They are All Alike, Because They are All Feminists

Do I tar all feminists with the same brush? Yes, verily I do that.

Why? Because they are all feminists. By this I mean, that they are all participants in the thing known as feminism. I cannot suppose it otherwise: if they call themselves feminists, then I must assume that they participate in feminism.

Now, I happen to view the term feminism in a pejorative light. That is my political standpoint, and I don't gainsay it. Thus, to be a participant in feminism is, by my assessment, to be a participant in something dishonorable—and my assessment operates clear across the board, embracing the full spectrum of persons who call themselves feminist. If you call yourself a feminist, then you are by definition a participant in feminism and therefore a participant in something dishonorable.

Accordingly, the tar from the tarbrush is itself the binding element that links you (dishonorably) to the broad endeavor. And yet . . . that is a misleading metaphor, because in fact the "tar" was present from the very inception! No so-called brush has put it there; it was inherent to the nature of the thing all along!

And what is the nature of the thing? It is this: that feminism is grounded upon an archetypal system of manichean dualism—a moral template in which women are the wellspring of good and men the wellspring of evil. (Any apparent reversal of roles in a given case is explained away as "self-defense" on the part of women! )

From this manichean paradigm, certain formative factors emerge.

Firstly: the idea that "anything which is of use to women is good"—a conclusion that generates one-sided advocacy for women's interests, but scant consideration for men's interests since men are implicitly the "bad" side of the duality.

Secondly: the all-pervading drive for female supremacy—rationalized in terms of the "female equals good" formulation, and embodying as a natural consequence the depreciation of men and things male. Such depreciation necessarily draws upon the element of personal disaffection toward males—it cannot exclude this element.

To summarize, feminism combines one-sided advocacy for women (who are deemed worthy of this) with disaffection toward males (who are felt to deserve this). The only possible outcome of an ideology thus formulated is, that the world will grow steadily more poisonous for the male half of the species.

So if you are truly a cognizant person, you ought to stop calling yourself a "feminist". You shouldn't bother explaining what "kind" of feminist you are, and why your style of feminism is the pure and noble kind as against the nasty, man-hating kind. That won't fly. People's eyes will glaze over and they won't have the patience to listen. Nor should they even be requested to do so—they are living their own busy lives and oughtn't be compelled to tangle their brains with such mental flotsam and seaweed. One oughtn't draw them (by force OR by guile!) into the hegemonic intellectual vortex of the feminist world-view. They have no moral duty to think in feminist or even femplexic categories, or to decipher your behavior (however obliquely) within the framework required by such categories. As a courtesy to them, why not simply forsake the word "feminism" altogether? This is not only a courtesy to them but a service to yourself, for you will no longer incur their not-unwarranted suspicions, and you will no longer be living on the defensive. Think what a blessing that will be!

Really, it is far easier and more logical to chuck 'feminist' as a self- descriptor. This affords a rapid exit from the maze, and grants all of us a breath of fresh air and a fresh start. Very often, when a poem or painting isn't working, the most sensible plan is to wad it up and fling it in the garbage. Then start with a new sheet and a new inspiration.

I have argued that feminism is, in a critical way, monolithic, given that those who align with it are effectively tainted or compromised by default owing to their choice of self-descriptors. I mean that their choice involves them, wittingly or unwittingly, in a system of cultural energy which upholds a dishonorable paradigm. This paradigm, as I have explained, is manichean—cast in the model of "man equals bad and woman equals good". And as I have suggested, the consequence of this paradigm is that feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, cannot be distinguished from an elemental disaffection toward males which lies at its core. Feminism, as it were, hollows out a central place for man-hating, and this rancid smell contaminates every dimension of whatever still survives.

I have heard the question put by some, whether demonization of men is the GOAL of feminism, or merely an unfortunate by-product of ill-considered policies along the way. For an example, let us consider the issue of rape. Do feminists simply use rape as a handy way to demonize men, or are they driven by an authentic concern with the issue as such, and by an honest feeling for the victims of such a crime?

Anti-rape campaigning, whatever the motivation of any individual participant, DOES, in pragmatic fact, shine a prejudicial spotlight upon men and maleness. It brings an inordinate degree of attention to bear upon the male population generally, and that attention is not, to my reckoning, of a laudatory character. It is rather of an adverse and demonizing character—who can dispute this?

