Once Again: What They Don't Want You to Know
Here is a classic item from the early days of CF. This is on the 'greatest hits ' list: it ties for second place with "Ideas That Go Against the Grain". First place, of course, belongs to "For Feminist Readers..." - which despite the title was not intended just for feminists!
I repost the article below because it is one of the best things I've written, because men from all shades of the cultural and political spectrum have responded positively to it, and because it is more timely than ever. Also, I've a hunch that a few recent readers have missed it:
-----------------------------------
What They Don't Want You to Know
What do the feminists really mean by the term "patriarchy"? When this word rolls off a feminist tongue, what does it specifically refer to? Is it possible to discover what they are talking about in terms of the utmost clarity, simplicity, and above all usability, and reduce it to a formula that will smack the nail bang on the head every time?
Understand, that we wish to unpack the occulted lexical thread of signification which the word patriarchy carries throughout ALL examples of feminist rhetoric. When THEY talk about patriarchy, THEY assuredly mean something particular, something consistent, something examinable, something that would manifest their devices if it were brought to light. From the highest towers of the academy to the lowest reaches of the pop-feminist gutter, they all talk about "patriarchy", and in their varied accents they are all referring to the same thing. It is to this thing specifically that we direct our enquiry, in order that we may know it and name it and decode feminist speech by the light of it.
Here is the secret: When feminists speak of patriarchy, all they are really talking about is male power. It's just that simple. All of their circumlocutions dance endlessly and evasively around this -- that patriarchy is exactly synonymous with male power, neither more nor less than male power, and that in all cases the terms patriarchy and male power may be interchanged with a negligible adulteration of meaning.
Try the experiment yourself. Find a piece of feminist writing where the word patriarchy occurs; replace this word with male power; see if it makes any fundamental difference. Also, see if it throws an unexpectedly revealing light upon the matter, yielding a sense and consistency superior to the original version.
If you wish, replace the word patriarchy with the simple word "men", and it will yield similar results. I know that many feminists have denied that patriarchy equals "men", but think for a minute: is not bare existence in itself a form of power? Tell me who has more male power: a man who exists, or a man who doesn't?
No feminist understanding of "patriarchy" makes any ultimate sense if you divorce this word from the idea of male power. If you aren't talking about male power in some way then you are wasting your time talking about patriarchy in any way whatsoever. Let that thought be your femspeak decoder template.
Feminist answer experts, seeking to confuse the issue, might reply that patriarchy is male power plus something else. Maybe so. But if you subtracted the male power part, the "something else" part wouldn't stand up any better than an empty gunny-sack, whereas the "male power" part -- even by itself -- would remain fully serviceable within the calculus of meaning.
Every feminist analysis that I'm aware of (for example, that of John Stoltenberg) does no better than make "something else" to be a form of male will-to-power emanating from the allegedly "constructed" nature of maleness in the first place. But this is a completely circular explanation that will never boost the discussion beyond square one, so we might as well scrap it. Besides, the whole mess boils down to male power anyway, so that in the end all you are really saying is that patriarchy is male power plus male power.
So in the end, you can't go far wrong if you simply set "patriarchy" equal to "male power". You'll go further wrong if you select any other option.
It follows that any feminist who talks about "ending" patriarchy or reducing it in some way, is also talking about ending or reducing male power in some way.
So what does male power mean? It means: any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to possess.
And exactly what is this thing called...power? That is a very good and very important question.
In the realm of human affairs, as near as we can make it, power is a substance compounded of two ingredients: IDENTITY, and AGENCY.
Identity means the sum of all factors, both mental and physical, which identify you as a discrete center of conscious awareness in contradistinction to other such discrete centers.
Agency means your capacity to either effect or prevent change through the exercise of your volition.
Let that sink in. Take a break for a few minutes, if you want to. Get away from the computer. Go outside , look at the clouds, listen to the birds, enjoy the fresh air.
Very well, you are back. Let's recapitulate.
Patriarchy is a feminist code word for male power. Male power means any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to posess, and power specifically means identity plus agency. So in practice, the feminist keyword patriarchy maps to the identity and agency of any male citizen.
