Hey Debaters! Have Your Debate HERE!

EF, of the Exposing Feminism blog, has repeatedly expressed a desire to engage in debate with members of the Crown Princess Marie Chantal of Greece Forum. EF is aware of this, and the "Greecies" are aware of it too. Both sides are intently aware of each other - like the Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat! But the Greecies have been slow to take EF up on his offer, for various reasons which you can discover if you surf over there and read all about it.

Now, I realize that the Counter-Feminist blog is far from being neutral turf, but I'll make it neutral for the occasion, all right? If EF and one designated Greecie want to log in to the comment section on this post, I will grant them a free thread all to themselves where they can slug it out to their hearts' content. How sweet does that sound, eh?

Comments from anybody other than the 2 designees, will be moderated. Yes guys, you'll have the auditorium all to yourselves! Upon my word of honor, I'll let none of my big stupid MRA bully men touch one single hair on the head of the designated Greecie! I grant you safe-conduct in my realm, for I am both a man of my word and a gracious host.

One other thing: I am der blogmeister here! Therefore, I reserve the right to intervene occasionally as referee should anybody, in my masterful opinion, step a mite too far outside of the Queensberry rules. So to speak.

I will use this power at my discretion, but lightly.

Greecies: Discuss this amongst yourselves, select your champion, and send him/her over here to formally introduce him/herself.

EF: Cruise on over here and let me know what you think.

Something tells me that EF might be willing to take me up on this offer. I'm not so sure about the Greecies, BUT. . . if they decline the offer, that would certainly tell me something about them.

Bring it on, folks! ;)

------------------------------
Crown Princess Marie Chantal of Greece Forum


BY THE WAY: anybody who wants to post comments BEFORE the games begin, just to speak your mind about this, is welcome to do so. But after the fun starts, your voices will be silenced.

Restating the Obvious for Those Who Still Refuse to Get It

(Yes, you're out there and you know who you are!)

FEMINIST does not equal FEMALE!

I shouldn't even need to call attention to this. Well, not in an ideal world anyway!

FEMINIST does not equal FEMALE!

And as I have stated elsewhere, nobody is born a feminist!

Feminist is an ideological posture. Female is a biological fact.

Ideology versus biology. Get it?

If you can't distinguish ideology from biology, then I fear greatly for your mental health, my friend! Femaleness is one half of the sexual dimorphism that began way back in the primordial soup, and jump-started the growth of terrestrial life into a rocket ride of fantastic complexity that would have otherwise been impossible. By contrast, feminism is a prefabricated way of thinking about life which allows certain thoughts and disallows others - but it is not life itself!

And that makes a huge difference.

Michael - our methodical, systematic German philosopher hereabouts - has favored us with another of his superlative treatises, and I think some of you will find it to be as 'on target' as do I in the present case:

I think the people in that forum neither know much about feminism nor do they know much about the so-called men's movement. If they knew as much about feminism as we who criticize it, there's a fair chance they would be on our side. The question is... should we care trying to educate them, when most of them are determined to never get their index fingers out of their ears anyway?

For them, it's much easier and more fun rooting for feminism than educating themselves about its basics. It looks like in the minds of most women, there's still this 2-step marketing formula at work:

"(1) feminism = good for women
(2) I'm a woman => feminism is good for me"

The result of accepting (1) and (2) as true of course is: "Anyone who criticizes feminism, criticizes me personally."

That's why they think they have an obligation to hate us, Fidelbogen... it's not because they know us (they don't), it's because they know nothing about feminism. They never cared about their party's manifesto, because they just assume their "leaders" will mean no harm. Of course their leaders ignore the consequences of feminism too, and so it's a perfect recipe for disaster.

I wouldn't be worried about that forum, in fact I think it's a good sign. The more they bitch and fume about us, the more they help us spreading the word. The more noise they make, the more noise will reach male or female ears belonging to people with their soul, senses and judgement still being intact.

They want to portray us as backward-oriented, violent macho men because that'd be an enemy they know how to defeat. But there's nothing they can do about people being more civilized and non-violent than they are, and who systematically and calmly dismantle the cult of feminism right in front of their eyes.

And it's not us who resist change, it's them. We don't want to turn back the clock hundreds of years, instead we're the ones with our instincts still being intact: We see what the future will look like if everything remains on its current course, and it's the scorched earth of a cold-hearted, brutalized, estranged society we see.

Have you already noticed this one, Fidelbogen, at #546?
"The idea of a men's rights movement is just... mind-boggling. How can they possibly believe it's necessary? This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic ways society works."

