Thursday, November 27, 2008

I Have Authored a Women's Studies Text!

While rummaging around on the internet today, I discovered THIS:

Let me explain: It is a course syllabus for "Introduction to Women's Studies", a class held at the Centre for Gender and Women's Studies, at Lancaster University in England.

Scroll down until you get to a heading that says Week 8. Below the heading you will find a list of information pertaining to the lecture unit for that week. (The lecturer, it seems, is a certain Clare Hollowell.) Keep scrolling until you reach a sub-heading that says Websites:Anti-feminist. Here you will find two items listed, the second of which is the following:

Yes, that is my own work—in fact, it is the very first item ever posted on this blog, waaay back in October 2006.

And Clare Hollowell of the Centre for Gender and Women's Studies at Lancaster University, U.K., has selected this essay for her students as an example of anti-feminist backlash.

Well, what can I say; the shoe fits. The article is very much indeed "anti", or opposed to, feminism, and it was very much indeed "lashing back" at feminism—I mean, what else can you call it? I sure as hell wasn't meekly submitting or acquiescing to feminism, was I? Oh no: I was lashing back at it! Damn straight. ;-)

So it was anti-feminist, and it was backlash. Ergo, it was anti-feminist backlash. Works for me! :)

Now certainly, I am honored to have been singled out for such a distinction, for that must mean that I am a cutting edge specimen, to have been so chosen! Yet I can shrewdly guess that my words have circulated, to some extent, among Clare Hollowell's colleagues, and that these high academic scrutinizers have gathered my finely honed analysis into their calculations and tagged it, in some manner, for an eventual rebuttal. Yes, they have their listening posts, and they know what we are saying—not because they are nice guys who are "trying to understand", but because they want to get a head start in shooting us down!

Thus, although I am honored (as I have stated), I also have a very ambivalent and creepy feeling. I don't much like that I am an object of scrutiny for feminist academia. On balance, I rather wish I wasn't! :(

Now if by chance any of Clare Hollowell's students is reading this, and wants to be a snitch, and convey to me the professor's viewpoint upon the material in question, and possibly summarize the tenor of discussion among the classmates—then pop me an e-mail at the link posted to the upper right of this page. Hey. . . don't be bashful! ;-)

Making Plans for Their Future

Verily I have a dream, a vision. Won't you join me in my vision, and help to make it real? Hey—call me a dreamer, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one!

And if you feel ambitious, you could even print up hundreds of these and spread them all over Radcliffe, and Bryn Mawr, and . . . oh . . . UC Santa Cruz, and how about that Evergreen College in Olympia. . . eh? And let's not forget Camford and Oxbridge and the University of Auckland either! ;-) Fun, fun, fun!

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Now This Beats All Hell!

Please refer to the immediately foregoing post, titled Digging Deeper into the Grain.

Today, the scene replayed itself. In my stat log, I again observed a spike of incoming traffic to the CF article Ideas Which Go Against the Grain. But this time, the referring source was a Finnish blog called Ihmissuhteet:

So go there, and see what is going on. Now, for me the Finnish language is a black wall of mystery—on a par with ancient Egyptian or Aramaic. It is not a bit like the familiar French, German, Spanish and Russian. Still, I was able to gather this much:

A men's activist in Finland, by the name of Henry Laasanen, has recently published a book (in 2008) called Naisten Seksuaalinen Valta, in which he elaborates a thesis very similar to what I outlined in Ideas Which Go Against the Grain. The blog post on 'Ihmissuhteet' contains; a.) a link to my CF article, and b.) a brief discussion somehow comparing it to Henry Laasenen's book. (If only I could understand Finnish!)

I was naturally intrigued, so I did some quick research on Henry Laasenen, and came up with this (in English):

. . . and also this (in Finnish): a catalog description of Laasenens's book:

Saving the best for last: I didn't notice at first (and I nearly overlooked it), but after a little more digging I discovered to my surprise that the blogmeister of 'Ihmissuhteet' is none other than Henry Laasenen himself!! Pleased to meetcha, Henry! ;-)

In conclusion, I would say this: Ideas Which Go Against the Grain is simply a counter-feminist essay. It is in no way "scientific", nor does it pretend to be so, and whoever might critique it from that standpoint would be barking up the wrong tree.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Digging Deeper into the Grain

