CF is Pragmatic in its Manner of Operation
Counter-feminist analysis does not build its knowledge of feminism on what feminists say about feminism—which we know to be dishonest, incoherent, and self-serving—but rather upon independently formulated conclusions blended with a critical, watchdog scrutiny.
If we cannot coherently declare what feminism IS, then we cannot coherently guard ourselves against it—since it is forever shifting about this way and that, such that when the many-sided beast assails us from all directions at once within the fabric of culture, we lack any fixed logical center from which to mount an effective defense. This is yet another reason that feminists ought not have the sole power to define feminism. They have no right to render us defenseless by intellectually dishonest and downright totalitarian methods. Granted, they are free to attempt this, but we are likewise free to throw stumbling-blocks in their path.
Accordingly then, we would understand our dialogue with feminism as verbal self-defense rather than argument. Or, to borrow a term from the feminists themselves, verbal karate. For too long we have deceived ourselves and acted the part of patsies because we naively supposed our enemy was playing the same game by the same rules. We should henceforth undertake to shed such illusions, and to face the future with unencumbered vision.
The counter-feminist enterprise may be reckoned as verbal self-defense on a societal scale. And we have concluded, upon the precept that the best defense is a good offense, to seize the offensive in our war of words. Verbal self-defense, be it in the social microcosm or the societal macrocosm, is not about carrying the point by strength of logical clarity or by any kind of Robert's Rules. It is about repelling an aggressor. It is about throwing the other person off your back, in a theatre of action where quickness, cleverness, acuity, eloquence, and sometimes even ruthlessness, are the order of the day.
We therefore affirm to all the world, that a growling watchdog stance is to be expected from the men's movement, as a strategy most befitting to the objective situation of men in the world today. The present writer cannot in good conscience recommend anything other.
It is with good reason that our policy is driven by coldly practical considerations—from the organizing premise that feminism is best understood as an impersonal and non-human force which merely gathers humans in its stride and utilizes them.
Feminism is not our friend, so it is proper that our style of engagement betokens no such assumption. We organize, we mobilize, we formulate plans, and at no point do we look upon feminism as anything other than a challenge to our powers and wiles, a vexed puzzle to be deciphered and eventually left behind on the way to better things. The question is not whether feminism has got to go, but how.
It does not matter if certain feminists feel that counter-feminist analysis misrepresents feminism. The purpose of our analysis is not to seek feminist approval, but to construct a pragmatic template which allows us to function effectively in terms of our lived experience, and in terms of what we hope to accomplish.
Let us suppose that Faith of the "Feminist Country" blog is sitting in her parked car with the engine idling, and I want her to turn it off. But Faith is not amenable to negotiation by any means, to which may be added that she has the windows rolled up and that she is toking and chugging and rocking out to her stereo, oblivious to the world. Argument with the driver is clearly futile, so I lean over and cajole the engine itself, but this proves equally unavailing. Finally, I take the law in my hands so to speak, by prying the hood open and rummaging around beneath it. I snip wires and unscrew things at random until at length I accomplish my design. However, note that I have done so NOT by any form of rational engagement with either Faith or her car, but rather by a method merely pragmatic and, I might add, impersonal.
Feminism, over the years, has operated impersonally upon men. It has negated our essence as individuals—yours and mine—and effectively swallowed our lives into a kind of dialectical machinery which must now be rewired and made to run in reverse, so that you and I may begin, truly, to exist once more. As feminism has operated upon men, so likewise must men now operate—not upon women—but upon feminists specifically.
As said, argument is not the road to victory—and if you walk this road you are no better than a snake chasing its tail on a hamster wheel. A true estimation of our foe does not comport with ingenuous conversation of any sort, since they long ago forfeited the right to be deemed fit for such communication. They play with loaded dice; they play with a stacked deck; they do not play a clean game! And the entirety of our counter-feminist endeavor should make due allowance for this unfortunate state of affairs. As they have measured unto us, so too we in our hour shall measure unto them, and quite rightly, since we have no other option. The shoe will fit them on the other foot, and they will wear it!
Verbal self-defense provides the working model by whose pattern we take the offensive against feminism. And this pattern is far more than "verbal": By analogy, it maps to every counter-feminist project that we might embark upon—it extends to ALL realms. The essential spirit of thrust-and-parry has its counterpart in every theatre of operation, and the central, preeminent quality here advocated is pragmatism: practical action that obtains results. For by now we surely know what results can be expected from a perpetual argument with feminism. So we must try our hand at something different—verbally and every other way. We can never make the other side behave differently by persuading it to do so. We can only make it do so, by making it do so!
This means assuming ownership of power; seizing the initiative; standing your ground! And then, coolly asking them what they intend to do about it. Refusing to yield is not the same as pushing—even though some will try to twist your mind into believing that it is. Treating somebody as an equal does not equal letting them walk all over you. And yet any time we refuse to roll over like dogs, you'll hear some feminist, somewhere, screaming about "male privilege". It's the feminist way!
They, who see us as dogs, merit human consideration in proportion as they have distanced themselves from feminism—ideally disowning the word itself, and at the very least swearing to the Oath of Abjuration of the Redstockings Manifesto. If they have accomplished none of this, they should expect to be viewed pragmatically, which in practice translates as impersonally and manipulatively. About the way a Jew might regard somebody who, however well-behaved, unabashedly admits to being a National Socialist.
Our pragmatic policy for the everyday social world is that feminists should be rendered self-conscious, so that they will draw back into their shell. Their shell is not a practical stance from which to mount a moral offensive, or any form of argument whatever—and that is precisely the point!
