Monday, March 31, 2008

Somewhere On the Web. . .

. . . I posted the following bit. It was on a reader comment thread, on an article. And the article mentioned Jackson Katz, and it talked about the responsibility of men to stop being "silent" and whatnot. The lack of word-crafting skill among the various commenters was painfully on display -- which was too bad, since I richly appreciated what some of them were saying, and I yearned to open a prose madrassa so I could teach them how to say it better!

But anyway, just for shits-n-giggles, I belted out THIS:

A few points that ought to be self-evident:

1. The Duke defendants are, and always have been, INNOCENT. They were never proven guilty, and that means that they are INNOCENT in the eyes of the law. Don't forget, the law says "innocent until proven guilty."

2. Other than NOT RAPING ANYBODY, or calling the police in the rare event that you think a rape is occurring or about to occur, there is absolutely NOTHING to be done "about" rape. Ideologically-based moral crusades directed against men collectively are absolutely worthless, because "men collectively" do not commit rape -- only rapists commit rape, and they do this one rapist at a time. Anti-rape crusades focused abstractly upon the male population serve only one purpose: to provide a cheap emotional orgasm for the screaming hordes of hysterical man-hating harpies who infest the world like household vermin.

3. Most rapists understandably do not seek publicity for their crimes. Hence, witnesses are not often present, which makes corroboration difficult. In practice this means that many if not most rape cases are effectively UNPROSECUTABLE unless you lower the standard of evidence so far that the mere unsupported word of the plaintiff carries enough weight to secure a conviction. But that would mean that no man is safe from perjured testimony by a woman. On that account, I believe that the majority of rape cases ought to be thrown out of court - because the prosecution lacks sufficient grounds of evidence.

Permit me to add that I concur wholeheartedly with the feminist precept that we should never, never, ever "blame the victim". It's virtually a no-brainer. If a woman gets raped, who rapes her? Does she rape herself? Of course not! We as individuals are responsible for the choices that we personally make, and for the actions that we personally commit, and it was the rapist who personally chose to commit the action of rape. Therefore, I blame the rapist for putting into action his choice to commit rape. That is, I hold him personally responsible for his actions, and his choices.

I do NOT hold him personally responsible for her actions, and her choices. For example, I do not hold the rapist personally responsible for her choice to appear at that particular party, her choice to dress in a sexually provocative manner, her choice to get "stinko", her choice to venture into the back hallway or backyard of that particular house, her choice to be in that particular social milieu, her choice to run with that particular "fast crowd" when she could have freely chosen to consort with a better class of people, and so on. In sum, the entire karmic funnel in which she voluntarily placed herself and which accelerated the logic of events toward a particular climax -- for all of that, the rapist bears no personal responsibilty whatsoever! None.

So you see, I am not blaming the victim. I am merely holding her responsible for her own actions and her own choices. Would you care to inform me that she did not in fact DO any of these things? Well in fact she did, and therefore she is in fact responsible. I hold her responsible for these things because I cannot LOGICALLY hold anybody ELSE responsible for them.....CAN I?

CAN I ??

Sunday, March 30, 2008

The Rectal-Cranially Conjuncted Feminist Gaze

Here is something I have snarfed up from the web. It is a syllabus for a women's studies course called 'Images of Women'. As you will note, female narcissism (under the tutelage of feminism) knows no bounds when you inject it with growth hormones. And how very fitting it is, that women should have their own post-secondary coursework which permits them to reflect upon images of themselves:
"Course goals: This course will examine visual images of women across historical time and multiple cultures, including our own, to explore what representations can tell us about the changing perceptions of the place of woman in society. You will become familiar with theoretical perspectives in multiple disciplines including Sociology, Psychology, Art History, Film and Cultural Studies through examination of recurring themes and vast differences in representations of the feminine. While no historical survey of images could ever be complete, our sample will span from current media and print images of “tough women” heroes and entertainers to images of female deities in ancient to contemporary times. We will discover how assumptions regarding woman as nature and nature as woman have influenced science and explore real and fictional female cyborgs. Throughout the course, you will have the opportunity to bring in images of women from many sources for class discussion and analysis as we test out an array of theories to understand how visual images of women are constructed and read in order to create gendered identity, space, and expectations in society. You will leave the course with a critical eye and the ability to analyze visual information well beyond representations of the feminine."
Feminism encourages women to become "infinitely interested in themselves". Unfolding microcosms within microcosms, petals within petals, rorschachs within rorschachs, gestalts within gestalts, labia minora enfolding labia even more minora, all the way down the spiralling ladder of cognitive involution approaching zero as a limit!