A few days ago, while I was examining the page hit counters on my stat log, I noticed a wild spike of entry traffic arriving at one of my early pillar posts—the one entitled Ideas Which Go Against the Grain. That post may be seen here:

For me, it is always a point of interest to know who is reacting to what—and how. It is rather like beaming radar pulses into the collective mindscape; by monitoring the echoes, we map the topography—we come to know what is "out there". As for the article in question, it has been a hit from the very first day. Many have offered positive feedback on it, and linked to it, and even thanked me for writing it—chirping crickets need not apply! ;)

So there appears to be a serious market, within portions of the non-feminist sector, for such ideas as the article expresses. That such a market exists, is old news to us insiders. But to those not-so-hip hipsters from the opposing sector, who have taken my words for a joke, this might count as a wake-up call. Yes, you people know who you are! And no, I was not and am not joking: I stand upon every word in that seminal essay. Furthermore, I have made every last edit for style and clarity that I could possibly wish to make, so the work is now set in stone.

As for the recent gush of web traffic, I soon discovered the source. Two different people had posted links to the article in two highly popular 'marriage-strike' forums, namely: Outcast Superstar's Happy Bachelors forum, and the Don't Get Married forum. The former of these holds interest, due to the short discussion thread which accompanies the link—interesting words are written there:

The first comment on that thread was composed by the original poster of the link, who goes by the name of Nemesis. Following a brief summation of the CF author's thesis, Nemesis adds several paragraphs of his own observation about the shape of things, and about the shape of things to come. Nemesis very clearly is a pessimist. I too am a pessimist—although my pessimism is rather less pronounced, and takes a different form. From the outset, Nemesis makes clear that he fears an extreme backlash, among women, to certain developments which I have prognosticated. By the sound of it, Nemesis anticipates a truly apocalyptic scenario:
"What the author has not addressed is that when women lose their sexual power over men, they will seek this power through other means. When the sexual game no longer works, women will seek to re-establish their power through more aggressive and frontal assaults, such as through outright legislation, shaming campaigns, and the like . . . . I predict that as the devaluation of female sexuality progresses, the gender war will heat up. In fact, it will get downright dangerous. We really have yet to see women truly bare their fangs. It’s going to get nasty, brutal, and vindictive. Let’s prepare."
Now, whilst I surely cannot doubt that certain women will grumble at counter-feminist evolutions, I have at least two smiles with the melodramatic prospect that Nemesis lays before us.

In the first instance I say: fine, let them bare their rubber fangs, let them do their worst! What of it? The plain truth is, that we have naught to fear but fear itself. Shaming campaigns? Fiddlesticks! We've run that gauntlet before, and the worst it ever does is throw us off our stride for a few days. But we always find our stride again; we always find our swing again; we always bounce back stronger than before. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, and judging by the record to date, the more the opposing sector "kills" us, the livelier we get!

Outright legislation? Don't make me laugh: that will only force their hand! Or more accurately, it will show that their hand has been forced—and consequently boost our recruiting efforts. For one example, it will drive more people into the Ghost Nation—and just try "shaming" a ghost! Just try "legislating" a ghost! The spooky critter will slip between your greasy claws and return to haunt you every time. And for another example, more and more moderate non-feminists will be driven in a radical 'anti' direction when it finally dawns upon them what this game is really about.

So in the long run, will the game get nasty, brutal and vindictive? Aye, so it might! But what of that? Nasty, brutal, vindictive people are not popular people; in the long run they dig their own graves. So let them dig their graves—encourage them to do this. Too late, they will discover that their fury is futility. They will come to know, that for fools who cannot handle it, hate is not the best merchandise to keep in stock. They, who have not mastered the true science of fire and ice will, in the blindness of their rage, not detect the crafty pitfall that we have dug across their path—the path that we ourselves have marked and cleared and coaxed them into following.

And the second instance—the second smile that I have with Nemesis—is that he employs the words 'feminists' and 'women' far too interchangeably. That is not wise. That is not good policy—not good politics. And yet, that is a cardinal erratum which I see far too many people in our camp committing. How many times have I said it? Biology is not ideology. And furthermore, any global statement of the form "women will do this, and women will do that" nibbles too close to the ambiguous boundary of what the opposing sector simplistically calls misogyny.