Maybe that user should spend more time living among the people on this planet, instead of travelling in a Tardis through fantasy worlds. But here's the thing she unintentionally points to: I really believe it's wrong calling ourselves a "men's rights movement" because a) it's not true (already women are joining) and b) something along the lines of "human rights movement" is more inclusive and productive and gets more to the point. And it accelerates core meltdown in feminists. :-)

Well. . . it has already occurred to me to call the movement simply "the Movement". In fact, I call it that already! Still, I think it is good to keep the phrase "men's rights" in the air for as long as that remains an issue - at least to help in getting the word out efficiently. Once feminism has been effectively wrecked, we might phase into "human rights movement".

The thing is - in order to effectuate that core meltdown, it is important to make clear exactly WHAT is being melted, so that people know what to focus the heat of their gaze upon.

As you might expect, I have always felt that counter-feminism is a viable choice of terminologies in this context. ;-)

Another Woman's Voice Upon Things That Matter

Julie, our estimable colleague from New Zealand, has posted a quite arresting and memorable comment - and true to the CF tradition, I shall give it a showcase. Keep in mind that Julie talks to all sorts of women in the course of her activism efforts. Julie knows the temperature of the water out there, if anybody does!

Julie said...

Feminism has destroyed our young women in particular. Because feminism has been so busy to say that women were oppressed, and continue to hold men accountable, and give women every right to do as they please, and excuse ALL bad behaviour, our young women suffer.

Our young women WILL not and CANNOT be held accountable for their deeds thanks to feminism. This means that they have no boundaries. And their actions are begging for them.

They lie, steal, cheat and harm others as well as themselves - but nothing happens. They call males names, they hit, kick and even stab them. And nothing happens. They stand in public places and speak of their nasty deeds loudly for all the adults to hear and we CAN do nothing. We can't help them.

Teachers and social workers cannot be one on one with them for fear they will cry rape - and they do cry rape! And they can't discipline them.

But what they are crying out is, "Please love me. Please care enough to tell me where the line is". And these females are angry, very angry. And they don't understand why they can't have a boyfriend and they can't understand why they will be nothing more than used and discarded and they can't understand why they have no good people in their lives. Well done feminism. You have empowered these young women, all right.

But then what about the 20 and 30 year olds. What has feminism done for them. Well, they gave them choices but now they want to take away these choices and force them to be independent because a man cannot be a provider and protector for them. Feminism is so concerned about women having equal money that they are forcing them to give their children up to daycares and work. They are so concerned for their welfare they enslave them.

And now they are fighting for the children's rights against the mothers. Now mothers have no rights nor choices with their own children. Now the state takes their children straight from the hospital bed. Feminism doesn't even give a mother a chance to be a mother. They are too busy putting cotton wool around the children yet when they take them away they abuse them through their own welfare system. The state will never love a child like a mother and father will. The state will never be a family to a child.

Oh, I don't know. I think there are a few million women out there who have something to say about all this.

Fidel Wears a Tinfoil Hat! ;*) !!

'Marching Penguins' at the lately-referenced Marie Chantal discussion thread had this to say about my most worthy and excellent self ;-):

"The Counter-Feminism blog guy isn't even making token show of logic. He seems almost like a tinfoil-hat person, and his big conspiracy o' choice is feminism. He doesn't even write about why he's against feminism or respond to relevant issues, he just grabs random things and blames feminism. Some people committed a (racial) hate crime - Oooh, three of them were WOMEN! See women are VIOLENT! This shows it's all a lie and feminism is evil! Open letter where some guy repeatedly refers to women by the c-word and threatens them with what he'll do if they ever falsely accuse him of rape (yeah, I'm sure that'll come up, dude) - this is all your doing, feminists! See how mad you make people get? A man is falsely accused of rape - Feminism made this happen!!!"

You know what I say? I say... FINE! They can call me tinfoil-hatted or any kind of hatted they wish! That means that my disguise is effective, that my game is unfolding according to plan, and that they are sinking slowly, slowly but with fated certainty into the trap which has been laid for them.

In a way, she is right. The more recent work on CF is what I would term 'Stage Two' material. It simply takes for granted a knowledge of foundation material posted in the early days of the blog. It blithely supposes that everybody has completed their "archive homework" prior to reading what is currently being written - and is rather unforgiving of those who have not done so. After all, I can hardly be expected to plough the same field time after time after time....

Counter-feminism, being a systematic body of theory, builds upon itself layer by layer.

