Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Advocacy is a One-Way Street

The word “feminism”just the word aloneestablishes a bias inherently. From the outset, this word insinuates an adversarial relationship with men and naturally draws loyalists who would bear witness to such a scenario. Unavoidably it will attract a certain number who feel this “adversity” with especial keenness, often to an extreme.

The speakings and writings of most of the movement’s highest thought leaders have had a strongly and consistently anti-male character. Read that again: I said anti-male, not simply pro-female. I would call none of these people obscure or marginal to the movement; in point of fact they are widely studied and cited.

All feminists inherit the intellectual legacy of the above-mentioned thought leaders, who have authored the principle texts of the movement, its bible if you will.

Feminism undertakes the especial task of advocating on behalf of women, as the word itself makes plain. If feminism were anything other than advocacy for women, it would require a different name. We should note, for example, that feminism does not call itself masculism.

I am not being silly. Feminism advocates expressly on behalf of women, and it does so under an appellative descriptor that has much in common with a flag. Repeat the word slowly and steadily, drawing out the syllables for sake of emphasis:


Almost any project that the women’s movement undertakes in the realm of political action could just as well sail under its own colors; it need not be branded or co-branded as feminism. Typically it is, however. Feminism straps all the sticks into a bundle, in the grip of a unified theory and praxis.

Yes, it is accurate to assert that feminism “advocates on behalf of women”. That much is indisputable. Feminism occupies itself unstintingly on a ferret-like quest for new forms of “gender inequality”
be they real, imagined or simply defined into existenceand presses these discoveries into the service of the movement.

I cannot stress highly enough that feminism is an advocacy movement. Advocate is another word for lawyer, and remember what a lawyer does: Anything he can to advance his client's cause. An advocate is professionally one-sided; he does not try to paint a balanced picture.

Women constitute half the human race. The phrase “women’s advocacy” spotlights women as a class, which in turn implies (be it even mildly) an adversarial relationship with the other half, namely the male half. A thoroughbred feminist identifies foremost as female, and only secondarily as human. In consequence, all merely human aspects of earthly experience
what I would style the ecumenical human conditionundergo refraction through the lens of the female experience. The terms “feminism” and “women’s advocacy” engender a tension in our language. And since language is a pretty big part of life, that tension . . . spreads into the rest of life also.

The word “feminism” is divisive. One is entitled to wonder how a social movement with a gender-specific title could ever be anything other than sexist.

The very notion of “women's advocacy” packs an implied baggage of aggrievement and entitlement. Overall, it endows women with a conviction of being somehow “special”, as if their particular troubles were of a nature to set them apart from the turmoil of humanity as a whole. Whether such conviction has aught valid or sustainable about it should be a matter for open inquiry by all who might feel the weight of it in their lives. They have a natural right to such inquiry.

A Nest of Rattlesnakes in a Drain Pipe

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

All rights reversed. Grab this picture for use and abuse everywhere!

By the way, have you every tried rattlesnake meat? I have. And you think I'm about to say that it "tastes like chicken", right? Well that's wrong. Actually, it does not taste like chicken. The serpent I feasted on had almost no flavor of any kind! However, it was full of tiny bones like a fish. But they were easy to chew up and swallow.

While we're on the subject of venomous serpents, that reminds me: the mongoose seems to be the totem animal of the men's rights movement. I was wondering how a mongoose might fare against a big fat cobra-sized Diamondback rattlesnake from the Dakota Badlands of the USA? The mongoose would need to learn some new tricks, since rattlesnakes don't move the way cobras do.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Further Notations Upon the Moral Anatomy of a Hate Movement

Man-hating both drives the women's movement and glues it together.

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.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Equality: A Zeno's Paradox

The phrase ‘quest for gender equality’ fails as a truthful parameter of what feminism pragmatically IS when the totalization of its means, ends, activities and effects are considered from an avian altitude. For example, American women gained the right to vote in 1920, which is another way of saying that they gained voting equality with men. But "voting equality" with men is NOT the same as "equality with men". It is merely voting equality. Same remarks apply to the historically recent societal valuation of equal pay for equal work. Equal pay is NOT the same as "equality with men". It is merely pay equality.

Equality with men is a chimerical abstraction. Only when it gains concrete form within some manner of programme does it become worthy of our consideration. But thereupon, as exampled above, the chimera sets foot in the realm of concrete categorizations, and when that happens we are no longer talking about equality "with men" in a strictly meaningful sense. That is just the point; it has no strictly meaningful sense!

The occult truth is, that feminism is about POWER—ostensibly power for women generally, but most certainly for women who espouse, or portray themselves as espousing, feminist doctrine and discourse. So in the final tally, feminism DOES mean something, but . . . equality isn't it.

Such being said, we now confront the Patriarchal Father of all Gender Inequalities, the one that feminism talks about as a prologue to everything else it talks about: inequality of POWER.

If sexual power distribution becomes evenly balanced beyond all quibble, feminism will have no further reason to exist. But so long as sexual power inequality of any sort seems to make part of the world's ingredients, feminists will have their
raison d'être. It is therefore imperative that new forms of power imbalance (with women on the short end) be endlessly discovered—even if this means pulling it out of empty space like zero-point "free energy".

