The Bull Busters Video

Finally!! I have watched the Bull Busters Video! What in tarnation took me so long, anyhow?

You really, really ought to see it too, if you haven't already! It is... powerful. And from what I hear it is spreading fast, courtesy of "viral marketing"!

My main complaint, perhaps my only one, is that the text in a few places went by so quickly I barely had time to read it....:(

All right, you can find it here:

Bull Busters Video - Violent Women.

You will notice that it requires Flash Projector for viewing. That may be an impediment for some, so....look in the sidebar at left and you will see alternative links which let you download the MPEG or the Windows Media version. I watched the MPEG myself.

Hey, it's a well-timed companion piece to that little "ball buster" animation a couple of posts back!

So do click on over there and see it. You too, Hugo - get over there NOW!

Anyway, there is a sequence in the movie where a bunch of noisy feminists barge in and disrupt an abused men's meeting! Their tactic is much like the behavior of Nazi thugs in the early Munich days! The word feminazi, cliche though it be, is eerily accurate.

Oh, all right! Somebody please yell "GODWIN!!"

What's Cooking in California...

Evidence of steady progress....

Reforming California Domestic Violence Policy
Health and Safety Code: 124250
(See draft of amendments after the following)

During 2006 a very broad coalition of experts had written letters and position papers, signed a petition and testified before legislative committees on AB 2051: Cohn; Domestic Violence, opposing the bill unless amended to include all victims of domestic violence regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Even though the bill was signed into law without the amendments we wanted; we were able to make substantial progress and gain much needed ground for reforms by educating policy makers, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his staff regarding the realities of domestic violence.

The Governor’s staff informed lobbyist & policy consultant Michael Robinson that the Governor signed AB 2051 because he believed it moved policy in a direction of becoming more inclusive. High level staff in the Governor’s office confirmed he firmly believes that we should strive to address the needs of all victims of domestic violence regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

More significantly his office indicated that they are interested in working with the Legislature, NFVLRC and other stakeholder groups to develop a policy that will better serve the entire population during the 2007/2008 legislative session.

Our reasons for the requested reforms are very simple and have strong merits:

Ø The current statutes do not reflect the overwhelming body of empirical data that shows men are domestic violence victims also. The Center for Disease Control data alone shows males represent at least 36 percent of all DV victims. (Fidel's Note: Other data shows that it is closer to 50%)

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm .

Ø Even California’s own Department of Justice DOJ data shows that women represent a high percentage of Domestic Violence related arrests. Females represented 19.7 percent of all DV related arrests during 2004. The data shows similar rates going back to the late 1990’s. (Fidel's Note: Okay, that's 20% - or 1 out of 5. But note that they are only talking about ARREST rates!)

Source: http://safestate.org/index.cfm?navid=753 .

Ø Children of male victims are being denied the same range of services that are offered to female victims simply because their victimized parent is a male.(Fidel's Note: This alone is a smoking gun indicator of what kind of people are found on the other side!)

Ø The current statute language suggests that only lesbian, bisexual and transgendered women are violent in their intimate partner relationships. There is no data to support this and sexual orientation or gender has nothing to do with intimate partner violence. Heterosexual women are also perpetrators of intimate partner violence.(Fidel's Note: That is certainly good of them to admit that LBT women are domestically violent! But I'm bound to wonder what odd manner of mental blockage hinders their extension of this insight to all women...?)

Ø Federal law under the Violence Against Women Act was amended in 2005 to include male victims with a requirement that grants and funding for services be gender neutral.(Fidel's Note: I'm not impressed! If they are sincere, they will start by changing the TITLE of the law to, perhaps, "Violence in Intimate Relations Act".)

Ø Current domestic violence policies for training and victim services are hindering the abilities of experts and treatments providers to reduce domestic violence in our state. (Fidel's Note: More than that, the massive chorus of feminist anti-male propaganda is backing it up from every direction of the cultural compass!)

Please contact lobbyist & policy consultant Michael Robinson at (916) 223-6143 info@nfvlrc.org for further information or questions regarding draft language.

The rest of this, showing the draft of proposed amendments, is well worth reading:

Full version here....

A Window into Feminism's Heart of Darkness

She wants revenge, or so it would seem...

Quite the little shocker, ennit?

My thanks to Byrdeye, from whose blog Bird's Eye View, I kiped this item. ;)

Sorry about that hiccup in the animation loop. I have NO idea why it is occurring, since it certainly isn't present when I play this on my local system - only when I load it onto the web. Any mavens out there have a clue how to fix this? I've got a recent version of Fireworks MX, maybe that would help?

Robespierre on Political Morality

It is worthwhile to study this 1794 speech by Maximilien Robespierre, the French Revolutionary leader most responsible for that 9-month totalitarian regime known as the Reign of Terror. Compare Robespierre's speech to the essay by Herbert Marcuse - Repressive Tolerance - that was featured a few posts ago.

Sample:

If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.

It has been said that terror is the spring of despotic government. Does yours then resemble despotism? Yes, as the steel that glistens in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles the sword with which the satellites of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his debased subjects; he is right as a despot: conquer by terror the enemies of liberty and you will be right as founders of the republic. The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny. Is force only intended to protect crime? Is not the lightning of heaven made to blast vice exalted?

Get the whole hog here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1794robespierre.html

Solid Gold From Hugo the Collaborationist

Well, all right. Not exactly from the collaborationist himself. Actually, the following was posted by the MRA lawyer Marc Angelucci on a discussion thread at Hugo's blog, waaaay back in August, 2005. In fact, it was the very last item on that thread! I repeat, was.

And for an extra goody, there is a comment from yours truly about halfway up the thread!

Anyway, the comment from Marc A. was so exceptionally fine I wanted to share it:

Hugo,

I disagree with your argument that the statistics were irrelevant. They are very relevant. Feminists have distorted statistics for decades in order to cover up and misrepresent the nature of domestic violence to fit their man/bad woman/good model. So statistics are important. In fact, they are absolutely critical to understanding a social problem like domestic violence. Would you try to cure cancer without looking at the research and the science to first understand the problem? Of course not. We also need to look at the social science, and research and statistics, to understand domestic violence before we try to find solutions. Statistics are only irrelevant to you when the data you don't like is being cited. When feminists cite their false 95% figure, I doubt you tell them not to cite statistics.

The statistics were especially important for a discussion on the film because the film was driving at some of the hidden dynamics of domestic violence. The MRA's appreciated the film but had their own criticism of the film too, just as the feminists did. The MRA's felt that the film was a start, and opened the door to looking at women's part in domestic violence, but that the film in some ways only played in to the myth that women commit more verbal abuse while men commit more physical abuse in relationships. The social science says otherwise, and that's why statistics mattered.

The Violence Against Women Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, found:

"According to these estimates, approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. Because many victims are victimized more than once, the number of intimate partner victimizations exceeds the number of intimate partner victims annually. Thus, approximately 4.9 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against U.S. women annually, and approximately 2.9 million intimate partner physical assaults are committed against U.S. men annually. These findings suggest that intimate partner violence is a serious criminal justice and public health concern."

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt

That makes men at least 36% of the victims. And the same study, if you read on, acknowledges that other studies, particularly the National Family Violence Survey, found that women initiate DV as often as men do. Over 150 studies now confirm this. See them summarized at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt

The most recent "Crime Victimization Survey" from the Department of Justice shows men are 25% of the victims. That's the lowest available number for men because it's a crime survey, which looks at DV in the context of "crime," and people are less likely to see it as a crime when it's female-on-male than the reverse. But even the 25% figure is very significant.

The Sherriff's department of San Bernardino County helps refute the "female violence isn't serious" myth, and the "self-defense" myth as well.
http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/dvra/dom_viol_facts_main.htm

Consider this emergency room survey as well, about male victims. Over 12% of men in an inner city emergency room said they were physically assaulted by a female partner in the past 12 months, often with weapons and hard object, and the victims were disproportionately minorities.
www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/8/786

While it is true that the data shows women are injured more often then men, the data also shows that 38% of injured victims are men. (Archer, Psychological Bulletin, 11/02. That is significant, and those victims do not deserve to be downplayed by feminists. Notice how it is always the feminists who are downplaying victims. MRA's are not downplaying the numbers of female victims, but feminists are constantly trying to downplay the numbers of male victims, and their severity. It is the MRAs who are asking for inclusion, while the feminists are fighting to keep the issue gender-exclusive, and to not include male victims in the language, outreach and services. They go against their own supposed principles of not excluding underserved groups. Injuries are also irrelevant to the larger picture, because domestic violence is an intergenerational problem, and even minor violence is harmful to children when they witness it. You cannot solve it without being honest about it.