For my own part, I eschew this "misogyny". Or rather, I eschew anything which I know, in advance, that I cannot demonstrate by cast-iron argument to be other than misogyny. I have stated clearly in the 7-Point Counter-Feminist Platform, that I will "make no statement of a facially misogynistic character". That point, along with the entire Platform, was laid down in the beginning in order to establish a baseline of political hygiene: I had my eye on the future. I intended to give the opposing sector NO grappling points, and "misogyny" is the biggest grappling point of all.

All the same, as I have remarked, I stand upon those "ideas which go against the grain", because I believe that they reflect—in a spirit of cold, well-informed calculation—the radical truth about feminist power: that the backbone of this power is bonded with the overmastering drive to procreate the species.

I must in fairness remark that Nemesis's conflation of feminists with women is perfectly understandable when you consider that the line of separation is devilishly hard to draw, and that the feminists themselves have done all in their power (as a key element in their game plan) to encourage this prevailing lack of clarity. When Nemesis wrote of "women's" possible reaction to a general attrition of their sexual power over men, he likely had in view the poorly-differentiated mass of naive pop-feminists and quasi-feminists who populate the outskirts of the femplex.

In conclusion, I find myself largely in accord with Nemesis, when he says that things will get nasty, and that the regrettably titled "gender war" will heat up. It is not overmuch of a stretch, to anticipate a certain unpleasantness, a certain hurly-burly, further along the pike. In view of current political trajectories, one can easily foretell that the just and righteous grievances of men will be met, as always, with abusive arrogance and appalling ignorance. That much, at any rate, will not change until novel developments (most likely of an accumulatory nature) alter certain balances.

I have always felt that feminism carries the seeds of its own destruction—that the very energies which at first made feminism wildly successful will at last, in a manner you could almost call scripted, work its undoing. As a counter-feminist I consider myself a kind of technician, dedicated to accelerating this process by means of proper technique and correct understanding of how certain forces operate.

And let me here declare unequivocally to all the world, that I do not consider "women" to be the enemies of men. That is an idea which the feminists have worked to promote, and to make real in practice. In truth, the feminists yearn for nothing better than that men and women should be mortal foes, since feminism would have no reason to exist otherwise. They say they don't like misogyny; they say they'd rather see less of it. And yet they work diligently to secure the conditions of its flourishing, and its continued growth. Accordingly, they are hypocritical liars who discourse rubbish.

But no, women in the abstract are not the natural enemies of men. Only SOME women fit that description—even if it looks like far too many nowadays! But the greatest enemy of men, in my considered opinion, is other men. That is doubly true in the current gender-political culture, which is not simply the work of feminists, but rather of feminists in conjunction with their male collaborators—the ones who have given feminism a power-boost without which it would never have left the launch pad.

And when the hurly-burly gets underway, the ugliest battle of all will be male against male—collaborationist against MRA! Word to the wise, fellas!

I know too, that as time goes on, more and more women of independent mind and spirit will do the right thing and line up on the non-feminist side of the field under the non-feminist banner! They will do this when it becomes painfully clear to them that the world has no viable alternative. I look forward to their arrival, and I will most certainly extend them a hearty welcome.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

We Are Already Free and We Don't Know It

Let me tell you about a dream I had not long ago.

I dreamed that I was climbing a mountain, and I was doing it the hard way: straight up a fifty-eight degree pitch through densely matted tangles of alder-brush and some of the spiniest devil's club from hell that you'd never care to lay your hands upon! Typical Alaskan scene. The dream was like real life—exactly as I have lived it, a time or ten, back in my rugged wilderness days. Ahhh. . . those days!

But something was peculiar. In real life, you can reach the end of these mountainsides if you have enough persistence. Eventually, you'll glimpse sky through the mat of choking vegetation and know that the summit is near. You'll break free onto a stretch of talus or tundra, with a final sprint to the top. But in my dream, it didn't work that way. I struggled and struggled; I spat; I cursed. I spotted daylight through the thinning branches but then the scene shifted and changed and I was back in the thickets again, hacking and slashing and negotiating cliffs while the mosquitoes were sucking me dry. . . .

In my dream, I paused for breath. And I said to myself, "why am I doing this?" And straightway I posed the question, it struck me that I was only dreaming!

Now isn't that what they call a lucid dream? When you know that you are dreaming while you are dreaming?