Extraction operates under the following logic: any instance where some particular man holds power of any sort, it follows that some particular woman does not herself administer that power. Within the strict confines any such bracketed setting, the man holds MORE power, the woman less. In consequence we discover inequality precisely within the bracketed setting. After all, the man holds a quantum of power which the woman does not administerwithin the bracketed setting. He has a particular power that she doesn't have, which means that they are "not equal", right? Accordingly, if they share that particular power 50-50 so that the bracketed setting becomes 50% smaller, it means they are finally equal, right?

Wrong! You see, even if the man's share is only half of what it was, the woman still does not administer it. Once again he has "more" power than she doeswithin a bracketed setting. So he will be asked to divvy it up once more; in the long run, he retreats time and again to a series of newly redefined and re-redefined bracketed settings that grow progressively smaller. See how that works?

It is much the same as if you had an apple pie, and I came along and asked you to "share" it . Being a generous, open-handed person, you agree to do so and proceed to cut the pie in half, giving me my share. I walk away and come back 45 minutes later, and once again ask you nicely to "share", and you nicely agree to do so, again cutting your share into two equal portions and giving me one. I then repeat this cycle as many times as your liberality will bear it, each time asking you the same thing—to "share". At some point it occurs to me that I could have just grabbed the whole pie in the beginning and walked away with it—but of course that would have been stealing.

The feminist quest for gender equality is a pie-plundering exercise because the "inequality" they complain of is in truth a floating equation; it is moveable; the zero is forever unfixed. Equalize it all you wish but it never remains sufficiently "equal" for long, for a graceful feminine finger, with or without nail polish, is artfully nudging it, a trifle here, a tad bit there—always toward a supplementary demand for female empowerment. Much like the proverbial crooked tradesman with his thumb on the scale. "Sharing" becomes a warm and fuzzy feel-good word made into a euphemism for theft. The closely related "intimacy" operates in a similar capacity. Even something as benevolent as "nurturing" can be pressed into such service. If a kudzu, wisteria or strangler fig had the gift of speech, it would sound feministical.

The modus operandi is to crank the microscope up and up, bringing more and more bracketed power inequalities into view, and to classify each in turn as an instance of "patriarchy". If all goes well this will spawn a new aggrievement, along with an especial demand for compensation which takes the generic form of More for Women and less for men in that particular situation.

There is no inherent stopping point in this process, no clearly stated catch-peg that would arrest the slide beyond a given stage. Eventually, it can only collapse into absurdity, or trigger a backlash that would be ugly, scalding, indiscriminate and irrepressible. This bears sober consideration.

The Occult Nature of Feminism

Feminism defined as follows:

A special advocacy movement for women which incorporates hatred of the male sex as an occult driving force.

Such characterization begs justification—a task (one of several) which I have set for myself. I am aware that many self-described feminists see themselves as people of good will and would feel aggrieved by my clear description of feminism as a hate movement. I understand their position and get no fun from trampling on their susceptibilities, but a higher imperative operates here: the truth must be told even if it stings.

The present description of feminism, as I hope to show, comports very well with the pragmatic truth of our world. Feminism deploys estimable principle as a kind of window dressing or rhetorical skin. To peel back this skin and probe the concealed workings of the underlying organism shall be our present endeavor.

To begin: feminist ideology is incoherent. It has meant so many things in the mouths of so many women's advocates that it appears to mean everything and therefore nothing. But not quite nothing; women's advocacy is a constant, even if a colloidal suspension of mutually exclusive things are advocated. Feminists themselves have admitted that there are "many different feminisms" and I shall not dispute them. I believe they speak accurately.

From feminists themselves I have only heard one declaration that comes near to a coherent description of their movement, namely that it seeks "equality" between men and women. This desired outcome of sexual equality appears to be the sole wire connecting the many beads of women's advocacy. Otherwise the women's movement appears to be a free-for-all, a scattered constellation of clutter with no particular center and no especial perimeter. I say appears, and my choice of words is considered.

The principle that feminism seeks sexual equality should theoretically instill coherence into the movement. Yet given that equality is an essentially contested concept, lacking coherence outside the realm of mathematics, it can offer nothing better than mud beneath the mud. "Equality" emerges as a fuzzy, shifting object—one that can never be entirely nailed down because men and women can never be fully "equal" in every possible situation or every conceivable nuance of meaning which the word might be understood to convey. Consequently, the feminist ideologues can go on churning out new demands for "equality" until hell freezes over—a bottomless bag of tricks!

So much for coherence. Our examination leaves only the aforementioned rhetorical skin, a mere surface coherence which upon closer inspection proves disingenuous. We end with a nagging suspicion that feminism preaches "equality" only for public relations' sake while covertly meaning something altogether different.

This altogether different "something" is what presently holds our interest. I shall contend that, despite appearances, feminism does in very deed embody a deep organic consistency. However, the plan of this consistency cannot be clearly exhibited until we brush aside (rather brusquely) what feminists say about themselves and see the facts flat-on, with vision unencumbered by doctrinaire models of political discourse. From such scrutiny a picture emerges. Not a pretty picture to be sure, but one that explains the world in a way that is usefully frank, and frankly useful.

Feminism hides (occults) its nature by what we shall term cognitive fragmentation.

