Wednesday, November 08, 2006

What They Don't Want You to Know

What do the feminists really mean by the term "patriarchy"? When this word rolls off a feminist tongue, what does it specifically refer to? Is it possible to discover what they are talking about in terms of the utmost clarity, simplicity, and above all usability, and reduce it to a formula that will smack the nail bang on the head every time?

Understand, that we wish to unpack the occulted lexical thread of signification which the word patriarchy carries throughout ALL examples of feminist rhetoric. When THEY talk about patriarchy, THEY assuredly mean something particular, something consistent, something examinable, something that would manifest their devices if it were brought to light. From the highest towers of the academy to the lowest reaches of the pop-feminist gutter, they all talk about "patriarchy", and in their varied accents they are all referring to the same thing. It is to this thing specifically that we direct our enquiry, in order that we may know it and name it and decode feminist speech by the light of it.

Here is the secret: When feminists speak of patriarchy, all they are really talking about is male power. It's just that simple. All of their circumlocutions dance endlessly and evasively around this—that patriarchy is exactly synonymous with male power, neither more nor less than male power, and that in all cases the terms patriarchy and male power may be interchanged with a negligible adulteration of meaning.

Try the experiment yourself. Find a piece of feminist writing where the word patriarchy occurs; replace this word with male power; see if it makes any fundamental difference. Also, see if it throws an unexpectedly revealing light upon the matter, yielding a sense and consistency superior to the original version.

If you wish, replace the word patriarchy with the simple word "men", and it will yield similar results. I know that many feminists have denied that patriarchy equals "men", but think for a minute: is not bare existence in itself a form of power? Tell me who has more male power: a man who exists, or a man who doesn't?

No feminist understanding of "patriarchy" makes any ultimate sense if you divorce this word from the idea of male power. If you aren't talking about male power in some way then you are wasting your time talking about patriarchy in any way whatsoever. Let that thought be your femspeak decoder template.

Feminist answer experts, seeking to confuse the issue, might reply that patriarchy is male power plus something else. Maybe so. But if you subtracted the male power part, the "something else" part wouldn't stand up any better than an empty gunny-sack, whereas the "male power" part
even by itselfwould remain fully serviceable within the calculus of meaning.

Every feminist analysis that I'm aware of does no better than make "something else" to be a form of male will-to-power emanating from the allegedly "constructed" nature of maleness in the first place. But this is a completely circular explanation that will never boost the discussion beyond square one, so we might as well scrap it. Besides, the whole mess boils down to male power anyway, so that in the end all you are really saying is that patriarchy is male power plus male power.

So in the end, you can't go far wrong if you simply set "patriarchy" equal to "male power". You'll go further wrong if you select any other option.

It follows that any feminist who talks about "ending" patriarchy or reducing it in some way, is also talking about ending or reducing male power in some way.

So what does male power mean? It means: any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to possess.

And exactly what is this thing called...power? That is a very good and very important question.

In the realm of human affairs, as near as we can make it, power is a substance compounded of two ingredients: IDENTITY, and AGENCY.

Identity means the sum of all factors, both mental and physical, which identify you as a discrete center of conscious awareness in contradistinction to other such discrete centers.

Agency means your capacity to either effect or prevent change through the exercise of your volition.

Let that sink in. Take a break for a few minutes, if you want to. Get away from the computer. Go outside , look at the clouds, listen to the birds, enjoy the fresh air.

Very well, you are back. Let's recapitulate.

Patriarchy is a feminist code word for male power. Male power means any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to posess, and power specifically means identity plus agency. So in practice, the feminist keyword patriarchy maps to the identity and agency of any male citizen.

Gentle reader, you as a person posess identity and agency. In other words, you posess power. You mightn't think you have enough of it, but you do have some. And so long as you have some, you have freedom. Again, possibly not enough for your liking...but some. And some is always enough to get you started
enough to leaven the dough, you might say. Be glad of it, and work intelligently with it.

Let's see how feminism enters the picture. Feminism is an anti-male hate movement, and it is perfectly natural that when you hate something you will seek to deprive it of power
the more the better. We have equated power with identity and agency, and so have the feminist ideologuesalthough not necessarily in the same terms. Still, they have copped the base mechanics that we've outlined here. They know it instinctively.

In order to undermine male power, the women's movement over the years has set afoot a variety of actions, both large and small, tending to vitiate the identity and agency of men. Indeed, nearly everything which feminism has accomplished has made some contribution to this overall effect.

