anything, than to HATE it?
And since the world always contains X number of women who hate men. . .and even MEN who hate men, feminism's inner cadre always has a sufficient recruitment pool.
In the end, if feminism did not harbor a kind of moral black hole of infinite disaffection toward men and maleness, it would quickly reach the limit of its possible development. . . . and begin to dissipate.
So once again, radical feminism - to wit, the man-hating kind - is the CORE of feminism.
And it is the liberals, the moderates, the humanists, and the "fun" feminists who make up the fluffy fringe on feminism's outskirts. They are the useful idiots who serve mainly as camouflage and as ideological pack mules.
Those who say that radical feminism is marginal to feminism at large, are lying - either to you, or to themselves.
Fidelbogen . . . out.
The MHRM and the Manosphere: Ceasefire Time?
More Mischief in the Making -- from Edmonton! ;)
Yeah! Nick did a nice job on this video. I like it.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
In the Beginning, Feminism Declared War on Men
In the beginning, feminism declared war on men. This war had consequences - not only for men, but for the entire social ecology. How can you declare war on half the human race without the fallout raining down on everybody, irrespectively? In other words, how can you poison only half of a well?
Hence, by reason of its consequences, feminism's war against men became a war against the world at large.
But even though feminism makes war against the world at large, the brunt of the attack still falls upon men. They are living at ground zero.
When the consequences of feminism's war become evident, the feminist response is to lay blame at the doorstep of men and maleness. This is central to the feminist project - to blame men wherever possible, and to exonerate women. When this happens, the war goes through another cycle of escalation, leading to more consequences which, true to form, are blamed upon men and maleness. It happens every time.
Resistance to feminism, and the eventual overthrow of it, must be mapped according to the description we have given.
First: given the nature of the case, only men have the necessary understanding to take the lead against feminism. Being the primary target of feminist aggression, men are expert in the nature of that aggression and as such, uniquely qualified to direct the resistance. Women, with all due respect, cannot match the motivation and competence that men naturally possess in this realm. Accordingly, they must play an auxiliary role.
Second: we must understand that male disposability and gynocentrism, in the culture at large, will not go away any time soon. Hence, to place "men's rights" rhetoric at front and center, will gain only limited traction. So it is necessary to "talk up" the idea that feminism commits aggression against humanity at large, and that we are all in this together against feminism.
As a subset to that line of talk, it is useful to emphasize that feminism "hurts women too." Overall, the gynocentric tendency in society must be "tricked" or "gamed" in some manner, so as to serve a pro-male end.
Third: we must understand that although feminism is monolithic, the resistance to it is quite otherwise. The resistance is in fact a variety of movements, co-movements, sub-movements and projects that may be slotted into a coordinating meta-template - called the counter-feminist project.
So, having understood that the resistance is not monolithic, we must train the general public to stop understanding it in monolithic terms. Accordingly, each sub-movement or project must develop an individuated "brand" that will stand out clearly in the public eye. This will force the public to see the parts individually and, by such constant exercise, develop ambient understanding of a complex reality which breaks the feminist narrative.
In the end, male-friendly interest will be served by creating a male inner sanctum within the resistance as a whole, by redirecting or blind-siding gynocentrism in calculated ways, and by sabotaging the feminist power structure in ways both foreseen and yet to be conceived. When the pro-male interest is served, the feminist war against men will be blocked and feminism will be at an end. This will be for the good of all.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Don't "Speak as a Woman". Just speak!
Feminists: Are they Compulsive Liars, or just Mentally Lazy?
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Academic Study from UCLA -- Indicates High Sexual Victimization Among Males
"We assessed 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently in 2010 through 2012. We used these data to examine the prevailing assumption that men rarely experience sexual victimization. We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men."
Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph&
Saturday, December 13, 2014
MGTOW: An Impersonal Force of History
I don't want to say either too much or too little, but I'd like to be as impartial as I can while hopefully adding something original. Yes, many of the ideas sketched here will be uniquely my own, but hey...why not?
The bone of contention seems to be a fear, within the MGTOW sector, that the AVFM sector is yielding to something called "traditionalism". So to break this down further: what is traditionalism? I will base my talk on what people appear to mean by that word.
Firstly: many in the MGTOW sector have a settled conviction that married men cannot belong to what they consider their "movement". So stubborn is their conviction, that to question it borders on heresy. Despite this, the leading lights of the AVFM sector do make bold to be heretical, contending that married men can indeed partake of MGTOW.
Secondly: many in the MGTOW sector have voiced unease at a percieved traditionalism in certain members of the AVFM sector. In their view, this foreshadows a return to old-school gynocentric marriage along with old-fangled sex roles -- and that is a prospect which repels them.
The foregoing has spotlighted the exact "traditionalism" which MGTOW sectarians believe is creeping into the AVFM community. It is what they generally mean when they toss that word around.
That said, why should MGTOW sectarians even give a toot if AVFM happens to turn "traditional"? Because: AVFM still purports to have an interest in and obligation to" the greater MGTOW enterprise, and so long as it does, the question of who "owns" MGTOW will remain unsettled. In other words, the question of MGTOW identity will remain unsettled. ("Identity" in this case equates to ownership).
