Monday, February 26, 2007

Behold, a Tangled Web!

Here is a highly recommended addition to your course work at the University of Self-Education. It is the seminal essay by Herbert Marcuse entitled Repressive Tolerance. This work is said by many to be the intellectual fountainhead of what is termed "political correctness." Reading it, one sees why. It was published in 1965, and it appears to lay the foundation for later construction by the various deconstructionists and postmodernists - you know, Derrida and all that crowd. This material will be 'old hat' for many of you, but for others it will be fresh, illuminating, even dazzling in the range of insight which it affords:
"THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression."

The link below will download the full text as a PDF file:

grace.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/frankfurt/marcuse/tolerance.pdf

I notice that the file is hosted on a server at Evergreen State College, in Olympia, WA., USA. Maybe some of you know something about the reputation of Evergreen!

But as I see it, the central difficulty inherent to this ideology is that it contains no built-in guarantee that the people who use it will do so intelligently or with moral self-clarity. Mutatis mutandis! There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and lip, and plenty of ways for mischief to creep in, or shoe-horn in. Marcuse and his lefty catechumens are too clever by half—not to imply that reactionary opinions like mine amount to a hill of beans!

This is given as background information. It reveals a lot about the roots of feminism, for feminist rhetoric is replete with Marcusian widgets and hidden standards! The flamboyant web personality Ginmar, who is known to scoff at the "fallacy" that there are "two sides to every story", furnishes a prime example. It is not difficult to guess the trough from which Ginmar directly or indirectly munches her oats.

Anyway: Go, read, study, grow in your counter-feminist erudition.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Joke. Ha! Ha!

I don't know if this is politically correct or not... ;)

One day, a drunkard was reeling and staggering down the street. He passed in front of a billiard parlor, and somehow he mistook this billiard parlor for a saloon.

As he lurched through the door, he noticed the sign in the window which said: BILLIARDS.

He stepped up to the counter where the billiard man was polishing cues, and said in a slurred, drunken voice:

"Hey! Barkeep! Gimme a glass of...billiards!"

The billiard man smiled craftily and decided to have a bit of fun. He went in back of the billiard parlor to a stable directly across the alley, and collected a glass full of horse piss from one of the horses.

The billiard man returned to the billiard parlor, and set the glass in front of the drunkard. The drunkard took the glass and drained it all the way down. Every drop!

Then the drunkard paused reflectively for a moment, and looked at the billiard man and said:

"Y'know...if I wasn't an experienced billiards drinker, I'd say this tasted exactly like horse piss!"

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The Sea Fan


A
bove is depicted a sea fan - a type of marine organism found around coral reefs and other offshore habitats. It is a colonial organism, consisting of numerous individual polyps spread along an elaborate, branching network structure.

If you think I am crafting a metaphor, you are absolutely right.

You see, there is another kind of sea fan I would like to introduce you to. It is given the same pronunciation - sea-fan - but is spelled rather differently.

It is spelled CFAN.

This is an acronym, and it signifies Counter-Feminist Awareness Network.

The CFAN, like the sea fan, is a complex, branching, networked life form which spreads widely and catches the current. Unlike the sea fan, which only lives in the ocean, the CFAN reaches across oceans, and even penetrates into the mysterious heart of vast continents. Can you hear me over there? Are we reaching?

The organisms which inhabit the CFAN are not polyps, but rather beans. And by that I mean specifically human beans.

And these very special beans, along the CFAN, can receive and transmit amongst themselves in all manner of mysterious and crafty ways—just as I am sure that the polyps on the sea fans are capable of doing. Got that in your beanie?

So, are YOU a member of the CFAN? Well, assuming that you don't like feminism, you are if you think you are. However, you should be aware of one little proviso. See, we need to keep this somewhat hush-hush. Mind you, not deadly secret—just cool, discreet and....suave. Therefore, know this: Any individual or group which publicly announces membership in the CFAN, or claims to speak in the name of the CFAN, or worst of all undertakes action in the name of the CFAN is, for the official record, NOT PART OF THE CFAN!

Wink, wink! ;) And a nod. . .

Are we clear as the azure waters of a coral lagoon about that? Good!

Now a final word about spelling. If you want to write it as sea fan or seafan instead of CFAN, that's your call. It's highly poetic, is it not?

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Plundering Their Brains: Part 2

Some time ago, I posted a link to a pro-feminist men's website in Finland, and made some rather acid remarks about what I found there. Somewhere in the post I said:

I'd like you to give the linked document a quick but careful read and see what you can learn about the organizing principles for a socio-political movement. Any socio-political movement. I think that our enemies have something to teach us here...

http://www.profeministimiehet.net/old/question.htm


In fact, I believe they have given us a gift. Check it out, homies! If you tweak a few keyterms here and there, reshuffle a concept or two, and delete a few bits that are clearly not pertinent, you will end up with a jim-dandy operating template for our very own counter-feminist movement! Ain't it swell, when your foe does all the work for you?

And that, comrades, is what counter-feminism is all about: Saving our own energy and making them do the work!

So now, the time has come to actually do this literary engineering as opposed to just talking about it! Here it is, the Profeministimiehet "manifesto" singing OUR song. And I didn't need to write very much at all:

What is Counter-Feminism?


Counter-Feminism describes men's solidarity and support for men's struggles and issues. Thus just as there are various feminisms so there are various forms of counter-feminism. However, amongst all the different viewpoints, counter-feminists share a core conviction to weaken and undermine feminism. Through this we aim to actively rethink and deconstruct feminism as the dominant and hegemonic discourse. This involves actively changing both ourselves and other men – personally, politically, at home, at work, in the media, in campaigns, in law, and so on. Examples of men's actions and power that need changing include men’s chivalry, passivity, apathy, anti-intellectualism, anti-male sexism and male self-loathing more generally.

But don’t we already live in an equal society?

No we don’t. There is the anti-male gender politics of the workplace, the disparity of gender-specific social spaces in women's favor, differences in power and status, inequality of reproductive freedom, men's financial burdens, and women's legally-sanctioned violence toward men to name a few. Gender inequality runs very deep. Even if some women suffer under feminist-dominated society, women also benefit from its fruits.

Why would I want to be a counter-feminist?

Why wouldn’t you? Unless you agree with for example: paternity fraud, false rape accusation, male-bashing, cultural double standards, loss of constitutional rights, lack of equal protection under the law, female violence against men or the Duluth Model. To achieve a more equal society, men’s solidarity is needed to confront these problems. The alternative is to ignore them.

What are counter-feminists going to do about it?

We act on these issues personally and politically. We promote public awareness and discussion about them. We make contacts with men who think similarly so that they can feel they are not alone. Counter-feminism asks men for a consciousness of their own position and towards the men around us. This can be very painful, but it can help men to live more fulfilling lives also.

Are counter-feminist men anti-woman?

We are not anti-woman. However, we believe that women, and feminists in particular, shouldn’t look for excuses when confronted with gender issues. Also, some people and some media commentators have said that feminism is against men. We think this is accurate.

Is counter-feminism an organised movement?

There is no such thing as an organised counter-feminist movement. Rather, counter-feminism is a plural movement or set of networks. Since this is a movement of men, we have to be especially careful not to mirror feminist ideology and feminist totalitarianism.

What about other discriminated groups in society?

Counter-feminism does not employ the feminist trick of wrapping itself in the banner of other movements in order to use those movements as living shields. Counter-feminism's focus is deliberately narrow and targeted: To bring about the fall of feminism. We do not expect all counter-feminists to agree on all things, but upon the main thing, surely yes.

Is counter-feminism related to the pro-feminist men's movement?