This "campaign" has cut a gradual, descending swath from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from the political to the personal
striving always toward a finer granularity of control, a greater concision of shades and subtleties in the realm of daily life.

Dry alterations to the fabric of law and the outward form of institutions didn't satisfy them for long
they thirsted for the essential juice of life, and in particular, the life juice of anything male which crossed their path. The last thing they wanted was a workplace or a world filled with insouciant, free-spirited, self-esteeming men and boys. Something had to be done to correct male joie de vivre and male autonomy.

Men were to be subjugated, but if they didn't know this, and if they didn't act like they knew it, then the whole thing would be pointless. It was necessary, then, for the reach of matriarchy to become omni-locational and all-pervading
like the ideological presence of a totalitarian social order.

So, it was and continues to be important to the feminist effort that every possible shred of male identity or agency be appended to the shadow of ideology in some manner. ANY speck of uncolonized male space or male autonomy constitutes a bit of turf still in the grip of patriarchal power. Or at any rate, that's how they see it.

Case in point: what is a "sensitive male"? For starters, it is a sexist expression in exactly the same way that "good negro" is a racist expression. This is a VERY exact paralell. If somebody employs the term "sensitive male", or worse, calls you one, then you ought to feel seriously offended.

Beyond that, a sensitive male is simply an emotional puppet whose strings are available for any woman to pull, whenever and wherever. In short, a man curiously lacking in power; a man of abbreviated identity and agency.

Sometimes they will rate you on whether you "know how to cry". Reason being, that if you know how to cry then it follows that you can be made to cry. That's what they are really looking for in the long run. And here's an extra thought that occurred to me: how would you like to be told that "it's okay to cry" by the very same person who made you want to cry in the first place? You'd be damned if you'd give them the satisfaction, wouldn't you?

These examples are given because in my opinion they implode the circumference of male power about as far as it can be pushed, at least in the daily realm of social interplay. Even to a point where the drive for control reaches straight into a man's inner world, breaching a barrier which civil propriety forbids should be violated.

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Know therefore that your coolness, aloofness, guardedness, your methodological skepticism, or even your native lack of response to certain stimuli which others might find compelling, are all vital elements of your identity. Your agency. Your autonomy. Your. . . . manhood. In other words, your male power.

Oh, very well then, call it patriarchy!

Ha! And you thought that "patriarchy" was just a one-size-fits-all guilt-o-matic gizmo designed to put men eternally on the defensive while giving women a carte blanche moral advantage in any given situation!

Well it is that indeed. But as you can see now, it goes deeper. . . .

16 Comments:

Blogger Field Marshall Watkins said...

Hear hear! It's becoming more and more apparent that the dissection of feminist propanda and self serving concepts as in this article provide absolutely no logical 'equality' justification for their behaviour. But I already knew that, I'll be recommending this article to mates!

3:54 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Field Marshall, I thank you. The more we spread the word (both mine and others), the more the word gets spread. Obviously. That's a tautology, yes? ;-)

9:12 PM  
Anonymous Michel Morin said...

This particular blog dissects the hyprocrisy of feminism rather well.

Good work!

7:01 PM  
Anonymous canaryguy said...

I love your definition of power, being of IDENTITY and AGENCY. Something was always missing from a definition I learned from a conflict theory class in college: "Person A is said to have power over Person B if Person A can get Person B to perform actions that Person A desires" (or something like it).

In addition to the identity/agency levers of power, feminists pull the "power over" levers...
+ Women are victimized, give us power
+ Women are inferior, give us power
+ Women are superior, give us power

And on and on and on.... Feminists never stop!

Feminists never relinquish power, even when it is clear they don't need it!

7:15 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Feminists never relinquish power, even when it is clear they don't need it!"

Ahhh.. but they DO need it! They can't get their fill.

Perpetual revolution!

And when perpetual revolution fails...

POOF! They're gone!

7:28 PM  
Blogger plonkeroo said...

Feminism is without doubt a hate cult and feminists are so petty in so many ways. They have gotten into University so easily, something which is denied to most of us, because of the anti-men bias in the educational system so officially they have been 'educated' but at the end of it all they are still just pig-ignorant.

SupaWiki for Men

6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the recent enactment of IMBRA, and the Law pending before Bush to Disarm US Veterans. Yes you read that correctly. The US Government fears its Men. Funny the very same Men who defended this Nation in War, are too dangerous and untrustworthy to bear arms. Slaves were not allowed to be armed.