Cognitive fragmentation means that feminism pretends to be many different things so that the controlling core of the movement appears to be just “one kind” of feminism among many. This follows from our earlier statement that feminism lacks coherence. Rather, it embraces many jostling particles which by logic ought to exclude each other. Yet certain binding forces prevent the mass from flying altogether apart. These binding forces keep feminism compact enough to operate as a political entity on the field of power.

By means of cognitive fragmentation, feminism turns what might seem a drawback into a distinct advantage. Cognitive fragmentation means that feminism appears to be this and this, and that and that, and that other thing over there too! No end in sight! Consequently the women's movement can work on a hundred different projects from a hundred different directions, with each module enjoying immunity from most of the others. Thereby the movement as a whole gains deniability. The right hand "knoweth not what the left hand doeth" or else pretendeth not to know.

Yes, feminism harbors many schools of thought and shades of opinion, many sects and coteries. Often these appear harmless; when their adherents are challenged regarding the occult nature of feminism as a whole they can easily pass the buck by declaring, “oh no, I’m not that kind of feminist!”—a perpetual round-robin of “they went thataways!” The radical feminist “bad guys”, so it appears, are always just over the hill. Then they're over the next hill, and the next . . .

Yes, the world contains many kinds of feminism—some better, some worse. And it contains many kinds of feminists: we could measure the feminist population purely as a cross-section of human nature without even taking ideologies into account. And a reasonable thinker might well expect to find, somewhere in that woodpile, a veritably “bad” feminism along with a number of correspondingly bad feminists engaged in its practice. This does not broach the borders of the fantastical. To suppose that such bad feminists veritably do exist, neither violates the strictures of probability nor warps them by a single iota.

It is critical to understand that feminism did not float down from heaven on a gold plate. Feminism is by every measure a product of the human condition on planet earth, complete with the trimmings you might expect. The dirt, the deceit, the sham, the shadows, the smoke, the mirrors . . . and all the rest.

The phrase "not that kind of feminist" has revelatory importance because the speaker confirms the existence of "that kind of feminist" in the first place. Even feminists themselves acknowledge "that kind of feminist" as a real part of the world.

Feminism occults its operative core by making that core appear as only one “kind" of feminism among many. You are encouraged to ignore it, to overlook it, to lose track of it, to think positive thoughts—while scanning the entire smorgasbord of feminisms in a distracted manner . . . .

Cognitive fragmentation literally fragments the knowledge of the observer, placing the observer in a state of false consciousness as concerns feminism—unable to cognize its occult unity. Think of this as a variation on "divide and rule"—feminism divides itself in order to rule the target's mind by dividing his awareness.

Cognitive fragmentation operates also within the mind of the individual feminist, as a prophylaxis against cognitive dissonance.

Here is the modus operandi, as trenchantly as can be stated: any critique of feminism will be met with either screaming histrionics, or a cool assurance that the critique is invalid because the thing it criticizes isn't really feminism. Feminism is adept at sliding out of its skin like a snake and slithering away intact.

Granted that many feminisms exist, it is remarkable how they all appear to converge toward a realization of female supremacy, as if this were a one-point perspective goal on the time horizon. One might suppose the feminists to have agreed upon a division of labor. Whether this happened on purpose or whether it “just happened” seems a point of secondary interest. Either way it happened and keeps happening.

Anything that seeks "more for women" can be harnessed to the wagon of female supremacism. Even if the "more" in question seems innocuous and not the least man-hating, it can theoretically put women in a stronger position—which marks a step closer to the goal! Man-haters are fine with that sort of thing.

It requires no particular audacity to see a conspiracy in all of this. Etymologically, to con-spire means to breathe together—although a metaphorical kind of breathing is meant, suggesting a group of people mutually attuned to the point of synchronous aspiration. If conspiracy seems too strong a word maybe “connivance”, “collusion” or "complicity" would be more to your liking. Whatever your preference, you will find it illuminating to understand feminism as an affair of kindred minds working in concert across a range of vocations. To understand it otherwise would favor an imbalance of probability.

This range of vocations gives the feminist machine its orchestrated character, its pervading sense of holographic globality—which to the average male feels like something condensing from the air and percolating from the cracks in the earth. It is the feeling that plenty of ordinary men got during the 1990s, of being backstabbed or violently ambushed for no rational, discernible reason. One day the average fellow woke up in the middle of a Kafka novel. Everyman as Joseph K.

At an extreme, feminism's mission will be accomplished when any woman has the power to lead any man around by the nose—anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Which is to say that any third-rate female could lord it over the finest man who ever lived. That is what they really want, and all of their activisms, all of their insistences, all of their campaigns both large and small, point incrementally toward the fulfillment of this goal, however far in the future such fulfillment may lie. That this goal will never in all likelihood be realized, matters not; they can still dream of it and plunder aplenty along the way.

Yes, the world contains many different feminisms and they all belong to the same elephant. A blind man would overlook this.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Nobody is Born a Feminist!

Feminism has co-opted femaleness in order to weasel its tentacles into every possible crevice of life.

Women's movement heavies have been known to assert that "all women are feminists", much the way that certain sophistical theologians would have you believe, for a hundred obscure reasons, that everybody is a Christian whether they know it or not.

But to insist that all women are feminists is no different than making Bolshevik interchangeable with Russian, or National Socialist interchangeable with German.

