Thursday, January 31, 2008

Lacan to Darwin

There are very few things I enjoy more than finding cool, interesting PDF files on the web - and then sharing these with readers of the Counter-Feminist:
"This is the story of an intellectual journey. It starts with my enthusiastic embrace of the ideas of the French psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan, and ends with my eventual rejection of those ideas, some five years later. Between those two events, I wrote a book about Lacan, which has since become a standard reference text for those working with Lacanian theory (Evans, 1996). Nowadays, eight years after the dictionary was published, I occasionally receive emails from puzzled Lacanians who have noticed that the author of one of the key reference books in their field has gone on to write other books with such obviously non-Lacanian titles as Introducing Evolutionary Psychology (Evans, 1999). The most interesting thing about these emails is not so much their content as their tone, which tends to be one of shock, dismay or anger that a former disciple should have betrayed the faith so completely. They may not use such religious references explicitly, but it is clear from their vexation that it is more than just an intellectual matter for these correspondents. They do not see my change of mind as the result of an honest and sincere search for truth, but as a betrayal, an apostasy, a fall from grace. This essay is an attempt to go beyond such simplistic descriptions, and explain exactly how and why I came to change my mind."
That was the teaser. That was the snippet. Now here's the link so you can read the whole thing:

And why should you care about this? Why is this important? Well, let's just say that a lot of hard core radical feminists are very keen on the work of Jacques Lacan. So, by all means look into what I've shared with you here.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Who the Hell is Blenda Crack??

Brenda Clack is a State Representative from District 34 in Flint, Michigan. She is also the chair of the House Family and Children's Services Committee in the state legislature. In that capacity, Brenda Clack has "killed in committee" Michigan House Bill 4564 - she will not discuss or vote upon this legislation in her committee, and there it sits!

So, what is Michigan House Bill 4564? Download the PDF file; it's a quick and easy read:

Next, take a look at what somebody else has to say. This somebody knows more about the subject that I do:

Finally, one might wish to be informed whether Brenda Clack is a "feminist", or has ever officially labelled herself as such? Well to be honest, I don't know. I just don't know!

Not that it matters. We all know by now that there is more to feminism than feminism. . .

Saturday, January 26, 2008

This Ain't No Party; This Ain't No Disco. . .!

The previous post, as you may recall, included the following link to a thread on Yahoo! Questions. The thread, as of this writing, is still open - and has been updated with some truly choice words by various commenters on the MRA side:

The quote which follows is taken from that thread. It was posted by a certain "Paul P.", whom I immediately recognized as none other than Paul Parmenter - a first-rate MRA wordsmith whom I've had the honor to feature in "guest posts" a time or two:

"I don't normally waste my time trying to explain what the Men's Movement (MM) is all about to people who have already clearly closed their minds to rational debate. Banging your head against a brick wall is not a sensible course of action. But I will break my rule here in the vague hope that there might just be some people reading this who are serious about understanding what is really going on.

"Fidelbogen is right on the money. People who refer to themselves as MRAs cover every facet of society, and can be anyone anywhere. The term MRA is just a label that you can stick on or take off, yourself or others, as you wish. You can devote whatever time and energy you want to trying to find out who and where they are; but here is a tip - don't bother. You won't succeed and there is nothing you can do about them even if you did. I have been tracking the MM for years and can tell you that MRAs are just a part of it; like clusters of passengers on a train that is slowly gathering speed. They can hop off or on at will, but the train just keeps on moving forward with or without them. MRAs can give impetus to the movement, and often do; but they are not the whole of the MM or anything like it. I don't know how many people are out there who would call themselves MRAs; except from the evidence I see and the growing internet traffic, I am certain there are more and more every year. But you would be far better engaged on looking at the bigger picture, asking why the MM exists in the first place, and why it is growing.