Under these circumstances, individual motivation pales to a graytone in the background. It is not truly the significant thing, not the thing that weighs effectively in the algebra of political occurrence. For feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, sets the structural bearing load on whatever depreciates men and maleness—THAT is the thing which weighs effectively! And such depreciation is the living heart of female supremacism. Logically then, it is also the living heart of any plan which proposes to establish female supremacy as a living reality.

And feminism, preeminently, is such a plan. Feminism swirls around female supremacism, female supremacism swirls around depreciation of men, and depreciation of men swirls around raw primeval man-hating . Pluck these gravitating nodes from the vortex and you will see the vortex grow sluggish, fade away, and become indistinguishable from the surrounding energy field.

There is no warrant to call male demonization a "by-product" of feminism. Such a description cannot be creditably upheld. It is no by-product, or even a "product" of any kind at all: it is rather an essential item of stock-in-trade, lacking which feminism's work would never get underway.

So again, is the demonization of men a "goal" of feminism? By that I mean, is it intended to be accomplished? I can best answer this by inverting the query: Given that feminism cannot exist independently of a demonizing mindset, and given that feminism would be pointless if not reinforced by continual validation of such a mindset, how is it possible to distinguish such a mindset (with its continual need for validation), from a fixed and continual state of intention? In other words, how is it possible to distinguish it from a GOAL?

And the goal is what? To validate a demonizing mindset, yes?

Very well. So if you wish to validate a demonizing mindset you must do what, precisely?

Demonize? Or NOT demonize?

Clearly, you must demonize. . .

Demonization is an active process, like a fire in need of stoking. Anybody who wishes to do so may attempt to persuade me that demonization does not require further demonization in order to sustain itself. Would you care to inform me that demonization is not a GOAL of demonization?

I consider the case closed. Demonization is a form of perpetual revolution, and being such, it can neither stand still nor live without grasping for something external to itself.

We may allow that some feminists are sincere campaigners for particular issues that involve equity, but the CORE of feminism as a movement and as an ideology, is female supremacism— and demonization of men and all things male is key to the feminist propaganda effort in this realm. Such demonization is central to the feminist endeavor as a whole. And that endeavor is to advance female supremacy—the ascendancy of female power over male in all areas of life. This is undertaken deceitfully in the name of 'equality'.

If you are a feminist with good intentions, the very best you can say for yourself, is that you are a patsy. And being a patsy will not spare you the tarbrush. If anything, it earns you an extra coating.

You are also confusing the issue by muddying the semantic waters—for that is exactly what the word feminist does. Feminism—the rotten core of it, I mean—needs to be morally invalidated. And that requires giving it consistent NAME, and placing a moral onus upon that name. A stench. A taboo.

In Germany nowadays, not many people would dream of calling themselves "National Socialists". Some few might honestly believe there is a "good" National Socialism, and they might be eager in their heart of hearts to set their case before the world, BUT . . . they wouldn't dream of actually trying this. It would be grossly improper and stupid of them, and moreover there are iron sanctions in Germany against anybody reviving the name of 'National Socialism' . Feminism, in my opinion, needs to be laid under a similar kind of interdiction.

In the long run, it is a moot question whether feminism demonizes men as a GOAL, or for some other reason. It is a matter of small consequence to those on the receiving end, and besides, feminism could not operate effectively if it didn't demonize men. Suffice to say that it is integral to feminism's collective organic purpose to do so, quite independently of individual motivations. Individuals who feed feminism's collective energy—be it only by supporting feminism in name—are complicit in that organic purpose because they assist the organism to function and to grow. Such people are generating a smokescreen around feminism's malignant core, and in the end we can't be bothered to untangle the riddles they inflict upon us: these only waste our time and energy, and strengthen what we desire to overthrow.

There is no good feminism versus bad feminism; there is only bad feminism versus less bad feminism. The so-called nice feminists are patsies spreading asphalt on the devil's driveway.

Our endeavor is to isolate the malignant core. If therefore you identify as feminist, you are interfering with our purpose by muddying the semantic waters. By even granting feminism THAT level of legitimation, you are extending its lease on life—effectively telling the world that your sentimental addiction to a mere word takes priority over more urgent considerations. This stalls for time and postpones the issue. It is distractionary, it scatters red herrings, it generates speed bumps. All of this makes feminism stronger—and to do so is especially remiss when the logical alternative lies within easy reach, namely, to discard the word feminism altogether.