'Surrender', She Says...

"Men have not lost any right that they deserve. What is occurring is that men are finally getting what they deserve - punishment for centuries of abuse against women and children. I have absolutely no illusion that men are bad and women are saints; however, the hard cold truth is that the chaos we are currently experiencing is largely not the fault of the female gender. Men are the ones who perpetrate the majority of all the real violent crime. Men are also the ones who overwhelming refuse to take responsibility for their poor behavior. Period.

....If men want to win this battle, they must first SURRENDER."

More here...

Very well, Faith of the Feminist Country blog, I'll play your game! Yes that's right, I am ready to SURRENDER exactly as you have said. And which is more, I will employ the power of my bully pulpit together with the silver-plated charisma of my peerless eloquence, to sway my many thousands of men's movement followers all around the planet to line up behind me and lay down their armaments likewise.

Dave Sim was truly onto something, when he remarked that nothing less than absolute capitulation to feminism's demands will satisfy the feminists. Well I am happy to credit Dave Sim for his wisdom in that instance, and I am willing to follow his wisdom, too!

But you know, in situations like these, it is customary to make clear the terms of surrender, since the word 'surrender', all by itself, says very little. It means "to give up" - but give up what? I need to know exactly what I am giving up. And so do my many thousands of followers around the planet!

You see, I don't want to do my surrender incorrectly. If I don't get a sign or a clue of some sort, or if the surrender instructions remain incoherent, then I will have no choice but act interpretively and, as it were, to "roll my own".

Faith, I know that you speak in good faith—and I have faith in what you say! You demand surrender from us men if we wish to win this battle. And since I do most ardently desire to win this battle, I think I would be wise to take your instructions to heart. And so would my many thousands of followers around the planet, who sway like a bed of sea-grass under the god-awful rip tide of my peerless silver-plated eloquence!

Give us a sign, oh Faith! We, your Legions of Surrender, await your word! In good faith, we do!

Briefly Noted: Equality

Oh, the muck! Oh the dreck! They seep everywhere, do they not?

My friends: We can do better! Let us endeavor always to to live simply, cleanly, forthrightly! Let our lives be the best and clearest that we can possibly make them. Not for us to wear such mugs as these, eh?

Consider those my Christmas sentiments, one day late.... ;-)

Yes Virginia, 'The Princess' IS a Feminist Archetype!

Here is a most annoying blog article which I chanced upon recently:

Warning: Irritation Ahead!

Your assignment, folks, is to figure out exactly WHY the present writer finds this article annoying. If you all have imbrued your minds with counter-feminist philosophy, you ought to have the tools you need to make the necessary conceptual "click".

Here's a hint: The present writer does not side with ANY of the viewpoints implied in the article - neither that of the blog author, nor that of Peggy Orenstein, nor that of the precious little girly, nor that of those who caused Peggy such distress in the first place. None of them. None of it. NONE!

All right folks, go to! Figure out exactly why that blog article, in its totalized holistic gestalt, sets Fidelbogen's teeth on edge.
-------

Note: The present Counter-Feminist post is under development. In other words, I'll finish writing this article when I feel like it.

Interesting New Website

See here:

http://trollbuster.wordpress.com/about/

I discovered this quite recently, and it doesn't look like it has been around very long.

This particular "service" is operated by and for feminists, as you will observe.

What I find interesting is the "definition drift" that is occurring re: the word "troll". Seems it is no longer necessary to pay an actual visit to another web space in order to qualify for the term. Apparently it is enough simply to launch your "trolleries" from a distance, from your own firebase, and voila! you're a troll!

So be it. I don't think freedom of the press in cyberspace differs much from the traditional kind. "Naming and shaming" is a venerable craft with an ancient lineage, and heaven knows some folk richly deserve to be on the recieving end. ;-) Of course, such folk have a long history, down through the centuries, of not liking it - which is understandable. After all, they're only human. So they can call it "trolling" if they wish. Others might call it muckraking, or satire. What's in a word, anyway?

But it's too late now. The name has already been pronounced, and the shame has been shovelled where it rightly belongs. Those with naught to be ashamed about, have naught to fear from naming and shaming, correct? At any rate, it happened once, and it COULD happen again, at any time. Are you listening, [name omitted] at [URL omitted] ...? Tee-hee-hee!

And remember that the new breed of "distance trolls" don't give a rip if you delete or ban them! Go ahead, [name omitted] at [URL omitted] , delete THIS!

--------

Sickening Proof that we Live in a Rape Culture!!

It's pretty hard to dispute this shocking evidence uncovered from the College Humor website:



But don't take MY word for it. Our gal Faith of the Feminist Nation blog has done some real sleuthing, and boy has she unearthed a foul cesspool from the College Humor website. See blog post here:

http://feministnation.blogspot.com/2006/12/
no-rape-culture-here-folks.html

I was naturally horrorstruck by some of the things I saw on the College Humor website, and for two minutes my hands were shaking so badly that I couldn't even operate my computer. "No rape culture here" indeed, folks! But then I did some sleuthing of my own, and I found the picture posted above. I can't believe that Faith actually missed that one! Possibly her 101 degree fever is still afflicting her, poor dear!

But apart from that, I must say that Faith has really "got the goods" on America's rape culture. And you know what else? I'm starting to wonder if Faith is...er....a little bit "ahead" of us, if you know what I mean. ;-)

But regardless, I'm completely of the opinion that it is time for men to SURRENDER, and get what they deserve. Possibly by bending over?

The True Faith of Feminism

"Men have not lost any right that they deserve. What is occurring is that men are finally getting what they deserve - punishment for centuries of abuse against women and children. I have absolutely no illusion that men are bad and women are saints; however, the hard cold truth is that the chaos we are currently experiencing is largely not the fault of the female gender. Men are the ones who perpetrate the majority of all the real violent crime. Men are also the ones who overwhelming refuse to take responsibility for their poor behavior. Period.

....If men want to win this battle, they must first SURRENDER."

YES, WE SURRENDER.... AND WE WILL SERVE YOU.....!



Oh brother man of conscience, thou knowest what thy duty is! Cast off thy male privilege and go forth unto all lands! Scatter the Word of FAITH far and wide, to the Greeks and to the Jews, and to the four winds and the four corners of the globe, and yea! even unto the very high schools and shopping malls and cork boards and bill boards! Sound ye the trumpet and declare ye unto all and sundry the True FAITH of Feminism!

"YES, WE SURRENDER our doubts and scruples AND WE WILL SERVE YOU according to your worth!"

(You could even try a simple classified ad!)

Moderated Comment to 'Feminist Nation'

First, the back-story.

Note the previous post, titled Maxims for the Road. In the comment log for that post you will discover, first, a complimentary remark from a reader offered in a tone of ostensive good faith. Immediately following this, my own dry, sardonic, and yet pointedly meaningful response.

The original commenter has a blog, which I arrived at via her blogger profile. This blog is called Feminist Nation, a title which is aptly suggestive of the content to be found there.

I spent some time scanning through the material on Feminist Nation, and I came to a post which immediately caught my attention, titled 'Exposing the Terrorism of the MRA Movement'. Naturally, I was intrigued, so I gave it a careful once-over.

The item was interesting not merely for its title. Regular readers of The Counter-Feminist will recall a post called Stay Away From this CLOWN, in which I rudely spotlighted a certain disreputable 'anti-feminist' blogger, who goes by the name of 'Martha'. I wanted to generate an object lesson - clarifying my own stance and distancing counter-feminism from the turbulent jacquerie which undoubtedly lurks inside the broad spectrum of the so-called 'men's movement'.

Well, the article on Feminist Nation was all about, you guessed it, Martha. Simply stated, the blog author's purpose was to exhibit Martha as a poster-boy for the MRA movement. Following is a link to the blog post in question:

http://feministnation.blogspot.com/2006/12
/exposing-terrorism-of-mra-movement.html

I would direct your particular attention to the final, brief but oh-so-laden paragraph in this post: "That, my dear readers, is an MRA/anti-feminist."