"Men's grievances are real and legitimate. When their life expectancy continues to drag years behind that of women, but our health services refuse to take any action to close the gap - on the contrary, pouring more resources into making it wider; when a man can be robbed of his house, money and children in a divorce court without having committed any crime, and be forced to pay the woman whose lies ruined his life; when the educational performance of boys lags grotesquely behind that of girls, while far too many inside and outside of the teaching profession think that is a cause for celebration, or at least nothing to get fussed about; when a man can have his life wrecked by the false accusation of a woman, and she walks free to do it again and again; and when a man who commits a serious crime is assumed to be hopelessly evil and punished accordingly, while a woman who commits the exact same crime is treated as a victim and offered sympathy, help and support; and all against a background of women continuing to get away with portraying themselves as perpetual victims while casting men in the endless role of perpetrators; all the while such injustices are happening every day in front of our very eyes, it is inevitable that there will be a growing tide of resentment among men. How could any sensible person expect otherwise?

"MRAs basically represent the most angry and active fringe of that tide; the agitated passengers on that train, the tip of the tsunami that breaks into a wild spray and gets scattered to the wind - but then rejoins the fray. So focusing on that tip will mislead you - it does not tell you what is really going on underneath, in the heavy swell that is forced forward by the shock wave but which is so difficult to see until it hits the shore.

"But you have clues if you care to recognise them. Look at the dramatic drop in the numbers of men who want to marry women. The great majority would never call themselves MRAs; most of them have probably never heard of the term. But they know that marriage is a risk they are not prepared to take, so they are voting with their feet. Look at the numbers of women desperate to get dates and husbands while their biological clocks tick away, and who are disappointed. Look at the response when another tedious feminist pops up on the pages of national newspapers or magazines and delivers a predictable attack on the male sex, blaming us for every ill in the universe - ten years ago she would have received a postbag full of support; but today she gets her head blown off by the barrage of complaints. Even growing numbers of women are getting sick of the constant male-bashing; and it is no longer heresy to support men and recognise that they have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labours without being made to carry a burden of guilt for wrongs real or imagined.

"For those of you who think the MM is just a small bunch of stupid losers drifting around the fringes, just consider this. What do you think happens to all those men who lose their children in divorce courts? Or to the boys who fall out of the bottom of our education system and who leave school with no qualifications, no hope and no prospect of a job? Or to those men who are put through the mincer on the false word of a vindictive woman? Their numbers are growing too, day by day. Our government, courts, social services and the rest of the anti-male industry are the most effective recruiting sergeants for the MM. That's why it is growing. It is slow, but inevitable. It can only get bigger, and it is doing just that. There are now international links around the world. The UK, Scandinavia, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even Israel and India now have a growing MM. Every country where men are disrespected and kicked. Do you think they are all just going to disappear down a convenient hole and never be seen again?

"Women would do well to recognise the very real threat to them created by the collapse in respect for men and the growth of an increasingly angry and active MM. It is almost certainly not the rogue MRAs that are the danger; they are just the flag-bearers and drum-beaters. But the real army is the mass of ordinary men who are getting increasingly tired of being treated like dirt by women and the state, and who will increasingly refuse to marry you, refuse to let you share their wealth and their homes, refuse to let you trap them into fatherhood, and refuse to treat you like princesses.

"Are you concerned at the increasing numbers of disaffected, sullen young men joining street gangs and watching you from under their hoods when you walk down the street? Are you fearful about the epidemic of violence, drugs and anti-social behaviour in every city in the land? Do you feel safer with each day that passes, or less safe? How do you think you will fare when you get old and weak, and there are massive numbers of such people just a few yards from your front door? Can you see any connection at all between such things and the way our society chooses to treat its young men? Do you think of such people as the nation's most precious resource - or just as a massive problem that you hope somebody will fix for you before it gets too far out of hand? Your attitude might give you a clue as to why these gangs exist. MRAs are not creating them, but you might be."
I have stated that the other side "does not understand what is going on." Paul has gone one better by furnishing a strong hint of an explanation.

I've nothing to add other than to parrot my own words: "Poison in/poison out", and "male-bashing is not a wise idea."