The State of Texas has passed a New Law that goes into effect Jan. 1st. It says that Men must now pay a $5 Tax that goes to "Rape Prevention" programs. Any bets that there will be no help for Men falsely accused of Rape? Or the Men sent to Prison some for up to two Decades who have been released due to DNA evidence clearing them?

Another Law intended to control Male Sexual expression. While older Boomer women are openly going to Kenya and other Third World Nations on Sex Vacations. And are even admitting it.

7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Feminism is an anti-male hate movement" is the sum of your blog. The statement itself rooted upon an assumption that can only have justification, weight and truth within the writings of feminists whose writings actively are endowed with misandry at the centre. Less than 1% of feminists are active misandrists in their writing or public speaking, yet, your argument depends on all feminist writings having male-hate at the core.

In the context of feminist writings Patriarchy is a word used to define a social system in which the social mobility of men in power not only exceeds that of all women, but also working class men, and above all is used to oppress those without social mobility or as you rightly identify, those with less power to create change.

Male Power to feminism is not Patriarchy. Patriarchy is a heirarchy in which social mobility is only awarded to those with the relevent social status. One is born into a position of power via monarchy, entered into via knighthood/social title, or one works their way up through it via Christian cannon/the clergy. It is true that in a patriarchal system only men are awarded the highest of places at the apex, but even if a woman was queen, she was still expected to fulfill the position via maintaining the heirarchal (Patriarchal) system.

Patriarchy functioned well and was an excellent design for keeping the distribution of wealth and power in the upper classes, while oppressing the masses into providing for the upkeep of their illustrious lifestyles. This is one of the reasons that feminism tends to lean toward the left: it seeks the distribution of wealth and power to be available to more people rather than a select few.

Possibly one of the most famous statements of feminism is that if women ruled the world then we would all be living in grass huts. This is perhaps an example of why feminists place themself in a position which challenges the authority of patriarchy. The feminist intention was to provide for the greater community (equal rights for women, abolition of slave trade etc)in order to give more people more freedom and social mobility. Destroying Patriarchy does not involve the destruction of Male Power, but destroying a system which only grants power to those of nobility or those who make a significant contribution to society via the fields of art, literature, science, engineering and discovery. Thus genius is granted power and reverence, so why were so few women in history not regarded with similar reverence unless they were born into the noble classes? Class was the only thing that a woman had with which she had inate privaledge with which to enter the books of history. Joan of Arc is probably one of the very few exceptions in the history of women. Joan of Arc, a peasant girl, had to adapt herself to fit into the patriarchal system in order to achieve what she did. Through cross dressing she transformed herself into a man and eventually lead the French army in the Hundred Year War. But she did not go un-noticed. Joan was eventually captured by the English and the Patriarchal clergy had her burned at the stake for being a witch. Who would have believed that a woman was capable of leading the entire French army and fooling everyone through her transvetitism?

Patriarchy is not reductable to Male Power. To do so is to completely pervert it's meaning. If feminism had misandry at its heart, you'd have a perfect argument for the interchange of the words. But this is not so black and white as you'd like to make it sound. If you reduce Patriarchy to Male Power then you turn every good feminist scholar into something she is not. You turn a battle against a system that oppressed everyone, male and female, into a battle that is soly fought against men. This is a huge fallacy and is penatrable and transparent.

For the one per cent of feminist writers who are misandrists then you can certainly believe that what they are fighing is the empowerment of men. But for every other feminist out there you are generating propaganda against their fight for social mobility for men and women. For the feminists of today who actually do see and speak out against where feminism was hijacked in an attempt to disempower men you largely ignore and degrade their efforts just by assuming they are no different to the misandrists you ought to criticise.

Your argument is manipulative and distorted and you are depicting feminists in a hugely fallous light. Patriarchy has nothing in common with Man Power, but everything in common with the Christian papacy, monarchy, and the dependence on the oppression of the workforce and of slaves.

5:34 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@anon:

""Feminism is an anti-male hate movement" is the sum of your blog."

Yes. That does indeed summarize the grist of this blog.

And as the saying goes, "somebody has got to be a sonofabitch around here!"

So I have volunteered for the position! ;)

(But I'm not the only one, thank goodness! :)

5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What anonymous @5:34 has essentially stated is that "Patriarchy" is a thinly-veiled excuse to remove Democracy and replace it with a fem-sensitive version of Socialism, a "kindler,gentler oppression" by feminist-approved pigs in pink uniforms.