Gentle reader, you as a person possess identity and agency. In other words, you possess power. You mightn't think you have enough of it, but you do have some. And so long as you have some, you have freedom. Again, possibly not enough for your liking...but some. And some is always enough to get you started - enough to leaven the dough, you might say. Be glad of it, and work intelligently with it.
Let's see how feminism enters the picture. Feminism is an anti-male hate movement, and it is perfectly natural that when you hate something you will seek to deprive it of power - the more the better. We have equated power with identity and agency, and so have the feminist ideologues - although not necessarily in the same terms. Still, they have copped the base mechanics that we've outlined here. They know it instinctively.
In order to undermine male power, the women's movement over the years has set afoot a variety of actions, both large and small, tending to vitiate the identity and agency of men. Indeed, nearly everything which feminism has accomplished has made some contribution to this overall effect.
This "campaign" has cut a gradual, descending swath from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from the political to the personal - striving always toward a finer granularity of control, a greater concision of shades and subtleties in the realm of daily life.
Dry alterations to the fabric of law and the outward form of institutions didn't satisfy them for long -- they thirsted for the essential juice of life, and in particular, the life juice of anything male which crossed their path. The last thing they wanted was a workplace or a world filled with insouciant, free-spirited, self-esteeming men and boys. Something had to be done to correct male joie de vivre and male autonomy.
Men were to be subjugated, but if they didn't know this, and if they didn't act like they knew it, then the whole thing would be pointless. It was necessary, then, for the reach of matriarchy to become omni-locational and all-pervading - like the ideological presence of a totalitarian social order.
So, it was and continues to be important to the feminist effort that every possible shred of male identity or agency be appended to the shadow of ideology in some manner. ANY speck of uncolonized male space or male autonomy constitutes a bit of turf still in the grip of patriarchal power. Or at any rate, that's how they see it.
Case in point: what is a "sensitive male"? For starters, it is a sexist concept in exactly the same way that "good negro" is a racist concept. This is a VERY exact paralell. If somebody employs the term "sensitive male", or worse, calls you one, then you ought to feel seriously offended.
Beyond that, a sensitive male is simply an emotional puppet whose strings are available for any woman to pull, whenever and wherever. In short, a man curiously lacking in power; a man of abbreviated identity and agency.
Sometimes they will rate you on whether you "know how to cry". Reason being, that if you know how to cry then it follows that you can be made to cry. That's what they are really looking for in the long run. And here's an extra thought that occurred to me: how would you like to be told that "it's okay to cry" by the very same person who made you want to cry in the first place? You'd be damned if you'd give them the satisfaction, wouldn't you?
These examples are given because in my opinion they implode the circumference of male power about as far as it can be pushed, at least in the daily realm of social interplay. Even to a point where the drive for control reaches straight into a man's inner world, breaching a barrier which civil propriety forbids should be violated.
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Know therefore that your coolness, aloofness, guardedness, your methodological skepticism, or even your native lack of response to certain stimuli which others might find compelling, are all vital elements of your identity. Your agency. Your autonomy. Your....manhood. In other words, your male power.
Oh, very well then, call it patriarchy!
Ha! And you thought that "patriarchy" was just a one-size-fits-all guilt-o-matic gizmo designed to put men eternally on the defensive while giving women a carte blanche moral advantage in any given situation!
Well it is that indeed. But as you can see now, it goes deeper....
I repost the article below because it is one of the best things I've written, because men from all shades of the cultural and political spectrum have responded positively to it, and because it is more timely than ever. Also, I've a hunch that a few recent readers have missed it:
-----------------------------------
What They Don't Want You to Know
What do the feminists really mean by the term "patriarchy"? When this word rolls off a feminist tongue, what does it specifically refer to? Is it possible to discover what they are talking about in terms of the utmost clarity, simplicity, and above all usability, and reduce it to a formula that will smack the nail bang on the head every time?