Remember that you are withholding legitimacy from their ideology. But you needn't always state this in so many words. It is often witty and penetrating to merely adopt an air of blithe disregard for all things feministical, even while steering clear of whatever could reasonably be deemed offensive. I repeat: reasonably. So you should as nearly as possible behave as if no such thing as feminism even existed at all, and to this end you may freely pretend to more ignorance than you actually possess. Act as if you find your own world, and your own thoughts, infinitely more interesting—which I'm sure you do! The catch is that they in fact will, at some point, feel "offended" - or irked at any rate. But if you have done your work right, they'll have no choice but bottle up their feelings and stew in their juices!
If the foregoing sounds like "passive resistance", let me assure you it is that indeed! Some might complain that such a method is not "masculine" enough for a "men's movement", but I say to hell with that line of thinking: we should use every trick in the book and then write some new books to boot! We should not limit ourselves.
However, "playing dumb" is not the only way to go about it, and you need not limit your approach in this regard. Suit your tactic to the terrain of battle. If you decide on a more openly assertive stance, you should bear in mind that you must always keep them on the defensive. Don't attempt to plead your case; you are not the one on trial! Rather, be an aggressive questioner, a prosecuting attorney; demand to know what they've got to say for themselves; get them on the ropes and don't let up!
Everywhere, in all theatres of operation both micro and macro, keep feminism on the defensive!
Here's a clever trick. You may be conversing with a feminist one day, and sure enough you'll find occasion to trot out your favorite war-horse maxim: "I do not support feminism". That alone should terminate the conversation on the spot, or so you might reasonably assume.
But chances are good that your interlocutor is a glutton for punishment. She'll reel off a string of lightning-fast accusations meant to shame you by making you appear stupid and insensitive: "What, you don't support equal pay? Equal rights? A woman's right to choose? A woman's right to leave an abusive relationship? The right to not wear makeup? The right to not shave her legs? The right to not get raped?". And so on and so on......
And your response? Amazingly simple. Just say, "Oh sure, of course I support those things (or most of those things), however, I do not support feminism!"
Chances are that she'll be caught short by this cleverly loaded, flippantly offbeat statement—the like of which she likely hasn't heard before. She'll stagger; she'll drop a stitch; she'll scan the words in multiple passes and still come up blank. If she's wise, she'll drop the subject. If she presses the point, then you've got her where you want her—in a zone of argument where she can't hope to win because you know the moves in advance!
And what have you accomplished by this little trick? You have very craftily insinuated that her a priori understanding of feminism is defective, or incomplete, or simply misses the point. For in fact, all she has done is to recite a list of rhetorical talking points. Yet she has overlooked the essential thing about feminism altogether—a lack which you, in your counter-feminist wisdom, could remedy. And you have effected your little coup, not by argument, but by categorically informing her of something, albeit through insidious indirection, by raking fire from an unseen quarter.
And that is the true heart of the game: You don't argue with feminists, you simply TELL them things.
This raises another point concerning the nature of argument in general—likely a point of confusion, so it is worthy of discussion. There are two distinct forms of argument to be understood here: argument with, and argument against. In the former, you are attempting to convert the opposition from their presently held position. In the latter, you are urging upon a neutral party the superior merit of your own position.
It is the second form of argument—argument against—that should henceforth become the mainstay of men's movement polemical and recruitment efforts. We know exactly how futile is the first form of argument, and what an energy sink it is—useful only for limited tactical purposes but worthless as a foundational strategy for our movement.
And what is the foundational strategy for our movement? It is to generate blocking energy—by which I mean anything that thwarts the forward momentum of perpetual revolution. And in most cases this is better accomplished by arguing against feminism rather than with it—although clever exceptions to this principle may be demonstrated on occasion.
To make it simple, anything which drains feminist energy in any way will thwart the forward momentum of perpetual revolution. Perpetual revolution needs to feed itself by eating the surrounding world—specifically by extracting energy through a process of entropic rearrangement. But when such energy cannot be extracted, perpetual revolution not only comes to a halt, it begins to run in reverse.
Perpetual revolution cannot remain static; it is either pushing outward, or it is running in reverse.
And any time you either waste feminism's energy, use feminism's energy against it, or attack feminism in a way which maximizes conservation of your own energy, you are thwarting the forward momentum of perpetual revolution—if only a tiny bit.
Arguing with feminism not only wastes your time and drains your energy, it does something far more insidious: it validates feminism's discourse, and thereby colonizes your inner space, which in turn contributes to the forward momentum of perpetual revolution. In effect, you are pouring your lifeblood into feminism's vortex and making that vortex fatter.
On the other hand, arguing against feminism cuts feminism out of the loop—for it operates within a region of preparation where independent forces are a-gathering, forces that will presently march against feminism in a massive wall of blocking energy! And the reason is this: when you are arguing against feminism you are standing apart from it and you are not contending with it. You are simply explaining something, or more to the point you are telling somebody something. The somebody in question may be a feminist, but is far more profitably a neutral party who may be drawn in a sympathetic direction. If the former, it blocks perpetual revolution within that particular moment and that particular microcosm. If the latter, it mobilizes the larger world efficaciously in a political manner. Either scenario is a winner, but as suggested, the latter is optimal.
I should additionally remark, that to trap a feminist in a funnel of structured questions leading toward a telling realization, is simply a roundabout way of telling that person something - albeit interrogatively framed.
This has been a brief sketch, whether it seems brief or otherwise. In conclusion, let it be said that counter-feminism has in addition to the various qualities here discussed, the quality of scalability. That is to say, nearly all of its stratagems will operate effectively in varying realms of hierarchical magnitude—the micro, the macro; the individual, the collective. And so on.
What I have given here operates like any other condensed information—just add water and cook it in the oven of your mind.
Follow the link below to read the NEXT installment in the 'CF' series of articles:
Follow the link below to read the PREVIOUS installment in the 'CF' series of articles: