eminism cannot be understood correctly if we leave the larger idea of female supremacism
unaccounted for. To put the case rather sarcastically, let us say that feminism
is the limit of what can be said or known about female supremacism without overstepping the bounds of respectability.
From this, you might conclude that all of feminism belongs to female supremacism, but that not all of female supremacism belongs to feminism. Yet bear in mind that feminism
collapses into a mud-heap of incoherencies if you insist on the polite fiction, that female supremacism makes no part of feminism's inner workings.
So, is female supremacism "respectable"? As evidenced by the prevailing feminist effort to deny participation in it, I would say that according to them
, at any rate, it is not. For if they
thought female supremacism was respectable, they would, or at least could, own it proudly. But instead they try to spackle over it and talk around it by means of certain devices, and this lands them in difficulties.
However, let us hold them accountable to their own apparent
standard, in the expectation of consistency from that direction. It appears they are willing to agree in theory
that female supremacism is not respectable. Fine. We are willing to agree in principle to what they have agreed in theory, and work from there.
And what is female supremacism? At a minimum it is the idea that women are superior to men and deserve to be the ruling class. At a maximum, it stretches to encompass less savory ideas. But, one thing at a time.
We have made the case that feminism is a hate movement, and now is not the time to plow that field again. I refer the reader to Is Feminism a Hate Movement?
, Further Notations Upon the Moral Anatomy of a Hate Movement
, and The Occult Nature of Feminism,
all of which are found on this blog. I also recommend David Byron's thoughts upon the subject—
see the link in the right-hand sidebar.
What I would make clear is, that any hate movement is either a supremacist movement, or else quite apt to turn into one before very long. If you hate something, you don't normally want it to be above you; you don't want it to rule
you. Rather, you wish to grind it into the dirt.
And plenty of feminists have made it clear that they hate men and wish to grind men into the dirt. Simply put, they wish for women to be supreme: they wish for female supremacy.
Feminism, as I have argued, cannot be coherently understood apart from disaffection toward males, and disaffection toward males occupies a spectrum that reaches clear into the hate range. And the viability of feminism is tied directly to disaffection with males, with the degree of viability indexed to the degree of disaffection: stronger disaffection means stronger feminism, and no disaffection would mean no feminism.
Now, show me a man-hater who is not a female supremacist, and I will show you a four-sided triangle. Misandry and female supremacism are natural bunkmates, and you must consider them both or you will not understand feminism.
Understand, that "feminism" is no longer the thing
which the word itself purports to signify. Mind you, not that it ever
was, but the underlying phenomenon which feminism
is meant to indicate has grown so vast over the years that it now dramatically overspills the boundaries of the word and spreads clear across the field of life, reaching into the most unexpected crevices. A slippage has occurred. The word feminism
has become an inadequate containment vessel, and ought to be viewed critically lest it guide our understanding amiss.
This is intended to make clear that feminism has a gravitational field—
just like a star, just like a planet. Anything man-hating or supremacist lies within feminism's orbit, regardless if any particular feminist admits it to be a part of feminism. Remember that feminism is pluralistic and incoherent within itself, but unified as to its proleptic endpoint.
We have established that feminism is a hate movement, and can not be rationally understood as anything else. Once that point is clear, it is not so hard to understand how "feminism" can link itself into a globally editable spreadsheet of common endeavor, tied to all sorts of things not officially deemed to be part of feminism proper. With apologies to the Beatles, all you need is hate.
Hate or disaffection, culminating in a de facto
drive for supremacy, runs through all of it like a unifying field that transmits a common life energy through the entire organism.
Disaffection with men, and advocacy for women, both play their part in the chemistry. The former is the core of female supremacism, and the latter supports the former to perfection. And this explains why so many self-proclaimed feminists can say quite honestly that they "don't hate men". They are being perfectly honest in their own minds
. They are simply doing good work on behalf of women, in a way which draws nigh unto Kierkegaardian purity of heart. But they are fools. They are simpletons. They are useful idiots. They don't know who they are really working for.
Let none misinform you that feminism is huddled and forlorn. On the contrary, feminism has a voice which echoes down the corridors of the United Nations, talks directly to the Rockefeller Foundation, and whispers in the ears of judges, Congressmen and Members of Parliament. It is true that certain feminists as individuals, even as groups, have a beleaguered air - the better to approximate victimhood. Call them "street feminists"—
who ever said that power is evenly distributed within feminism itself?
But feminism in its entirety is a colossus casting a mighty shadow.
It is no longer clear exactly where feminism ends and the rest of the cultural fabric begins - such has been feminism's penetrating power during the last forty-odd years. And that alone is a good reason to focus upon feminism's CORE. Unlike the perimeter, the core can be plotted and delimited with a sufficient certainty, and made subject to corrective operations which, once effected, will transmit their remedial influence through the full extent of the fabric.