I composed and dispatched a reader comment for this article. The blog, however, uses comment moderation, so my item did not appear immediately. It has not appeared yet, and I don't expect that it will. So be it. At any rate, I felt inspired to save my comment item to a text file, before I hit the send button. I would now like to share this with readers of The Counter-Feminist. Here, with only one tiny editing change, is what would have appeared on the web log Feminist Nation as comment number one for the post in question:

Yes, I have made the acquaintance of this 'Martha' creature, and taken a jab at him/her/it.

Another one you might want check out is 'mikeeusa'. Sorry, I can't be bothered to look up the URL, but it's on Blogger.

Anyway....(rolls shoulders and rubs hands together)..... as the men's movement grows and spreads, there will come a time when you will, albeit reluctantly, find it necessary to come to the table and open a dialogue.

On that day, I'm sure you don't want to be talking to people like Martha and Mikeeusa. It would be in the best interest of all concerned, to cut such moldy fruitcakes out of the loop and confine them to a region of existential space where they can't wreck anything, yes?

As the aggregate mass of male grievance grows, the power of the Marthas and Mikeeusas will swell proportionately, and demagogic voices such as theirs will gather more and more hearers - a chilling prospect, I'm sure you will agree.

At day's end, the men's movement is simply a cross-section of humanity, encompassing all that humanity itself encompasses, and that's quite a spectrum, eh? Now, you can choose which portion of this spectrum to talk to, just as you can choose your associates in general life. No difference. However, to make the wise choice requires wisdom. Such is life.

I have shared this item as a working model for a political engagement style which I soberly deem to be in the best interest of our movement. Consider it a kind of "seed-map". Also, you may note that I have given the feminists an opportunity to be "part of the solution", which as I make no doubt, they would have the sagacity to ponder.

Maxims for the Road

I am unable to think about feminism ALL of the time, and I wish that every counter-feminist could be so lucky. Following is a list of philosophical one-liners, and two-liners, which have occurred to me over several years, and which I have jotted down in a notebook. Given that they shed light on how I think in general, they cannot do other than shed indirect light on how I think about feminism as well. Hopefully you will find something inspirational here.


• Idealistic imagination is our fire exit from the cheap hotel of actuality

• The FAST and the SHALLOW are a natural team.

• Those who search for "truth" must first seek clarity.

• Clarity, like charity, begins at home.

• Clarity and brevity are independent variables.

• Ignorance of history is like floating down the river of time with a box over your head.

• "Fun" is a state of mind and nothing more. Pleasure is merely that which pleases.

• The two prime engines of power in this world are brute force, and exclusion by mystification.

• A mind is like a parachute: Can't work if the wind blows through.

• Intuition is compiled observation.

• Self is a good thing, and so is expression. But self-expression is a questionable thing at best.

• Fashion slavery is a religious doctrine that equates salvation with the gaze of the Other.

• The average human being will not initiate a radical train of thought without some big voice or big event to set it in motion.

• Respect the dignity of honest labour.

• The real is always bigger than the actual.

• The world contains too many passive participants, and not enough active spectators.

• Action will make the world a better place only when it learns its own place. Until then, it will just make the world a busier place.

• Be suspicious of those who talk too fast. They are driving your soul out of your head through your ears.

• Two things to avoid: Killing it with silence, and talking it to death.

• Words mean different things to different people. This bears repeating.

• The devil is always hip.

• The term "amotivational" denotes a transcendentally refined distaste for bad choices.

• When an empty head follows a full heart, expect nothing good.

• Poverty is the trash can of society. Everything that goes into it -- good and bad alike -- becomes "garbage" by mere definition.

• Do not boast of your attainments, but speak of them quietly when it seems right to do so.

• Beauty makes life worth living. Duty, on the other hand, is our best excuse for getting out of bed in the morning.

• In the long run, the only struggle worth struggling is the struggle against struggle itself.

• If you don't know something, just say "I don't know", and don't take all day about it.

• You have heard it said, "don't count your chickens before they hatch." I would add: "Don't talk about the eggs."

• To expel productive silence with empty words is an wasteful bargain.

• Don't plow the same field twice.