What women are being taught is to interpret things through a particular set of goggles. That "critical eye" is nothing better than a critical attitude -- and anybody can have a critical attitude! For example, any MRA worth his salt has a critical attitude. And so does any rebellious adolescent. A critical attitude does not bestow any form of higher wisdom. Granted, it equips you with a very useful toolkit -- but "wisdom" arrives in a separate package altogether!

Such studies also supply women with a discourse and a specialized jargon that sounds very intimidating to uninitiated outsiders who don't know the lingo, and hence don't know for certain WHAT they know (or don't know) -- which stupifies them, as a deer frozen by the headlights, into acquiescent self-doubt.

However, what I find especially concerning is that students will leave the course with "the ability to analyze visual information well beyond representations of the feminine." Yikes! Evidently they want more than just "womanspace". They want all the space there is!

The complete four-page PDF file may be downloaded here:

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Hey Feminists, Want to LEARN Something?

The following is a comment left on the post before last, with boldfaced treatments added by me:
"I looked over the site and do see a push for a ME society.

"Advancement of women COULD be seen as advancement of America if they would only speak up about the stuff they do for communities and societies which include men and women. (if they do)

"My favourite women who do work for the advancement of women are the Pacific Island women.

"What did they do with the money they received through feminists funding from other countries and the UN?

"They used it do provide clean water to their communities. They used it to promote Health and used it to look after all their people in the simple things we take for granted.

"In fact, they are the only ones I know of who accept and provide services for men who are DV victims from women. Pacific Island women ARE violent (just like all other country's women are) and they are very open about it. Not all women of course but then not all men either.

"Poverty is what the good women in this are going after. African women can help their communities a lot with the funding the UN gives out to women's advancement.

"Women's advancement are NOT things like 'keep parents outside of decisions with their children'. And parents shouldn't be paying for these feminists to fight against them through taxes given to these types of groups. Nor are they about discriminating against men. And nor should men pay taxes to groups that want to destroy them. Nor against fathers, nor against men in education, nor in DV, nor in false rape.

"If only the advancement of women was honest, we would not be seeing such a backlash through their discrimination of men and families.

"If only the advancement of women wasn't about the destruction of men, we would be able to do some wonderful things together.

"If feminists don't start looking at things in a scientific way and continue to destroy men and their children, then we will not see any more given to the advancement of women and their families. And all those third world women will not be able to change their circumstances which no Western Woman can even comprehend.

"This is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed in my life."

Monday, March 24, 2008

Where There's a Will, There's a Way!

I have discovered a new blog that is unquestionably of the non-feminist sector, and I deem it the sort of thing that folk such as ourselves would find worthy. The name of this blog is Planet Will, and I have boldly purloined the most recent post for your enjoyment, as follows:
Why Feminism Will Die

"In physics, the perpetual motion machine may be defined as any device that continues its motion perpetually without diminution, and it has never been achieved despite claims by one huckster after another. The reason these devises don’t work is the fact that they eventually wind down, generally due to friction.

"Feminism is comparable, being that in order for it to continue it must overcome friction, lest it wind down and stop. The friction that afflicts feminism comes from two sources. One is internal to this system, the other is external.

"The internal friction comes from merely having to continually drive home the concept that women are victimized, while at the same time they are gaining the upper hand in society. In other words, it becomes difficult to maintain a status of victimization when the supposed victims are dominating in education, social benefit, and government representation.

"The external friction comes from those in our society who simply recognize this machine as a huckster’s scheme, and one that operates to their detriment. All creatures great and small are generally governed by self interest, and with the realization that feminism is counter-productive to their well being, acts to overcome it will follow.

"The external friction is growing by leaps and bounds. Men, and some women, are realizing that they are receiving a bad deal. While feminism is struggling to maintain it’s facade of victimization, those that have had the epiphany regarding feminism's demeanor are beginning to act.

"The days of feminism are numbered, and external friction will be the last nail in its coffin."
But now, get thee thither thine own self!


Thursday, March 20, 2008

The Center for the Advancement of Female Narcissism

Here's another women's advocacy org that not only sets women on a pedestal, but continually upgrades that pedestal like the newest model of Saturn or Lexus. Odd, when you reflect that the canonical grumble by the Old School Feminists of the 60s and early 70s was about "putting women on a pedestal". Those old-fangled libbers in their granny dresses thought it was a bad thing to do that!

