Further Notations Upon the Moral Anatomy of a Hate Movement
Man-hating spans a full continuum starting with minor dissatisfaction (the most common) and ranging clear up to venomous, full-throttled animosity. Feminism captures this energy in its many shades and makes use of it to align female loyalty. Man-hating operates as a lodestone toward which the milder shades of feminism orient themselves. In the absence of this Central Attractor feminism at large would disintegrate and dissipate.
At the lower end of the scale you would hardly call it hating and yet, owing to it, a fair number of otherwise well-disposed women have stuck the feminist label to themselves. Such women would earnestly deny that feminism is a hate movement; commonly they come out with statements on the order of “oh no, I’m not that kind of feminist!” Individuals of this sort may be designated as weak feminists.
Strictly speaking, the term 'weak feminist' indicates nothing inherently derogatory -- only an unstrong attachment to the occult core, or root, of feminism. Still, it is unfortunate that the radical strong feminists, from their own perch, would have every reason to view such persons as useful idiots or shills.
The base level man-haters drive the movement as a whole - imparting to it a primary direction, a particular velocity, a spin. The psychic cross-section of the movement has a concentric deployment, with the more numerous weak feminists inhabiting the weak force-field near the perimeter. Radical man-haters dwell at the high-energy core - the actual root of the movement. (Radical means “of the root”, for which reason we call a “radical” feminist a root-feminist.)
I would make bold that man-hating is what brought the root-feminists to feminism in the first place - that their animus toward the male sex formed the historical precondition for their ideological decision precisely to call themselves feminists. Such being given, it is not amiss to entertain questions regarding their probity and their policy.
Perhaps you have experienced their icy politeness; they're like rattlesnakes who have attended charm school for one or two semesters, where they learned not to make that uncouth buzzing noise. In the star chamber of their minds they have passed judgement by virtue of a hidden standard - a silent, one-sided game whose rules they've not had the goodness to make clear to you. Yes...they've got cards they aren't showing. And no...they are not mellow hippies!
The fact that some feminists are extreme man-haters makes it unnecessary for all of them to be so. The rest are free to express milder shades of dissatisfaction because someone else is doing the dirty work. All in all, the women’s movement remains on course toward the occult goal of female supremacy. (Gynarchy, feminarchy or matriarchy might be suggested as equivalent nomenclature.)
The presence of both weak fems and rad fems within the women's movement permits the movement to play the game of “good cop-bad cop” toward the male population.
The man-hating root-feminists, being smaller in number, are somewhat obscured by the thick cloud of weak feminists swirling around them. Swirling around them is an apposite phrase, being connotative of gravitation.
You might ask why man-hating should be considered the occult core of feminism, given that man-hating is quickly discoverable by anyone who cares to look. The thing to understand is that what's hidden is not man-hating as such. Rather, what's hidden is precisely the naked fact itself that man-hating as such is indeed the core of feminism. Cognitive fragmentation is how this hiding happens.
In computer terms, man-hating is the Unix kernel of the women's movement, enveloped by all manner of shells, directory trees, file paths, programming environments, application softwares and aesthetically pleasing graphical user interfaces. In the present context, it is as if the almighty kernel were pretending to be just another text file.
Being dense and heavy, the man-haters plunge to the center of the movement like lead weights. In such a contracted space they quickly gain the companionship of kindred spirits and the communal reinforcement such companionship offers.
And they have rude intentions on a grand scale. If you are male, they view you abstractly -- as a “problem” to be socially engineered or managed, a contradictory baby-man, a dangerous animal needing to be carefully watched, a glorified juvenile delinquent for whom it is permissible to “make plans”. In no case do they look upon you as a rational being endowed with freedom and dignity who must be consulted or engaged in dialogue.
The world indeed contains feminists who view you in such a light, if you are male. They are a thin wedge of the female population, a less thin wedge of the feminist population, but either way they unquestionably exist and they’d rather you didn’t.