Abruptly, the scene shifted. With no apparent transition (dreams are funny that way), I was standing on a level, rocky heath with a faint view of rolling ridges that stretched away into a hazy distance under an overcast sky. There was nothing memorable or
special about the place where I stood; it was an unremarkable place. Yet out of nowhere I heard a voice which seemed to say "this is the mountain-top". And that was all. That was the end of it. The dream faded out . . . .

But the dream has not faded from my memory—and so I share. It is a kind of vision which I cherish because it is lucid in every way. It is not a bit obscure; it is very, very clear. And clearly, it is an allegory about transcendence and the power of epiphany—an affirmational message from below the threshhold, a testimony of power and righteousness to those among us who glory in the life of the conscious mind.

In my own life, especially since the recent hiatus in my blogging, I have finally made the transition to my mountain-top. I have come to understand the futility of hacking at tangled vegetation. I have decided that I have better things to do, and that a novel approach to the matters that weigh so sorely upon us all, is sorely needed.

So how did I gain this exalted state of mind? How did I ascend to this pinnacle? Because rage, despair and futility got the better of me! That's how. One by one, a thousand tiny places died inside of me and turned to ice. And I had no choice about this—how else could I possibly hold on to my sanity? No other road was given me. One by one, those places died inside of me until precious few remained. I won't say none, but precious few.

And now I feel liberated, for the balance has shifted in favor of ice. And ice, my friends, is both power and bliss! But best of all, my sanity and my politics are both fully intact, and stronger than they have ever been.

All right, how shall I explain this?

When the world turns its gaze in our direction, what does it see? A passel of overheated people! People toiling through thickets; people hacking and cursing at brambles; Sisyphus damning the slope! That is what the rest of the world sees. What it does NOT see, is a group of pragmatic philosophers standing on a mountain-top with a perspective glass and their faces to the icy wind, quietly assessing the panorama. But that is what the world SHOULD see, for that is exactly what we ought to be: pragmatic philosophers with a view.

We need to embrace a winning attitude—in preference to a whining attitudeand we need to assume ownership of power. We are already standing on our mountain-top, but we need to KNOW this to a moral certainty; we need to make this knowledge decisive for all of our thinking and all of our doing.

It is time for us to shift into a new stage of our development. We should phase out ranting, and start calmly discussing things instead. We should make this our prevailing tone, what the world will hear most from us—the governing spirit and unifying principle behind all of our rhetoric and behind all of our verbal self-presentation of whatever sort. We ought to appear as cool cucumbers rather than hot tamales—rational agents in full possession of our identities and ideations, with a steady hand upon the tiller and a clear eye upon the compass. Hotheads and firebrands have their place in the scheme of things—no doubt of that! But their place is not in the pilot house.

Remember this: a winning attitude means talking like a winner. And how do winners talk? With cool self-assurance and a sly sense of humor; that's how! Winners don't rant and vent because they don't need to—they're on top of their game! ;-)

The sly sense of humor is especially important, because our enemies are famous for not having any sense of humor at all. (I should in fairness remark that some of them do in fact have a narrow, brittle sense of humor.)

In future writings, I shall advert frequently to the points I have talked about in this article.

Go now, and find your mountain-top!

Monday, November 10, 2008

A Glimpse of the Master Plan

A CF picture is worth a thousand counter-feminist words. . eh? ;-)

Emerging From Hibernation

Behold. . . the bear awakeneth, and bestirreth himself!

And you know what bears do when they wake up from their hibernation, right?

They reach for a cup of coffee! Yup—that is what they do! ;)

Either that, or they send somebody down to Starbuck's to fetch them a cappucino!

Of course, Percy at Antimisandry makes a standing offer on a horn of ale, but hey. . . ale for a groggy ursus horriblis? We'll save that for eventide, by the fireside. In fact, Percy, can ya make mine mead perhaps? ;-) That is what ursines like: mead by the fireside at eventide!

So, it looks like I'm gonna be a blogging bear again! But remember, I'm a ursus who is still half asleep, so don't expect me to take off like a jackrabbit, all right? Hibernation has done me good, but I need to ease back into this. The grizz is still a mite bleary and wobbly on his feet as he lurches around in his bathrobe. . .

So, expect me to wobble blearily for a week or three! I'd like to savor my coffee in that leisurely fashion that we bruins are noted for. . .

Hey, here's five bucks! Will somebody head over to Starbuck's and fetch me that cappucino, or must I make do with Folger's Crystals . . . ?? ;-)