Thursday, November 29, 2007

Erin Pizzey's Blog

I didn't know Erin Pizzey had a blog! What on earth took me so long to discover this, anyway? Here's a sample:

"I was aware that the feminist movement were going to wage war against my refuge. From the beginning I employed men and women to work with the mothers and the children. We also had staff who were willing to see any of the men who wanted our help. From the very beginning we had women coming into the refuge who were just as violent as the men they left and they were violent towards their children. We saw these women as most in need of our help. All this ran in direct contradiction of the feminists who insisted that all domestic violence was perpetrated by men.

All of this goes right along with my previous CF post as natural as beer with pretzels, eh? Incidentally, in case the picket sign in the above photo isn't clear to you, it reads, 'Erin Pizzey Condones Male Violence'.

"Other countries were taking copies of Scream Quietly Or the Neighbours Will Hear and photocopying the book in order to open refuges in their own countries. I was in negotiations with American publishers over the possibility of publishing Scream Quietly when I became aware that the book was likely to be politicised and naively I thought that by my cancelling the publication, I could at least protect one source of information from being hi-jacked by the feminist movement. I knew by now, that none of the women in this movement had any interest in the subject of family violence. For the leaders of this new political movement the subject of family violence was merely a high road to funding for their cause - the destruction of the family and of men.

"In 1977 Del Martin, a lesbian activist in California, wrote her book Battered Women, and of course she lifted a huge amount of Scream Quietly to bolster her argument that domestic violence was a direct result of marriage. At that time, the lesbian movement within the women’s movements across the world were the most highly organised and vociferous leaders. Heterosexual women were considered traitors to the cause and were guilty of ’sleeping with the enemy.’ I lasted but a few months within the women’s movement in England before I was booted out. Even then I tried to point out that lesbian women were coming to my refuge beaten up by their partners, but I was ignored."

Now check out Pizzey's most recent (27 Nov, 2007) entry in the reader comment section:
"I did of course try to open a house for men just after I opened my first refuge. I understood almost immediately the need for men to have refuge because as I have said many times I recognised that of the first 100 women who came into the refuge 62 were as violent or more violent than the men they left. I was given a very big house in North London by the GLC (Greater London Council) for free but I could not raise a penny from anywhere to run it. We did open however but couldn’t stay open. Many of the men who were only too willing to contribute money to the women’s shelter would not lift a finger to help men. I have always said that dv. is not a gender issue and yes if you read Prone to Violence the message in that book is loud and clear. I don’t think much will change until men decide that they will co-operate with each other and bring an end to this dreadful injustice. I have spend an enormous amount of my time talking to men’s groups across the world and the most depressing thing about it all is the men who do work hard and devote their lives to this subject but find that once most men have had their personal problem resolved by their brothers they melt away into the night and are never seen again."
All right, so head over there yourself for hours of absorbing, compelling, first-rate reading!

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Woman Batters Her Child While Living in Battered Shelter

Oh, the irony of it all!

Today we shall make the acquaintance of Gloria Sylvia Irizarry, of Collier county, Florida, USA.

Irizarry, aged 33, is the mother of six children, five of whom were taken from her custody by authorities owing to reports of child abuse.

Irizarry was reported to have verbally abused, scratched, beaten, cursed, and choked with a rope until purple the one child who remained in her custody. She has been sentenced to sixteen months in the state prison by Circuit Court judge Frank Baker, who also sentenced her to five years probation. The conviction was on a first-degree felony charge punishable by up to thirty years incarceration.

The child, a five-year-old girl, is reported to be developmentally disabled and wearing a diaper because she soils herself.

The behavior for which Irizarry was convicted apparently took place while she and the little girl were living in a series of domestic violence shelters. In addition to the action described above, Irizarry is said to have instructed the girl, under threat, to lie to shelter officials about how she had gotten her various injuries.

A full news article can be found here:

You'll want to peruse the reader comments following the article, and note the presence of some highly MRA-esque statements. Evidence that our movement is growing, and spreading, and penetrating even to such remote, exotic, hayseed locales as Collier county, Florida!

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Yes, Those Rumors Were Most Certainly Exaggerated!

Peter Tarbat is still very much among us. Oh, I've known that for quite some time now. . . .

Anyway, here's the proof: a website chronicling the daily life of an MRA who has most certainly seen his share of troubles!

And while we're at it, you really should take a tandem look at this blog here. . . .

. . . . written by one of Peter's fellow Canadians, who remarkably covers many of the same things which Peter himself talks about (and has regrettably experienced!) .

Both of these websites are entered on the CF link list.

Addendum: Mr. Tarbat informs me of a sudden and great uptick in his fortunes. Seems he has found a lawyer very much to his liking. I won't say how happy he says it makes him. . .

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Something Light and Entertaining

You know, just a little something for laughs, to make you grin, to add that "special touch" to your day. After all, we ARE heading into the holiday season!