The MGTOW sectarians see MGTOW as a social refuge. They fear that if they admit married men to their fellowship, a camel's nose effect will drive them out of their own tent. That is why control of MGTOW identity (ownership) is important to them: to keep the gynocentric traditionalist camel out of their tent.
There you have it: the two sides are battling for the MGTOW identity like two parties contesting for a wishbone. I am aware, however, that AVFM never wished for such a battle - it just came to them.
So has it occurred to anybody that nobody really owns the MGTOW identity at all, and never will? Come to that, has it occurred to anybody to wonder if there even IS a MGTOW identity?
I leave those questions open, but I'll get back to them later. For now, I pose a singular query: "What is MGTOW?" -- and until we have sorted that one out, we needn't hope to sort out the tangled mess we've talked about so far.
All right, so what is MGTOW?
MGTOW is an acronym that stands for "men going their own way". That phrase evokes men walking down a road they have freely chosen -- literally, "their own way".
In the context of history, MGTOW signifies the objective political reality where men, as a class, currently find themselves. Under the system of feminist innovation which now predominates, men are second-class citizens. Moreover, this reality is not static: it promises to get worse when feminist innovation develops further.
I say all of this with the understanding that my target audience already knows why men are second-class citizens. They have covered that ground as thoroughly as I have, so I needn't waste time explaining it to them.
Returning to our theme: under such conditions, the system of social obligation which formerly bound men either to women or to society as a whole, is voided of moral authority. Hence it may, at individual discretion, be nullifed.
Briefly then, MGTOW signifies the death of the social contract and the liberation of all males into a system of individual agency where they may form ad hoc social contracts as they see fit. Such is the objective reality of history -- one might wish it otherwise, but that is how things are.
Note however, that MGTOW signifies merely freedom, leaving open the question of what should be done with it. Accordingly, we use "MGTOW" in a political or world-historic way, and would stipulate that the realm of personal relations does not fall within its purview. That is to say, there is no MGTOW manual to specify how any man should govern that aspect of his life.
So MGTOW is rooted in the political, not the personal -- although it certainly has implications for the personal.
In itself, MGTOW is not a clique, club, cult, coterie or tribe of any sort -- and nothing in the present statement should be taken to imply this. So it is incorrect to attach the indefinite article and speak of the individual as "a" MGTOW, since that implies club membership.
Similarly, MGTOW is not a personal identity dog-tag -- so again, to call yourself "a" MGTOW, is not a very MGTOW move at all. The phrase "a MGTOW" is a flawed grammatical construction because "MGTOW" is an abstract noun, and no man is identical with an abstract noun. You could, of course, style yourself more verbosely as a man "who goes his own way", but that is rather a natural descriptor than an appellative tag. Also, nobody, and no group, has any patent on such a phrase.
In the end, MGTOW is no more than 1.) a principle or force of history, and 2.) a high-altitude situation map of the male condition.
What we have sketched here is the MGTOW core minimum. Anything less would insufficiently describe MGTOW, and anything more would be bells and whistles. So I turn again to the question of MGTOW identity or ownership. Now that we have inventoried what makes MGTOW fundamentally MGTOW, we may interrogate this more to the purpose.
Since MGTOW is a demographic phenomenon, nobody owns it. It simply "is". So ultimately, the MGTOW principle itself "goes its own way". It springs from the reality of history, and you either tap into it or you don't. It is like an ocean wave that beckons you to "hang ten" and be powerfully carried along, but it does not belong to you. It paradoxically serves but will not be commanded, and you cannot understand it otherwise.
So you are free to form all the MGTOW clubs you wish, with membership rules as you see fit. But keep in mind that "MGTOW" doesn't belong to your club alone. You are not, in or of yourselves, "MGTOW". You are not identical with that abstract noun. You are simply a group of people surfing on the wave of history, organized around the MGTOW principle in a manner that suits you. And that is fine. That is good. That is your right. But never forget that the MGTOW principle is something far bigger than you, and bigger than all of us.
Even so, I think there is an over-arching philosophical mandate to all of this, and I have tried to catch a glimmer of it here.
I should add that I roundly applaud the marriage strike both as a strategy for male survival and as a political leveraging tool to extort proper treatment of the male population.
However, the point where I go my own way is the idea that the marriage strike makes the principal focus for MGTOW-related thought, rhetoric or action. No, I see the marriage strike as merely a subplot, or rather, one of many projects that could manifest the MGTOW principle as a force in history.
Here's a related point that I don't want to omit: male solidarity should be grounded in the political and world-historic side of things. It should NOT be centered on personal frustrations about women and relationships. The latter, if voiced within earshot of the general public, sets you up to be the butt of mockery. What's more, it sounds like a form of gynocentrism . . doesn't it?
Very well. So . . . if a married man would express SOLIDARITY with MGTOW, who's to tell him that he mustn't do that?
