Crawling Up Their Radar Screen
I have discovered an online forum called Crown Princess Marie Chantal of Greece, the subject of which is, as near as I can make it, pink fluff. So if pink fluff is your passion, I reckon you'll feel right at home over yonder.
However, I don't want to offend readers of 'The Counter-Feminist' by suggesting that they care about pink fluff. I'll have you know that I entertain a much higher regard for my targeted CF audience than THAT!
The below-linked discussion thread is on the subject of 'feminism'—and yes, plenty of feminists populate that forum. One of the commenters on the thread is a certain Petals, whose self-descriptive tag line reads as follows:
Petals has this to say on « Reply #518 on Today at 12:35pm »:
Immediately following the above quotation Petals lays down three links—the first of which is to CF! (The other two connect to some excellent material and are certainly worth a look!)
Following the links, Petals says this:
Petals is mistaken also in believing that I or others in the Movement basically misunderstand anything at all. That is to say, I and others understand quite fully what the feminists have said about themselves. We are not deaf. We have indeed processed their words and we have found them unsatisfactory—so we are peeling away the tissue-thin surface of official feminist self-description in order to reveal the hidden mass of things which the feminists have NOT said about themselves! And it looks to me as if Petals and others like her have not yet gotten the memo informing the world that feminists no longer have the sole power to define feminism. I should know—I wrote that memo myself!
As for the "undercurrent of anger"—if Petals feels it is only SOMETIMES obvious, then clearly we must work a lot harder, mustn't we?
It is most true, certain and beyond dispute than feminism is working to redistribute power. I am gratified to know that we would concur with the feminists upon a point of such key importance! This puts me in mind of the infamous Captain Feeney along the high road with his levelled pistols and his call to "stand and deliver". The passengers dismount from the coach and empty their pockets onto the ground at his behest; he has "redistributed" their wealth from them to himself, much the way that feminism redistributes power away from men—the more the better! But—word to the wise!—fellows like Captain Feeney are known to "hang out" at places like Tyburn, aren't they. . . ? ;)
Laconic says this in the post immediately following:
So, to summarize the last part: "Yes, there are areas of life which are unfair to men, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is the systematic discrimination against and oppression of women which occurs in small ways that don't matter." Got it! Good to go, bucko! ;-)
These people make eternal asses of themselves and don't even know it, because they cannot see themselves as others see them—which in my opinion is their most useful trait. Useful to their enemies, I mean, because it renders them transparent and easy to second-guess. But the downside is, that their obtusity also renders them unstoppable. They never quit—they always come back for more! And they have so much state-constituted political power on their side that they can get away with this and suffer no consequences.
So what is to be done? We cannot argue with these people, and in fact we should not! In the end, we can do none other than play the game of power aggressively and combine them with the pavement on the high road of history.
There is comfort in knowing that we are going mainstream—they acknowledge it, so it must be true. I think we are doing something right, friends.
By the way, here's the link:
Crown Princess Marie Chantal of Greece Forum
And if you need to cut and paste:
http://princessmc.proboards66.com/index.cgi?
board=interest&action=display&thread=1186790398&page=52
However, I don't want to offend readers of 'The Counter-Feminist' by suggesting that they care about pink fluff. I'll have you know that I entertain a much higher regard for my targeted CF audience than THAT!
The below-linked discussion thread is on the subject of 'feminism'—and yes, plenty of feminists populate that forum. One of the commenters on the thread is a certain Petals, whose self-descriptive tag line reads as follows:
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure. "(Yes, yes; I quite understand, dearie! And I wouldn't ever dream of taking it seriously—it is only ironic; only tongue-in-cheek! ;-)
Petals has this to say on « Reply #518 on Today at 12:35pm »:
"I don't know if any of you care but I've been reading some anti-feminism blogs and I thought I'd share my rage with you all."Thanks just the same Petals, but I've more than enough of my own!
Immediately following the above quotation Petals lays down three links—the first of which is to CF! (The other two connect to some excellent material and are certainly worth a look!)
Following the links, Petals says this:
"What all of the blogs have in common seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what feminism is about. Also, there seems to be an undercurrent (and sometimes an obvious current) of anger over the attempt by feminism to redistribute power."Here I must take exception. What Petals observes is NOT a "basic misunderstanding" of feminism, but rather a deeper understanding of it. A more profound understanding. I do agree that a basic misunderstanding of feminism is in effect. However, this misunderstanding operates almost entirely from the feminist side—owing to a defense mechanism which I have elsewhere given the name of "cognitive fragmentation".