So spread the cheer around. Post this little goody on your website and mail it to all your friends!

Happy holidays! :)

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Marital Rape

The following was shared by Anonymous. Thanks, Anon!

This appears to be a very clear and articulate discussion thread on the subject of "marital rape". I haven't had time to read it all, let alone digest it, but I thought I'd hand it along. You may find it worth your while.

A couple of quick thoughts here. The main problem with the issue of marital rape is no different than for rape in general. It concerns the question of evidence/corroboration/he said-she said, and all that sort of thing. It amuses me to watch people continually missing the mark in this connection, when they are conversing upon this subject. It seems to me that they are throwing their darts at the wrong dartboard!

Positive proof is hard enough to secure even in a standard rape case, but in the marital kind the difficulty is uniquely compounded. Here we have two people sharing their home and their lives on a permanent basis and, at least in theory, having sex regularly as part of the package. A single act of so-called rape becomes mighty difficult to distinguish against the background of normal spousal intercourse which is presumed to be occurring anyway. The parties are alone together in a bedroom late at night, and. . . a "rape" occurs. In a standard rape case, the context as I have described it would carry a very different evidentiary loading - likely to the benefit of the plaintiff. But in a marital rape case it oughtn't unduly impress any judge or jury in terms of securing a guilty verdict. After all, husbands and wives are expected to be alone together in bedrooms late at night - and often in a state of partial or total undress, so that it becomes more problematic for her to say "he ripped my clothes off!"

In sum, rape is hard to prove and "marital" rape is damnably harder!

Another point I would make regarding marital rape as a legal concept is, that it radically undermines the institution of marriage. Early feminist anti-rape activists effectively said "down with the idea of conjugal rights!" All right, fair enough. But if you enshrine that idea into law, then in theory you might as well throw marriage out the window. It becomes possible for spouse A to go on a permanent sex strike against spouse B. That leaves spouse B with three options: 1) Celibacy, 2) Extramarital satisfaction, or 3) Divorce. Nothing in the scenario I have painted bodes well for the future of marriage as an institution - at least in the form that we know it. I suppose that was part of somebody's agenda all along, but did they ask the rest of society if such a thing was wanted?

I will touch only briefly upon the possibility of false rape accusation within marriage. This, along with all the other possibilities for false accusation in marriage (which have come about with full feminist connivance if not active support), turns marriage into a poisonous trap that men would be wise to avoid.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Transacting With the Opposition

I have recently contributed the following item to the Exposing Feminism blog, as a response to an article titled 'Jeff Fecke':

I hear a lot of *questions* buzzing around in this conversation - few if any of which have been resolved to any satisfation. But who knows, maybe I can shed some light.

This so-called ‘men’s movement’ can best be understood if we see it for what it is: A broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population.

I stress the modifier “broad”. When I say broad, I mean broad enough to cover the entire gamut of human nature. That’s broad, all right!

As you know, the gamut of human nature includes everything of which human beings are inherently capable. Some of that is lovely, and some of it ain’t.

This means that the Movement is bound to encompass nearly everything upon the human spectrum of moral capacity.

More and more men everywhere are reacting to the conditions which feminist innovation has generated in the world - often without understanding WHAT they are reacting to! And since the world contains ALL kinds of men, this reaction takes every form imaginable.

And not all of this reaction is morally pure like the driven snow. Why should it be? Not all men are morally pure. (And clearly. the same is true of women, despite what the occult ideology of feminism wants us to believe!)

But then, it is only to be expected that a broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population will display the good, the bad and the ugly in a chaotic tangle!

However, the chaotic tangle of moral capacity within the Movement cannot in any way invalidate the underlying claims or grievances which have set the Movement in motion. Those points need to be seriously addressed on their own merit, and upon their own terms.

And if these points are NOT seriously addressed, but continually misrepresented, scoffed at and brushed aside, then it is quite predictable that matters will continue to slide from ugly to uglier to downright apocalyptic.

I’m afraid that when the shit finally hits the fan, people like Mr. Fecke will be wise to tuck tail and make themselves scarce. That is not a pretty thing to say or to think about, but such premonitory medicine can be salutary for all concerned.

But I am glad to see that SOME of you guys in the other camp are FINALLY waking up to the gravity of the situation. (Although far too many, alas, are merely circling the wagons and acting “hysterically smug.”)

I guess that what I am fumbling so inadequately to say, is that we need to start understanding things in terms of larger historical forces, cycles, patterns. . .

Yes. In many ways, the conversation on this thread sounds like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. . . .


Concerning myself: I am one of those who openly brand feminism as a female-supremacist hate movement. I have taken this stand only after giving considerable thought to the subject. I say it because I believe it is TRUE, and I have enumerated my reasons at very considerable length in my blog writings.

The EF post and the entire discussion thread - which I highly recommend to your attention - may be viewed here:

Thursday, November 08, 2007

More Ways to Know It When You See It!