As I suggested earlier, not altogether tongue-in-cheek, feminism is the limit of what can be said or known about female supremacism without overstepping the bounds of respectability.
The ugly face of female supremacism - nakedly flaunted in the crowing, schoolyard vernacular of "girls rule!" - is sequestered for the sake of polite appearances. However, plenty of radical feminists are aggressively open about their supremacism, and in Jungian terms you might call such people feminism's shadow
. Such radfems are an embarrassment—
embarrassment these days—
and we see a growing movement to isolate them or declare them "not really feminists".
One could wonder why the lessrads don't take the opposite tack. Why don't the lessrads declare that those embarrassing rads are indeed really feminists,
and that they themselves mercifully are not? But this is a whimsical digression. It is more important to understand that either fork in that road will convey the lessrads in the same direction: away from the source of feminism's power!
Clearly, the lessrads don't want to relinquish feminism, and they go about naively in the belief that if they hold fast to the word,
then the actual living thing—
will not escape their embrace. The trouble is, that everything which makes feminism meaningfully feminism
is drained steadily away by the very same action which increments the distance between the rads and the lessrads!
Accordingly, the more that the lessrads distance themselves from the rads, the more that the rads will be left in possession of the field. The lessrads might cling to the banner
, but what pray tell is THAT worth?
The radical feminists are ONE with the core of feminism. If they disappeared, something less radical, (or lessrad) would rush in to fill the vacuum, and feminism as a whole would be emasculated
thereby. Repeat this cycle as often as necessary to make feminism fade away and vanish outright. Maybe it would leave a smile like the cheshire cat. But I am quite certain that it would not be an IRONIC smile. That smile is only for us to smile, brothermen!
If feminists were honest, they would call themselves what they are: female supremacists. But they can't afford to be honest; they are playing a game of stealth and they need to be surreptitious. So they call themselves "feminists", which is a name easier to sell to the general public.
Suppose that Catherine MacKinnon stood up tomorrow and declared "I'm not a feminist", but then went serenely about her career—
writing, lecturing, preaching the same gospel as always. Clearly it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference what she called herself. At least not as far as we were concerned.
And that is why we should brush aside rather brusquely what feminists say about themselves. We men are on the receiving end of feminist political fallout. The impact is on US, therefore we have a perfect right to say what feminism is or isn't from our own end of the transaction.
Our input upon that point is as valid as any. We know best of all where the shoe pinches our foot.
The full phenomenology of female supremacism enormously outdistances what any given feminist would openly acknowledge to be feminism. The word feminism itself appears to operate as a calculated misdirection of attention. So if we marshal our understanding according to feminist categories, we will never stop looking where the feminist finger is pointing, and that finger will never point us toward victory or truth. We must undertake to cut our own highway directly through the middle of those categories and out of that Gordian maze, to the rolling green hills and river valleys of the country which lies beyond.
Feminism as a concept has porous, fuzzy boundaries. As such, it merges by degrees with any conflict that any woman
might have with any man,
anywhere, any way, at any time, for any reason—
and gathers it all into the official feminist story-line, under the shadow of feminism's grand central plot device, patriarchy
. This keeps the perpetual revolution whirling. IF feminism's borders lost their porosity, if they became impermeable, feminism would lose the source of its lifeblood—
being unable any longer to suck it from the surrounding world.
So yes, there is more to feminism than feminism. The word feminism is insufficient to the vital needs of our most urgent expression and must be modified somehow, if not supplanted altogether. The thing that we need to talk and think about has had, up until now, no name. It is high time that we gave it one. By naming it, we shall weaken its grip upon our lives, because power told is power lost.
I embark upon the quest for a proper neologism by means of a short descriptive phrase, one that briefly encompasses the matter here given to our consideration. The thing that we propose to fasten our minds upon may be styled as: the integrated complex of sociopolitical operations supporting the twin interests of female supremacism and women's advocacy.
But I think I can shorten that phrase even more. If it seems right to you, let us amend it to read as follows: the feministical operations complex.
And now, let us execute the finishing touch which consummates the distillation of perfection. If we extract the fem
, and the plex
and add them together thuswise - fem+plex - and thereupon for the sake of fullness append the definite article, we arrive finally at the following:THE FEMPLEX.
Elegant, isn't it?
It's a word that we've been needing for a good long while, and I am happy to have supplied it. As time goes on, the utility of this lexical item will become more evident. We've always known that there was more to feminism than feminism, and now that nagging sense of incompletion - as of a gap, an unsecured chain, a loosely bolted valve cover, a blanket that leaves your feet exposed—
has been resolved.