Absolutely not, except in an adversarial sense. The term "pro-feminist men's movement" is an oxymoron, and this movement is better described as the men's auxiliary of the women's movement.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Worth a Quick Look...

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Abjure the Redstockings Manifesto

Early today, I had an inspiration. I was pondering the question of eventual negotiation with our mortal foe feminism - when and how this might happen, and what terms we might bring to the table.

Since I always anticipate trickery from their side, I wanted to fashion some means or some device to keep us one step ahead of the game.

The primary difficulty, as I see it, is that once they decide to open talks with us, they'll deceitfully communicate with an "us" who isn't truly ....US! They'll want to salvage their perpetual revolution, and they will seek out factions likely to offer a sweet bargain that will preserve feminism's business-as-usual under suitable masking.

At a shrewd guess, these chosen negotiators are likely to be metamorphosed members of the so-called pro-feminist men's movement. No doubt, as time goes on and the term "MRA" gains radical chic cachet, such folk will be sneaking under the flap of the big tent and calling themselves "MRAs" also. (Here's a hint: the waxy ones who flaunt this term like a ten-acre flag, or wear it like a stage costume, are the ones to watch out for!)

Negotiation is not, be it understood, a meeting of particular people at a set time. Rather, it is an informal process of dialogue, in full hearing of the world, through the many direct and indirect channels of communication which the world puts at our disposal.

What the feminists want to avoid is direct conversation with "whackjobs" who harbor an uncompromising radical analysis. By that I mean, anybody who poses a fundamental threat to the feminist weltanschauung. They pray, above all things, to keep such persons forever on their "do not engage" list. Their endeavor shall always be to cut such persons out of the loop.

We who aspire to meaningful change, and to a clean-cut settlement of matters presently galling us, must make it our own endeavor to thwart such a thing. Remember what we are negotiating: the terms of feminism's obsolescence. The feminists want to postpone this in perpetuity, but they must learn to dance a different step.

What then, would assure the transmission of an uncompromised counter-feminist analysis into the sphere of negotiation? Very simply this: a universally promulgated understanding of the preconditions necessary for negotiation to begin, one that is binding upon all concerned.

I have in mind a particular instrument, and it is this that was the object of my morning inspiration. The early feminist document known as the Redstockings Manifesto is convenient to the business I am now proposing, given that this document embodies much weighty matter in a marvellous economy of words. The principles declared in this manifesto are in nearly every way central to the feminist endeavor, in such sort that their exclusion would effectively scoop the pulp clean out of the melon.

In view of the points outlined above, the instrument which I propose shall be termed The Oath of Abjuration of the Redstockings Manifesto.

For convenience, let us give it a short form: The Oath of Abjuration.
"Be it known to all present and to all the world that I, _______ , do solemnly abjure and forswear all intellectual allegiance and all political loyalty to the principles, policies and ideologies set forth in the document called The Redstockings Manifesto, and that said principles, policies and ideologies will in future make no part of my presuppositional posture in the realm of negotiation.

Given this on this Day of ___, in the Month of ____, in the Year of ______."

And so, let it be understood that all self-declared feminists or other women who wish to engage in negotiatory dialogue with the pro-male sector must make it clear by one or another means that they are signatory to the Oath of Abjuration. If they fail to do so, then no agreement they may conclude will be deemed legitimate or binding, or of sufficient force to command respect from pro-male partisans who were excluded from negotiation.

By the way, anybody at all who wishes to swear to the Oath, male or female, is encouraged to do so. You are more than welcome to abjure, even if you have never jured in the first place.

Let us now endeavor to put this about in the world and make it generally known, and to plant it in the brains of all concerned in a way that will colonize their thoughts when the time is right.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Rads vs. Lessrads

Here is something interesting I came upon a little while ago.

http://operationwasp.wordpress.com/

It is always fun to watch the people on the other side squabbling with each other.

This is further confirmation of a certain trend I see developing....

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Death to Valentine's Day!

We are now approaching the calendar date of 14 February, a time-slot specially consecrated in Western civilization to certain ritual expressions of spontaneous sentimentality. This may sound like a burdensome oxymoron translated into real-life terms, but I can assure you it is much, much more than that. It is in fact a day when the privileged male of our species, in the brimming fullness of his heart, renders courtly obeisance unto the female by means of ritual sacrifice upon the altar of Mammon in the name of Eros, or Cupid, or whatever the hell you want to call it.

This special day is known as St.Valentine's day, in honor of no less than three Christian saints by the name of Valentinius, who reputedly suffered martyrdom in the days of the late Roman Empire. One of these Valentines, it seems, got his head lopped off by order of the Emperor Claudius II Gothicus in 280 A.D., reportedly because he would not abjure the name of Christ. Of the other two Valentines, precious little is known other than they were martyred.

Well, 14 February made it onto the Roman Catholic calendar of holy days, and during the Middle Ages a tradition came about that this day was consecrated to lovers - who would engage in such endearments as exchanging letters, gifts, and "tokens". Also, as everybody knows, 14 February is the day when birds chose their mates. At least that is what Chaucer tells us, and he was a pretty smart critter so I reckon he must know, eh?

Back in elementary school, Valentine's Day was a time for munching on candy hearts and making little projects from crayons and construction paper that were given to a randomly selected member of the opposite sex, who was said to be one's "valentine". All very hokey and innocent, you would say - although a certain percentage of the lads rebelled against it.

Nowadays, you know that Valentine's day is approaching when you notice the spike in retail merchandising campaigns built around the theme of "buy things for HER." And why? Because you can't wait to see the sparkle of joy in her eyes! Because you are expected to make such observances. Because you might be in the dog house if you fail to make such observances.

Jewelry stores are the worst. They try to buffalo you into buying expensive rocks, playing upon your (unstated!) misgivings that if you fail to buy such rocks, you'll no longer be permitted to get your rocks off. (Get it?)

Come to think of it, the jewelry stores are even worse than I have suggested. They don't necessarily "peak" during the Valentine season - they go at it constantly all year round! But, I digress...

In recent times, the feminists have promulgated a thing which they call V-Day, meant to be commemorated on or about 14 February. The 'V' in V-Day is said to stand for "violence", as in male violence. See where this is headed? The feminist V-Day was planted like a cuckoo's egg with the intention that the "hatchling" would push the original valentine birds out of the nest.

Or in plain English, V-Day was instituted as part of feminism's ongoing campaign to destroy normal sexual relations by sowing the seeds of suspicion and hostility between men and women. There, I said it! And nothing in my statement will harm normal sexual relations in any way, although it just might do some damage to feminism. At least I hope it will!

Still, let it be known that V-Day, for all of its evil intent, has not committed any appalling injustice against any innocent target. For you see, Valentine's Day is a female supremacist institution through and through - a fact which has only gotten more noticeably true in recent years with the dramatic rise of retail hype. Valentine innocence is long dead; it died with the passing of the middle ages, and the passing of elementary school.

In conclusion, given that neither the traditional Valentine's Day, nor the feminist V-Day harbor anything of value to any self-respecting male citizen, why not pitch the whole mess overboard with no regrets? I propose that we hereinafter refer to 14 February as V.D. It is certainly "venereal" in the broad sense of the term. Furthermore, much about it may be fittingly characterized as "diseased". Ergo, it is a venereal disease! Does that sound about right?

So my fellow counter-feminists, and MRAs of all persuasions, let us take example from the Emperor Claudius II Gothicus, and sign the order for the axe to swing.

Monday, February 12, 2007

The Redstockings Manifesto

I am here presenting the full text of a classic early feminist document called The Redstockings Manifesto.

This document, in its own way, is every bit as important and interesting as the more notorious SCUM Manifesto. Certainly, it ought to be equally well-known, for it is richly revealing of feminism in its entirety. Moreover, the SCUM Manifesto is commonly disowned nowadays by feminists, as being a non-feminist work. That assertion is disputable, but let it rest. My point here is that nobody can plausibly assert the same of the Redstockings Manifesto, for it is manifestly feminist through and through.

The Redstockings Manifesto is useful to the historically-minded MRA because it is a virtual smoking gun indicator of what early women's liberationists had in mind for the future of their movement, and the future of us all. It is similar to the SCUM Manifesto in that it sketches and foreshadows many things, but unlike that better known work the Redstockings Manifesto is written in a serious, down-to-earth style that cannot be explained away as artistic exaggeration, metaphor, fantasy, rhapsody, poetic license, or the like.

In this work we find many seeds that sprouted and grew luxuriantly in the years following its 1969 publication - for example, the idea that "the personal is the political", or the idea that "a woman's feelings" are specially sanctified and privileged, or the overarching assumption that "men are the problem". It's all in there! Well, quite a bit of it is, at any rate.

Certain bits which I found especially telling, have been given a red font treatment.

I know that publishing this document in this blog will have a ripple effect that will result in a LOT more people knowing what the Redstockings Manifesto is. So here it is:

REDSTOCKINGS MANIFESTO (1969)

I. After centuries of individual and preliminary political struggle, women are united to achieve their final liberation from male supremacy. Redstockings is dedicated to building this unity and winning our freedom.

II. Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men's lives. Our humanity is denied. Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence.

Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition. This creates the illusion that a woman's relationship with her man is a matter interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually. In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.

III. We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of male supremacy: men dominate women, a few men dominate the rest. All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.

IV. Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from men to institutions or to women themselves. We condemn these arguments as evasions. Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor. To blame institutions implies that men and women are equally victimized, obscures the fact that men benefit from the subordination of women, and gives men the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors. On the contrary, any man is free to renounce his superior position provided that he is willing to be treated like a woman by other men.

We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women's submission is not the result of brainwashing, stupidity, or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change our-selves, but to change men.

The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men. The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of men to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution.

V. We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.

Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions. Consciousness-raising is not "therapy", which implies the existence of individual solutions and falsely assumes that the male-female relationship is purely personal, but the only method by which we can ensure that our program for liberation is based on the concrete realities of our lives.

The first requirement for raising class consciousness is honesty, in private and in public, with ourselves and other women.

VI. We identify with all women. We define our best interest as that of the poorest, most brutally exploited woman.

We repudiate all economic, racial, educational or status privileges that divide us from other women. We are determined to recognize and eliminate any prejudices we may hold against other women.

We are committed to achieving internal democracy. We will do whatever is necessary to ensue that every woman in our movement has an equal chance to participate, assume responsibility, and develop her political potential.

VII. We call on all our sisters to unite with us in struggle.

We call on all men to give up their male privileges and support women's liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own.

In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of women against their oppressors. We will not ask what is "revolutionary" or "reformist", only what is good for women.

The time for individual skirmishes has passed. This time we are going all the way.

The more savvy readers of this blog will quickly note that much of the Redstockings Manifesto may be given a reverse-engineering tweak, and handily retrofitted for counter-feminist use! However, just remember that THEY are talking about men, but WE are only talking about feminists.

More about the Redstockings Manifesto HERE.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

This is What We Need to be Doing!

I have filched the following from a UK blog which I stumbled upon in the course of my internet meanderings. Although it is self-explanatory, I will explain it a little bit anyway. Notice that the author is addressing women as a group for counter-feminist recruitment purposes. We need to start doing this more and more! We need to start cranking out these kinds of open letters and manifestos that talk directly to the female population and incite them to open rebellion against feminism!

What's that you say, women won't go for it? I beg to differ. It is probably true that the majority of women won't go for it at first. However, a significant and influential minority will in fact do so, and once those individuals are in motion we can expect a follower effect, followed by a growth of social pressure along useful lines - which ought to encompass both non-feminist women, and weak feminists. The harder strata will prove resistant as always.

The prose style in this piece is, I would say, nearly ideal to reach the audience that needs to be reached.

A CALL TO ALL WOMEN

The majority of women have given up their right to speak for themselves, their basic human rights and their political authority, to others. No it’s not men who dictate to you women nor is it the imaginary “Patriarchy” who now speaks on your behalf and dictates what it is that you women supposedly want. It isn’t men who influence the politicians who shape the law. No, it’s feminists or should I say man-haters.

Let me enlighten the majority of women, the ones who actually like men, as to just how a situation like the one described in the interview above can happen. The corrupt laws that make this travesty of justice not only possible but, indeed, likely to occur again and again, are the laws that were created by man-haters called feminists. You think that feminists only hate bad men, but that’s not true, they hate all men, including your father, your sons, your husband and even your male ancestors. By giving these people a voice our society now pretends that feminists speak on behalf of all women. This is not true. As you read the interview above does it fill you with anger that a completely innocent man (and his loyal wife) have had to endure three and a half years of wrongful imprisonment purely on the word of a serial rape liar who used several aliases in order to make many false allegations against many innocent men?

It’s now claimed that the police knew his accuser was a serial liar who had a long record of making false accusations, but it didn’t stop them pursuing the case. Nor did the negative forensic evidence that proved she had lied about being raped, but as a consequence the police merely downgraded the charge to sexual assault. Just think about that for a moment. It’s claimed that the police knew that this woman had made false claims many times before and that the forensic evidence contradicted her story, and yet they still persisted with the case. If this is true it beggars belief. The only evidence was her testimony and yet she was apparently known to be a repeated false accuser. Oh and guess what? The Crown Prosecution Service announced recently that they intend to take no action whatsoever against this serial rape liar who still enjoys legal protection and as a result cannot be named. So she’s quite free to do this again.

So, I ask you women this question…….. What will you do when your son, your father, your brother, or your husband is accused and wrongly imprisoned like Warren Blackwell? Why do you allow feminist-man-haters, whose lifestyle is nothing like yours, to speak on your behalf? Unless you women stand up for your men these man-haters will continue to erode the basic human rights of your men folk. If you stand back and do nothing you have no right to complain when it affects your family.

If you’re a woman go to feminist websites and look at what they say about men like your husband, your sons, your brother, your father, in other words the men you love. They celebrate when men are killed, they wish false imprisonment on all men, they say that all men are rapists and they do this because they hate men, all men, including your men. So why do you allow these psychos to speak on your behalf?

Here is a link to the text in its native habitat:

A Call to All Women


I don't know what your experience will be, but I find that this blog formats dreadfully in my Firefox browser. I had to copy and paste the text into an editor in order to read it effectively!

Monday, February 05, 2007

Heretical Sex: Backlash Starts Against Heretic

Here is a link to the most recent post at Heretical Sex. I share this because it is....interesting!

Heretical Sex: Backlash Starts Against Heretic

Take a look. Note the comment from Marti Abernathey, the horrid blogstress in question. Click on her name to see her profile, and head on over to her blog.

The best way to treat such repulsive people, is to verbally skin them alive. Occupy the moral high ground. Go on the offensive. Be harsh and uncompromising, and cut them down to nothing.

Don't "argue" with them. Don't "explain" things to them. Don't appeal to their finer nature - since they clearly haven't got any such thing.

Talk DOWN to them, like a high judge from the bench, and tell them exactly what they ARE!

Treat them like worms.

But don't forget to play the game of language with finesse, and keep it just a tad to the hither side of "hate speech". ;-)

What I am describing here is also the stance which the men's movement, as a whole, ought to adopt toward feminism as a whole - and to teach by example to the general public.

I call it "paying your disrespects."

It's a whole new kind of psychology....