Anyway, I do most zestfully enjoy playing the tinfoil-hatted role, and I certainly don't care if the enemy sees me as a "fruitcake". Indeed, I find it useful that they would see me that way. Some day, too late, they will wake up and discover with chagrin the longstanding error of their assessment. But I am in no rush to hurry that day along; I am patient and shall bide my time.

The feminists must more and more be treated to a taste of their very own tactics - the same identical garbage they have dished out to US, for years and years now! Yes, feminism must be visibly and dramatically horse-whipped, in front of all the world. And I frankly don't give a crap if they like it or not - they've been begging for it long enough, and I for one am quite happy to oblige them!

Yes, feminism DID - directly or indirectly - make a passel of very bad things happen, for which it must now be held accountable. And they can say whatever the hell they like about my headgear; I don't mind one little bit! ;)

Crawling Up Their Radar Screen

I have discovered an online forum called Crown Princess Marie Chantal of Greece, the subject of which is, as near as I can make it, pink fluff. So if pink fluff is your passion, I reckon you'll feel right at home over yonder.

However, I don't want to offend readers of 'The Counter-Feminist' by suggesting that they care about pink fluff. I'll have you know that I entertain a much higher regard for my targeted CF audience than THAT!

The below-linked discussion thread is on the subject of 'feminism'—and yes, plenty of feminists populate that forum. One of the commenters on the thread is a certain Petals, whose self-descriptive tag line reads as follows:

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure. "

(Yes, yes; I quite understand, dearie! And I wouldn't ever dream of taking it seriously—it is only ironic; only tongue-in-cheek! ;-)

Petals has this to say on « Reply #518 on Today at 12:35pm »:

"I don't know if any of you care but I've been reading some anti-feminism blogs and I thought I'd share my rage with you all."

Thanks just the same Petals, but I've more than enough of my own!

Immediately following the above quotation Petals lays down three links—the first of which is to CF! (The other two connect to some excellent material and are certainly worth a look!)

Following the links, Petals says this:

"What all of the blogs have in common seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what feminism is about. Also, there seems to be an undercurrent (and sometimes an obvious current) of anger over the attempt by feminism to redistribute power."

Here I must take exception. What Petals observes is NOT a "basic misunderstanding" of feminism, but rather a deeper understanding of it. A more profound understanding. I do agree that a basic misunderstanding of feminism is in effect. However, this misunderstanding operates almost entirely from the feminist side—owing to a defense mechanism which I have elsewhere given the name of "cognitive fragmentation".

Petals is mistaken also in believing that I or others in the Movement basically misunderstand anything at all. That is to say, I and others understand quite fully what the feminists have said about themselves. We are not deaf. We have indeed processed their words and we have found them unsatisfactory—so we are peeling away the tissue-thin surface of official feminist self-description in order to reveal the hidden mass of things which the feminists have NOT said about themselves! And it looks to me as if Petals and others like her have not yet gotten the memo informing the world that feminists no longer have the sole power to define feminism. I should know—I wrote that memo myself!

As for the "undercurrent of anger"—if Petals feels it is only SOMETIMES obvious, then clearly we must work a lot harder, mustn't we?

It is most true, certain and beyond dispute than feminism is working to redistribute power. I am gratified to know that we would concur with the feminists upon a point of such key importance! This puts me in mind of the infamous Captain Feeney along the high road with his levelled pistols and his call to "stand and deliver". The passengers dismount from the coach and empty their pockets onto the ground at his behest; he has "redistributed" their wealth from them to himself, much the way that feminism redistributes power away from men—the more the better! But—word to the wise!—fellows like Captain Feeney are known to "hang out" at places like Tyburn, aren't they. . . ? ;)

Laconic says this in the post immediately following:

I think the most disturbing part about the blogs Petals linked is that they link to so many other blogs on the side. The fact that there are so many of these people (I say people, but it's clear most if not all of them are men) out there is scary. [I hate to burst your bubble, but it's more women than you think!] I don't understand how they arrive at the idea that it's men who are the underclass, men who have been discriminated against for hundreds of years, ["Hundreds of years"? Who said that?] men who need to fight back against society, men who are being hurt by women's attempts to be considered just as much a person as a man automatically is. [Straw man fallacy: that is not what they say men are "being hurt by". Stick a dunce cap on your head and sit in the back row until you learn to pay attention in class!]