REFUTING THE SELF-DEFENSE MYTH

Huge, during the panel discussion, you said that you are among those pro-feminist men who believe domestic violence by women is primarily in self-defense. But research (serious, published, peer-reviewed, objective research, not stuff from Kates, Flood or Kimmel), strongly refutes the self-defense argument. As I stated at the panel, the self-defense argument is just another way for feminists to continue covering up female violence in order to preserve their ideological approach to it.

Professor John Archer, president of the International Society on Aggression, published the most comprehensive meta-analysis of existing data on domestic violence ever. It published in the November 2000 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, a peer-reviewed, top-notch journal published by the American Psychological Association. He found that women initiated domestic violence at least as often as men and that men make 38% of injured victims. As to the self-defense argument, Archer said:

"It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating the attack. (Bland & Orn. 1986; DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird. 1989. cited in Straus. 1997) or that the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both women and men report using physical aggression when the partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988). This evidence DOES not support the view that the CTS is only measuring women’s self-defense."

- John Archer, Ph.D., "Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin," Sept. 2000. v. 126, n. 5, p. 651, 664.

Professor Richard Gelles, who conducted over ten years of domestic violence research for the U.S. Department of Mental Health, and who authored the National Family Violence Survey, said:

"[C]ontrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men."

- Richard Gelles, Ph.D, "The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999, The Women's Quarterly, Re-published at www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

In a survey of 1,000 college women at California State University (Long Beach), 30 percent of the women admitted having assaulted a male partner, and their most common reasons they gave were: (1) “my partner wasn’t listening to me,” (2) “my partner wasn’t being sensitive to my needs,” and (3) “I wished to gain my partner's attention.”

- Straus/Hoff, “Why Women Assault; College Women Who Initiate Assaults on their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior,” 1997, Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590, www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm.

This official government site of the County Sheriff of San Bernardino cites the Cal State Long Beach study in response to the self defense myth.
www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/dvra/dom_viol_facts_main.htm

A major study of domestic violence that asked about motives found men and women assault their partners not only at the same rates but also for the same reasons, most often “to get through to them,” while self-defense was one of the least common motives for both sexes.

- Carrado, “Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships: A Descriptive Analysis, Aggressive Behavior,” 1996, 22: 401-415.)

Sarantakos, S., "Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence," Journal of Men's Studies, A major study of domestic violence that asked about motives found men and women assault their partners not only at the same rates but also for the same reasons, most often “to get through to them,” while self-defense was one of the least common motives for both sexes.

Dr. Reena Sommer did another study which refuted the self-defense myth. "Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress model," (1994), unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. (The study was in two waves: the first was from 1989-1990 and included a random sample of 452 married or cohabiting women and 447 married or cohabiting men from Winnipeg, Canada; the second was from 1991-1992 and included 368 women and 369 men all of whom participated in the first wave. Subjects completed the CTS & other assessment instruments. 39.1% of women reported being physically aggressive (16.2% reporting having perpetrated severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their male partner. While 26.3% of men reported being physically aggressive (with 7.6% reporting perpetrating severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their female partner. Among the perpetrators of partner abuse, 34.8% of men and 40.1% of women reported observing their mothers hitting their fathers. Results indicate that 21% of "males' and 13% of females' partners required medical attention as a result of a partner abuse incident." Results also indicate that "10% of women and 15% of men perpetrated partner abuse in self defense.")

For a scholarly analysis of the data on male victims, the historical suppression of the data, and a solid refutation of the arguments made by feminists who want to minimize and downplay male victims, see Professor Linda Kelly's excellent law review article, "Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse; How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State," 30 Florida State Law Review 791 (2003), at www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

Domestic violence shelter directors in Los Angeles continuously abused Patricia Overberg because she made space for male victims in her shelter, Valley Oasis in Lancaster. She was subjected to their abuse for years, even though she never had any problems with male victims, and she saw male victims travel for hundreds of miles because nobody else would help them. Her declaration is at
www.ncfmla.org/pdf/overberg.pdf

Do you honestly think this is fair, Hugo? Do you think it's fair that Health & Safety Code Section 124250 defines "domestic violence" so that only women can be victims? This is why we talk about statistics. When we try to raise awareness about this, we have to overcome the stereotypes that feminists have spread that male victims are very few.

The numbers shouldn't matter, because even one victim is one too many. But unfortunately, given the climate we're in, the statistics do matter. That's why we cite them.

Marc Angelucci
President
National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles chapter
www.ncfmla.org

Double Agent??