• The routine and the non-essential don't bear endless repetition in the realm of daily converse.

• The worst part of being a neophyte is not knowing where you stand.

• Novelty is a very good smokescreen. It covers a multitude of sins.

• Silence can be just as full as words can be empty.

• Hell is other people's semiotics.

• Plan your talk before you start talking.

• Reality is crowded. Stepping on toes is hard to avoid.

• Fast car flings the most mud. Empty barrel makes the loudest noise.

• Walk your talk, and be aware that talk itself can be your walk.

• A fool announces his folly. A wise man keeps it under his hat.

• Fire in the belly , ice between the ears.

• In our day, you will find no square corner anywhere in the house of common dialogue.

• To rise above the dreck and dross of life through excellence of speech -- truly this is a spiritual path!

• The collective mind, no less than the individual, seeks to avoid self-knowledge.

• A collective mind may be composed of other collective minds.

• Never forget that you are on the inside looking out.

• When everyone shouts to be heard, the silence is profound. Use this silence to advantage, as a background for true speech

• Combine wealth of thought with economy of words.

• The words "tropical" and "paradise" have no inherent need for each other.

• A religion is ANY system of belief, behavior or shared knowledge that binds people together in a pattern of common life.

• God: A painted curtain in front of a black hole. Goddess: The aforesaid curtain bearing a female image.

• Certain things are what they are, inherently. Others are simply made so by the way that people talk about them. Cultivate a keen eye for this distinction.

• Life is a race...between those who think life is a race, and those who think it should be otherwise.

• Boasting on your own account is seldom a good policy. Just do what you do, do it well, and let others do your boasting for you.

• Any event, though seemingly small, can be classified as big if it makes a radical impression at a key juncture.

• There is nothing which the world hates more than unworldliness.

• The sooner your get the point, the sooner you can swing the counterpoint into action.

• Climb as many mountains as you wish; your self-congratulation will ever be short-lived.

• The fool opposes speech to silence. The sage knows that silence too is a part of speech.

• Don't ever take "fun" seriously; it is more fun to make fun of it.

• Some people say imagination is greater than knowledge. But...how do they know this?

• If you wish to do what others cannot, start by doing what they will not.

• It is impossible to say the right thing in the wrong conversation.

• When you form the habit of clipping your wings, you eventually forget how to fly.

• It is a common error to confuse disorientation with stupidity. Likewise, to equate high learning speed with intelligence.

• If you wish to have an honest conversation, you must start the world over again.

• Pointless lust for innovation bespeaks an empty soul.

• Popularity is everything. You may write words of gold upon a silver page, but people won't like it if they don't like you.

• Separation of the personal from the political keeps outside forces from meddling in your inner world.

• Any reflective person will note something peculiar about the phrase "entertainment industry."

• Every culture, or society, is a conspiracy to prevent certain forms of awareness.

• A collective mind cannot walk backwards out of a wrong road.

• Streamline your pride. Be as proud as ever you please, but do so compactly.

• Unshakeable conviction of righteousness carries the same worldly force as actual righteousness

• Wisdom is not a state of knowledge, but rather a system of knowing defined by a system of parameters.

• Valuation of style over substance is a characteristic of youth, and is akin to building a house from the roof down.

• Two prime pedagogical mistakes: Assuming what the learner knows, and assuming what the learner doesn't know.

• You should take a professional interest in the world around you, even if it holds no charms for you. The profession is survival.

• I reserve the right to start the world over again in the realm of conversation. By that means I reserve the possibility of doing so in fact.

• "Talk is cheap" is a menticidal phrase mandating a false polarity between apathetic silence and mindless activity.

• Americans: A nation of people busily pretending to enjoy life while remaining profoundly ignorant of how to do so truly.

• A collective mind will continually edit language so that words don't mean anything that it doesn't want to think about.

• To separate your personal identity from your objective situation is a great power in itself. Furthermore, it is the base on which subsequent powers may assemble themselves in logical array.

• The French word "esprit" is the finest contribution that France has made to world civilization.

• Superstition is when you insert a seed of wishful thinking, or fear, into any gap of any size that separates the known from the known.