Their words sound like the twittering twaddle of solipsistic teeny-boppers. Yet one point emerges very clearly: we know far more about them than they know about us! And that is a great power. But here's another snippet:

It's just so frustrating—especially since, as Petals says, as this stuff gets more mainstream, it becomes more palatable for non-extreme people, so they say "hmm, maybe this guy has a point," [And what if he really does have a point? Ever thought about that? Hmm. .] and then the ridiculous idea that men are being held down by women or whatever they're trying to say spreads. [Notice two things: First—she admits she doesn't know what "they're trying to say" when she inserts "whatever". This demonstrates not only that she pays no attention, but can't even be bothered to hide that she pays no attention! Happily, I am paying more attention than she is. And second—she calls it a "ridiculous idea". Do you see what this reveals? It reveals that she has formed her judgment on a foundation of self-admitted ignorance—and doesn't even know it!]

And more:

It's not really about father's rights or whatever they try to disguise it as. It's about taking back the gains women have made because some men are unhappy with women trying to even the playing field. [Proof? Come on grrrrly, put up or shut up! Not really about father's rights? Put up or shut up! Happily for them, they need never stand behind their words while they are hiding in their echo chamber.]

And one final bit:

(And yes, there are areas of life that are unfair to men. But that is not the issue here [I beg to differ; it certainly IS the issue here!] —the issue is the systematic discrimination against and oppression of women that exists to this day, even if it's not easy for us to see and even if it's in small ways that don't matter. [I'm vastly relieved to know that the systematic discrimination against and oppression of women is "only in small ways that don't matter". This lightens my heart more than I can hope to express! I cannot begin to tell you how glad I am to hear of this!]

Oh the bloody pig-headed fools! Their name is LEGION!! I wish could transport them into the bodies of swine and stampede them over a cliff into a lake!

So, to summarize the last part: "Yes, there are areas of life which are unfair to men, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is the systematic discrimination against and oppression of women which occurs in small ways that don't matter." Got it! Good to go, bucko! ;-)

These people make eternal asses of themselves and don't even know it, because they cannot see themselves as others see them—which in my opinion is their most useful trait. Useful to their enemies, I mean, because it renders them transparent and easy to second-guess. But the downside is, that their obtusity also renders them unstoppable. They never quit—they always come back for more! And they have so much state-constituted political power on their side that they can get away with this and suffer no consequences.

So what is to be done? We cannot argue with these people, and in fact we should not! In the end, we can do none other than play the game of power aggressively and combine them with the pavement on the high road of history.

There is comfort in knowing that we are going mainstream—they acknowledge it, so it must be true. I think we are doing something right, friends.

By the way, here's the link:

Crown Princess Marie Chantal of Greece Forum

And if you need to cut and paste:

http://princessmc.proboards66.com/index.cgi?
board=interest&action=display&thread=1186790398&page=52

Website of a Fellow Traveller

You can find this website here:

http://singleparents.org.nz/

I think you will enjoy the article about women's suffrage - currently the lead item on the blog page. This subject is greatly in need of a searching revisionist light, a strong wind to dispel the smoke, an orderly marshaling of the correct data. History contains a great deal more complexity and nuance than most of us realize - informing us among other things that women in olden times were not nearly so hard done by as the feminist propaganda mill has conditioned us to believe.

http://singleparents.org.nz/2007/09/19/womens-suffragette-week/

And remember: we don't want to hear about 100 different kinds of feminism. Either you're a feminist, or you're not - and that's all there is to it, folks!

Interview with Mary Daly: Prepare 2B Bored!

Mary Daly, as you may recall, is a feminist who actually did recommend the culling of the male population. Well. . . at any rate she allowed how it mightn't be a bad thing if men were downsized to maybe 10% of the human race. Barred male students from her classes at Boston College, too! Quite honestly, I don't see how it is possible to call Mary Daly anything other than a RADICAL FEMINIST MAN-HATER. The shoe fits.

If you have time, and a fast download speed, you might want to listen to this 5 April 2006 interview with Mary Daly, broadcast by the Sacramento LGBT community on radio station KDVS. The audio file is in MP3 format, and weighs in at a hefty 32 megs. If you prefer, you can listen to the streaming version. Take you pick when you get to the web page, here:

http://www.archive.org/details/KDVS_The_Fringe_4-5-06

I confess that I am disappointed. Somehow, I had anticipated more provocative material from so infamous a celebrity, but all I heard was was thirty mush-mouthed minutes of wittering, twittering, psychobabble and childish twaddle between Mary and her bushy-tailed interviewer - much of this not entirely audible to my insensitive patriarchal ears! I was, like. . . soooooo not impressed, and I was in danger of falling asleep and drooling all over myself!

I almost want to say "you be the judge", but it's not nice to be judgmental. So I won't say that. ;}

Behold, a Witless Wall of Wankers!