Petals is mistaken also in believing that I or others in the Movement basically misunderstand anything at all. That is to say, I and others understand quite fully what the feminists have said about themselves. We are not deaf. We have indeed processed their words and we have found them unsatisfactory—so we are peeling away the tissue-thin surface of official feminist self-description in order to reveal the hidden mass of things which the feminists have NOT said about themselves! And it looks to me as if Petals and others like her have not yet gotten the memo informing the world that feminists no longer have the sole power to define feminism. I should know—I wrote that memo myself!
As for the "undercurrent of anger"—if Petals feels it is only SOMETIMES obvious, then clearly we must work a lot harder, mustn't we?
It is most true, certain and beyond dispute than feminism is working to redistribute power. I am gratified to know that we would concur with the feminists upon a point of such key importance! This puts me in mind of the infamous Captain Feeney along the high road with his levelled pistols and his call to "stand and deliver". The passengers dismount from the coach and empty their pockets onto the ground at his behest; he has "redistributed" their wealth from them to himself, much the way that feminism redistributes power away from men—the more the better! But—word to the wise!—fellows like Captain Feeney are known to "hang out" at places like Tyburn, aren't they. . . ? ;)
Laconic says this in the post immediately following:
I think the most disturbing part about the blogs Petals linked is that they link to so many other blogs on the side. The fact that there are so many of these people (I say people, but it's clear most if not all of them are men) out there is scary. [I hate to burst your bubble, but it's more women than you think!] I don't understand how they arrive at the idea that it's men who are the underclass, men who have been discriminated against for hundreds of years, ["Hundreds of years"? Who said that?] men who need to fight back against society, men who are being hurt by women's attempts to be considered just as much a person as a man automatically is. [Straw man fallacy: that is not what they say men are "being hurt by". Stick a dunce cap on your head and sit in the back row until you learn to pay attention in class!]Their words sound like the twittering twaddle of solipsistic teeny-boppers. Yet one point emerges very clearly: we know far more about them than they know about us! And that is a great power. But here's another snippet:
It's just so frustrating—especially since, as Petals says, as this stuff gets more mainstream, it becomes more palatable for non-extreme people, so they say "hmm, maybe this guy has a point," [And what if he really does have a point? Ever thought about that? Hmm. .] and then the ridiculous idea that men are being held down by women or whatever they're trying to say spreads. [Notice two things: First—she admits she doesn't know what "they're trying to say" when she inserts "whatever". This demonstrates not only that she pays no attention, but can't even be bothered to hide that she pays no attention! Happily, I am paying more attention than she is. And second—she calls it a "ridiculous idea". Do you see what this reveals? It reveals that she has formed her judgment on a foundation of self-admitted ignorance—and doesn't even know it!]And more:
It's not really about father's rights or whatever they try to disguise it as. It's about taking back the gains women have made because some men are unhappy with women trying to even the playing field. [Proof? Come on grrrrly, put up or shut up! Not really about father's rights? Put up or shut up! Happily for them, they need never stand behind their words while they are hiding in their echo chamber.]And one final bit:
(And yes, there are areas of life that are unfair to men. But that is not the issue here [I beg to differ; it certainly IS the issue here!] —the issue is the systematic discrimination against and oppression of women that exists to this day, even if it's not easy for us to see and even if it's in small ways that don't matter. [I'm vastly relieved to know that the systematic discrimination against and oppression of women is "only in small ways that don't matter". This lightens my heart more than I can hope to express! I cannot begin to tell you how glad I am to hear of this!]Oh the bloody pig-headed fools! Their name is LEGION!! I wish could transport them into the bodies of swine and stampede them over a cliff into a lake!
So, to summarize the last part: "Yes, there are areas of life which are unfair to men, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is the systematic discrimination against and oppression of women which occurs in small ways that don't matter." Got it! Good to go, bucko! ;-)
These people make eternal asses of themselves and don't even know it, because they cannot see themselves as others see them—which in my opinion is their most useful trait. Useful to their enemies, I mean, because it renders them transparent and easy to second-guess. But the downside is, that their obtusity also renders them unstoppable. They never quit—they always come back for more! And they have so much state-constituted political power on their side that they can get away with this and suffer no consequences.
So what is to be done? We cannot argue with these people, and in fact we should not! In the end, we can do none other than play the game of power aggressively and combine them with the pavement on the high road of history.
There is comfort in knowing that we are going mainstream—they acknowledge it, so it must be true. I think we are doing something right, friends.
By the way, here's the link:
Crown Princess Marie Chantal of Greece Forum
And if you need to cut and paste:
http://princessmc.proboards66.com/index.cgi?
board=interest&action=display&thread=1186790398&page=52
posted by Fidelbogen at 12:33 PM
8 Comments:
Good spotting Fidelbogen, I enjoyed your analysis. They are indeed beginning to notice that not everyone is clapping along to their happy-happy vision. The feminists remind me of people caught in a current, swept up and carried along in a momentum they've become unaware of, while others on firm ground are running around, waving their arms, yelling at the top of their voices, urging them to turn-around and LOOK WHERE YOU'RE HEADED.