These feminists just can't stand the fact that some people are naturally more successful than others,and more importantly, that biology favors MEN with more traits that are likely to make them successful.


Fuck these cunts,if they want to see how their Marxist ideals operate in the real world let them move to N.Korea or China, where shoplifting carries the death penalty and you get caned for saying curse words in public.

I'll stick with the freedoms that my foreFATHERS died in trenches to protect,thank you very much.

5:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Less than 1% of feminists are active misandrists in their writing or public speaking, yet, your argument depends on all feminist writings having male-hate at the core."

Less than 1%? They must be extremely busy on the internet then. And the other 99% must be virtually silent.

What was with all the bullshit about feminists caring about the working man? You may know them by their fruits. Feminists are at the heart of countless campaigns to screw over ALL men. Not just the powerful demons of the feminist's conspiratorial and feverishly hateful imagination.

Still, being so obviously vile, I suppose the fems need to do a bit of softening - lest Joe Average wakes up to what is being done to him whilst he's out grinding his ass off to better his family. Ms "Anonymous" obviously has that function in the movement.

A quick thanks to fidelbogen for his excellent articles. Pity he doesn't write more often.

Regards,

Tony

12:06 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Tony:

If I had a peer group of similar-minded bloggers/commenters, aiming toward the same critical consensus as myself. . .

. . . then it would energize me, and i WOULD write more often. :(

2:15 PM  
Anonymous Khankrumthebulgar said...

IF you simply follow the links on Feministing.com the Feminist Web portal. There are dozens of extreme Feminist sites. Rage Against the Manchine, Fetch Me My axe, Ginmar's A View From A Broad on Live Journal to name but a few.

Feminists are calling for complete separation from men. Others still for aborting all Male fetuses. And others now openly calling for Gendercide against Men. All Men.

Others yet one posted recently on mensnewsactivism.org about how she leaves her date because she expects to be Raped. This is the mindset of growing numbers of Women.

You can go to liestoppers blog to see the photos calling for the Castration of the Duke Lacrosse players. With no apologies. You are a liar Anon. When you say Feminism is not a Hate Movement. It proudly states it Hates Men.

Go peddle your Snake Oil elsewhere.

9:22 AM  
Anonymous Empathic said...

Anonymous@5:34 stated "Less than 1% of feminists are active misandrists in their writing or public speaking..."

This is fairly typical of feminist statistics, simply pick a figure that suits their argument without any need to do any research or to specify how they came to that figure.

I challenge Anonymous@5:34 to point to one example in which a feminist author or influential figure stood up to challenge gender inequality against men. Feminists simply don't do it. While they continue to complain bitterly about anything they can construe as continuing female disadvantage, they are happy to benefit callously from all female privilege, both that existing previously and that brought about through the feminist revolution.

From way back in the 1960's their excuse has been "we will not take responsibility for men's issues; they will need to get together and fight for themselves like we did". What they mean is that feminists will refuse to take responsibility for the social destruction their self-serving, short-sighted policies wreak. What they also mean is that they don't care in the slightest about gender equality or men, as long as women's interests appear to profit. We move ever faster towards a slave-class status for men in service of the female bourgeoisie. Western laws:
- legitimize theft by women of men's assets through convenient definitions of "relationship property",
- require any man who mates with a woman to provide financially for her ongoing lifestyle even when her participation in the relationship featured fraud, exploitation, disloyalty and/or violence,
- enable women at a whim and with no more than hollow allegations to throw men out of their homes and restrict/damage their relationships with their children,
- imprison men for many years on the basis of nothing but words and artful tears from members of the female gentry,
- allow preferential discrimination favouring women (but never men) in employment, tenancy, closed membership of clubs and groups, segregated service industries, welfare, health and Courts.

Nealy all feminists and indeed nearly all women are colluding either actively or passively with such manipulation of men into female-serving slaves and seem more than happy to benefit from it. Reassuring themselves this doesn't amount to misandry or male hatred is simply denial.

3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BWAHAHAHA.... Oh, how this blog makes me laugh...

6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a better definition of "patriarchy' as feminists use it would be as follows:

Any man, anywhere, doing anything that any woman finds the least bit offensive.

It isn't really male power they object to; look at how much they love Obama, for example. Rather, it's male power being used for things other than enforcing the feminine imperative.

6:33 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home