The following excellent item was posted by Paul Parmenter as a comment to the recent CF post titled Dare to Call It Feminism.

paul parmenter said...

A thought provoking post as usual, Fidelbogen.

My experience and long observation has driven me to conclude that feminism (but see below) has three fundamental characteristics that simply never change, no matter how many shapes and colours the old chameleon turns itself into. Those characteristics are firstly female supremacism (so our different experiences accord exactly on that one). Secondly, hatred of all things male. That does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with female supremacism, but in this case it most certainly does. Thirdly, the remarkable propensity to tell awful lies.

We should not be surprised at the lies, considering that feminism is grounded in one of the biggest lies in history, that all men have been oppressing all women since the year dot. If you adhere to that whopper, you simply have to keep creating more lies to justify it, until you lose yourself in a maze of contradictions and deceit; or simply implode into dust. Feminism is nicely poised between the two right now.

But instead of trying to nail down any definition of feminism, which is rather like trying to get a grip on an angry eel covered in soap, I find it easier and more productive simply to deal with real live feminists.

Now whether we should regard our enemy as feminism or feminists, is a very interesting question. I might be out on a limb in my belief that it is the latter. But I simply think that if feminism refuses to allow itself to be defined, or resorts to lies when it does define itself, or has endless definitions depending on who you speak to, then I won't waste my time on the matter. I will just confront the beast wherever it appears in human form. It is after all only through the agency of real people that any ideology or "ism" can inflict damage. The concept that I am a monster who must be destroyed is totally harmless to me until and unless a real person believes in it and sets out to put that belief into practice.

But again, if you cannot pin a tail on the donkey that is feminism, can you fare any better with feminists? If the ism has multiple faces, then so surely do the believers in the ism? I solve the problem by simply recognising "people who call themselves feminists"; and that is the easiest way to describe them. Never mind who they are or what they think feminism is, or whether they would fit some esoteric definition of the term; if they call themselves feminists, we should at least do them the courtesy of accepting that that is what they are. They should certainly know.

And my approach works. I find that people who call themselves feminists invariably do indeed display the three characteristics of feminism that I outline above. Of course they do; that is how I arrived at my definition of feminism in the first place. And it is very satisfying, although also of course irritating, to find that my definition consistently holds good. I will accept that there are a very few people who call themselves feminists who do not display all the three characteristics; but they are so rare as to discount themselves. In the overwhelming majority of cases, when you encounter someone who calls himself or herself a feminist, you will find yourself dealing with someone who believes in female supremacy, who hates all things male, and who tells lots of lies.

Which makes them extremely obnoxious people to deal with.

Of course we have to accept that there may be plenty of others who have the three characteristics but who don't or won't call themselves feminists; but they should not fool anyone. As you say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

It is very easy to prove that people who call themselves feminists are liars. Their favourite lie is to insist that they believe in equality between the sexes. And you can catch them out in this lie very simply. Just ask them if they have ever lifted so much as a finger to help close the disgraceful gap in life expectancy between the sexes; or to equalise the gross imbalance in health care funding between male-specific and female-specific diseases; or to address the appalling underachievement of boys in education compared to girls; or to give fathers anything approaching parity with mothers in our misandric family court system; or done anything at all to alleviate the inequality in any number of other vital areas in our lives where males are without question treated as inferior citizens.

I can give you a cast-iron guarantee that the person who calls himself or herself a feminist will not give you a straight and honest answer to any such question, even though you both know exactly what that answer is. Instead they will avoid answering it any which way they can think of. I can give that guarantee because there is no other way they can react. Their dishonesty will bar them from telling the truth, and their inflated opinion of their moral standing (they always believe they stand on the moral high ground) will not allow them admit to you, let alone themselves, that they have been caught with their pants down. So their only recourse will be "fight or flight". They will either run away into denial mode, or change the subject instantly, most probably to complaints about hard done by women are; or they will switch to the attack with a venom that can only be summoned up by those who are in the wrong and know it.

That's because when they told you they believed in sex equality, they were telling lies.

By their fruits shall ye know them, indeed.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Gotta Read it to Believe It

The following thread, on "Thinking Girl's" feminist blog, is a discussion of the infamous Jeff Fecke article (and HUGE comment followup!) at the Shakesville blog:

I couldn't help posting a comment on that thread, in order to inform the thinking girl what I think about Jeff Fecke of Eagan, Minnesota! I'm pretty sure my comment will get moderated out of existence, but here it is for the record:

I hate to burst everybody’s bubble, but the number one shit-flinging baboon of the whole lot was Jeff Fecke himself.

Jeff’s post was a shameless pack of lies, libels, and distortions meant to titillate the snickering congregation whilst inflaming the opposition. There was nothing the least bit informed, open-minded, civil, or respectful about anything that Jeff Fecke said in his post. Absolutely nothing.

It was inflammatory smear tactics. And Jeff knows it. He ought to be deeply ashamed of himself but he is clearly incapable of that.