The metaphorical Niagara Falls is looming.
It isn't all anger sisters. It's despair.
They are nothing more than soppy sorority sob sisters sucking down the soda of victimhood. Yes, that includes the token men in there too.
Their latest escapade involves trying to prevent people linking back to them. Looks like they'll have to try harder, or perhaps ask a real guy how to do all that 'computer stuff'.
Definitely a good entry by Mr. CF there... I trawled along, and found a blog in the sig of a member who was threatening to crush the testicles of men (of course,.. lol) who were antifeminists... anyway, i dropped the female privilege list in a reply to her post, which was a copy/paste (as was mine) of the 'male privilege list'.
Thanks, Karl! :) Say...I don't suppose you could provide a link to that whereof you speak..?
Davout: Whatever they're trying to do has been quite unsuccessful...right?
Rob: The problem is that they're intent upon dragging us ALL over Niagara. That's the tough part!
I think the people in that forum neither know much about feminism nor do they know much about the so-called men's movement. If they knew as much about feminism as we who criticize it, there's a fair chance they would be on our side. The question is... should we care trying to educate them, when most of them are determined to never get their index fingers out of their ears anyway?
For them, it's much easier and more fun rooting for feminism than educating themselves about its basics. It looks like in the minds of most women, there's still this 2-step marketing formula at work:
"(1) feminism = good for women
(2) I'm a woman => feminism is good for me"
The result of accepting (1) and (2) as true of course is: "Anyone who criticizes feminism, criticizes me personally."
That's why they think they have an obligation to hate us, fidelbogen... it's not because they know us (they don't), it's because they know nothing about feminism. They never cared about their party's manifesto, because they just assume their "leaders" will mean no harm. Of course their leaders ignore the consequences of feminism too, and so it's a perfect recipe for disaster.
I wouldn't be worried about that forum, in fact I think it's a good sign. The more they bitch and fume about us, the more they help us spreading the word. The more noise they make, the more noise will reach male or female ears belonging to people with their soul, senses and judgement still being intact.
They want to portray us as backward-oriented, violent macho men because that'd be an enemy they know how to defeat. But there's nothing they can do about people being more civilized and non-violent than they are, and who systematically and calmly dismantle the cult of feminism right in front of their eyes.
And it's not us who resist change, it's them. We don't want to turn back the clock hundreds of years, instead we're the ones with our instincts still being intact: We see what the future will look like if everything remains on its current course, and it's the scorched earth of a cold-hearted, brutalized, estranged society we see.
Have you already noticed this one, Fidelbogen, at #546?
"The idea of a men's rights movement is just... mind-boggling. How can they possibly believe it's necessary? This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic ways society works."
Maybe that user should spend more time living among the people on this planet, instead of travelling in a Tardis through fantasy worlds. But here's the thing she unintentionally points to: I really believe it's wrong calling ourselves a "men's rights movement" because a) it's not true (already women are joining) and b) something along the lines of "human rights movement" is more inclusive and productive and gets more to the point. And it accelerates core meltdown in feminists. :-)
michael,
You hit the nail on the head. I would add that they presume that equality/egalitarianism is a moral good. Perhaps this Murray Rothbard article would help them understand.
Fidel,
The links back to their site still work so I don't think they've managed to solicit any tech. (male) support.
This is the "Are you serious?!", "umm...it's like..." and "Oh no! My nail is chipped!" crowd. Sterling candidates for the 'Mrs Domestic Diva' degree methinks.
Actually, reading the snippets that you have, what it sounds like is a common and infuriating phenomenon associated with policital correctness. People will talk about some contentious political belief or attitude like everyone has it -- like it's not contentious. In fact, it usually is done in a "we, the enlightened modern folk, now know that..." like it is some kind of (usually "scientific") fact or something. To me that is almost entirely what is offensive about it -- this second order offense of not admitting there is another side to the issue. While it certainly is quite natural to talk like a true believer when it comes to your true beliefs, they are really trying to dismiss the possible legitimacy of dissenting views with the manner in which they say things rather than the content of what they say. No matter how right you think you are, too much of that quickly becomes an unforgivable offense against the love of wisdom.
But, the most amusing thing of all, I think, was the one with how they find it so disturbing that so many people side with you. Yep. That's right. The boys don't want to participate in your little tea party, girls. We don't buy your bullshit that this is about equality -- that's the whole point. I guess you were hoping that we could just all "now know" that <insert your bullshit here>.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home