Understand, that we wish to unpack the occulted lexical thread of signification which the word patriarchy carries throughout ALL examples of feminist rhetoric. When THEY talk about patriarchy, THEY assuredly mean something particular, something consistent, something examinable, something that would manifest their devices if it were brought to light. From the highest towers of the academy to the lowest reaches of the pop-feminist gutter, they all talk about "patriarchy", and in their varied accents they are all referring to the same thing. It is to this thing specifically that we direct our enquiry, in order that we may know it and name it and decode feminist speech by the light of it.
Here is the secret: When feminists speak of patriarchy, all they are really talking about is male power. It's just that simple. All of their circumlocutions dance endlessly and evasively around this -- that patriarchy is exactly synonymous with male power, neither more nor less than male power, and that in all cases the terms patriarchy and male power may be interchanged with a negligible adulteration of meaning.
Try the experiment yourself. Find a piece of feminist writing where the word patriarchy occurs; replace this word with male power; see if it makes any fundamental difference. Also, see if it throws an unexpectedly revealing light upon the matter, yielding a sense and consistency superior to the original version.
If you wish, replace the word patriarchy with the simple word "men", and it will yield similar results. I know that many feminists have denied that patriarchy equals "men", but think for a minute: is not bare existence in itself a form of power? Tell me who has more male power: a man who exists, or a man who doesn't?
No feminist understanding of "patriarchy" makes any ultimate sense if you divorce this word from the idea of male power. If you aren't talking about male power in some way then you are wasting your time talking about patriarchy in any way whatsoever. Let that thought be your femspeak decoder template.
Feminist answer experts, seeking to confuse the issue, might reply that patriarchy is male power plus something else. Maybe so. But if you subtracted the male power part, the "something else" part wouldn't stand up any better than an empty gunny-sack, whereas the "male power" part -- even by itself -- would remain fully serviceable within the calculus of meaning.
Every feminist analysis that I'm aware of (for example, that of John Stoltenberg) does no better than make "something else" to be a form of male will-to-power emanating from the allegedly "constructed" nature of maleness in the first place. But this is a completely circular explanation that will never boost the discussion beyond square one, so we might as well scrap it. Besides, the whole mess boils down to male power anyway, so that in the end all you are really saying is that patriarchy is male power plus male power.
So in the end, you can't go far wrong if you simply set "patriarchy" equal to "male power". You'll go further wrong if you select any other option.
It follows that any feminist who talks about "ending" patriarchy or reducing it in some way, is also talking about ending or reducing male power in some way.
So what does male power mean? It means: any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to possess.
And exactly what is this thing called...power? That is a very good and very important question.
In the realm of human affairs, as near as we can make it, power is a substance compounded of two ingredients: IDENTITY, and AGENCY.
Identity means the sum of all factors, both mental and physical, which identify you as a discrete center of conscious awareness in contradistinction to other such discrete centers.
Agency means your capacity to either effect or prevent change through the exercise of your volition.
Let that sink in. Take a break for a few minutes, if you want to. Get away from the computer. Go outside , look at the clouds, listen to the birds, enjoy the fresh air.
Very well, you are back. Let's recapitulate.
Patriarchy is a feminist code word for male power. Male power means any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to posess, and power specifically means identity plus agency. So in practice, the feminist keyword patriarchy maps to the identity and agency of any male citizen.
Gentle reader, you as a person possess identity and agency. In other words, you possess power. You mightn't think you have enough of it, but you do have some. And so long as you have some, you have freedom. Again, possibly not enough for your liking...but some. And some is always enough to get you started - enough to leaven the dough, you might say. Be glad of it, and work intelligently with it.
Let's see how feminism enters the picture. Feminism is an anti-male hate movement, and it is perfectly natural that when you hate something you will seek to deprive it of power - the more the better. We have equated power with identity and agency, and so have the feminist ideologues - although not necessarily in the same terms. Still, they have copped the base mechanics that we've outlined here. They know it instinctively.
In order to undermine male power, the women's movement over the years has set afoot a variety of actions, both large and small, tending to vitiate the identity and agency of men. Indeed, nearly everything which feminism has accomplished has made some contribution to this overall effect.
This "campaign" has cut a gradual, descending swath from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from the political to the personal - striving always toward a finer granularity of control, a greater concision of shades and subtleties in the realm of daily life.
Dry alterations to the fabric of law and the outward form of institutions didn't satisfy them for long -- they thirsted for the essential juice of life, and in particular, the life juice of anything male which crossed their path. The last thing they wanted was a workplace or a world filled with insouciant, free-spirited, self-esteeming men and boys. Something had to be done to correct male joie de vivre and male autonomy.
Men were to be subjugated, but if they didn't know this, and if they didn't act like they knew it, then the whole thing would be pointless. It was necessary, then, for the reach of matriarchy to become omni-locational and all-pervading - like the ideological presence of a totalitarian social order.
So, it was and continues to be important to the feminist effort that every possible shred of male identity or agency be appended to the shadow of ideology in some manner. ANY speck of uncolonized male space or male autonomy constitutes a bit of turf still in the grip of patriarchal power. Or at any rate, that's how they see it.
Case in point: what is a "sensitive male"? For starters, it is a sexist concept in exactly the same way that "good negro" is a racist concept. This is a VERY exact paralell. If somebody employs the term "sensitive male", or worse, calls you one, then you ought to feel seriously offended.
Beyond that, a sensitive male is simply an emotional puppet whose strings are available for any woman to pull, whenever and wherever. In short, a man curiously lacking in power; a man of abbreviated identity and agency.
Sometimes they will rate you on whether you "know how to cry". Reason being, that if you know how to cry then it follows that you can be made to cry. That's what they are really looking for in the long run. And here's an extra thought that occurred to me: how would you like to be told that "it's okay to cry" by the very same person who made you want to cry in the first place? You'd be damned if you'd give them the satisfaction, wouldn't you?
These examples are given because in my opinion they implode the circumference of male power about as far as it can be pushed, at least in the daily realm of social interplay. Even to a point where the drive for control reaches straight into a man's inner world, breaching a barrier which civil propriety forbids should be violated.
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Know therefore that your coolness, aloofness, guardedness, your methodological skepticism, or even your native lack of response to certain stimuli which others might find compelling, are all vital elements of your identity. Your agency. Your autonomy. Your....manhood. In other words, your male power.
Oh, very well then, call it patriarchy!
Ha! And you thought that "patriarchy" was just a one-size-fits-all guilt-o-matic gizmo designed to put men eternally on the defensive while giving women a carte blanche moral advantage in any given situation!
Well it is that indeed. But as you can see now, it goes deeper....
posted by Fidelbogen at 11:07 PM
10 Comments:
Simplistic and effective.
But I don't know why it is seen as something feminists don't want you to know. It looks quite obvious and that would be where the equality comes from.
They want equal power and in everything as they keep going and going.
I think myself that this is a key thing. And I think what feminists need is for someone to ask them what the consequences to men are going to be. And in turn what will the consequences be back at them.
I always find that when someone finds the answer themselves, they act on it. When told something it just collects dust in the back of the mind because the mind is a thinking tool as well as a collecting tool.
And with one's own thinking, people claim it. They own it. It becomes more than just a collectable item. They have reasoned their way to the answer.
But of course with so many women being ignorant the patience of the one who has the knowledge becomes thin. And with some being shut down completely or closed minded, all you get is abuse back. Yet each thing is a seed that someone else somewhere else will water and then feed and then... Well, then you have a ROSE.
Anyhow, great food for thought here.
"...I don't know why it is seen as something feminists don't want you to know."
But of course they don't want you to know it - because it gives their game away!
The secret which is no longer a secret, is: they don't want "equality", they want it ALL.
Funny thing is, if they ever actually got it "all", that would be the end for them. They would immediately collapse into powder. Poof!
CF,
I am no investment advisor. If you have any money in stocks, watch the markets closely. Today sucked on Wall Street, and Asian markets are melting in response.
Just a heads up. Good luck. DYODD.
P.S. To all women reading this, everything is fine, buy lots and lots of stocks, especially the financials, just like that nice man Jim Cramer said yesterday. Think of it as a shopping trip!
Sam Keen on Patriarchy
From Fire in the Belly, on Being a Man, by Sam Keen, Bantam Books, 1991 (P-196)
“Ideological feminism, by contrast, is animated by a spirit of resentment, the tactic of blame, and the desire for vindictive triumph over men that comes out of the dogmatic assumption that women are the innocent victims of a male conspiracy. Perhaps the best rule of thumb to use in detecting ideological feminism is to pay close attention to the ideas, moral sentiments, arguments, and mythic history that cluster around the notion of “patriarchy.” “Patriarchy” is the devil term, the code word for the evil empire of men, the masculine conspiracy that has dominated human history since the time of the fall. All the great agonies of our time are attributed to the great Satan of patriarchy. The rule of men is solely responsible for poverty, injustice, violence, warfare, technomania, pollution, and the exploitation of the Third Wold.”
CF, I have questions to ask. But I don't want to also be a burden. You have given me heaps and heaps over the last year.
I guess I am a moderate to the MRA and a radical to the family movement.
@Julie: Ask away. I will write... and maybe it will unblock my writer's block. . .
Yes. I have a bad case. :(
@Bob: I have not read the works of Sam Keen, but it sounds like he knew the score, all right!
Hi CF, I have a thought. Oh,oh.
I could ask you questions but I think we will just be re-hashing old ground.
Maybe it is not that you have a writers block but maybe you are ready for the next step.
Your writings have passion in them. They don't look to me that you are just a writer. You seem much more.
I am not just a reader, I too am much more.
2008 is a what follows 2007 and in 2007 we made huge progress as a movement all over the place.
Maybe it is time to progress and start strategic thinking and start connecting all the anti state groups together. Maybe it is time for the action to reflect the Internet. Or is it vice versa.
I would say that we are going to get huge numbers of men and women coming in this year. And a lot of rehashing information is going to need to happen. You have done all that work and you can bring it back up when needed.
I would appreciate bringing the news of NZ to you to distribute through your site. We have already started. This is going to be a major year for us.
March/April is a time for people to get back into the mundane of their existence. They have had the holidays and the time to slowly get back into routine. Soon they will start looking for information that affects them. And you will be there. I mean here.
Interesting things are happening in NZ, so news from that direction is always of interest.
In my opinion, one of the important developments of 2007 (aside from growth of the Movement) is that the other side is waking up to the situation. Although most of them are still completely clueless about WHAT is actually happening, at least more of them are finally aware that something IS in fact happening, and they are aware that this 'something' is of a magnitude that ought to be taken seriously.
Here's a thought to chew on: the fact that most of them "don't get it" is almost unavoidable because it is tied to what makes them tick in the first place. If they finally did "get it", the realization would bust their ticker and they would no longer "tick" - or at least no longer in the same way. That is, they would no longer be the same people.
CF,
**Although most of them are still completely clueless about WHAT is actually happening, at least more of them are finally aware that something IS in fact happening, and they are aware that this 'something' is of a magnitude that ought to be taken seriously.**
Yes, I agree. But the something has no answers. Not really. It is solely an awareness.
We live in a different environment that many don't want to accept. There are no answers. Everyone stands out and says what they don't like and this is from many sides and perceptions. Is there anything anyone actually likes? lol
Our environment is technologically so advanced now and business is so different and so is society.
People are trying to work towards solutions of each aspect individually. Fathers are being trained to be fathers but fathers who have been absent don't want to learn. Health is trying but men are not caring. (this is just the majority, and the prices of doctors fees doesn't help)
Making divorce easier for males will make males happy but divorce rates will sky rocket even more with just as many men applying as women are today.
Marriage is finished.
So what can you do? I get asked this question over and over and over again.
Just promote males to stay away from females and females to stay away from males? Then males and females can concentrate on their lives and worry about the things that matter away from the gender issues. How long will I live? How can I stay safe? How can I survive financially? How can I this and how can I that. How can I enjoy the most of my time here on earth?
The laws just need to be fair for everyone. Very simple. Equality for all.
The other side has heard from men for decades. It is just that the message came across wrong.
It came across anti as in a hate movement. Now it comes across naturally and is pin pointing the problems and unfairness out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home