But hey, feminism should stay current and learn from experience, yes? And if it works out that a pedestal is after all an empowering place for women to park themselves, then by all means change the rules to stay at the winning end of the game! (And never fear, you can reactivate the old rules any time you need them, the way my Macintosh can toggle between OS9 and OSX!)

"OUR WORK :We capture women’s top priorities and concerns and put them at the top of the national agenda through broad-based multimedia coverage. Because women’s issues are everyone's issue."
But whoa! Hold your horses for a second!! ARE women's issues everyone's issue? Everyone's? Mind you, I'm being a methodological skeptic! Or a devil's advocate if you prefer. I am still entitled to do that; there is still no law against it. And after all, it is theoretically possible to take exception to the statement that "women's issues are everyone's issues".

For example, if you belong to MGTOW or the Ghost Nation, you would undoubtedly take exception to it. You would almost certainly not agree that women's issues are "your" issue - quite the reverse!

You might wonder, for honestly considered reasons, whether "women's top priorities and concerns" truly deserve to be "at the top of the national agenda". My heavens but that's a lofty podium! The rationale behind such a prioritizing of women's issues mightn't be the least bit self-evident to you, and the lack of consideration for your considered viewpoint would very likely trigger a cynical attitude. Moreover, repeated exposure to such multimedia mantras over the course of years might even deepen this cynicism to a profundity bordering on ice-cold nihilistic indifference. A chilling thought, yes? Certainly, it would be the very reverse of what those propagandists had purported to intend.

But look now! I can demolish the charade quite simply and with very little effort. Indeed, I will let their very own words do the work! You will note, elsewhere on the home page, a variation upon the final sentence in the passage cited above:
"Women's Issues are America's issue."
Very well; what does it mean to say that women's issues (plural) are America's issue (singular)? Seriously - what the hell are these people talking about? I don't doubt there is a subtext - don't we all have a subtext? But I would take them to task for their blithe presumption that anybody who reads their sentence ought to swallow that subtext as if signing a contract without reading the fine print.

A moment's consideration will uncloak the fallacy. It is not a bit clear what "women's issues" are: just try to compose a list they would all agree upon! It is likewise unclear who or what "America" is, which problematizes the assignment of secondary ownership for the aforesaid "list". Finally, and most tellingly, are women's issues the ONLY "issue" which "America" has got? Hasn't "America" got other "issues" - in fact, heaps of them?

Certainly, I could allow that women's issues might be ONE issue which America has got - among plenty of others: for example, men's issues!

And this plentitude of American issues constitutes the nub of the difficulty. When I repeat slowly to myself that pesky little sentence that "women's issues are America's issue", I know instinctively that somebody is fobbing something upon me which I am under no moral obligation to accept. Yet what infernal labor it is, to render that feeling into words in a way that will impress significant urgency upon the minds of others! Very few people incline naturally to the tedious sport of hair-splitting, yet there are moments when such tedium must not be avoided.

Happily, this is not one of those occasions, for I am pleased that I can do that job very simply! Consider the following, which is an edited version of the sentence we are considering:
"Women's issues are a portion of America's issues."
This emendation, as you may note, generates a more accurate account of the world by furnishing additional information. It does not in the least falsify the original, but to the contrary renders it more complete and more objective in its reportage of the facts. I mean that it does not falsify but rather truthifies the original version. Therefore, on the face of it, you might think that the 'Center for the Advancement of Women' would much prefer to print the amended version on their website. Wouldn't they desire to be more more complete and more objective? Why on earth should they choose to print this:
"Women's Issues are America's issue."
When they could just as easily print THIS:
"Women's issues are a portion of America's issues."
Mind you, I am not asserting that the first version is less truthful, and that the second is more truthful. Not a bit! To the contrary: I am merely asserting that the second version contains more truth. Do you see the difference?

And to save my mortal soul, I cannot fathom why those 'Center for the Advancement of Women' people would not gladly, willingly, joyfully exchange their present version of the sentence for the upgraded version I have constructed. I'm scratching my head and I just can't figure it out!

Mind you, I am not asserting that these are dishonest people. Not a bit! To the contrary: I am merely asserting that their words lack honesty. Do you see the difference?


The address again:

**UPDATE: The slogan "women's issues are America's issue" has disappeared from the CFAW website between the time I started writing this article, and the time I published it. This is to certify that the slogan was present on the site roughly a month ago.