• The world as we presently know it is a vast conspiracy to perpetuate a state of rationalized hyperactivity.

A Nice Respectable Word

Feminists and their sympathizers HATE the word feminazi. They act scandalized by it. I can't say that I blame them; very few people wish to be shoved into the same box with the Third Reich. Factually, poetically, conceptually, or any way at all. Even people who deserve such comparison don't relish the comparison. They will howl about it, and this should not surprise us.

Feminazi is a saucy portmanteau that combines feminist with nazi, meaning to infuse the odium of the latter into the former by encouraging hearers to make note of percieved similarities between feminism and naziism.

So, what are those similarities? Are we ever right to use such a word as feminazi? Is it a good word, a bad word... or merely a word?

I think it is revealing to examine some of the reasons which feminists and femsymps have given as grounds for their objection. Their arguments are often fallacious or weakly constructed, as I hope to show.

The perennial favorite among this group seems to be, that the word feminazi "trivializes the holocaust". Such trivialization is apparently not only a bad thing in itself, but has a spin-off consequence in being particularly upsetting to the large number of feminists who are Jewish.

First things first. Does it really trivialize the holocaust? Or is this objection simply a red straw herring?

For example, it is not a bit clear that all people who use the word feminazi have the holocaust even remotely in mind when they do so. Granted, SOME of them do - mostly those of the religious right, men and women both, who from passionately held moral conviction, equate abortion with murder. Give these folk points for authenticity; they are not phonies; they speak from the heart.

But what of the others? Is the holocaust-abortion paralell a prime consideration for them, when they formulate the feminazi concept in their own minds, or communicate it to others? Likewise, does the holocaust alone weigh pre-eminently into their calculations? I would say, not so. Rather, I believe this group of people is simply expressing what it deems to be the salient points of comparison, in terms of character inventory, between nazis and certain feminists.

And what are these points of comparison? What is this character inventory? One way that the average person gleans such information is impressionistically, from having encountered feminist words of the kind given below:

• "All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft"

•"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."

• "He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." (Emphasis in the original.)

• "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

• "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."

• "But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do."

• "Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it.

• "Men are animals; don't you think so?"

• "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

• "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."

I am not aware of any feminist who is literally a member of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP. Nor am I aware of any counter-feminist who has ever made any such claim regarding any feminist. I certainly have never made any such claim, nor do I make one now.

But look at those words! If you can't see the Nazi similarities, you need glasses. Everything from the degree of malevolence and scapegoating, to the mystical yearning for pagan antiquity, to the ominous hints of genocidalism, to the conspiracy claims - it's all in there. All of the earmarks. Tweak a few terms, and this material would settle right into the pages of Der Stürmer . I'm pretty sure Streicher would raise no objection to any of it.

So, that is what the word feminazi is talking about. It does not say that feminism is identical with Naziism, but only that it bears remarkable similarities in the domain of rhetoric and ideology, and in the moral nimbus of certain of its proponents. I say certain of its proponents, since I recognize that not all self-identified feminists would express themselves in such terms. Nor for that matter would many mild-mannered, enrolled NSDAP members have done, during the Third Reich era.

But in terms of sheer concentrated viciousness, I doubt that any Jew-baiting Gauleiter had much beyond these people whom we call radical feminists. It is to these people, and them specifically, that the word feminazi refers. And they do exist. They are unquestionably "out there".

And once again, does the word feminazi trivialize the holocaust? Hopefully, the response to that puerile imputation is clear by now. No, it does not trivialize the holocaust, because it does not necessarily refer to the holocaust in the first place. And even when it does, it cannot be objectively proven to have commited the offense (trivialization) in question.

As explained earlier, only pro-lifers (chiefly of the religious right) have the holocaust in view in this connection, when they liken the holocaust to abortion. And it is hard to make the case that they are 'trivializing', because they are certainly doing nothing of the sort within their own ethically consistent minds. You might think the comparison is a bit strong, but they clearly think it is right on the money, and who are you to prove them wrong? It all comes down to their ethics against yours, and I'm sure it would make a very lively discussion!

The most you are entitled to say, is that in your opinion the word feminazi trivializes the holocaust when (and only when) the abortion-holocaust paralell is implied by the speaker. In other cases, where such a paralell is not implied by the speaker, you cannot accurately assert that the speaker is trivializing the holocaust because the speaker isn't even talking about the holocaust in the first place, and he can't very well trivialize something if he isn't even talking about it...can he? So in the end you are left with precious little ground to stand upon, and you cannot uphold your claim against anybody else's save this were done by means of a triumphalistic actus rapiendi.

So much for any claim that the word feminazi trivializes the holocaust. And so much for any use of this claim to discredit any use of this word. But what of the sensibilities of the Jewish feminists?

No doubt the holocaust comparison disturbs them, but having rendered that point pointless, I can think of two reasons why Jewish feminists don't like the word feminazi. First, for the more personal reason that, being Jewish, they don't want to be compared to Nazis. Second, for the more political reason that, being feminist, they don't want feminism to be compared to Naziism.

What strikes me straight off the block, with regard to the first reason, is that Jewish feminists are not the only Jews on the planet. On that account, the first reason feels disingenuous and phony, and I feel that I am in no way bound to respect it. Permit me to elaborate: No Jew who is not a feminist would have any reason to get his hackles up if somebody compared feminists to Nazis. How pray tell does it implicate Jews as Jews? It doesn't! Jews as Jews are entirely out of the loop here; the comparison isn't talking about Jews at all! Certainly, the word feminazi does not target Jews in any way.

It targets feminists, and anybody can be a feminist - Jewish or goyish, it makes no matter. Not all Jews are feminists, and not all feminists are Jews. That the "nazi" part of feminazi would impress a Jew with unfortunate poignancy is only "the luck of the draw", a collateral outcome in every way.

Consider further, that not all Jews are women. If you are a Jewish man, and moreover not a feminist sympathizer, then some part of you is apt to respond as any man might do when he understands what radical feminists think about MEN.

I, the present writer, am a man. But I am not a Jew. However, having manhood in common with any Jewish male, I can speak with some authority of common feeling and know, that when either of us hears Andrea Dworkin say that she would like to see "a man" beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe in his mouth, a kindred sensation afflicts us both.

That the authoress of this touching sentiment was herself Jewish, will not be lost upon my Judaic brotherman. The irony of such a thing will doubtless give him pause, and the more so when I direct his attention to the obvious, by pointing out that Dworkin the Jewish feminist was distinctly nazi-like. I daresay he'll find little enough reason to take my observation amiss. Moreover, the Judaic filiation could add a further dollop of repugnance on his part - a sense of betrayal imparting an extra twist to the dagger. He would feel it even more keenly than I, as a non-Jew, would feel it.

Oh, I'd feel it keenly enough for all of that. I contemplate my features in the mirror, and imagination paints a curious transformation involving blood, matted hair, lacerated flesh, a nose wildly askew, one eye lower than the other, a mouth bereft of teeth with a spike-heeled shoe stuck in it.

Another well-known Jewish feminist is Robin Morgan, erstwhile editor of MS magazine, and the champion of Valerie Solanas. Yes, Valerie Solanas the attempted Warhol murderess and source of the 'walking dildo' statement quoted above. Most feminists nowadays will insist that Solanas was not a feminist, but they'd need to get up pretty early in the morning to assert the same of Robin Morgan. And Robin Morgan thought so highly of Valerie Solanas that she even campaigned to get Valerie out of jail. After that, she anthologized some of Valerie's writings in Sisterhood is Powerful, so there seems little doubt which sisterhood Robin Morgan had in mind in terms of its membership roster.

It is Robin Morgan who endorsed the prospect, quoted in the list above, that men should "possibly not exist", and left no serious reason to doubt that yes, she really did mean it. Again, Robin Morgan is Jewish, and being Jewish she ought to understand what it means when somebody wishes that you would possibly not exist, since the Jews were exposed to that possibility themselves. One sees the irony in Robin Morgan's words.