And they have no trademark physical personna. Radical feminists don’t often walk around with signs on their backs (although I once saw a bumper sticker that said “Now you know what a radical feminist looks like”). Most are well able to blend with the landscape and operate incognito. This they do skillfully; they’ve had practice. The person ahead of you in the checkout line might be one of them.
The women's movement has reached its current station owing to a considerable passion and a considerable drive. And it seems no exaggeration that women who either strongly dislike men, or adhere to some theory of abstract male guilt, have furnished the most powerful sector of this “drive”. You'll never convince me otherwise.
If it feels a bit strong to call feminism a hate movement, consider that this much at least may be fairly admitted; that denigration of men is a recurring motif in the speech and writing of many feminist leaders. Such being granted, we might pose a question or two. How deeply does such animosity inform the movement as a whole? And would the movement have any salient character at all if such an element were lacking? Realistically, how long would the women's movement remain in motion if man-hating somehow evaporated from the world? If you insist that feminism means something respectable, then feminism simply does not parse.
The leading spirits of the women's movement have pissed a continual stream of corrosive anti-male diatribe for many years, with proof of their venomous disposition abundantly stockpiled. And man-haters of less celebrity but no less malice occupy the women's movement from top to bottom. If we call feminism a hate movement we do so because we have difficulty understanding what else puts the “move” in the “movement”. The movement moves because hateful people are setting their shoulders to the wheel and pushing hard. It moves by virtue of hate, therefore it qualifies as a hate movement, being nothing less than hate in motion. This makes at least as much sense as any contrary explanation, and probably a good deal more.
Man-hating has never operated on the mere fringes of the women's movement; never has it been marginal. (Even the freak-prophetess Valerie Solanas could be described as faux or pseudo-marginal; in fact, she has gotten plenty of endorsements by more respectable pundits, even if many affect to hold her at arm's length.) Man-hating, man haters and man-deprecators have been front stage center since the early days of women's lib in the 1960s. They have stated plainly and repeatedly that they intend revolution, not reform. So it would be painfully naive and fatuous to say, “oh, but look at all the nice feminists! Look at all the noble things that are happening! Oh, please do accentuate the positive!”
Many a weak feminist might concur, let us say, that Andrea Dworkin was something of a nutter. Yet we are bound to wonder how many times a day she, this weak feminist, unconsciously paraphrases Andrea. Dworkin, in common with her various radical sisters, generates memes into the surrounding culture space much as a star generates a stellar wind.
If you still balk at calling feminism a hate movement, you will surely not dispute that the hateful part of it may be so characterized. Regrettably, that hateful part constitutes the most vital, structurally consistent and far-reaching part -- by far the more revealing index of larger developments. The unhateful or comparatively less hateful part provides the inertial mass, consisting as it does of segments who feed off the ideological direction of the misandrically biased leadership. These segments ought to start distancing themselves, else their silence equates to acquiesence.
The drivers are typically the driven. Of a certainty, man haters are the most driven of all feminists. Hate-filled people on the whole are driven people, hate being a tremendous rocket fuel.
This fact ought to command our interest. It is, to say the least, significant that hate is such a tremendous motivator in the world generally. And while anybody is free to assert that the women's movement is motivated by “love”, that idea is a clinker; it strikes a wooden note. If hatred of the male sex did not play a decidedly central role, where would be those ad nauseam iterations of “one in four, one in four”? Where would be the vim and vigor in those “take back the night” rallies? What would be the emotional provenance of the infamous expression that “dead men don't rape”? Where would be those horrendously inflated bulimia/anorexia statistics, with the implication that “men” are somehow to blame? Why would the two Lenores, Walker and Weitzman, have written such shabby books as “The Battered Woman” and “The Divorce Revolution” ? Why would those who publicly challenge the truth of feminist DV statistics sometimes recieve death threats?
Maybe someone else can answer; I'm having a tough time of it.