Here is an interesting discussion thread on an Irish political forum - three pages worth! You'll want to read the first two pages at the very least:

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=26415&postdays
=0&postorder=asc&start=0

For certain I admire the staunch Irish MRA who posted the thread - although I think he could have played his cards a bit differently and come off better. But he was a game lad for all o' that: a tip of the hat to him!

Reading this material ought to have you spitting fire and brimstone. When you are done with it, you might get the uncontrollable urge to storm onto the streets like sansculottes in order to rip out cobblestones and build barricades! Fair warning, chums!

Study the respondent posts on the thread, and you will understand with sickening clarity that the more things change, the more they stay the same! These people are simply a recycled edition of the fat-headed bourgeoisie of yesteryear! That's right: they are the Establishment; they are the Pigs!

And nowadays (in case you hadn't noticed) piggery prospers clean across the entire political spectrum, in all of its reaches - left, right, center. . . it's all good!

Meet the new boss - same as the old boss. . .

If it had been me, I'd have spent less time arguing, and more time simply reading them the riot act! Scrying their palms and predicting their future, you might say.

Is it possible to get through to these people by any means short of a palpable threat to their position? Is raw, cold FEAR the only force that will ever move such immovable objects? Rhetorically speaking, a cobblestone full in the teeth? Would such a missile have gone amiss? Will it come to that? Must it come to that..?? Certainly, this bears thinking about.

Peace.

F4J Captures the Lincoln Memorial!

During the Family Preservation Rally in Washington, D.C. on 18 August, a couple of F4J activists from England were up to their customary tricks - this time on an American landmark, old Abe himself! It seems that one of the activists was none other than the celebrated Jolly Stanesby. After a time, these men were arrested and hauled away to the slammer, and the police tried to confiscate as many video memory cards as they could. Clearly, they didn't get 'em all! Here's a bit that escaped their clutches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
NNHaYm56g2g&mode=related&search=

While we're at it, why not have a look at this one about the Bike Trek/F4J/CRISPE combined activist swarm at the Pittsburgh court house? It's an edgy, atmospheric creation by a video production studio - very artistic! The street scenes in downtown Pittsburgh look strangely medieval!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXJz2GEkHLk

Another Battle With the Feminists - Reinforcements Needed!

I have just recieved the following e-mail from Rob Pedersen of 'Equal Parenting Bike Trek' fame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtakHZ2Rq_g

HELP!!! The feminists are ALREADY attacking this interview. They also voted a one to lower the ratings. Studio 1714 has worked very hard to try and help us in the Equal Parenting Rights movement! Help out and comment on this PLUS vote a 5 star because the feminists voted this a single star! Thank you for your help and tell MANY others.

I reckon that speaks for itself. I am right now in the process of downloading the YouTube Video on my painfully slow connection. (I don't watch YouTubes very much, and I am soooo ashamed! It stunts my growth!)

Anyway, I have a powerful aversion to embedding YouTubes on my blog. It scrapes my aesthetic sensibilities the wrong way. Therefore...you'll just have to click on the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtakHZ2Rq_g

So, watch the video, make your own judgment, and if it seems right to you give this a five-star rating along with an uplifting comment. Thank you!

Forced to Eat Animal Shit - Delightful, to be Sure!

"(AP) For at least a week, authorities say, a young black woman was held captive in a mobile home, forced to eat animal waste, stabbed, choked and repeatedly sexually abused -- all while being peppered with a racial slur.It wasn't until deputies acting on an anonymous tip drove to a ramshackle trailer deep in West Virginia's rural hills that she was found. Limping toward the door with her arms outstretched, she uttered, 'Help me,' the Logan County sheriff's office said.

"Six people, all white, including a mother and son and a mother and daughter, have been arrested and could face federal hate crime charges in the suspected attack on 20-year-old Megan Williams, who remained hospitalized Tuesday with injuries that included four stab wounds in the leg, and black and blue eyes. Her right arm was in a cast. 'I'm better,' Williams told The Associated Press in a voice barely above a whisper. . . . ."

Full story HERE:

http://www.chippewa.com/articles/2007/09/11
/ap/headlines/d8rjlkg00.txt

Well. I'm certainly glad to hear that she's better!

As the alert CF reader will have straightway noted, half of the suspected perpetrators in this sickening case are female! Yes - a perfectly balanced equation. Truly, a scene to make any feminist heart glow! After all, we know that men and women are equal; we know that they are alike in every way except for body parts; we know it is all down to nurture. . . not nature! Right?

No wait, that CAN'T be right! We know that women are never violent except in self-defense! Therefore, it must be that those women were only "going along" because they were afraid of the men!