Furthermore, Jeff owes Glenn Sacks a huge apology.

Jeff Fecke needs to grovel. It would be good for his soul. Penance and all that. . . ;-)

And don't miss the following remark by a person calling herself "Donna Darko":
"the reason mras — especially these mras — oppose vawa (1994) is because it allows mail order brides to petition for permanent residency if they are victims of domestic violence. in 2000, vawa was expanded to allow divorced spouses to petition for permanent residency.

"in essence, they want an excuse to beat their wives. until 1990, immigrant women needed their husbands’ permission to gain residency."
There you have it: "MRAs oppose VAWA because they want to beat their wives".

Yes sir, that's a feminist for you! And they are all alike - they are all a pack of filthy conniving scumbag liars with zero honor, zero decency, zero scruples, and zero redeeming human qualities. They deserve no respect whatsoever, and they should count themselves lucky if we are just barely polite to them!

Jeff Fecke's original post at Shakesville can be seen here:

And in case you want to see the horse's ass's face, Jeff has his mug shot there. . .

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Dare to Call It Feminism

How shall I phrase it. . . . ?

They feel the heat. They detect the shifting wind. They have taken note of the upwelling thunderclouds on the horizon. They have hearkened to the distant rumble of artillery. They have caught the sinister metallic scraping noise of weapons being sharpened in the night.

All right, you get the idea. The feminists are finally getting wise to their objective position. It has belatedly dawned upon a critical number of them that the game is changing, that they now confront an enemy who is tough and smart and aggressively recruiting and not about to call it a day.

They are retreating—cautiously, cautiously—in the best array they can manage, from terrain they can no longer occupy without exposing their flank. They are tactically regrouping and retrenching along what they are pleased to consider defensible high ground.

And this "defensible high ground"—it signifies what, precisely? Simply put, it signifies ground which they can feel unashamed to stand upon. More simply, it signifies the core identity of feminism as suchfor who would wish to identify with something shameful, and then defend it? At long last the feminists have understood the imperative to make clear what feminism is and what feminism is not. They can no longer postpone this—they must define themselves, or be defined!

HOWEVER: they must accomplish their task in terms that won't prove disgraceful or embarrassing to their movement, and this could involve throwing away certain elements whose lack would render feminism as ineffectual as the celebrated bulldog with rubber teeth!

For to discard the ugly, controversial parts of feminism, would extract feminism's fangs and make feminism no better than a tepid liberal humanism—at which point the word feminism itself would have no further utility. Deep in their emotional basement the feminists know this; it afflicts them with a mental distress, an anxiety approaching cognitive dissonance. Call it the battle for feminism's soul. It sets a fork in their road from which neither choice leads to any acceptable endpoint: whether to identify as something honorable yet ineffectual, or as something effectual yet shameful. This poses a dilemma.

But that is feminism's misfortune and none of my own, and I have no commission to apply soothing ointment to their mental distress. Once again, the matter in point concerns the identity of feminism as such. The core identity, I mean. For some time, the feminists have tried to whitewash their endeavor by shifting the blame for anything unsavory onto what they are pleased to call 'straw feminism'. This is typically proffered in the spirit of rebuttal, as when some critic is a mite too keen upon their tracks. In this way the feminists hope to duck holistic responsibility for feminism's larger impact on the social ecology—as if the hand which flings the stone should say, "I am not the ripples on the pond!"

So-called straw feminism is simply the itchy home truth about feminism, as mirrored in the world generally, focused to a point of descriptive combustion by a lynx-eyed MRA, and disavowed by feminists who wish the obvious to pass unremarked. It is feminism's manifested quintessence, writ large upon the broad parchment of human affairs; it is the "fruits by which ye shall know them."

Feminism on its face being incoherent, and the world being filled with feminists of every flavor who often say things that starkly contradict each other, nearly any searching generalization you might care to make will be branded as 'straw feminism' by at least some percentage of feminists somewhere, somehow, at some time. It seems the auditorium is packed to the rafters with "straw", and this makes orderly understanding of feminism as a global phenomenon quite difficult.

So . . . at the end of the day, what IS feminism? Will the real feminism please stand up? Or is ALL of it the real feminism?

Again, if you take away the reprehensible bits, you will end with a so-called feminism which amounts to mere platitude—an insipid porridge of no original character and no world-altering potential. And if that is all that feminism was ever meant to be, who'd have bothered to launch it in the first place?

All feminist thinking, if it be essentially feminist, is built upon the fixed premise that man equals bad and woman equals good. Nearly all subsequent feminist theory and feminist rhetoric is merely a complicated gloss upon this theme, meant to uphold it continually as a subtext while denying that any such meaning is actually intended. This has been, for the feminists, a double-minded juggling act of singular complexity.