Monday, January 21, 2008

Chitter-chatter at Yahoo! Answers

An interesting thread has recently been posted to Yahoo! Answers, and I give the link below:

The original question on this Yahoo thread was composed by a twittering bird-brain who answers to the name of waswisgirl1. The color of her intellect - as revealed by the content of her words - would appear to suggest a person who cannot type and blow on her nail polish at the same time:

"Do these groups represent Men Rights Activists, or are they just radicals? Who does speak for MRA's? Many of the Men's Rights Activist (MRA) groups are new groups and some of them are quite radical. There are radicals in every movement, MRA's are no exception, so what do MRA's and feminists, non-feminists, and anti-feminists think of MRA's such as these? Are they representatives of MRA's or radicals?:"
There follows a list of links to Movement websites. And I am HONORED to see that "counterfem" is the very first item on that list - followed by a link to 'Heretical Sex', a blogger whom I esteem very highly!

I am also a bit puzzled: I don't fully understand why waswisgirl1 selected those particular links for inclusion on the same list. Talk about strange bedfellows! I mean, in some cases the logic is apparent - but not always. Heavens, what was she thinking, anyway? I'm guessing that she used a very subjective, feelings-based approach when she compiled that list.

After the link list, waswisgirl1 concludes her remarks with the following brief paragraph:
"Feminists are told by anti-feminists, non-feminists and MRA's to denounce the radical feminists. How do MRA's propose to do the same for their movement? How can we tell who represents MRA's or are just radicals?"
For the record, I Fidelbogen, the present writer, am a RADICAL. Just don't forget that there are many different kinds of radicals in this big wide world - so you mustn't expect me to agree with all of them.

A string of comments follows waswisgirl1's Yahoo Question, and when you go there you will find that most of these are of a vacuity comparable to that of waswisgirl1. The fact that so many people on the other side simply do not understand what is going on is, in its way, encouraging. They are in denial, and they are SO bloody thick, and SO fucking clueless, that we should have an easy job to saw the floor from under their feet.

I too, have posted a comment on that Yahoo thread - as you will discover.

For waswisgirl1 and similar folk who might end up reading this, I invite you to visit the following link - which might tend to your enlightenment. Although heaven knows I'm not counting on it:

Please understand: I honestly don't care if you believe anything which you read there. That choice is yours and yours alone. But at least you have been warned; you can no longer plead ignorance.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Manichean Ontology of Female Supremacism

Note: The following is an enlarged and improved version of an earlier post. I discovered this version (which I had forgotten about) elsewhere on my computer, and there is no question that it offers a more rounded treatment of the subject, namely: the sexist moral dualism which lies at the root of feminist behavior and feminist thinking. The earlier version of this article (titled "What Must Be") will be deleted from the blog.

have concluded elsewhere that men as a group own no special collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special collective favor to Republicans as a group. In view of the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would lend itself.

However, I know that plenty of feminists would take issue upon this point. And being feminists, they can do no less. If they concurred with this way of thinking, they would no longer be feminists. Why? Because the entire feminist enterprise is constructed around the overarching, underlying, and aetherically all-pervading premise that men are the problem. This is so because feminism is a hate-fueled, anti-male, female-supremacist movement, and such a movement couldn't possibly embrace the view that men and women are BOTH the problem. No, that wouldn't work - it would bust their gearbox all to hell!

If in fact men are the problem as feminism supposes, and consequently that women are not, then it would follow that men specifically are under some manner of obligation which upon analysis would translate as a debt owed to women. And such indeed summarizes the general wind that has wafted from the direction of feminism and spread widely into other quarters. That is why I say that the feminists would take issue with the idea that male and female are political parties: because it implies that men and women are equal cutthroat gangs competing equally to cut each other's throats. The feminists would favor a scenario in which one of those gangs would bare its collective throat voluntarily to the gang wielding the knife.

But what does it mean to say that "men are the problem"? What is this statement really talking about? Which "problem" does it refer to, exactly? I have implied that this idea lies at the root of a world-view. A paradigm. But how can we spot it in action? What signs or tracks does it leave?

Here is what to look for: any time a woman does something notably blameworthy, or any time something goes awry between a man and a woman, a feminist will nearly always search for a way to either get the woman off the hook, or reduce her share of blame to a barebones minimum. Female wrongdoing will always be extenuated in whatever way possible, if not denied altogether.