Yes, that's it! THE PATRIARCHY MADE THEM DO IT!!

What a relief. . .!

Billions of Flies Can't be Wrong, Can They..?

Michael from Germany has left another comment of such luminosity that I deem it worthy of elevation to Post status! :)

This comment was in response to the post immediately prior to this one. I am referring to the post entitled 'Lucia Vega' :

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2007/09/lucia-vega.html

Michael has this to say:

Lucia Vega's whole point seems to be that feminism is right just because it's currently predominant in our societies. That's a bit like saying "Eat feces, 5 billion flies can't be wrong!".

Anyway, her fundamental error is that she expects all women to embrace feminism automatically, because she sees it as her genders' word for "freedom". That is a) wrong (feminism is a prefabricated concept and as such tries to restrict a woman's freedom to think for herself) and b) if she thinks women having "their" movement (feminism) is desirable, why are men seeing themselves as members of a different movement "freaks"? The men's movement is a stupid idea because it's not feminism? I see.

Now I'm someone having problems seeing myself as a card-carrying member of any organized movement. It's just I can't keep quiet when I see injustice being done. There's injustice being done against men in western societies on a great scale nowadays, and that's why there are more of us each day not keeping quiet. That might scare Lucia Vega a bit, but insulting us as women-hating losers only shows we've hit a nerve. We won't stop drilling open that nerve deep and wide. :-) Not because we hate women (we don't), it's because we refuse feeding or keeping quiet about the cult of feminism any longer.

Anyway, if some unfortunate men who see through the widespread idiocy of feminism can't find a female companion, that's only proof of them being wise enough not getting fooled again by just another of those egocentric, materialistic wannabe-divas without substance that are out there to ruin the lives of the gullible. Men with their instincts and intuition still being intact refuse those cold-blooded specimen because they're the end product of the ME-ME-ME at the center of feminism. They smell from the head. So thank you ma'am, but no.

Men are waking up. If those men refuse to start a family, or just can't find a partner matching their standards, it automatically means disaster for the feminists and their status in society in the near future. That's why feminists hate the men's movement so much. (In reality, the so-called "men's movement" is just humans waking up.)

Feminists - just keep on hating! Your hate is like a road with a brick wall on its end: Those who hate and belittle other human beings will only destruct their own physical and mental health in the long run. That means in the foreseeable future your thoughts will be out of the meme pool and your DNA will be out of the gene pool. It's just nature correcting itself. I know you feminists hate nature for that, too. Good.

The interesting thing is, I rarely see a male blogger or forum activist hating or insulting women, but very often I see feminists generally insulting men.

If someone points to the errors in feminist ideology, it has nothing to do with "hating women". On the contrary, it's feminism which really hates women. As a destructive meme, it's meant to do just that.

-----------------------------------------------
Michael, you know.... as I was reading Lucia Vega, the tone of it made me think of another choice pearl of wisdom that is much beloved by moral idiots and wankers:

"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

Lucia Vega

I would like you to meet a person who has all the moral depth of a puddle of urine:

http://luciavega.blogspot.com/2007/09/freak-show.html

Lucia Vega makes it clear that she has no use for "the men's movement". On the face of the evidence, having examined her above-linked blog post, I must conclude that Lucia Vega has no profound understanding of the subject.

The core premise of the men's rights movement is that male life has value. But Lucia Vega is silent upon this point.

Yes or no: Would Lucia Vega agree that male life has value?

Yes or no: Would Lucia Vega agree that MY male life has value?

Yes or no: Would Lucia Vega agree that the right of due process and equal protection under the law belongs to ALL citizens?

Yes or no: Would Lucia Vega approve of the three items on the following list?:

1. Defamation of character
2. False Accusation
3. Robbery under color of law

Since I can find no evidence in the above-linked blog post that would indicate the contrary, I shall assume as a matter of course that Lucia Vega would answer these questions in the following sequence: Yes, yes, yes, yes. And I would assume the very same of ANY person who would criticize the movement in such an asinine way as Lucia Vega has done.

If Lucia Vega has anything to say for herself, she'd better get over to CF right quick and submit to cross-examination.

My patience with these people wears seriously thin, and I don't believe in "suffering fools gladly"- or not this late in the day! I'll leave that job to Jesus Christ.

M is for Mention

Behold, a man who tells it like it is! Here truly is a blogger who deserves a mention:

http://misformalevolent.blogspot.com/

He's not a "new kid" by any stretch; he's been blogging a far stretch longer than I have! But read his reports from the trenches. Grow sad and wise. Send web traffic his way, so that others too may grow sad and wise while they learn to count their blessings.