The plain bald-headed truth is, that feminism equals female supremacismand the dual equation of male bad/female good constitutes the necessary first step toward the construction of such a viewpoint. These two expressions—feminism and female supremacism—are interchangeable. Close observation of the world, and a steadfast interrogational scrutiny upon this point, will yield abundant evidence for the veracity of such a conclusion. I would charge others in the Movement to look and see for themselves, and I am confident they will second my judgment and join their varied voices to my own.

That said, I will now take upon myself to define the core identity of feminism. Or if not precisely defining it, at any rate bestowing on the reader a conceptual vantage point overlooking the particular valley which I, the present writer, have specifically in view. My task then, is to set you upon a hilltop and make you see. What follows will no doubt qualify, in the opinion of some, as straw-feminist consensus building. However, since that "some" is not my targeted audience, I don't honestly give a snap what they think.

I will be presenting some links for you to click upon, but please don't click upon them until you have read this entire post straight through. Then you can go back and start clicking.

First, I would like to introduce you to a woman whom many of you already know about, but many others do not. Rasa von Werder is manifestly an embarrassment, and I've seen enough of the general run of feminists to predict that most of them would curl their noses and dutifully declare, "She's not really a feminist! She's a wingnut!!" Yes, they find Rasa von Werder embarrassing! They don't want to be shoved into the same box with her; they don't want to be tarred with the same brush!

Yet I would insist that Rasa von Werder is a feminist par excellence: if you tell me she's not a feminist, try telling me the Dalai Lama is not a Buddhist! If I describe to you a waterfowl that walks with a waddle, has webbed feet, an extended neck, a thick rounded bill, and makes a noise like "quack-quack", would you tell me it's a sparrow? A hummingbird?

Now, Rasa von Werder is emphatically not a tepid liberal humanist. Such is my considered opinion, and you may lean toward a similar assessment after watching this 9-minute YouTube video, titled "Male Domination is Coming to an End":

I would say that Rasa preaches a rather bizarre form of Gnosticism. But that aside, I cannot in good faith exclude her from the category of "feminist". She scores far too highly on the duck test. Her discourse, as you will note, is peppered with those classic feminist catchwords and phrases that we love so dearly: matriarchy, patriarchy, misogyny, sexism, female empowerment, the feminine divine, "women are nurturers", and so on. And most of all, Rasa von Werder is certifiably a female supremacist—she makes absolutely no bones about this:
"My lectures are going to hit harder and harder as I elucidate the Natural Superiority of women & how Mother God has decided to deal with men."
Again, Rasa is not the tepid liberal humanist—no feminist can be that without emasculating feminism itself! Rasa also doesn't know how to keep her mouth shut, for she exhibits the unsavory elements without which feminism would no longer be feminism at all; she pulls the dirty undergarments from the hamper and strews them all over the house for the world to behold! The more prudent feminists are wise enough to keep it tucked away—out of the world's sight and out of the world's mind! But not our gal Rasa—oh no, she's out of the closet! And for that we could even thank her, for she gives the game away!

To declare that Rasa von Werder is "only a cult leader" should prompt us to ask whether feminism itself—all of it!—is in fact precisely the "cult" in question. Feminism and Werderism very clearly have their metabolic root element in common, and it would be fatuous to pretend that they don't exist upon the same operational spectrum. The viability of both is contingent upon anti-male bigotry of a very specific kind; subtract this ingredient and both entities—feminism and Werderism—would effectively vanish. In sum, their difference is peripheral only; at the core, they are indistinguishable. If Rasa is the leader of a cult, I can see no good reason not to call that cult feminism. This makes even more sense when you consider that there are many different kinds of feminism—as the feminists themselves will diligently inform you! So I think it is safe to venture that Rasa von Werder's cult is at least a kind of feminism—which therefore makes it feminism!

Next, let's have a look at everybody's favorite feminist embarrassment. Valerie Solanas is worse than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick; I can hardly blame the feminists for getting their panties in a pretzel when Valerie's name is shoved accusatorily in their faces! And yet here I go, doing it again!

The SCUM Manifesto was ahead of its time, and that makes it intriguing. This booklet is stuffed to the gills with glimmerings and foreshadowings of things to come—things we could scarcely have foreseen from the vantage point of 1968. In retrospect, it reads like a coded blueprint for the entire anti-male culture war which has taken root and spread like a mat of choking vegetation over the last 40 years. Mark you, events have not unfolded literally as the work describes—nobody, Solanas least of all, expected that! What matters is the mindset which this lurid female-supremacist sermon transpires—a mindset which has propagated, more or less noticeably, over a wide radius and into many unexpected corners.