The short paragraph which I quoted (beginning with "OUR WORK") has been modified as follows: "OUR WORK: We capture women’s realities and top priorities and bring them front and center in the national discussion through broad-based multimedia coverage. Because women’s issues are everyone's issue."

**Well. I'm thinking that these subtle changes were politically motivated, and tied to Hillary Clinton's recent campaign disasters. . . :-(

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

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:

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.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Another Woman Who Doesn't Like Feminism. . .

. . . and that's not all she doesn't like!

She writes under the name of 'Male Chauvinist Woman', and her blog is called Female Misogynist. That title says it all. It translates as: "A woman who doesn't like WOMEN".


But wait, it gets even better. To top it all off. . ( are you ready for this?) . . . she's a lesbian! Yes, I said a LESBIAN!

That's what I said, folks! Don't bother rubbing your eyes - you caught it right the first time! A lesbian! Now doesn't that truly bake the cake? Eh?

A lesbian - who not only loathes feminism worse than a tug-load of squirming maggots in a rotting carcass, but . . . doesn't think so freakin' much of women either!

Lord-a-mercy! Ain't that a caution?? A lesbian who doesn't like women! Witness:

"The difference between me and women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Simone de Beauvoir is that I recognize the great value to society of normal women. For most of history, all women, including the handful of geniuses, were forced into the role of ordinary women. Nowadays, ordinary women are driven out of the home, where they could be happy and make a valuable contribution to society, and expected to live the demanding lives that only a few dozen women per century find congenial.

"Had I lived in a saner era - any other era in history, really - I would still be a male chauvinist, but I would not be a misogynist. I would not have had havoc wreaked on my life by women bereft of the support of male authority helping them to behave morally. I would not have to watch as women gleefully destroyed civilization before my eyes. Nor would I be constantly plagued by hearing women repeat the feminist nonsense they've gotten from magazines or from their professors, having no understanding of the tremendous harm these notions of theirs are doing. In short, women of sane eras do not deserve to be hated, though they remain inferior to men.

"In patriarchal eras, women are useful members of society and deserve considerable admiration. In feminist eras, all women can do is destroy, and they deserve only distrust."
Mind you, I'm the Counter-Feminist, and I do have some notoriety for flailing at feminism like John Henry with his hammer! But there is one thing I never do - I never bash women. I may sometimes call individual females to account for their shitty behavior, but I do NOT utter global pejoratives as per the female sex en masse! I never toss around words like skank, slut or slag in other than a hypothetical, intellectualized tonality. I have a cast-iron policy, tersely stated in the seven-point Counter-Feminist Platform: no woman-bashing! Why? Because I deem this counter-productive and politically not astute. I define my task narrowly: to wreck feminism. That is how I choose to conduct my agency. And I honestly don't believe it is wise or necessary to wreck women into the bargain!

Some may wish to cite, as inculpatory evidence, that I publish a blog called Women Doing Lousy Things. They may undertake to convince themselves or others that this blog and its contents, prima facie, demonstrate a misogynistic bias on the part of the author. And they are welcome to argue that case with me personally, but I caution them ahead of time that they will LOSE. And more to that, they will get their tail-feathers roasted.

So much by way of digression. As concerns our featured artist of the day, let me stress that Male Chauvinist Woman (MCW), holds the female sex in somewhat lower regard than do I. And yet I cannot in good conscience fault her for this - nor do I feel entitled to do so. MCW's conclusions are doubtless built upon a fund of life experience which I, in the capacity of my male office, am not and indeed cannot, be privy. It is possible, at least in theory, that MCW knows a thing or four concerning my female fellow-citizens of which I have no inkling, and that I, being less informed in this domain of knowledge, would do wisely in deferring to such expert testimony.

It is also worth remarking, that the diversity of authentic women's voices is here a point at issue. Who am I, as a privileged male citizen, to deprecate a female voice or question the truth which it might convey? Who am I to scoff or disbelieve? It behooves me to shut the hell up and listen sensitively!

Moreover, as I have remarked previously and shall here reiterate: It is no responsibility of mine, or of men "collectively", to oppose misogyny! The insistence that any man, or men generally, should do so, is feminism's way of passing the buck and refusing to answer for itself. And in our presently-referenced case, where the misogyny is of female provenance, that principle operates with a poignant double-irony.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't put on my counter-feminist preacher's hat and cut loose with some good old time prediction! Well no, actually, the prediction per se is "old hat". What I find interesting here is the fulfillment of prophecy in a way that I didn't predict! I'm talking about something called the misogynistic shift - which I first described a little over a year ago. The "shift" in question refers to a statistical shifting of the male attitude spectrum in a misogynistic direction as the ineluctable outcome of feminist poison spreading through the social ecology. What I did NOT anticipate, was misogynistic shifting on the part of females! Damn it, but this might force me to write a whole new thesis!

In conclusion, although I would not second the voice of MCW as regards the valuation of women, I have paradoxically no alternative but wish MCW all the best, and welcome her and others like her as worthy and useful allies in this present condition of political warfare slouching toward Armageddon.

Go now, and savor:

: MCW, have fun with the feminist trolls which this might send your way. . . ;-)

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Contra-Feminismo en Español!

The following e-mail came in yesterday:
"Hi Fidelbogen: I'm a regular reader of your blog from Spain. I wanted to comment that most, if not all, of the issues you treat in your blog are present also
in my country and your posts are totally applicable here, so, first of all, thank you and keep up the good work!

"I'll give you an example. Some weeks ago we had to hear how the leader of the conservative party in Spain, the second most voted, said that women will pay lower taxes than men if he gets elected next March 9th, all in name of equality. This nonsense was even denounced by Glenn Sacks in his blog, here:

"It's a pity we don't have so many blogs dedicated to these topics in
spanish as in english. This is why I would like to comment you about
one of the spanish blogs I know that is also dedicated to
counter-feminism. Its name is "Personas, no género" (People, not

"I have seen that you have a french blog in your links, so I thought
that maybe you would consider to add Personas, no género to your links for your spanish-speaking readers. I would be glad to translate some of its posts for you, if you are interested and want to know more. I think that having a link in your blog would contribute to spread counter-feminism in spanish."

Yes. I had a look at "Personas, no género". Not only was the quality excellent, but I was mighty pleased to find that I could read Spanish far better than I thought I could! 80% of the meaning was clear to me, and if it wasn't I could usually capture the grist of it from the context!

I will share the following on the assumption that some of you folks are a bit multi-lingual. Yes, rumor has it that MRAs are better educated than most feminists think, but don't let them know that, okay? Let them go on believing that we're a passel of illiterate wife-beaters, so we can more effectively pull the wool over their eyes! ;)
"Tengo que reconocer que me muevo entre el estupor y el desconcierto con esto de la igualdad y el feminismo. Por ejemplo, me sorprende muchísimo cuando la simple propuesta de una educación diferenciada para niños y niñas en el mismo centro escolar es catalogada por muchas y muchos como segregacionista, pero cada día contribuyamos más a la idea de que en la sociedad hay dos tipos de cuestiones: las generales y las de la mujer. En las generales estamos todos y todas, en las de la mujer están las mujeres. Algo así como: lo tuyo es tuyo y mío, lo mío es mío solo. Puede que la anécdota del señor Solbes salvando la legislatura en la que había ocupado un lugar más bien gris y discreto ayude a entender lo que queiro decir.

Por si no fuera suficiente con la administración exclusiva de la mujer: Instituto de la mujer, consejerías de la mujer en las comunidades autónomas, concejalías en los ayuntamientos, cátedras de la mujer en las universidades, centros de estudio de la mujer, organizaciones profesionales de la mujer etc. etc. etc. I.U. propone un Ministerio de la mujer. Si esto no es segregacionista como había que tildarlo, de separatista… o quizá pensar que como los del Señor los caminos de la igualdad son inescrutables y debemos ver recto donde los renglones están torcidos. Tengo la impresión de que para hablar de este tema encontrásemos más fuente de inspiración en la creencia que en la razón o la Ilustración. De otro modo no hay manera de entender tanta ruptura de la norma cuando de la igualdad se trata: ruptura de la norma de igualdad en lo penal, del principio de capacidad económica en lo fiscal, discriminación positiva por doquier, excepción administrativa, legal, educativa….

In addition to Spain, CF draws readers from all over Latin America, so I am happy to direct their attention to this fine Spanish-language blog!

Notice how the conservative party in Spain is supporting the women's platform! Feminism has so completely saturated the general culture that it has ceased altogether to be an issue of Left vs. Right politics! Well. . . I have long felt desolately bored by the entire left-right frame of discourse. Mightn't we take this as our cue to formulate some manner of philosophical tertium quid or "third road" in our counter-feminist endeavor?

It is, I might add, a sobering experience to discover, first-hand, exactly how RAW the situation for men is becoming in overseas nations! We in the good ol' USA just don't know how good we currently, temporarily have it. But give it a couple of decades. . . .