Robin Morgan and Andrea Dworkin are but two of many Jewish women who have lined up with feminism, and feminism at large promotes a doctrine in which "men" play a role markedly similar to that played by the Jews in Nazi propaganda. Yes, I am aware of superficial differences. Feminists are aware of these differences too, and they never tire of regaling us with fourteen fussy reasons why feminists are not the same as Nazis, as if by so doing they would decoy the world's attention away from the starkly apparent ways that feminists are very much the same indeed as Nazis.

Truly, they insult our intelligence, and I can't help wondering who they think they are fooling. It's like a bottle with an ingredient label - you don't care what's on the damn label, you want to know what's actually in the bottle! Trusting the label is an act of faith. If the label says chocolate syrup, crème de menthe, grenadine, that's all very well for the label. But if you pull the cork and it smells like a slaughterhouse which has "ripened" for several days and suffered a sewer backup through the floor drains, then you might be forgiven a touch of skepticism as per the ingredient list, yes?

No, I don't feel so bad about calling the Jewish feminist Robin Morgan a feminazi. I invite Jewish men everywhere to join me in calling her that, and if Robin doesn't like it she can suck it up, or she can cry me a river! And that goes double for Dworkin's ghost.

Plenty of leading feminists have pissed a continual stream of corrosive anti-male diatribe for many years, similar to what you have seen above. I would like to know what the hell they've got to say for themselves. At the end of the day, they'd better have an explanation for those astounding words. Either they mean it, or they don't, and either way it's high time they accounted for it. No dithering and no blathering. No involutional prevarications or fancy-pants subjectivisms. They mightn't see the harm in such exercises, but I confess that I am rather simple-minded regarding allegations that I'm an animal or a walking dildo, that I love murder or the rancid smell of death, that I should get beaten to a bloody pulp, that I'm a rapist, that my kind should be slated for near-extinction - particularly if the cognitive effluvium of such reiterated statements might permeate the cultural atmosphere, operating as a cumulative moral incitement for others to regard my life as having lesser value.

Don't you dare tell me that I shouldn't take it personally! I do take it personally, and I construct my politics upon this. The personal is the political!

And don't you dare tell me that I shouldn't take it "literally"! I don't NEED to take it literally - it's bad enough even when I take it un-literally, and either way, literally or un-literally, it WILL have real life consequences, and do you suppose for even a moment that those consequences will be pretty? Do you??

Robin Morgan and her radical sisters have got quite the nerve if they object to such a word as feminazi. To hell with them; they brought it on themselves! Oh the colossal gall, if they think that I should spare their sensitivities, or even their Jewish sensitivities - that's the biggest smokescreen of all! Having said thus much, I should add that I seldom use the word myself. But that is purely for stylistic reasons, since feminazi has become a cliché, and I prefer to avoid stale forms of expression. Others are free to say feminazi when and howsoever their fancy leads them to do so, with no objection of any political nature from myself.

In conclusion, the word feminazi has every right be accepted in the politest circles of genteel society, and to mingle freely among the best and most distinguished company at all times and upon all occasions! It is not the word that ought to give offense, but rather the underlying thing, or underlying order of things which the word signifies.

Yet I cannot forebear observing, with a wry chuckle, the actual ways of the world in such matters: At a well-bred tea party it would not be the "done" thing to pronounce the word SHIT in general company. Nor would it be well recieved if some actual shit appeared, as if by magic, on the parlour floor. Neither circumstance would be considered proper etiquette. Similarly, unless I miss my guess, the word FEMINAZI would be accosted with a certain, um..... froideur. And yet, unlike the previous example, I fancy that the veriest actual feminazi, if properly tenured, would have free and unremarked run of the place. Oh the paradoxes! Oh the inconsistencies! Go figure.

Another Angle on Rape

I consider it a part of my gig to make useful content known, as well as generating such content myself. Here is something that I have rounded up in the course of my web surfings. I think it will repay the reading time of all who align with the political agenda of The Counter-Feminist. Be sure you don't miss the reader comment section.

http://teriel.livejournal.com/393680.html

Yes, every chance you get, toss a pebble in the river. Enough pebbles will teach the river to flow in a different channel.