Plenty of feminists take umbrage at the suggestion that Valerie Solanas was herself a feminist, yet nothing hinders my own belief that Solanas was that indeed. The SCUM Manifesto is female-supremacist through and through—try telling me it isn't! At any rate, feminist or no, it is hard to dispute that Valerie Solanas occupies a distinctive niche in the feminist pantheon. She and her work are widely known, and I don't need Johnny Carson in a turban to tell me she'd win a higher approval rating among the feminist population than from the population at large. Or would you insist that feminists who profess to find value in Valerie, or who voice opinions reminiscent of hers, are not really feminists? You would need to include the likes of Robin Morgan, Vivian Gornick, Ti-Grace Atkinson, Florynce Kennedy, Sally Miller Gearhart, Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, Mary Daly, Cheris Kramerae, Paula Treichler, Susan Griffin, Barbara Jordan, Jodie Foster, Sharon Stone, Marilyn French, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ann Oakley, Rasa von Werder, the Feminist Initiative party in Sweden, and . . . a passel of critters you've known on the internet! Are none of these people feminists? Are some of them not feminists? Are any of them feminists? Finally, feminist or no, have they anything significantly in common? Are they animated by a common spirit . . . or aren't they? Do they dance to the same fiddler. . . or don't they?

But do I mean to promote a big-bang theory of female supremacism, with Valerie Solanas as a point-source for all the man-hating in the women's movement? Bless you no—not even close! To the contrary, I believe that feminism is a great, wide river fed by an array of streams. Valerie Solanas is but one of many, many tributaries to that muddy Mississippi, and rest assured: feminism (man-hating or otherwise) would have happened with or without her! Still, Valerie Solanas crossed the bridge when she crossed it, and did what she did when she did it, and for that reason she has revelatory importance which merits examination.

Was Valerie Solanas a transmitter, or a reciever? Did she beam instructions to the world which the world acted upon, or did she merely sample the zeitgeist like a satellite dish and then transcribe the findings into her own idiom? Either is possible, and I would even venture that both at once are probable. I would say that people like Solanas give form and voice to latent energies which are already present in society; they cast their memes upon the water, and the latent energy is thereby able to cluster and gain direction. They insinuate their suggestions into the world under the color of something ludic and ironic, something "artsy". This slips into the meme-pool beneath the radar, is propagated mind to mind, breaks into separate streams, loses authorial identity, undergoes a stylistic transmutation at each transfer, but through it all carries intact a miniscule seed of its original purpose. Therefore, "the more it changes, the more it stays the same". But take heed: at some unremarked point the impulse will cease to be ludic and ironic—although in this case it is needless to add that the Solanian "cutting up" of men is not physical but rather cultural, political and psychological.

The SCUM Manifesto is an eerily prophetic document that repays diligent study. You will feel as if you are viewing forty years of social history through a pair of x-ray spectacles. Therefore I recommend that you spend plenty of time scrutinizing this piece of writing: the "eureka" flashes will amaze you! Indeed, the SCUM Manifesto has been described as feminism's "magnetic north", and one readily discerns the justice in that appraisal when the recent feminist evolution of society is considered. Just don't take it literally, but rather know it for what it is: a literary cargo container filled with encrypted behavior cues and psychic triggers, colloidally suspended in a matrix of Freudian psychology.

Finally, we turn to the third of the featured items in today's lecture:

The Redstockings Manifesto was published in New York City in 1969, and its principal author appears to have been the Marxist-inspired Shulamith Firestone—who also wrote a well-known book called The Dialectic of Sex.

differs from the the preachings of Valerie Solanas or Rasa von Werder in that it does not expressly advance the idea of female supremacism. Granted that by its hostility toward men it paves the way to such a conclusion, but it falls short of stating the conclusion in set terms.

Redstockings also amounts to an elliptical summary of the patriarchy theory, even though the word patriarchy itself nowhere appears. Again, as with female supremacism, Redstockings suggestively paves the road to such a conclusion—and both conclusions are easily supplied by any reader so inclined.

But for our purpose, the most important thing about the Redstockings Manifesto is that nobody can plausibly aver that it isn't really feminism. Redstockings is very much indeed a politically conceived feminist document—a kind of party platform. I would be interested to meet the feminist answer expert who could put the case otherwise. I believe that Redstockings contains so much that is essential to feminism, that to shine a blazing daylight upon it would be the same as if we had pulled up feminism altogether by the roots.

And knowing Redstockings to be essentially feminist, we can easily use it for a measuring rod. We need only line it up against a given body of speech or writing to obtain a rough-and-ready spectral analysis.

Further, we can challenge any self-declared feminist to put her money where her mouth is. For example, if for some odd reason she insists that Redstockings "isn't really feminist", we can reasonably require of her that she disown it, and thereafter restate for our benefit what she thinks feminism really means—simply as a way of setting the record straight! And more: we can place her words and actions under a microscope for any sign of intellectual complicity with the Redstockings ideology, and demand the highest standards of probity in her conduct.

If she agrees that Redstockings is feminist, but perkily informs us that she herself is some different kind of feminist, then her case varies only superficially from that outlined above. Either way, it comes to the same thing: she finds the document embarrassing and wants to distance herself. And either way, we would hold her feet to the same fire.