Feminists claim to speak on behalf of all women; they wish to make female interchangeable with feminist in every way imaginable. Their motive is not far to seek; by nailing
together womanhood and feminism , they would render feminism invulnerable because any attack on feminism would be taken as attacking women, and whoever made the attack would be branded a misogynist (if male), or a gender traitor (if female).

A lot of women know intuitively what is going on with regard to this ideology that purports to speak on their behalf. And that, among other reasons, is why they reject the feminist label for themselves. They realize, if only half-consciously, what kind of sinkhole it would suck them into.

"Womanhood" is a mystical fuzz-word dear to poets, preachers, psychologists and anthropologists. Yet we are safe to say this word has biological implications, denoting as it does the posession of uterus, vagina, ovaries, mammaries, and the XX chromosome set. More tersely, womanhood means biological femaleness as a prerequisite to meaning anything at all.

By contrast, feminism is an ideology - a series of ideas that have been selectively strung together. Females are a birth group, but nobody is born a feminist. So it is easy to see that femaleness and feminism are distinctly different things, and that their order of difference is qualitative. Biology versus ideology - what could be more qualitatively different than that? Hardware versus software - what could be more fundamentally different than that?

If you insist that every man is a potential rapist, then I would insist that every feminist is a potential Lorena Bobbit. But please note that while feminists are talking about MEN (a birth group), I am only talking about feminists (an ideological tribe).

Feminism is an ideology. Feminism is an ideology. Feminism is an ideology.....

Repeat this until you are sick of it. Then take a break. Then go back and repeat it some more......

The particular catnip that feminism dangles is: power over men. How many women wish they had more power over men? You don't even need to be a feminist to find that thought tantalizing. And if the undisciplined conviction gets abroad, that feminism is "anything you like, honey!", women in droves will fall into line with feminism's lodestone whether they know it or not. Which is yet another way that feminism marries itself to womanhood. I don't think it's funny.

When the line between feminist and female becomes unclear, anti-feminism will morph into misogyny by default. The separation will no longer be scrupulously noted, and a net growth of actual misogyny will be the predictable outcome. More and more naive males, casting about for something on which to target their growing frustration and malaise, will indiscriminately target women when feminists in particular, cleverly hiding behind the skirts of womanhood, are the actual culprits.

And this, I submit, is feminism's master rape strategy—to validate its own presence on earth by driving the wedge between the sexes deeper and deeper and blaming this on men through propagandistic sleight-of-hand. It's the old gambit of precipitating a crisis so that you can step in and manage that crisis, and thereafter turn your management into a permanent position.

Are you a good woman looking for a good man? Are you a good man looking for a good woman? Either way, feminism wants to set a river of poison between the two of you so that you will never find each other!

Thursday, October 26, 2006

What is this Thing Called Patriarchy?

The word 'patriarchy' is a crucially important bit of feminist jargon. Without it, the women's movement would be plodding through snowdrifts up to its waist. But with it, the feminist propaganda machine becomes a virtual snow-plow barrelling down the interstate highway.

Patriarchy is a reality model which women's movement polemicists have cobbled together in order to establish a kind of "feminist privilege". The bothersome task of confronting men as distinct individuals can be largely set aside thanks to the patriarchy model, which vastly facilitates feminism's anti-male agenda and shores up feminism's ideology.

If Patriarchy didn’t exist, it would be necessary for a feminist ideologist to invent it. And even if it DID exist, it might be too small for the role assigned to it - in which case it would need some inflating. Either way, creative growth would be a desideratum.

“Patriarchy” functions as a prosecutorial device, making it easy to gather all men into a single barrel where they can be more conveniently shot. It is far easier to batch process men than to assay their guilt one individual at a time—which is a virtual impossibility in any case. Such is the cornerstone of feminist policy. If you wish to hit far too many innocent targets, and if you wish to do this really, really fast, then collective guilt is the way to go.

Used in this manner, the patriarchy hypothesis is morally indistinguishable from a famous bumper slogan that rednecks stick on their trucks: “KILL 'EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT 'EM OUT!” (Nazi comparisons are hackneyed -- I wanted to try something a shade different.)

In the beginning, feminist ideology found its advance thwarted by commonsense objections of every sort. Feminist thinkers needed to rationalize their movement's many contradictions, and to that end they devised larger explanatory models to reconcile the contradictions. Most philosophical systems or world-views operate much along this line. Feminist polemic grew by extensions of ad hoc hypothesizing; soon it arrived at the patriarchy hypothesis, a jellyfish in a starched collar which became the granddaddy of all feminist construction scaffolds—a kind of unified field theory of male perversity.

On close examination, we discover two important things about 'patriarchy' as a concept:

1.) It displays coherency when too narrowly defined to be broadly useful.

2.) It displays incoherency when too broadly defined to be narrowly useful.

Tersely: Latitude of utility varies inversely to coherency of definition.

Feminist ideologues promulgate the patriarchy model nonetheless, because they are banking on the average person's lack of analytical discernment—rather as if they were tossing a mind rape drug into the cocktail of common discourse. You might wake up with a nameless, creepy feeling, but you aren't necessarily aware that you've gotten screwed under the cover of mental darkness.

