Wednesday, April 11, 2007

CF Asserts that Feminism Will Never Yield to Argument Alone

If feminism appears to make concessions under the persuasive force of argument, this is solely because the balance of power has changed owing to the pressure of oppositional forces. One way or another, it means they are yielding ground because not doing so would either make them look bad, or pose a particular danger.

This is true of almost any so-called establishment. We delude ourselves if we believe that the stakeholders in any major power structure will be talked out of their advantages by sweet reason alone. That is not how the world works. The two sides do not gather in a clean, well-lighted debating chamber and air their views in turn, until one side or the other says "yes, you have convinced me of the truth of your position, and from henceforth I will embrace your opinion as my own and rearrange my entire life according to what it requires of me." No, only simpletons believe the world works that way. The actual truth of life is a deal more tricky and treacherous.

And the feminists are like any other established group entrenched in its power. They will not come out voluntarily. They must be smoked out, or drawn out by a ruse. Whatever it takes.

You already know that you've got the ability to argue them to a standstill, or in perpetual circles—this has been happening for years, between their side and ours. And likewise, you know perfectly well that all you can expect from them is dodges, debating tricks, manipulations and outright lies. Your points, however well stated, will never be admitted or intellectually taken on board by them in any way. They're either as smug and fat-headed as French aristocrats on the eve of the Estates-General, or as rabid as sansculottes! Take your pick.

Yes, we have been debating them for years, and we know by now that neither side will budge an inch.

But that is precisely the good news. "Standstill" means standing still—literally! We have the power to argue them to a standstill, and do you know what THAT means? It means that all argument is at an end, and therefore, we need no longer argue! Think about it. If THEY cannot win the argument, it means that we are morally entitled to go our jolly way in peace! Or if BOTH sides cannot win the argument, it is incumbent on both sides to negotiate and to draft the articles of co-existence! But either way, it means that argument is ended.

Our side gains a big advantage from this. A strategic edge. But a lot of MRAs don't seem to realize this. Certainly, they know it is all in vain to argue with feminists - and yet there they go logging on to Usenet again, for just one more twirl in the spin-cycle with the infernal Hyerdahl device! Like reaching for just one more potato chip even when you are sick of the damn things!

Hyerdahl and all such vampire mechanisms are like perpetual revolutions in microcosm; in fact, they are feminism itself in microcosm! Engaging them in dialogue is like inserting a suction hose into your very own psychic energy pool - this will only drain you, and fatten them!

So stop arguing with feminists! Stop fattening them! Just stop it! And understand the power this gives us! It means that we can effectively put feminism out of the perpetual revolution business! Think of it: no more perpetual revolution! And we know that if they relinquish perpetual revolution, they're toast!

Very well. Given the impossibility of advanceful argument with the other side, we are henceforth under no obligation to devise any moral justification which they will understand—for they have shown that their understanding is intractable. Clearly, the time for argument is past. No, that's a silly thing to say because it was never present in the first place; we cannot, and never could, commence with argument! Mere argument, as we have clearly stated, can never (now or ever!) set the wheels in motion—something more efficacious is required just in order to get things rolling.

I say it is time to turn the heat up; it is time to play the boiling frog game!

Simply put, this means escalating the level of criticism and general disrespect for feminism, floating it into the culture little by little, but with such finesse that they can't creditably call it hate speech. Still, it will ratchet up their mental tension—finally to the point where they will snap, do something rash and, as it were, draw first blood. After that, we've GOT them!

But even if they keep their cool and don't do anything unseemly, we've still got them, because we will continue to grow in point of audacity. And they, having no alternative, will continue to suck it up—which will drive perpetual revolution into retreat. . . .

At least until they finally can't take it any more, and finally snap, and finally do something rash. At which point, as aforesaid, we've got them. Or more to the point, we've got them where we want them. Counter-feministically speaking, your motto is that you've always got them where you want them! And if you are doing counter-feminism correctly, that is how it should be. Always.

The campaign suggested above needs a jump-start that will spark it to life. You need to begin somewhere, so begin by being steadfastly unimpressed. Unpersuaded. Unconvinced. Confront the force of all, or nearly all, feminist polemic or feminist theory, with the brisk little phrase "so you say!" Let them know in effect that you find most of their case insufficient, and that in the sweet name of intellectual freedom and intellectual honesty you'll not give it your rubberstamp of approval.