Finally, if our hypothetical feminist proudly declares herself a Redstockings loyalist and bids us go to the devil, then she will have damned herself out of her own totalitarian mouth—which is to say, she will have metaphorically inserted her head in the noose. We would thereafter hold her to a nuanced accounting for the nuanced implications of her stated ideology.

At the end of the day, the world contains two kinds of people: Those who will abjure the Redstockings Manifesto, and those who won't. Friends, that is how we separate the sheep from the goats. Redstockings seems almost purpose-made for the job because it covers so much territory in such a small package. I could hardly ask for a more concise resumé of feminism's key points—and almost anybody can read it in five minutes.

So much for the three illustrative examples. I had set out to define the core identity of feminism—such was my stated task earlier in the article. But my manner of going about this was a bit unconventional. For although I included some discussion of the three items, my central method has been precisely NOT to make explications in my own words, but merely point to something and say, "Look! See for yourself!"

What is common to all three examples is a keenly-annunciated hostility toward men. I admit the examples differ among themselves in certain particulars: Rasa von Werder talks about patriarchy and advocates female supremacy, yet implies that she is not herself a feminist. Solanas advocates female supremacy quite vociferously, implies the existence of patriarchy, yet makes no use of the actual terms feminist, feminism, and patriarchy. The Redstockings Manifesto echoes the mood of Solanas, but does so in more restrained language and without any trace of poetic license or irony. Redstockings likewise nowhere employs the terms feminist, feminism, or patriarchy—nor does it expressly advocate female supremacism.

But again, all three examples show a keenly-annunciated hostility toward men—that much stands out in boldface! Additionally, all three examples either postulate the existence of patriarchy and advocate female supremacy, or establish a moral tone that naturally fosters belief in such things. Simply stated, all three examples display a variety of critically important arrows pointing in the same direction.

These arrows all point toward something which is not friendly toward males, or toward maleness. Some nameless but objectively existing force, ranging freely in the world and operating at will, which clearly seeks to do you harm if you happen to possess a penis.

That force is real. It is out there. It is active. It exists. It is politically organized. Do I dare to call it "feminism"? Or is that the wrong word?

But why not call it feminism? Granted, female supremacism would also be a likely choice, but I have explained already why feminism and female supremacism are interchangeable terms, so why not simply call it feminism? If nothing else, it is easier to pronounce—four syllables as against eight! And too, feminism sounds like a naturally compressed version of female supremacism. A portmanteau.

Really, this "nameless force" ought to have a name! Nameless things are powerful things because you cannot point to them or effectively talk about them. You cannot "shake a stick" at them. But when you give the nameless thing a name, all of that changes. By naming it, you give it a silhouette. You give it a profile. You skyline it on the ridge-top. You make it available as a target—of words, meanings, discussions, delimitations, understandings, eventually actions. By naming it, you loosen its grip upon your world. You weaken its hold. Power told is power lost!

So why not call it feminism? That wordfeminismis up for grabs. The feminists haven't yet settled on what it means, even if they are feeling a growing pressure to do so. But the bottom line is, that they are loath to take responsibility for their own terminology because, if they did so, it would commit them to the consequences of their (hidden) ideology. It would condense their fuzzy borders and burn away the convenient fog which cloaks their devices. I hope I have made clear by now that there is a part of feminism which the feminists wish to sweep under the rugor to put it plainly, they wish to leave this part of feminism undefined. This they accomplish by persistently changing the subject, by eternally redirecting attention away from the region of embarrassment. It's an old, old trickpractitioners of stage magic know it well!

Again, there is a nameless force at work in the world which aims to harm you if you are male. So why not give it a name? Why not call it feminism? If they insist on keeping things in the dark, then clearly somebody must shine a light! Friends, that somebody is US! And what our torch reveals is the part of feminism which the feminists don't want to acknowledge. Clearly, this too is a part of feminism!

So why not call it feminism?? Can you offer a better description of feminism than as a triumphalist, hate-driven movement for female supremacy, combined with a one-sided political advocacy for women's interests, accompanied by a near-complete vacuum on the theme of ethical behavior toward men, which preaches with a forked tongue out of both sides of its mouth?

Hark! Do I hear an outraged howl of "straw feminism"? No, I think that choice of terminologies is too complicated. Plain old feminism will do quite nicely, thank you! And although I fully understand that many self-declared feminists might wish to preserve the good name of their movement, I fear it is getting rather late in the day for that! They should have thought of it earlier.

Yes, there is a force at work in the world, whose object is to work the undoing of men. I have, as a kind of rhetorical formality, played the game of calling this force "nameless", even though I knew perfectly well all along what to call it. But look now; let us imagine a bottle with a label, and let us imagine that this label says "grenadine". Now let us picture another bottle, and this time let us suppose the label reads "rat poison". So far, so good. But have you noticed something amiss? Yes! I haven't said one single word on what the bottles actually contain! I have only reported what is printed on the labels, but for all you know, both bottles might contain rat poison! Clearly, to trust a label
ANY labelis an act of faith! One thing and one thing only ought to concern youthe actual content of the bottle!