All things considered, it’s hard to know how radical feminism (and consequently any feminism) would get along without the patriarchy hypothesis. For certain, it would be slow sledding.

Patriarchy is beyond all doubt a CONSTRUCT. This can never be refuted and the proof is simple: patriarchy cannot be weighed, measured, or instantiated in physical space; you can’t shake a stick at it, you can’t bounce a ball off it, and above all you can’t find it in the telephone directory. The word itself points to no discoverable object. Patriarchy is not demonstrably a thing, but only an inventory, a description, an interpretation, a reification, a rorschach, a face in the clouds, a face on Mars, a trick of the light. In sum, a mental spook.

You cannot "fight" "the" patriarchy any sooner than you can duke it out with a heatwave mirage or a hologram. You cannot, by flailing your fists in any manner, inflict damage on something insubstantial. But have a care! for while you are quixotically thrashing in all directions, there's a good chance you'll wreck something REAL, and that's where your real grief begins. You will run your karma over your dogma and reality will appear on your doorstep waving a bill of damages.

So what do I mean by a “construct”? I mean something that was put together by an act of human mentation, or less charitably, imagination. Here I mean a rhetorical construct—a device intended to persuade, indeed to overwhelm or intimidate, the listener. The patriarchy construct is built from a selection of observables that have been linked as in a dot-connecting exercise, on the predicative assumption that they are congenitally related. Whether they genuinely are thus related could be a matter for investigative discussion.

The most plausible manifestation of this thing which they are pleased to call patriarchy lies within the realm of administrative control structures, namely, that from a general survey of appearances, it would seem that men occupy administrative posts disproportionately to their comparative number. If patriarchy means anything at all, it would need to mean this before it could usefully mean anything else.

That could place a delimitation on the term and its permissible range of usage. Still, it is possible to stretch the definition, like Humpty-Dumpty playing with silly-putty, so that the word becomes shorthand for a hodge-podge of behaviors in which certain males at various times have been known to occupy themselves. Such appears to be the strategy that feminist theorizing employs.

In this manner, feminism extracts the larger conclusion that men in general conspire to oppress women in general—a leap of staggering enormity that ought to give us pause.

Some will object that I am misrepresenting the feminist position. But I would ask, “which feminist position? And which feminism?” The objection is only a variation on “not that kind of feminist”. However, it is precisely “that kind” of feminism which I have in view here; not the nice sort of feminism but rather the bottom-line sort which runs the business.

The idea that men in general conspire to oppress women in general, belongs in the man-hating category of generalizations. As such, being closer to the heart of what a man-hating movement "really" preaches, it seems a more reliable gloss upon the occult ideology of feminism as a whole. So even if I do misrepresent the feminist position here, it is with the smallest possible degree of misrepresentation. Anything else would be a greater misrepresentation.

Do I mean to conclude that patriarchy “doesn’t exist”? No, not exactly. The word patriarchy certainly exists: Patriarchy. See? I just wrote it!

Likewise the construct exists; it is alive and well for those with wheels in their heads, those who chatter glibly about patriarchy this and patriarchy that as if they were talking about something unitary and tangible—as if "patriarchy" were an established fact beyond dispute, like heliocentrism or the Rock of Gibraltar. They are merely stating their opinion as objective datum, and they don't realize how fatuous they sound. I could liken such people to a religious zealot whose everyday conversation—even at banal moments—is peppered with allusions to the Holy Ghost.

Patriarchy, supposing that there geniunely is such a thing, has never been a purposefully organized political movement springing into existence at a discernible historical moment, with clearly recognized leaders, with dues-paying organizations, with membership rosters, with published philosophical tracts and tomes, with knowingly crafted agendas, with evolving pedagogic traditions, with lobbyists, with advocacy groups, with teach-ins, with seminars. . . . For a number of reasons, it is at least problematic whether patriarchy even exists—among others, because it is difficult to comprehend exactly what patriarchy IS to begin with.

But we face no such difficulty in regard to feminism, which is, on the order of phenomenologies, a clear, tight, discrete and chronologically bounded thing. We know who Simone de Beauvoir was; we know that she published her book in 1949, and we can fairly accurately trace the career of influence that it followed. Likewise, we know who Betty Friedan was, we know when she published her book, and we know that certain people read it and were moved to do certain things. And we know who Kate Millett was, and who Germaine Greer was, and how they augmented the developing action inside the mixing bowl. And we know what the National Organization for Women is, and who its leaders past and present have been, and we know some of the things which they have said and done and written. All of these things and more, we know with a pretty fair certainty.

As regards patriarchy, we can discover virtually nothing of similarly satisfying definiteness. Patriarchy is like a big wooly phantom, a cloud, a colossal mountain of soap bubbles that appears mighty impressive from a distance until somebody informs you that the main ingredient is air. There is, to my knowledge, no such thing as a Book of the Patriarchy, or at least nothing expressly so-designated. And whereas feminists know they are a part of feminism, so-called patriarchalists know nothing of the sort with regard to patriarchy, or at any rate didn't until feminism introduced them to the idea of patriarchy, thereby planting the suggestion in their heads. If in the future somebody publishes an Offical Book of the Patriarchy (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise), we'll owe indirect thanks to feminism for its existence.