I recommend the following article on Men's News Daily:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/04/male-bashing-is-unacceptable/

Teri Stoddard is no mere propaganda/ideology wonk like yours truly. Au contraire, she is active on the true "Russian Front" of the gender equity movement, which is: All things pertaining to the state of the family. That's a fairly broad umbrella, but it covers what is by far the epicenter in this vast struggle. Marriage and family is where it's at, they're the brick and mortar and structural steel of civilization, and if those things gurgle down the toilet spiral, it is safe to predict that much else will follow, and the outcome will not be pretty. Oh hell, it's already not pretty!

The fact that Teri Stoddard is a woman makes quite a few feminists rip-snorting mad, as you would logically expect! That helps, since it might cause some of them to explode and splatter their brains all over the wall in the Jackson Pollock manner! You see, I'm a great supporter of the arts...

Now, the title of the article is perfection itself: Male-bashing is Unacceptable. Yes, a superlative propaganda sound-bite. The choice of words couldn't be better, and indeed it sounds exactly like something I myself might have said. What's nice about it is, that it speaks to the bedrock sense of moral absolutes that so many people yearn for.

Who, in open debate, could possibly defend the proposition that male-bashing is acceptable? They can try, and I wish them luck because they'll need it!

Oddly enough, certain people think that Teri Stoddard is a spy; a feminist double-agent! Look into the reader comments on MND, for example.

What a notion!

Personally, I remain agnostic upon that subject. What I mean is that I cannot say for certain, because I am skeptical by nature and there are precious few things in heaven or earth which have the power to command my unwavering faith. Damn near everything, in my considered opinion, is a case of gambler's odds. Accordingly....

Let us weigh the odds that Teri Stoddard is working for the other side. I would say those odds are mighty slim. Teri has spoken loudly and clearly upon the issues, and often! If she's a double agent she's a deuced clever one, to have done so much injury to her own side in order to gain the trust of ours! Of course I realize that's what double agents do, yet by any plausible cost-benefit analysis has the benefit to the other side outweighed the injury? Honestly, if I were Teri's "employer", I'd have given her a passport by now - she's a money loser!

Still uncertain? Very well, fine! Keep your Rolodex locked up when Teri Stoddard is in the vicinity. Don't let her near your computer. Above all, keep her away from your inner circle, and never discuss classified secrets in her presence. But give her every possible incentive to carry on with her writings and activisms - by stringing her along in the vain belief that one day she'll be initiated into the higher degrees if only she proves herself worthy! Use her, cynically and cold-bloodedly! I'm sure she'll take the bait all right, yup! And I make no doubt she'd take her place in the ranks of the abjurers, too. Anything to gain our trust and gain "access"...

So yes - bring on the double-agents! The more the merrier! Make them work brutally hard for our side, but then cruelly dash their hopes of sending any good stuff back to headquarters, heh heh heh! That's what counter-feminism is about; making the other side work for US!

Moving right along, I'd like to say a bit about the three-paneled comic strip that Teri included with her article, and which I have posted directly above.

This was cited as an example of male-bashing, but is it really? Oh sure, I know that a male gets bashed, but what was the actual gender-political POV of the comic artist here? That point is far from clear. The presentation is balanced so finely upon the razor's edge of ambiguity that you might even say the artist is taking a stab at those snotty, trashy grrrls in order to make a statement about snotty, trashy contemporary social mores. It's really, really hard to tell.

For me, context is lacking since I know nothing at all about this particular artist or what its politics are. (I say "its" because I don't if it is a he or a she.) If I had such information I might, perhaps, speak from a place of knowledge. As it is, I can only speculate.

So it appears to me that this comic art indeed belongs in the category of male-bashing if for no other reason than its failure to make itself clear. Maybe the artist just wants to be fashionably blasé and "cute" about it, without taking any stand at all. I mean, a tiny adjustment to the line work could have made the girls look unmistakably villainous - yet the cartoonist has steered clear of this.

So I am not impressed. No vote of confidence from the present writer! I find the cartoonist guilty of male-bashing: Gavel down!

However, I am vastly pleased by the existence of such cultural artifacts - and I believe that their further propagation ought to be vigorously encouraged. So widely and pervasively in fact, that it will eventually trigger a massive psychic nausea in millions of people, which will provoke a general discussion and a general backlash!

So, bring on the male-bashing! The more the merrier! Never enough!

Orwell Knew the Score, All Right!

Oh man, this is SO good!!

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

Oh Bloody Hell, Check it Out....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/15/182237.shtml

This is classic old stuff, dateline 2002.