The secret of life is to know what's really in the bottle! Don't let the labels, or the bottles themselves, tangle your head like seaweed in a propeller! You must know that this deceitful world plays never-ending tricks with bottles and labels
and with words! And in the end you must learn to know things by their right names and give everything that comes your way a discriminating sniff test! And no matter what the label says, or how pretty the bottle looks, or how ugly the bottle looks, the stuff inside the bottle IS WHAT IT IS WHAT IT IS WHAT IT IS!

My friend: be a man who knows what is! Use the same name always for the same thing. You may call it grenadine, or rat poison, or even "feminism", but give it a name and know what that name means. Know what it refers to; know what it points to! And know what is really in the bottle!

Well. Now it is almost time for you to click on those links, yes?

Watch the Rasa von Werder video. Then, while Rasa's voice is still echoing in your memory, go to the SCUM Manifesto and sample a few extended passages. Finally, read the Redstockings Manifesto slowly and thoughtfully in its entirety.

Then sit back and let the separate juices from all three items flow and meld together in your mind until they form a conceptual hologram. Savor this final impression. Reflect upon it. Ponder the significance of it.

I submit that what you are experiencing is crude, unrefined feminism straight from the pump. Yes, I say it is the real feminism! As real as real gets! What do you think
does "feminism" sound like a suitable name for it? Can you think of a better?

Really: why not call it feminism?

Labels: ,

Monday, November 05, 2007

Competing with the Boys for More Equality!

Make note of the following recent news story:

"According to Police Chief James Murray, the girls allegedly planned to get their friends out of the school in Peachtree City, commit the shootings, take drugs and then kill themselves. They were even talking about a potential date to carry out the threat, police said.

"The girls were arrested Monday and charged with one felony count each of making a terroristic threat, police said."

Ah, yesssss....! You've come a long way, baby! It's good to see a couple of kickass Amazon Grrrrlz taking it to the next level! Roll over in your graves, Harris & Klebold; you've got competition! ;-)

Well. . . almost!

Maybe next time. . . eh?

Friday, November 02, 2007

Something Good to Download and Read!

The following paper by Murray Straus is dated May 2007:

Here, Dr. Straus describes the tricks that feminist propagandists use to suppress evidence that men and women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence.

Among other things, Straus talks about the Conflict Tactics Scale (or CTS), which is one of the main instruments used to gather data supporting the gender-symmetrical view of domestic violence. The feminists have been VERY keen to discredit the CTS methodology because, frankly, it is a menace to the faith!
"Another example is the claim that the Conflict Tactics Scales does not provide an adequate measure of PV because it measures only conflict related violence. Although the theoretical basis of the CTS is conflict theory, the introductory explanation to participants specifically asks participants to report expressive and malicious violence. It asks respondents about the times when they and their partner “...disagree, get annoyed with the other person, want different things from each other, or just have spats or fights because they are in a bad mood, are tired or for some other reason.”

"Despite repeating this criticism for 25 years in perhaps a hundred publications, none of those publications has provided empirical evidence showing that only conflict-related violence is reported. In fact, where there are both CTS data and qualitative data, as in Giles-Sims (1983), it shows that the CTS elicits malicious violence as well as conflict-related violence. Nevertheless, because there are at least a hundred articles with this statement in 150 peer reviewed journals, it seems to establish as a scientific fact what is only an attempt to blame the messenger for the bad news about gender symmetry in PV."
Dr. Straus also mentions the feminist practice of using cherry-picked CTS data which only appears to support the anti-male case they wish to build. Despite their criticism of the CTS in general, they're completely down with it when they can make it say what THEY want it to say!

Plus, there is the ever-popular "violent" reaction by (female) feminists to the idea that women are violent - oh, the irony!:
"Suzanne Steinmetz made the mistake of publishing a book and articles (Steinmetz 1977, 1977–1978) which clearly showed about equal rates of perpetration by males and females. Anger over this resulted in a bomb threat at her daughters’ wedding, and she was the object of a letter writing campaign to deny her promotion and tenure at the University of Delaware. Twenty years later the same processes resulted in a lecturer at the University of Manitoba whose dissertation found gender symmetry in PV being denied promotion and tenure.

My own experiences have included having one of my graduate students being warned at a conference that she will never get a job if she does her PhD research with me. Atthe University of Massachusetts, I was prevented from speaking by shouts and stomping. The chairperson of the Canadian Commission on Violence against Women stated at two hearings held by the commission that nothing that Straus publishes can be believed because he is a wife-beater and sexually exploits students, according to a Toronto Magazine article. When I was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and rose to give the presidential address, a group of members occupying the first few rows of the room stood up and walked out.
Anyway, read the whole thing yourself; I'm sure it will make you grin!