My point is this: That feminism exercises a far, far stronger claim upon the category of existence than patriarchy does. It is at least arguable whether patriarchy exists. But in a postulated future, supposing feminism to have triumphantly inaugurated female supremacy over all the earth, there would be absolutely no question that matriarchy exists.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

The House on the Hill

I speak in parables:

There was a man who built for himself a large, fine house. It sat upon a high hilltop overlooking the town. How handsome and splendid the house appeared, way up on that hill, shining in the sun and casting its long shadow over the rooftops below!

Little did the village folk know, that this man had acquired half the foundation stones, 3/4 of the structural timber, most of the roof tiles, most of the sheetrock, and a whole lot of other material, by a Series of Fraudulent Transactions.

Some of the house was rightfully his, perhaps, but most of it wasn't.

One day, a team of unmerciful investigators uncovered evidence of the man's shady dealings. So they filed all the legal papers and went through all the necessary routines.

Then one cold and windy day, some sheriff's deputies arrived, along with the Reposession Crew -- who quickly got busy with their picks and shovels and crowbars. By the time they finished their work, the house was a curious kind of shambles and nothing great to gaze upon. The reposessed material was loaded onto trucks, and down the road it went!

In similar fashion, the man lost most of his acres -- which, like the building material, he'd gotten by a swindle.

I don't recall if the man did jail time or not, or if he copped a plea bargain, or settled things out of court, or what-have-you. That part of the story isn't clear. At any rate, I do know that the man was able to rebuild on a smaller scale with the remaining material..

But his new house....alas! It was but a mean cottage, almost a hovel -- a paltry affair indeed!

And it sat, as the original house in its glory had sat, high upon the hilltop overlooking all the town.

But now, the man's reputation was as paltry as his house. He had the name of being a shifty, crooked fellow, and respectable people shunned him. And nobody would extend him credit any more -- neither money credit, nor the kind of credit that is given to words.

And he lived out his shabby life in his shabby cottage on the high hill in view of all the town. And the village folk, in their sly, folksy, crafty way gave the man a crafty nickname behind his back.

And occasionally, when strangers were visiting the town, the people would point toward the hill and say:

"Up yonder lives THE FEMINIST."

The Game and How I Mean to Play It


Addressed specifically to feminists everywhere. Intended for
the eyes of the world. Entered in the record on the date given.


1. I will not play your game. I will not conduct my agency in a manner that rubberstamps your ideology. I will not do things at your behest merely in order to prove that I am not what you impute me to be.

2. I will forecast the probable course of developments in the current gender crisis. I will admonish you, in token of your good faith, to take visible public measures to forestall such developments, and to do so in a way consistent with the redress of male grievance.

3. I will offer counsel to the men's movement and to all male sympathizers, along the line of what I soberly consider to be the best interest of the movement. Such counsel will be consistent with my forecast of probabilities, and variable with the response that women's movement members have shown to my admonitions, or to similar sentiments expressed by others.

4. Consistently with point 1, I will not agitate for women's advantages in any way since it is not my responsibility to do so and since others better suited than I, have undertaken such things already.

5. I will be openly and often harshly critical of feminism, and will make no apologies for this. I will counsel others to follow my example. Repressive overtures on the part of your movement will be deemed inculpatory of your movement, as militating against the spirit of open debate and free expression of diverse viewpoints.

6. I will make no statement of a facially misogynistic character. However, I cannot be bothered to anticipate every possible construction placed upon my words by those who wish to read misogyny in what I say.

7. These policies are my own, but they are not my personal property. Other men's activists are free to adopt this platform, and I would counsel them to do so.

~ 22 September, 2006 ~

Ideas Which Go Against the Grain


I Do Not Support Feminism

On this website, I'd like to offer something a bit different from the usual MRA writing. Something more contemplative and cerebral. Welcome to Mt. Olympus -- help yourself to a cold beer from the fridge and pull up a chair!

The author of this blog is male. Fittingly then, the writing on this blog is full of analysis, logic, structure, focus --all masculine qualities or so I have been told. So there is no reason why the intended audience shouldn't feel right at home here. And if you are a text-intensive child of the pre-McLuhan age with an old-time attention span, then you have REALLY struck gold!

My main business here is to predict the probable course of developments in the so-called gender wars, and to formulate possible responses. My other main business is to dismantle feminism both as an ideology and as a movement, to take it apart nut by bolt and see exactly how it operates. I wish to understand feminism even better than feminists themselves do, in terms of a pragmatic template that will guide us in opposing this ideology and eventually neutralizing it.

What you will not find here is the old game of "duelling statistics". I think we could all use a break from that. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure, and I figure they always will -- no matter how many figures get racketed back and forth, or how many times these figures get challenged. Besides, I have better things to do than drive myself blind squinting at graphs or columns of numbers and ciphering out EXACTLY what they do or don't mean given variable X or variable Y!

A couple of things to keep in mind. It is incredibly, incredibly easy to lie with statistics, and the methods for doing so are endless, and endlessly sneaky. For a quick introduction to this realm of chicanery, I suggest you read a classic gem called How to Lie With Statistics by Darryl Huffman.

And another thing: It will encourage you to know that feminism has, of late, suffered a particularly severe battering in the field of domestic violence statistics. DV stats have always been THE crown jewel of feminism's anti-male talking points, and now the crown jewel is looking like nothing so much as a cheap-ass rhinestone. Feminists who are "in the know" know what is happening here, and they are noticeably clamming up on this subject, perhaps hoping to sweep it under the carpet of public forgetfulness while diverting attention to other women's issues where they feel more confident of their footing. Of course, the less intelligent fembots are still circulating the debateable bathwater, and we can expect to find this in the loop for a while yet before it finally tapers off.

I think it is worthwhile to formulate arguments based purely upon analytical commonsense and practical reason, and upon weighing the greater probability against the lesser. Let the other side face us on this very field, and try if they can make the better showing.

The gender war sector of the blogosphere is composed mainly of feminist bloggers. Amongst these bloggers, the manner is, to assume that the reader is up to speed on the subject of feminism -- they are famously snappish and snarkish toward outsiders (especially unsympathetic ones) who pose elementary "naked emperor" questions concerning their esteemed doctrine. They will huff that "it's not my job to educate the world about feminism!" Some other time, perhaps, I will ponder the implications and ramifications of all this. But right now I wish only to claim an equal privilege for myself, a gander counterpart you might say.

Therefore, it is not my job to insert a "little classroom" into my flow of words every time I want to talk about gender crisis issues, or about the injustices facing men in today's society. I will assume that my reader (feminist or otherwise) is up to speed about things like, oh....paternity fraud, false accusation, male-bashing, restraining orders, imputed income, no-drop prosecution, the Duluth model, VAWA, the Bradley Amendment, and so on. I will sometimes make mention of these things in passing, as matters well understood, but I'll talk on a very different level most of the time.

I expect the average reader will be in league with the men's movement. But this is the world-wide web, which means that most anybody can pop in here. Therefore, I expect a few feminists. SO -- now you know who I'm talking about when I say "you guys" or "you people". By those phrases, I reference the women's movement with an inclusive wave of my hand toward the cultural horizon. Since they'll undoubtedly peek in here sometimes, I may as well profit by the occasion to throw a few personalized scraps their way. They have minds that require feeding just as much as anybody else on earth, and so long as they are hanging around why not be neighborly and address them directly? And direct I shall be indeed; I'll not be sweet-talking them! Furthermore, I don't mind that they are reading things not meant for them. I'm not afraid of giving away any military secrets in the gender war, and nothing on this blog will do anything of the sort. They can process the information any way they like, and I will always be one jump ahead of them. I'll always have foreseen it and adjusted for it. Mu-ha-ha-ha!

I'll update periodically, whenever the spirit moves me. But bear in mind that everything written here has oodles of thought behind it. It all here bears a structural load of some kind. It all offers matter significant and useful in the struggle, if only the significance is cognized and applied correctly to the task. I don't waste words and I don't create fluff. Well...not much, anyway.

My regards to all. Enjoy the view. Do check back!

Is Feminism a Hate Movement?

To remove man-hating from feminism would be to extract the DNA nucleus from a living cell, the fuel rod from a reactor, the teeth from a rottweiler. I would assert that man-hating is feminism's moral center of gravity, and that without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection toward males, feminism could not logically continue to existit would flounder without purpose, and disintegrate.

If you give the matter a little thought (and I have given it a LOT), you will see that no other theory so elegantly accounts for the observable facts of the case.

Let's start with some basics. Would anybody dispute that feminism is a socio-political movement on behalf of women? Would anybody dispute that feminism proffers a particular analysis of man-woman relations? Would anybody dispute that feminist analysis holds women to be globally disadvantaged, by some objective and quantifiable standard of measurement, in comparison with men? Finally, would anybody dispute that feminist analysis concludes an element of male authorship in the comparative disadvantagement of women?

Yes, feminism is a women's advocacy movement which identifies men as the wellspring of certain difficulties said to afflict women. This would both summarize and make reply to the verbose paragraph above.

And given that men are said to be the wellspring of women's difficulties, are we to believe that no opinion about men as men ever infiltrates feminist thinking on any level? Does any self-admitted feminist, having once identified "men" as the source of women's troubles, go serenely about her business harboring no strictly personal opinion about "men"? I'd call it a considerable stretch, to believe any such thing.

Admittedly, I fashion my argument upon probabilities. But they are compelling probabilities. I seriously doubt that any better can be offered.

I'll have no truck with the "I blame patriarchy" cop-out. This is simply a way of postponing the issue by obfuscating it, since the phrase is so fuzzy it is useless for normal purposes - although useful indeed for underhanded purposes! But patriarchy is plainly understood as a uniquely male institution; men created it and men keep it rolling, or so the story goes. So it is mighty difficult to understand how a person could "blame" patriarchy without "blaming" men in the very same swoop.

Let us enquire further into probabilities. Feminism identifies "men" as the source of women's difficulties. So ask yourself, what class of women might be drawn to such a social movement in disproportionate numbers? Would such a movement attract women who get along well with men and enjoy their company? All right, possibly a few. Just possibly. But would such women compose the bulk of the membership? Where do you suppose the probability lies in such a case? Would such a movement attract women who do not personally see "men" as a source of difficulty in their lives? Is this probable? Is this plausible? Is this credible? Does this FIT?