The blog is also loaded with useful data and argumentation.

Assessment of Endemol

Michael, from Germany, has kindly provided a close-up European view of the Endemol television production organization. This was given as a comment in the previous post, here:

counterfem.blogspot.com/2007/09/
wanted-mras-to-sell-out-movement.html

Michael said:

"Fidelbogen, be extremely cautious when dealing with Endemol. Endemol is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) producers of trash TV here in Europe - stuff like cheap game shows, talk shows and generally "entertainment" for the masses appealing to the lowest instincts. I'm sure you have a similar category of TV shows in the U.S.

"They'd reduce the whole MRA movement to simplest catchphrases and make any intelligent discussion impossible by deliberately inviting feminazis from hell. They probably just want to produce a confrontational shouting match - the moment the sparks fly the highest you'll see the Dollar sign appear in the eyes of the Endemol producers. Avoid at all cost!

"Endemol proves day by day on European TV screens that it is the exact opposite of intelligent TV. They produce the kind of TV shows that keep the TV-watching masses dumbed down and unable of critical thought in the first place.

"I'm sure Endemol has the same interest in the men's movement (and probably even in feminists) like vampires have in blood: It sates their hunger for a while, but they don't care if they leave their victim dead afterwards."

To which Plonkeroo adds:

"Sound advice. As I recall they are a Dutch company making money hand over fist by producing twaddle programmes."

Well, that sounds about right to me - since I consider my own dealings with Endemol to be concluded.

But I have no doubt that the Endemol "talent scouts" are still sniffing around and beating the bushes, looking for indiscreet simpletons to say compromising things that might put the Movement in a counter-productive light. Sadly, such people DO exist - I cannot tell a lie!

And unfortunately, Endemol might just accomplish their design at some point in the future. Not on my watch, of course, but you never can tell how things will eventually roll. All I can do is advise my fellow workers in the Movement to stay clear of Endemol and its agents, and show zero interest if approached. I would likewise advise bloggers and other online Movement types to pick up this story and propagate it in various ways, in order to forewarn and forearm as many people as possible and also create an historical record if we need to write the official chronicle of this affair some day.
------------------------------------------------
**Post Note: Michael has made further remarks in the comment section.

Wanted: MRAs to Sell Out the Movement

I have recently gotten a communique from one Andy Cadman, an assistant producer at a UK television production studio: Endemol UK/Brighter Pictures, headquartered in London. This message was left on the comment log, and I kept it behind the curtain for about a week. But now I unveil it to the eye of the world. If you wish to view the original, you will find it here:

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2007/08/
another-new-blog-comes-into-view.html

However, for convenience I give the text verbatim, as follows:

BrighterAndy said...

Hi Fidelbogen,

I apologise for contacting you out of the blue but I am researching a new TV programme and wondered if you could help...

I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex and/or gender-specific movements (feminism etc).

Firstly, as one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers, I wondered if you would be happy to correspond with me on the subject and possibly be involved in the project...? Secondly, I wondered if you could write a piece on your blog about what I'm looking for and encourage people to get involved.

I would be extremely grateful if you could get in touch with me as soon as possible on andy.cadman@endemoluk.com to discuss this further. Any and all correspondence will be dealt with in complete confidence!

Many thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.

Andy

Andy Cadman
Assistant Producer

Brighter Pictures
Endemol UK
Shepherds Building Central
Charecroft Way
London
W14 0EE

Tel: 020 8222 4898
andy.cadman@endemoluk.com

7:20 AM

Andy CADMAN...

The name is ironically well-suited, don't you think?

Anyway. I e-mailed a reply to Mr. Cadman, reproduced below:

Andy:

All right, I'm back.

I looked up Endemol/Brighter Pictures on the web, and now I have a bit of a grasp on what your organization does. Apparently you are a television production studio...yes?

Now, as for the matter you have proposed:

"I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex and/or gender-specific movements (feminism etc.)"

My own involvement with the worldwide men's movement, is of a political nature - and I know that many others would say the same of themselves. While there is no doubt the movement contains a certain number who, as you say "feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex..", the clear majority would avow to no such feelings, and would affirm (once again) the purely political character of their commitment.

The next part of your sentence reads: "and/or gender-specific movements (feminism etc.)"

Your wording gives me pause, given that you have included "dislike of the opposite sex" along with something of a political nature, and proposed making a TV show that links these two things in a way that might suggest to the uninitiated that some inherent connection exists between them.