The bias is persistently male-negative. It is evasionary of any realization, or any frank admission, that women in the depth of their nature are just as rotten as men. You can almost hear the female-justification motor click into overdrive in the backs of feminist heads, any time the least shadow of womanly or girlish malfeasance confronts them. They are not a bit concerned to know what actually IS; rather, they fervently wish to know what, according to their template, must be. It is a deeply rooted emotional reflex which transfixes the core of their world like a pivot or an axle or a black-hole singularity.

In fact, let's give it a name. Let's call it the "must-be" maneuver. Yes! This little trick is the alpha and omega, the sum and substance, the form and content, the Rock of Gibraltar, the axiomatic a priori, the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for everything that feminism promotes or seeks to put about in the world. It must be that a man is to blame in every argument, it must be that he doesn't listen, it must be that he is insensitive to her needs, it must be that he is using male privilege, it must be that he has control issues, it must be that he has anger management issues, it must be that he is "condescending" her, it must be that he feels threatened by intelligent women, it must be that she was violent in self-defense or if not, it must be that she attacked him pre-emptively. On and on it goes.

And should it prove impractical to pin the blame on a particular man, it is always possible to fall back upon men or maleness in the abstract: it must be the patriarchy which oppressed her into lying, killing, cheating, stealing or stumbling! It must be male-dominated power structures which drove her to anorexia or smashed her head against a glass ceiling!

Inherent to the must be maneuver is the exclusion of examination. A commonsense, rough-and-ready calculus might suggest to the layman that male input is to blame in at most half of the suggested cases, and that prior to concluding what must be, we should interrogate the full range of what might be. However, such a proposal is anathema to the feminist paradigm, and if you presume to make it, it must be that something is amiss in your character, your education, or your political leanings.

I cannot overemphasize the formative foundational character of the must-be maneuver. I could even call it theological or cosmological: "In the beginning, Goddess created man and woman. And Goddess said, 'Let man be the problem - for verily it must be so.' And behold, it must be so."

In a compressed way, the must-be maneuever fits the model of Kant's hypothetical imperative: "If you wish feminism to be viable, then the principle that men are always at fault must be reiterated at every possible opportunity."

This idea that "men are the problem" is an eternal unsupported premise and, like the god of the infinite regress, ontologically prior to everything in every way. It is never a point of arrival but always a point of departure. Feminism did not give birth to this idea - the idea gave birth to feminism! Feminism grew from the idea and not the reverse. At no point did feminism ever not contain this idea, and at no point was feminism not contained by this idea. At no time did feminism ever go in quest of the idea and finally get to it by any chain of reasoning - the idea was always present at the outset! And had it not been present at the outset, feminism would never have set out. Feminism never studied the world in order to formulate the idea, but rather studied the idea in order to formulate the world, for it is by light of the idea itself that feminism seeks to know what the world "must be." Yes, men are the problem - and come hell or high water, the world according to feminism must be shown to reflect this!

Such is the platform on which feminist ideology asserts its political claim against men on behalf of women: that men, being the collective source of a unique and historically-rooted trespass against women, are under a collective moral obligation to make good.

When we scalp the duff down to the bedrock we uncover, in the end, Manichean dualism - a cosmology in which good and evil (or light and dark) are separate cosmic principles eternally at war with one another. Further, the principles are said to be perennial and uncreated: they did not come about due to interactions in the ecology of occurrence, but were present from the very foundation of the world. They are not different branches on the same tree, but different trees altogether- and they grow from different roots. As such, they can never coherently exist side by side because they share no genetic mutuality - they will forever bear the stamp of their separate beginnings, and they will harbor mutually irreconcilable systems of logic. Accordingly, their relationship is and must forever remain paradoxical and fraught with tension.

In the Manichean cosmology of feminism, male equals darkness or evil, and female equals goodness or light. There are NO zones of gray. There is no spectrum. There is no continuum. For feminism, man equals bad and woman equals good, and if at times woman appears to equal bad then it must be that appearance is not reality in that particular case, and so a contorted explanation must ride to the rescue and set things straight!

In feminism's paradigm, man equals bad and woman equals good. And in the feminist mind, this correlation can no more be established by any chain of demonstration than the dualism itself can be said to have evolved historically. For just as the Manichean duality was prior to all things in the order of creation, so likewise it must be prior to all things in the order of feminist logic. To demand that the truth of it be proven, would decentralize and desacralize it. This in turn would radically deconstruct the entire feminist enterprise.