This is not the same as arguing or debating. Rather, you are straightforwardly telling them that their words carry no weight with you, independently of what they think the truth might be! So, it all comes down to their conviction against yours—and there you stand in your stand-off, miles above the rest of the world, on a barren, windswept mountain top!

You are straightforwardly telling them—informing them!—that you will not play their game! And that barring some heavy-handed method which will backfire and burn them, there is nothing they can do about it!

Let me say that again: there is nothing they can do about it!

And that sets the counter back to zero again.

So make it clear that they have a duty to consult with you and persuade you before they institute their policies or promulgate their viewpoints, and that failure to do so is a transgression on their part.

Yes, feminism's cardinal sin is that of PRESUMPTION—or usurpation if you prefer. And they need to be told this. They have no legitimacy. No sovereignty. Therefore . . . . mock them! Mock their presumption!

Since we look upon feminism as just another ideology, and in no way sacrosanct, we feel entitled to shrug our shoulders and act smug about the whole job. Feminists are on a par with any group of Mormon missionaries, Jehovah's Witnessesor even anabaptist-episcopalians!— who might appear on your doorstep one day. They are just another pack of dusty competitors in the jostling marketplace of ideas—that is ALL they are! And it is high time they got off their high horse and learned some manners! They should not presume that you respect their presumption any more than they would presume that you believe in the holy ghost!

And we are free to take our stand upon the fixed center of moral gravity which this provides. Simply put, the other side has lost its moral arm-twisting power. All we must do is look them square in the eye and say, "Sorry, no sale!" They may go for the hard sell, but it will be in vain and we will tell them so. Their perpetual revolution will smash headlong into the force of our perpetual counter-revolution—and there we shall stand upon that barren, windswept mountain top!

Ah, that glorious mountain-top feeling! The icy, invigorating air; the sparkling, crystal clear sunlight . . . .

It is to our temporary disadvantage, that our adversary has more state-constituted political power than we do. But this is where revolutions get interesting; this is where we either challenge the legitimacy of the state, or finagle our way around it.

For example, you should remind yourselves that feminism does not engage the quintessential core of your selfhood. It is simply a thought which you can bounce around inside your brain if you wish to do so, but it has no bearing upon you as YOU. So you don't take it personally when somebody deprecates feminism, since they are not deprecating YOU. Therefore I believe it is perfectly acceptable in every way to say "I do not support feminism". Where is the offense in this? Don't tell me it's "hate speech". Again I ask, where is the offense? Have you actually harmed anybody? Have you slandered anybody? Have you even criticized feminism at all? No, the only offense is that you have profaned an ideological shibboleth.

(Shibboleth: "A belief that is widely held but interferes with the ability to speak or think about things without preconception.")

The feminists no longer have the sole power to define feminism. We have busted their monopoly. Granted, they have the right to concoct "theory" to their heart's content, but we have an equal right to concoct "counter-theory" that will address what their "theory" inflicts at our end of the transaction. From our unique standpoint of original knowledge, we may decide if feminism merits our support or otherwise.

And there is nothing they can do about it!

They have presumptuously restructured the world, and by the same presumption, they have restructured all of our lives. Owing to this act, their creation escapes their control and bleeds off into that penumbral region we call the femplex; the feminists are no longer entitled to the last word on what feminism effectively is or is not, since there is now more to feminism than feminism. We too are entitled to speak the truth with authority on that subject - simply because we suffer the consequences of it. The feminists are like the sorcerer's apprentice, who started something that he couldn't stop. Such being given, it is appropriate for others to step in and bear a hand.

After all, what good ever came of arguing with a feminist?

So, don't argue with feminists. Just TELL them things!

--------------------------------------------


You may advance to the NEXT article in the CF Series here:

http://tinyurl.com/ytxupz


You may return to the previous article in the CF Series here:

http://tinyurl.com/59shqv

Labels:

7 Comments:

Blogger Davout said...

"Simply put, this means escalating the level of criticism and general disrespect for feminism, floating it into the culture little by little, but with such finesse that they can't creditably call it hate speech."

You are on to something very big: here is a post on a phenomenon called "just noticeable difference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_noticeable_difference

which I found out about by reading

http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/2007/04/tyranny-of-tolerance-iii.html

Apparently, the feminists have used the exact same policy to fly under the radar.

5:46 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Apparently, the feminists have used the exact same policy to fly under the radar."


Or,in layman's terms.....

....they were being sneaky!

;)

6:36 PM  
Blogger julie said...

From my close looking at all angles, feminism nor feminsts are going to fall to their knees in your life time (I am presuming you are young)

In fact, the world (time) will not go backwards. Nor do 80% of men see the world through your eyes. And they most likely never will.

We can look at the problems of today and say, "This is what we need to do" or "that is what we need to do" or maybe "we should do that"

Can you understand that we will always look forward. We will never say, "It worked better that way" without forcing alot of people to change things and suffer just as we have by trying new things.

Even if the whole world or all humankind found themselves in the worst position will someone look back for a solution. It will always be a thought that is new. It may, however, be a repetitive thought being something that was thought in prior times but it will always be a new thought.

So what is the new thought? Is it that feminists and masculinists will work together because that is like an X chromozone and a Y chromozone trying to find an X and a half chromozone.

Today is a day for men to question what they are about. And for them to decide their own value.

If men are providers and protectors then why? Is not the western world full of a provide? Is their really a need to go to war anymore? What are men to protect women from? Maybe other men or maybe a disaster?

The way I see it today, is that if men were just a Y chromozone they would be OK with life. Is it really about men being rich and successful?

And if that is all a woman wants from you, then why do you allow that? Are you not worth more than that? Are you so shallow that you only care how young and beautiful a woman is?

But if it is a men's movement that you want, then why don't you build one just as the women did.

I am sorry to be so straight up, but as a mother and a girlfriend/wife type female I have never expected men to be robots. And nor do I.

1:27 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"So what is the new thought? Is it that feminists and masculinists will work together because that is like an X chromozone and a Y chromozone trying to find an X and a half chromozone."

The thought of working "with" feminists is incomprehensible. If such a thing could happen, it could only be because the feminists had stopped being feminists.

The problem is that feminism doesn't want to work "with" anybody or anything. It wants to run over everything else and flatten it. And once it has done THAT, then it will begin to auto-cannibalize, since it will no longer have any other "food".

"Is it really about men being rich and successful?"

Well, it's like this: All life is suffering, and suffering arises from craving. (Hey Faith, did you catch THAT?)

No, "it" is NOT about that. At least, not any "it" that I myself have in mind. But alas, most men and women haven't got a clue in that department. I am only too aware that they don't see the world through my eyes....:(

"And if that is all a woman wants from you, then why do you allow that?"

Good point. I believe that more and more men are waking up, and "not allowing that". It is a tiny spark that must be carefully nurtured into a flame. And I, as a counter-feminist agent of change, will do what I can to nurture that spark into a flame.

As I like to say, the next big initiative in the world will ride upon a tide of male energy.

"Today is a day for men to question what they are about. And for them to decide their own value. "

I couldn't agree more! :) And if only 20% of men see this through my eyes, that is FAR more than enough for the job! 20% is HUGE!!!
-------

Thank you for sharing what you have shared here, which is most enlightening! You may be certain that I will grind it small in my mind - which is a most wondrous mill!

6:34 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Thank-YOU for seeing my comment as I mean't for it to be. Sometimes I am not the best at explaining my thoughts.

2:50 AM  
Anonymous Jay R said...

The way feminists will have to be dealt with reminds me of an old joke: a miner is on a trail with his mule, which has stopped and won't move forward. A fellow comes around the bend just in time to see the miner pick up a large stick and smack the mule in the head. The mule starts forward, and as they pass the fellow asks the miner, "Why were you being so cruel to that animal?" To which the miner replies, "Cruel?! I was just trying to get her attention!"

3:13 PM  
Blogger the sad geek said...

Good post. It's difficult to fight a war when your opponents define your identity. It is time for us men to start trusting our own instincts instead of the feminist homunculus wagging her finger and saying "naughty man!".

6:40 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home