But SO typical of the Stalinesque people we are dealing with.

So give it a quick read, lest we forget.

Nothing like a timely refresher-reminder, eh?

Schwyzer is a Counter-Feminist Reader

The collaborationist Hugo Schwyzer, of chinchilla fame, has had the goodness to link to this blog from the comment section of the Feministe blog, demonstrating that he is one of my readers. I'm sure he is a very regular reader, too - as what person on his side of the gender war wouldn't be? At any rate, we may now aver with confidence that Hugo has excellent taste, for The Counter-Feminist is beyond all doubt the New Yorker of MRA blogs - the creme de la creme! ;)

Those who are sufficiently motivated, may discover the item in question on the following thread:

www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/03/07/
wapo-calls-out-law-school-pervs/

It seems that some law students, or suchlike, committed some truly horrendous act of cyberstalking against some woman - some fellow student if I'm not mistaken - and it raised one hell of a stink. Or so I gather. That's all I can say, since I couldn't be bothered to look into it. But it was quite the hullabaloo, apparently.

Anyway, Hugo chimed in somewhere near the bottom of the thread.

"Gosh, I get swamped at school and miss all this. I have nothing to add, other than a voice of support for Jill and everyone else targeted by these lads. I’m lucky; the MRAs only compare me to Quisling and the Vichy Regime."

Did you catch the last bit..? Yes, Hugo linked to my next-to-last post, the one entitled Shaming Language! And it's true, I did indeed shove him into the same barrel with Vidkun Quisling - although I made no explicit mention of the Vichy Regime. But, ahem!, it's certainly a huge relief to know that I'm not as awful as those "lads"!

:}

Post post: Hey Hugo!

Would you be willing to ABJURE THE REDSTOCKINGS MANIFESTO?

There is More to Feminism Than Feminism

Feminism 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—a growing 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—feminism itself—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 from feministical, and the plex from complex 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.

Shaming Language

The following was inspired by my reading of a certain discussion thread on Hugo Schwyzer's blog.

I am a great believer in the power of language, especially its power to influence collective psychology. Sometimes, all it takes is one bitty little word.

Take for example, the word mangina, which a lot of MRAs use when speaking of men who support feminism. It's a clever neologism, and I have nothing against it. However, I think that for political reasons it is not the best choice.

Another word used to describe pro-feminists is the adjective "pussified", and I would object to that word on the same grounds as "mangina". I understand what is meant by the term, but it sounds rather juvenile after all...

I have another name for people like Hugo Schwyzer, and people like Michael Flood of Australia. I think it would be a good idea to call such people COLLABORATIONISTS. This word refers historically to those who co-operated with the Nazis during WW2, so it is a deadly insult - far more deadly than "mangina" - and yet there is nothing sexual about it, so it elevates the discussion to a completely different level.

Another good name would be quislings, in honor of the Norwegian collaborationist Vidkun Quisling.

Finally, to be just plain down and dirty and mean, pro-feminist males may be referred to as running dogs, lackeys or lickspittles. Again, nothing sexual about any of these.

However, I think that collaborationist would be the best choice for general purposes. If this word got into general circulation the lickspittles would fret and squirm and go on the defensive, and it wouldn't offer them any slam-dunk way to psychologize the MRAs who say it.

So, one would say "the collaborationist Hugo Schwyzer." But one should intone this in a non-chalant accent, smoothly and casually, with nary a trace of venom or animosity in the voice. Almost I should say, pronounce it matter-of-factly, as if it were indeed exactly that - a matter of fact, or at least common knowledge, that few would even bother disputing.

Being utterly bland and "la-di-da" about it (with a William F. Buckley accent!) makes it even more galling to the targeted individual or the targeted group.

Oh hey, some of you MRAs out there are just too friggin' hot under the collar. You guys need to lighten up and have some fun! Sheeesh!

It is best not to employ terms of generalized abuse, such as "maggot" or "shithead". It is true that these schoolyard insults have no sexual content, but unlike the ones I have suggested, they have no applicable descriptive content or historical association either, which makes them feel vacuous and devoid of reflection.

But seriously now. Very seriously. These people are exactly what the word says: Collaborationists. The word fits them like a custom-tailored velvet body glove. And that is not our fault. So just get the word "collaborationist" dancing on the tongues, and in the brains, of the general public, and that very same public will undergo a gradual inclination to ponder the actual meaning of the term, and why it is so applicable. And then some bulbs will light up.