Furthermore, if by personal genius or luck-of-the-draw he finds the perfect mate and succeeds wildly at self-realization despite her presence, then is he not well and truly "going his own way"? Can you plausibly argue otherwise? Certainly such a man has found his own path. So how if he literally calls himself "a MGTOW", and starts a "MGTOW" website, and a "MGTOW" publishing company, and paints a giant MGTOW logo on his house -- what of that? Would you send the One True MGTOW Posse to burn that pretender down? I think not.
So who are you to tell this man he doesn't pertain to "MGTOW"? On what authority do you speak? Yours, apparently. But what about his? You reckon he gives one cold spit about your presumed authority, and what you think? And why should he?
In the end, all that matters is that a man can make the MGTOW principle work for him in his own life according to his innovative genius. After all, a man going his own way goes his OWN way, does he not?
And does such a man make social arrangements with other men, for the sake of mutual benefit?
You bet he does!
In fact, oddly enough, even men who only wish to be left alone, can "stick together".
But none of that in itself is MGTOW. It is only a manifestation of MGTOW -- a way of harnessing the MGTOW principle and putting it to work.
So I renounce the indefinite article. I am not "a" MGTOW, nor do I belong to any club bearing that name. I am simply a respecter of the MGTOW principle as a force in history.
To summarize: "MGTOW" is not an identity, but merely a fact.
Meanwhile, the MGTOW sectarians are facing a boundary crisis. They are worried about their little tent, while forgetting that MGTOW is a big tent. Their fears are groundless, for they can always pitch any little tent they want to pitch, and decide who gets in or who doesn't. But they must understand that there is plenty of MGTOW to go around, and that for heaven's sake, nobody wants to steal their piece of the action!
So, hey maaaan! Like...don't bogart that MGTOW, man! Pass it around!
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Fidelbogen Weighs "MGTOW" and finds Parts of it Lacking
Here is that notorious speech of mine which kicked over such a beehive in MGTOW land. It continues to do so. .
Tuesday, December 09, 2014
Feminist Opinions are not Facts
Thursday, December 04, 2014
Useful Idiots for Feminism
Friday, November 07, 2014
What is "MGTOW"?
MGTOW is an acronym that stands for "men going their own way". As the phrase might suggest, it signifies men travelling in a way they have freely chosen -- literally, "their own way".
In the context of history, MGTOW signifies the objective political reality where men, as a class, are currently situated. Under the system of feminist innovation which now predominates, men are effectively second-class citizens. Furthermore, the situation is not static, and what is presently so promises to become more so as the state of feminist innovation continues to evolve.
Under such conditions, the system of social-contractual obligation which formerly bound men to either women or society as a whole, is devoid of moral authority and may at discretion be nullifed.
Briefly stated, MGTOW signifies the death of the social contract and the liberation of all males into a system of individual agency where they are free to form ad hoc contracts on an individual basis.
MGTOW signifies merely freedom, leaving open the question of what should be done with it. Hence we use this term in a political or world-historic way, and would stipulate that the realm of personal relations does not fall within its purview.
MGTOW, as such, is not a cult, club, coterie or tribe of any sort -- and nothing in the present writing should be taken to imply this. Thus it is incorrect to attach the indefinite pronoun and speak of the individual as "a" MGTOW, since this implies club membership. In the end, MGTOW is no more than 1.) a principle or force of history, and 2.) a primitive situation map of the male condition.
What we have sketched here may be understod as the MGTOW core minimum. Anything less would insufficiently describe MGTOW, and anything more would be bells and whistles.
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
The Truth about Whiteribbon91
The purpose of #whiteribbon is not to end violence, but to promote feminist ideology. #Whiteribbon is a feminist organization. @whiteribbon
— Fidelbogen (@fidelbogen) November 5, 2014
Friday, October 31, 2014
Jessica Valenti: Racist. . . Sexist. . . Feminist!
.@JessicaValenti reveals her racism and sexism: @deanesmay @Typhonblue #womenagainstfeminism #feminism pic.twitter.com/tLxtiDhsFu
— Fidelbogen (@fidelbogen) October 31, 2014
The trouble with being a "public figure", is that you are always standing in a pulpit that could turn into a pillory at a moment's notice.
So the lesson is, that if you are a public figure, it behooves you not to be a public asshole, lest you get pilloried.
Jessica Valenti, being a feminist, is naturally a strong, empowered woman. So I'm sure she understands this.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
It's Official: All Feminists ARE 'Like That'!
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Feminism is Morally Bankrupt
Saturday, October 25, 2014
One More Time: Feminism IS What We Say it Is
Friday, October 24, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
The War for Inner Space
Sunday, October 19, 2014
The Vanguard Report -- Episode No. 22
Episode No. 22 of the Vanguard Report, with Nick Reading and Fidelbogen.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Hatred of Men is Feminism's Operative Core Principle
#Feminism is inherently misandric,because its core presumption will always be: "Men are the problem! Men must change!" #womenagainstfeminismJudging by the number of retweets in the last 24 hours, this item has struck a sweet spot in the zeitgeist. Apparently, it's what a lot of people are avid to hear right now. So you can keep the ball rolling by hitting that button too!
— Fidelbogen (@fidelbogen) October 18, 2014