This has consequences for the two-party model of gender politics. The feminists want to place women on a footing of moral superiority to men, which in turn implies deferentiality or servility on the part of men. Men, being at one with the principle of darkness, must in theory be taught to respect their betters - who are at one with the principle of light! This indeed postulates a kind of political struggle if you want to call it that, but it is a one-sided struggle: men must be forced to "surrender".

Stated in such terms, the "political struggle" sounds more like plain and simple warfare. But in fact political struggle is not quite the same as warfare. Although it is true that political parties are not deferential or servile toward each other, the situation differs from war in that the parties understand they are fair competitors on a field governed by rules of play which in theory do not include ultimate subjugation of one side by the other. That is to say, the Republicans at least in theory do not have as a goal making the Democrats grovel, or vice-versa.

(Von Clausewitz famously called war "an extension of politics by other means", and I will leave it to the reader to reflect upon this privately, since it would make too much of a tangent to the present discussion.)

Thus, no feminist who is truly a feminist could accept the two-party model of man-woman relations as a set way of life, for that would imply that good and evil are in a certain sense not subject to a moral comparison - which in turn defeats the purpose of the Manichean paradigm as an occult motor of the feminist enterprise. Why? Because if good is not "better" than evil, if light is not "better" than darkness, then there remains no validating metaphysic for female supremacism and man-hating as a whole. And I can assure you that feminism bereft of those things would be like unto a banana which is all peel!

Thus, it is essential to the collective sense-of-purpose of the women's movement that the movement be engaged in a Manichean struggle with an eternally culpable foe who must be vanquished. Granted, most feminists would - if you put the question point-blank - deny any personal belief in the Manichean paradigm as I have described it. But this becomes less of a contradiction when you realize that stated individual beliefs and unstated collective intentions can easily go their separate ways. As a famous philosopher once put it: "By their fruits ye shall know them". And the fruits of feminism do indeed bespeak an enterprise embued with the spirit of moral rapacity and undertaken with a view toward conquest. Any feminist who tries to talk you out of this critical insight is playing the game of cognitive fragmentation.


Friday, January 11, 2008

How Feminism Rapes the Value of Male Life

Here is another story about a man falsely accused and convicted of rape! Those stories keep piling up, don't they?

"A man who contended throughout his 26 years in prison that he never raped a woman who lived five houses down from him was freed Thursday after a judge recommended overturning his conviction.

"Charles Chatman, 47, was released on his recognizance as several of his eight siblings cheered. He was freed on the basis of new DNA testing that lawyers say proves his innocence and adds to Dallas County's nationally unmatched number of wrongfully convicted inmates."

Full story here:

What first commands my notice, is how very little was needed to find this man guilty of rape, and to send him up the river. The alleged victim did little more that point her finger. That, together with the circumstantial detail that he lived a short distance from the alleged victim, was enough to lock up Mr. Chatman for a quarter of a century and wreck his life beyond recovery, since those prime years from age 21 until age 47 can never be regained! And having once been convicted of rape - even though exonerated! - he will forever wear the scarlet letter as a "convicted" rapist, since it is literally accurate to say that he was convicted, and that is all that most people will trouble themselves to reflect upon.

So. . . do you think this is ALL ABOUT YOU? Well you're damn straight it is!!! If you are a male citizen, you ought to consider Charles Chatman's case your own. You ought to take it very, very personally that such a thing could even happen at all!

Yes, I say you ought to take it personally—as a raging fire in your gut, a heinous personal transgression against your worthy & sovereign self! And this personal feeling should ignite your unquenchable WRATH against the individuals, groups and forces which permit such things to happen and to keep happening!

Take it personally, brotherman! And make this the cornerstone of your politics, because the personal is the political!! That's right, make the feminists sorry as hell that they ever minted that miserable slogan; make their very own words turn again and bite them on the ass like the hounds of Lucifer with red-hot steel fangs!

I should add that Mr. Chatman is not only male, but a black male. Since feminists are righteous left-wing freedom fighters dedicated to justice and all that jazz, I'm sure they would be more than happy to play the race card for Mr. Chatman's benefit, yes? For isn't it plain as day that Mr. Chatman was railroaded into prison for "existing while black" - as he himself suspects?

But whoa! Wait a second . . . wouldn't that therefore imply that he was actually innocent of the rape charge?? Ooops! We'd better not go there! Hush up about this one, girls!!!

And I must admit that feminist voices have been deafeningly silent upon this story. The newswires have featured it, and a few bloggers have picked it up—but not feminist bloggers. Not that I've seen, anyway. For it is of no particular interest to a feminist when a man gets exonerated from a false rape conviction. A feminist does not, and logically would not, find any matter for political remark in such a thing. Nor would a feminist find it profitable, for feminism as such, to make such a thing more widely known.

Please don't misunderstand: I love the peaceful sound of chirping crickets. It soothes me. . .

However, I am interested to learn the meaning behind this. . . silence. The Duke lacrosse case was similar as regards the core minima - that is, men were falsely accused of rape and later exonerated. And the feminists were talking great guns about the Duke case, at least until their rush-to-judgment narrative got wildly out of control and started to boomerang. At which point. . . crickets!

But it was painfully clear throughout the entire shameless ordeal, that it wasn't really Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann who were on trial! The defendants could have been almost anybody caught in the same crunch at the same time and made to take the fall! They were scapegoats, and the mere fact that they were male was enough to seal the indictment. What followed was like Lord of the Flies meets The Oxbow Incident.

To be sure, it was a nice little extra that the defendants were rich and Caucasian. But the pivotal fact was their maleness. And by reason of their maleness, they were thrown to the mercy of the blood-thirstiest moral cretins of which recent history furnishes any clear example. Those progressive, pot-banging hyenas and virtual vigilantes—thousands of them, in Durham and all across the land—longed for nothing better than to ramrod Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann through the meat grinder like three unfortunate pieces of rump steak! Veritable guilt or innocence? Bah, humbug!!

Curse me, but there are times when I cannot abide the sight or smell of the human race! On such occasions, I long for nothing better than to journey deep into the forest, and spend the rest of my days inside a hollow log in the fine company of grubs, bark-beetles and chipmunks!

No, the feminists would rather not talk about things like the Chatman case or the Duke case, and they will cross the street to avoid any such encounter. For this would lead to an unholy tangle of compromising questions about feminism's past complicities, or feminism's vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

It would also force the feminists to clarify their stance concerning the value of male life. We already know how the operative sector of the so-called patriarchy regards female life—this is captured in a variety of expressions which encompass the phrase "women and children". For example: "Women and children to the lifeboats!" Or: "Innocent women and children".

But what about the feminists? When have they displayed any similar generosity toward men? Are you thinking hard about this? Really hard? Do you know of any feminist voluntarily drowning in the icy ocean so that a man or boy could take her seat in the lifeboat? Do you suppose that the celebrated Ginmar would personally grant me such a boon if the occasion should arise? Or would I need to hoist "Gin" by the hair and fling her overboard? Whose life has more inherent value—Fidelbogen's or Ginmar's? Your answer to that last rhetorical query would pivot largely on whether you are a feminist or otherwise.

Ahh. . . but let us resume the tone of sedate propriety which befits a scholarly publication! Here is another excellent PDF for you to download and read after you have finished reading the present blog post:

In the above-linked study, we are introduced to something which I call the two-percent canard. You have heard it before; it is the default data report that most feminists will print out of their mouths any time the subject of false rape accusation arises. They will dutifully make known to you, that "only 2% of rape accusations are false", and if they are a shade more bold than that, they will also find a way to inform you (or at least insinuate to you) that "women don't lie about rape".

"One highly respected legal academic, elected by her peers as president of the prestigious Association of American Law Schools, recently reported that “the overwhelming consensus in . . . research relying on government data is that false reports account for only about 2 percent of rape complaints.” It is indisputably true that, largely through the efforts of legal dominance feminists, there now exists a consensus among legal academics that only two percent of rape complaints are false. This purportedly empirical statement is ubiquitously repeated in legal literature. Dozens of law review articles reiterate that no more than one in fifty rape complaints is false. This empirical fact, however, is an ideological fabrication."

Responsibility for the two-percent canard lies originally with the feminist writer Susan Brownmiller - who first unveiled the canard in her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. This book is now considered a feminist classic, and is famous (some might say infamous) for the following widely-known passage:

"Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."

In cultural and political terms, Against Our Wills can be said to have "put rape on the map." The publication of Brownmiller's opus was the spark that kindled the present inferno of rape hysteria in the Western world: the feminists have been feeding and fanning the flames ever since.

The term legal dominance feminists (cited earlier) refers to certain feminist operatives embedded within the legal profession who specialize in what is called dominance theory - which as you might guess encompasses patriarchy theory within the ambit of its speculations. The unwavering intention of these legal dominance feminists (including the likes of Catherine MacKinnon!) has been to instill feminism's dominance theory little by little into the mental culture of the legal profession, and eventually into the fabric of law itself!

Among other things, they have undertaken their special magic in the service of the two-percent canard. The modus operandi has been classic: repeat a lie over and over, and recruit as many people as possible to spread it far and wide. Eventually, the dubitanda settles into the landscape and gathers to itself the mantle of something intuitively natural and "obvious". After that, who would think to question it?

The two-percent canard is a "consensus fact", an interlocking pyramid system of self-referential "proof" using the initial datum as a capstone, followed by an array of references to this datum, and references to these references, and so on - all deployed in a broadening stack of descending tiers in which the references point both to each other and back uphill toward the capstone. Feminist propaganda leans heavily upon such pyramid schemes - another good example would be the woozle effect in the field of domestic violence research.

The two-percent canard has no empirical foundation whatsoever. And although we have nothing better than Susan Brownmiller's undocumented word for it, the canard has furnished a vital pretext for those feminist legal innovations which deprive men of equal protection under the law. Evidently, in the feminist scheme of things, male life hasn't got enough value to deserve equal protection under the law.

And what is more subtle - yet a thousand-fold more damning - is that male life is apparently so worthless that it may be cavalierly sacrificed upon the foundation of a lie!


Oh feminism, the thrice-accursed!!!


No, feminism is not "on trial". The trial was concluded some time ago, and whatever happens from here on out is by way of executing the sentence.


In 1995, somebody directed Susan Brownmiller's attention to the difficulties we have examined, and got the following e-mail in response:
From Tue Jun 27 15:29:58 1995
From: Susan Brownmiller []
Subject: Re: Slander
To: (David R. Throop posted this information)

The cite from the New York City Rape Analysis Squad was reported by Judge Lawrence Cooke to the NY Bar Association in 1974. Cooke was a leading appellate justice at that time. Cooke, the Bar Association, and the NYC Rape Analysis Squad were impeccable sources. The information was fresh & exciting. It had appeared nowhere else. The person who attempted to discount it in the post you reproduced denigrated New York State’s leading appellate justice, a city agency, and me.

Ahhh. . . . Susan Brownmiller says the information was "fresh and exciting" and had appeared "nowhere else". So what do you think? Do those words make a devastating rebuttal to the imputation levelled against Ms. Brownmiller? Does the freshness of Ms. Brownmiller's excitement bear eloquent witness to the veracity of the data? Does the appearance of the data "nowhere else" attest to its uniqueness as well as to its scarcity, and give it the value of gold? Finally, after reading Ms. Brownmiller's statements, do you think we have been skewered? Do you think we have been roasted? Do you feel that we ought consequently to tuck our tails and slink away like whipped curs? Or do you feel that some other candidate is more qualified to undertake that task?

Note that in the subject line the word "Slander" appears, indicating that somebody admits that the allegation (if true) alleges something reprehensible. You will find the above-cited e-mail, along with some interesting discussion of related matters, here:

The following post at the Radgeek People's Daily blog discusses Susan Brownmiller in a different context. Be sure you don't miss the comment thread, in which Brownmiller herself makes a cameo appearance - along with another familiar personage!

Finally, my friends, I will leave you with some more good things to read:

Monday, January 07, 2008

Another 'Teacher-Lady' Who Fancies Fine Young Fellows!

From the Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA:

"Police have filed felony charges against a teacher who allegedly sent nude photos of herself to a 14-year-old male student at Moon Area High School.

"The suspect is Beth Ann Chester, 26, of Scott. She taught 9th-grade physical education and health classes at Moon High until abruptly submitting her resignation Dec. 27.

"Moon police began investigating her a week later, after the boy's parents discovered text messages she had sent to their son. Police interviewed the boy, seized his cell phone and then arrested Mrs. Chester on Friday.

"They charged her with sexual abuse of children and related crimes. She remained in jail last night accused of seven felonies and two misdemeanors. Her bail was set at $50,000.

"Police said the boy's cell phone contained three photos of Mrs. Chester, two of which showed her nude.

"They also said they recovered 10 text messages that Mrs. Chester sent to the boy. In one, police said, Mrs. Chester called him "sexy" and made a graphic reference to his body. . ."

Of course, we all know that she couldn't help herself, the poor dear! There must be a thousand reasons, if you put on your feminist thinking cap. I would do that myself, but the dog chewed a hole in mine, so it doesn't work very well any more! :-(

Oh, I almost forgot, here's the URL for the full story:

Oh, and here's something else for you to read. Totally different story, but what the hell:

UPDATE: What distinguishes the average female "sex offender" from her male counterpart? Lack of a penis! That is the sole distinction, and it is not a moral distinction. But our present culture is replete with moral double standards, and here we see a prime example. When you hear women, especially feminists, gabbing and snarking about "perverts", it is almost never a female person they are referring to. "Pervert" nearly always equals "male".

Moreover, the word "pervert" itself has ballooned in recent years. Its meaning now encompasses behaviors that are rightly considered a natural part of life - even if they are inappropriate in certain settings. Example: girlfriend catches boyfriend looking at another woman - what a pervert! Gaze lingers upon cleavage for one second too long - what a pervert! And so it goes. . .

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Arguing With Feminists Does Not Cut It!

Here is somebody who agrees with me. Hey, I just LOVE IT when somebody agrees with me!!

Especially when, as here, the thing they agree with really, really bears repeating to all ends of the earth!!

Seriously: Victory can be ours if we can only learn to stop "debating" with feminists, and just GROW THE MOVEMENT and mobilize against them. It is SO much easier to persuade somebody who is receptive to your message and half-convinced already, than somebody who doesn't want to hear a word you're saying and never will!

Therefore seek ye those eager and ardent souls who are thirsting for the gospel that you bring!

Now Here's Something Different, All Right!

Think for yourselves, comrades:


"Sunday I officially launched our movement. I did it on an internet radio station located in Harlem called that is only a few months old and needs a lot of development. My interviewers voice did not come across and the camera was at the wrong angle; nevertheless, I looked upon this event as the opportunity to clearly spell out our message and reach out to a community that understands it.

"The message was our mission statement—to foster a natural way of life for humankind. The method of accomplishing this was through patriarchy. Every movement needs an enemy and our enemy is Western thought. To make it even simpler, we are for patriarchy and against Western thought.

"In addition to making the announcement in Harlem, I sold five books to Dominicans in November and am working to get a foothold in the Hispanic market. I have also started to write for another Muslim paper, which you can see on I am now covering as many bases as possible as I reach out to people of a wide range of ethnicities, races, and religions. A mass movement must engage the masses and that is what we will do.

"Even if no one heard my radio message, it served as an opportunity for me to clearly state it in concise and simple terms. The host interviewed me for more than an hour and my answers went over well with him and another guest in the room. I made other contacts and believe that I will find a way to start having lectures in Harlem. . ."

Oh yes, that is a "men's movement" that he is talking about launching.

Hmmmmmm! It certainly does sound like, um....something else. . . eh?

But here's the website:

When you get there, be sure to read the article called "Land of the Smoldering Vagina"! It'll make you feel like Frodo Baggins on the road to Mt. Doom!

So anyway, it looks like you feminists can now add one more "men's group" to your growing list of people that you'll want to pretend to ignore! ;-)

I am thankful to 'Exposing Feminism' for adding this link to his blogroll - which led to my discovery and sharing of it with you all! :-)