While it is possible that such a connection might exist in the mind of various individuals within the movement, one would not wish to to draw any such conclusion as regards the movement as a whole - if only for the sake of journalistic accuracy. My concern is that the juxtaposition of these elements on the same documentary program might tend to generate such an impression.

Or, to phrase it quite simply (in the discourse of the movement), "the personal is not the political".

Bearing these points in mind, I would enjoy hearing more about your proposed project, and am willing to correspond for the purpose of sharing any information that you might find helpful.

Since you know more about what you need to know than I do, I will let you lead the way with any questions, comments or concerns that occur to you at this time, in order to get things rolling.

My archive of our correspondence will begin with your original comment on my blog.

I shall look forward to hearing from you;

-Fidelbogen-

counterfem.blogspot.com

As you will note, I desired to engage in further correspondence with Mr. Cadman. Why? Because I wanted to see what I could see, and learn what I could learn.

However, I have gotten nary a peep out of Andy since dispatching the e-mail quoted above. And something tells me I've heard the last of this. Pity. I had a whole scenario in mind, but evidently that is not to be.

What really got the red light flashing for me, was the following bit:

"I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex and/or gender-specific movements (feminism etc)."

My response to this, couched in somewhat diplomatic phrasing, is given in the afore-referenced e-mail. But I'll chuck the diplomacy now: the passage marks Andy Cadman as a double-dipped greenhorn whose knowledge of things MRA is exactly one inch deep! Either that, or he takes ME for a greenhorn - which is an imputation I don't much like. The whole thing feels like a kind of racism, the difference being that it isn't actually about race. Still, it makes me think of a TV producer travelling to remote parts of the Amazon looking for natives to help him with a show about cannibalism and head-hunting!

Cheap, titillating entertainment for the Endemol UK audience, about those crazy woman-hating men's righters!

I rightly suspected that I wasn't the only person Andy had contacted. In fact, the thought occurred to me, "why doesn't he get ahold of Angry Harry?" Guess what, he did. And in the identical words:

http://www.angryharry.com/activism.htm

Scroll down a short way and you will see it - just past the bit about Nifong. Harry says they're looking for UK MRAs, so evidently Andy doesn't know I'm an Amerikanski! ;)

The worst of it is, that he believes that either Angry Harry or myself are dumb enough to fall for such a painfully transparent little scam. I mean, I am flattered to be called one of the most-linked "anti-feminist" bloggers, but when he insults my intelligence almost in the same breath that sort of defeats his purpose, doesn't it..?

I can see why Andy is only an "assistant" producer. If he wants to make the full grade, he needs to do much better! Back to the story board, junior!

Meanwhile, I am virtually certain that others in the movement (I'm thinking of bloggers especially) will be contacted in a similar manner. My advice to everybody is: stay away! Don't touch!

However, I would counsel others to keep a record of all communications that might occur.

I am a Broken Record

Yes, I have been saying it a lot lately: "Here is a new blog against feminism":

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/about/

This blog links to CF, and one good link deserves another. Also, it has a way cool picture at the top of the page—reminds me of my beloved eastern Washington state! :)
--------------------

Very well, now it is time to pack an unrelated subject into the post. Let's see if I can do it. (But of course I can do it—it's my blog, right?)

On Craigslist Toronto I discovered a link (dated 1 Sept, 07) to the CF post entitled For Feminist Readers: An Introduction to the Men's Movement. This article is without a doubt the biggest hit ever to emerge from the present blog: back in January it made quite a splash, and the ripples continue. But here is the link to the link—and as you can see, the writer finds my words inspirational. It isn't often that one is said to "say it all", and although I doubt that I truly have the power to say that much, still...the honor is there!

http://toronto.craigslist.org/rnr/411284837.html

Now, the above item all by itself would hardly merit a post, but in conjunction with what follows, it is at least somewhat germane. The CF article in question, For Feminist Readers... has, within the past week, experienced a DRAMATIC explosion of hit traffic. I would say the total number of pageloads per day has increased on the order of FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT!

What does this mean? It means that record-breaking truckloads of people are suddenly reading this article—on the assumption that nobody would do a pageload if they weren't reading what was on the page.

I say suddenly. There was no gradual buildup—it happened all at once!

The article has always had a healthy hit count, but what's happening now is completely unprecedented!

Sign of the times? Who can say. But...I like to think that those words are rousing people to rebellion—that the brushfires are spreading! ;)
----------------------------

One more item. Here's a link to an nifty little online etymological dictionary, for all you folks who find such things interesting:


http://www.etymonline.com/