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:
"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
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!]
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: