The Feminists Will NEVER Change

Would you care for additional proof? The following, posted as a comment on LiveJournal, may be of interest. It was understandably of interest to me, since it concerns a recent CF post:

http://community.livejournal.com/anti_feminism/568549.html

Observe how the writer has cherry-picked a couple of very brief samples from a very long article, in order to construct a feminist narrative that has virtually no bearing upon the article itself! Truly, the feminists live in their own little bubble! But, we've always known that. . .

The bottom line is, that feminists have no moral capacity for self-criticism and will never meaningfully answer for themselves. You and I know that they have acted in a derelict manner and inflicted grievous injury upon the world. But try to make them see this and they will answer you only with head games, obfuscations and puerile evasions.

Study that little trick which our feminist writer uses: She ducks responsibility by pointing the finger at somebody else! Heavens no, feminism is no way at fault for anything! If feminist innovation poisons the social ecology against men, and if male behavior statistically reflects this, it is all the fault of men and feminism is never, but never to blame!

In similar fashion, I may kick a dog repeatedly until he can't take it any more, and bites me. BAD DOG! It's his fault; he should have controlled himself! There is no excuse for canine violence!

You know what? I don't want any more Marc Lepines to happen!!!!

And that is why I write the things I write.

Feminism, you see, is rotten and evil . And so, as you might predict, it begets rotten and evil consequences all the way down the line. And while none of this rottenness delights me, I deem it more productive to inflict the brunt of my stern displeasure upon the source of the rottenness. The wellspring of the evil. Oh yessss. . . .!

And the quest for that source leads UPSTREAM! I'm not nearly so wroth about ecological damage downstream; I want to know who dumped that shit in the river to begin with! And I want to know if they are STILL dumping that shit, because I don't want the damage to get worse!!

Now when I think of all of the filthy, vile, treacherous, conniving, scumbag things which FEMINISM has done to MEN, I am in no fucking mood to submit to any moral injunction from any feminist, anywhere, at any time, for any reason!

You know what? You feminists can shut the fuck up and swig on a gallon of horse piss!

However: ordinary, decent non-feminist women are welcome to green tea. Or Snapple. Or cappucino.

Something else just occurred to me, about our feminist writer. She completely sidesteps the entire question of feminist guilt! I mean, if she wanted to, she could have laid her cards on the table. She could have stated in clear, forceful terms that "feminism bears NO responsibility for ANY of this!" But she says nothing of the kind, for that would lead her into a conversation she'd rather not be having. And so she completely fails to broach the subject—she only points her finger at assumed malfeasance by males and never once allows that feminism could be even a partial contributor to the problem. It is like trying to get off the hook for your own misdeeds by loudly calling attention to somebody else's.

And, in common with virtually every feminist I've ever encountered, she comes nowhere near to admitting that men are getting a rotten deal and deserve better—or even allowing that such a thing might be true!

And these people have the colossal arrogance to tell us, as men, what we are obligated to do on behalf of women!! So tell me, when was the last time you heard a feminist preaching to WOMEN about cleaning up their act toward MEN? You have never heard such a thing and you never will, because any so-called feminist who would preach that particular sermon would in fact be no feminist whatsoever!

But seriously: I don't want any more Marc Lepines to happen! And the feminists claim to feel the same way, so you'd think that they and I could be natural allies. You'd think that they and I could work closely together, pooling our insights, to formulate a worldview that would would not only forestall the occurrence of future Lepines, but would forestall an entire spectrum of likewise dysfunctional (if less spectacular) outcomes. You'd think, you'd think . . .!

Ah, well!

But now I'd like to turn the discussion into a somewhat different, yet related, channel. From my CF article in question, which spoke so much of prediction and prescription, I cite the following:

Male dysfunctionality and male political consciousness stand in diametric opposition; they repel each other. And the good news is, that with the growth of the latter the former quickly finds the door! To become politically conscious, men must become acutely aware of the interests that unite them as a group, and they must understand that political warfare is being waged against them. Thus enlightened, men may combine their strength in the service of a common good and to the disservice of an objectively real enemy.

There you have it. That is the meat of the matter, and the bread and the butter to boot! And as you might expect, the sentence in boldface has particular importance.

Let's think about what that sentence is saying. It is saying, that dysfunctional behavior by men, overall, will show a net decrease as men become more cognizant of their objective political situation. Now, to my way of thinking, net decrease of dysfunctional male behavior sounds like a deuced good thing—and I find it dashed difficult to understand how any feminist might fail to concur with me upon that point!

Men who lack knowledge of their objective political situation as men, will necessarily lack full insight into what afflicts them as men. That is to say, they will lack light. And lacking light, they will stumble blindly in the dark—doing damage both to themselves and to the things around them. It is therefore in the best interest of men, and everybody else, that men should gain this light of male political consciousness.

But then again, not quite! For I can think of one group that would certainly not benefit from the political enlightenment of men. I am referring to the feminists. The awakening of male political consciousness would be, for them, a distinctly threatening turn of events that would jeopardize their continued viability both as an ideology and as a movement. And the reason is simple: male political consciousness is, at its root, identical with male awareness of feminism as a system which oppresses men.

Until men comprehend the true nature of this vampire monkey on their backs, they will dwell in a twilight state of false consciousness where they are apt to run blindly down any false avenue that appears momentarily to offer relief. Multiply this condition by millions of lives until it registers on a societal scale. The resulting imbroglio will often issue in destructive consequences—certainly not healthy for men, and not good for women either!

Men need to reclaim their spiritual center AS MEN. But this cannot occur so long as feminism continues to be the hegemonic discourse of our culture. Feminism is simply not compatible with men reclaiming their spiritual center, hence: for men to live, feminism must die!

The collaborationists (a.k.a. manginas) are living on a string of promises equivalent to "we cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you." In theory, this would work fine and dandy until the "other guy" gets wrung dry —and then it's your turn, mister! In practice it hardly matters, for in the end everybody is the other guy anyway. Yet those temporary beneficiaries are the ones who have truly been "played"—and finally it is they who both live and die without honor.

So much for the collaborationists. It is best to cut them out of the loop and leave them to their fate.

But again, feminism must die. It must fall from grace. It must take a tumble from its pedestal, and be dragged through the mud. It must be exhibited, and made known not for what it is "supposed" to be, and not for what this or that feminist (from the standpoint of feminist subjectivism) merely fancies it to be, but rather for what we on the outside know it to be from its effect upon our lives.

The growth of male political consciousness (or: enlightenment) will, as a matter of course, operate upon feminism in the manner I have indicated. Dysfunctional male behavior will not by any means vanish from the world—after all, wasn't the world already fucked up even BEFORE feminism came along and fucked it up worse? However, such behavior will decline significantly when at last men can pinpoint the enemy who is poisoning their existence. This realization will endow men with a wonderful sense of focus, clarity, simplification and renewed motivation—a blessed relief very much like expelling a tapeworm! And we may anticipate that misogyny and violence against women in general will have no reason to proliferate when men discover (and clearly articulate to themselves) that feminist does not equal female, that biology does not equal ideology, and that ideology does not equal destiny.

For feminism, none of this would bode well at all, because it would necessarily mean that feminism would be sitting on the hot seat. Dysfunctional male behavior would diminish—and the feminists would not be happy. Misogyny would diminish—and the feminists would not be happy. Violence against women would diminish—and the feminists would not be happy. They would not be happy because it would spell the end of their sick, parasitical, self-aggrandizing game. You see, an expelled tapeworm writhing miserably in the sunlight has no place to hide and nothing to eat. If I were a tapeworm (or a feminist), I'm sure I wouldn't relish that experience one little bit!

But yes, we can see why the feminists will never change. They are what they are, they are stuck being what they are, and if they became anything other than what they are, then they would no longer be what they are! But let me phrase that silly-sounding garble in a different way that might make more sense. The feminists are like a man trapped on a narrow ledge halfway up a mountainside. And yes, I do mean narrow: if they shift their position more than a little bit, they're over the edge and into eternity. That is why they are so rigid, and so dogmatic, and so amazingly skilled at repeating the same lies over and over within such a narrow radius. (And I am truly AWED by how nimbly they dance considering how little room they've got.) It also explains why they have no sense of humor: not only is nothing funny when you're living on a narrow ledge, but uncontrolled laughter is downright perilous. It can send you rollicking over the rim if you're not careful!

In conclusion, I would say what I always say—and you can predict what that is, can't you? But prediction is not prescription. Nor is it threat. As the saying goes, I don't make threats! And in very truth, what need have we—any of us—to do so? The "threat" is ambient. Environmental. Bigger than all of us. No need to make it—it makes itself! Just look at those ugly tornado clouds boiling on the horizon.