Hate is a very strong word, and it signifies a very strong thing. It is hard to imagine just how powerful hate can be. Do you think you can imagine it? Well, the chances are that you are nowhere near, and have no idea. It can get even worse, far worse, than you can imagine!

Yes, it is all on a spectrum. It is all on a continuum. "Hate" can be bad, and it can always get badder! Even to the point where the hater implodes into a black hole, and pops clean out of the moral universe, and sucks as much as possible along for the ride.

All right, maybe the word hate is not the wine for all occasions. I like the word disaffection. It is more inclusive than hate because it embraces all shades of disliking without privileging the extreme. Now, a social movement such as feminism needn't hope to exclude the element of disaffection. I have explained the reason for this already, but now we must proceed to the next stage of examination.

If the disaffection spectrum begins with mild disenchantment and progresses by shades clear up to unmitigated loathing, and if feminism incorporates at least SOME of this spectrum, then we should pause to wonder exactly how much of the spectrum is thus incorporated, and precisely how far it reaches in the direction of uncompounded malevolence. How high on the hate scale does feminism's emotional aura actually extend? Where does it stop?

Again, consider the likelihoods. If the feminist disaffection spectrum reached no higher than a mild and possibly sporadic disenchantment
an occasional mood, as it werethen feminism would very plainly lack the sustaining force to be a viable women's advocacy movement. There is simply no way it could gather the necessary motivation and momentum. There would be neither snow for a snowball, nor any appreciable hill to roll it down for the accretion of mass and accumulation of velocity. In a word, feminism would be a non-starter.

A thing like feminism requires a mighty fund of passion both to launch itself and to keep itself running. Tepid feeling will not suffice
it needs to be robust and vehement, and it needs to gain validation through a political analysis that will both justify the original feeling, and contribute to the growth of that feeling by the use of a self-fulfilling feedback loop.

The world has always contained a certain number of people
sociopathic or what-have-youwho for various reasons don't like the opposite sex. When a thing like feminism appears, proffering a political analysis of sexual relations casting men in the role of miscreants, it is easy to foretell the response man-hating women will make to this. Clearly there will be some exceptions, but I feel confident most such women will be on it like bees on a honeycomb, or flies upon feces if you will. There's nothing quite like finding an analysis to uphold your attitude. And the documentary record indeed bears out that early second-wave feminists in the radical 1960s were a vehement, passionate lot. They were not wishy-washy. They were not tepid. They were not mildly disenchanted with men.

They were by no stretch of the imagination living on the low end of the disaffection spectrum. More significantly, they were not merely attracted to something which somebody else had created. No, they were present at the very inception; they themselves were the creators and early architects of the movement. Without them, or people like them, the "movement" would never have started moving in the first place!

Nor would the movement be moving still today, if people like them were not down in the engine room stoking the boiler, or up in the pilot house turning the wheel and watching the binnacle. They are the dynamo, and if we should replace them with a crew that was just a shade less disaffected, the new dynamo would be a shade less dynamic, as would the entire movement. It would be just a shade less inclined to bulldoze over obstacles, a shade more inclined to call it a day earlier in the day, and a shade more inclined to lower the bar of compromise overall.

Dial this down shade by shade and watch the movement grow more and more anemic. Eventually, "feminism" would be wavering in its convictions, sleeping late, and frittering away its dwindling energy on matters increasingly peripheral and unfocussed. In other words, feminism would become a non-entity and a non-movement.

So, we have shown that feminism offers an ideological interpretation of female disadvantages in life. We have alluded to the feminist belief that female disadvantage originates from a male-driven power conspiracy, and asserted that such a belief is not feasible to uphold absent a pejorative evaluation of men both individually and as a group. From this we have concluded that some varying degree of personal disaffection toward men cannot be absent from the minds of most feminists, and therefore cannot be absent from the movement as a whole. Finally, we have made the case that feminism's viability as an advocacy movement is directly indexed to the degree of disaffection toward men found among the movement's membership, with greater viability correlated to greater disaffection.

Or as stated early in this article: man-hating is feminism's moral center of gravity; without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection with males, feminism could not logically continue to exist.

Milder forms of feminism do indeed exist. And so do milder feminists. But they are not the vanguard. They are not the cutting edge. They are not the powerhouse. However, they work diligently to secure advantages for women like scavengers in the aftermath of the main assault, once the enemy has been routed. They are the petty clerks, the bureaucrats, the carpetbaggers, who move into the occupied territory and secure the administration of it. It is part of their job to seem unthreatening, which is easy when somebody else does the dirty work. Their distinguishing feature is that of taking for granted what has been ideologically instilled into the general culture, and taking their ease against the moral support cushion this affords them. Left entirely to themselves, they would have neither the ambition to initiate a political movement, nor the drive to keep it operating in a political capacity. Yet they have a moral investiture in feminism's world-view, which proposes male guilt as an explanatory model, and by this investiture they plant themselves within feminism's web of misandric operations.

It is easy to see that if man-hating disappeared from the world, feminism would neither serve any purpose nor have any means to continue operating. But feminism is still operating, and if you are male you are not amiss to suspect that feminism means to harm you. So under the circumstances, you don't owe feminism any favors. Nor do you owe women any favors under the moral banner of feminism!

Yes, I call feminism a hate movement. Whosoever desires, may undertake to convince me that feminism is a love movement.