A Report From the Low Country
I offer for download the following 1.5 megabyte PDF:
http://www.4shared.com/file/120477362/8fcf6d62/CFintell.html
This material was brought to my attention by MRN, and I thank him for making it available. Turning it into a PDF was my own idea, as I felt this was a more expedient form in which to offer it to CF readers.
As you will see, this 136-page document consists of an extended discussion (stretching from 2003 up to quite recently) on the topic of female supremacy. The conversants are both male and female, and I think you will find their words revelatory. (Although to be honest, I found the moral and intellectual calibre quite inferior, irrespective of the writer's stance upon the issues.)
Call this objective information about the state of the world. In my view, it offers a valuable window into the primal emotions and undisciplined impulses of the collective psyche—the 'dark underbelly', as you might call it. Throughout my reading, I remained emotionally disengaged from the matter under consideration—I merely processed it. I would urge that you do likewise. That, friends, is how we stay on top of the game.
Upon reflection, I discern three points of immediate interest in this material.
Firstly: that most of the female conversants could be objectively classified as feminist for the simple reason that they openly declare female supremacy a good idea. Since the counter-feminist equation is that feminism = female supremacism, it makes no matter whether they embrace the name of 'feminist' voluntarily or otherwise.
Secondly: that a non-trivial portion of the female population leans either overtly or latently toward female supremacist thinking, as does a smaller yet still non-trivial portion of the male population.
Thirdly: that feminism is essentialist because female supremacism is essentialist. The female supremacist conversants preponderantly build their claim upon essentialist presuppositions. They are decidedly NOT old-school feminists, or liberal feminists. They have very clearly and openly abandoned all pretense to any belief in "equality".. For if they believed, as the old-school feminists do, that men and women are different only because of cultural training, then they could not logically or morally occupy the position that they do. In sum, old-school feminism was a convenience doctrine, useful in its day, but destined to fall by the wayside in any prospective female supremacist future.
Feminism will reverse its dogmas as often as necessary in order to stay on top of its game—and that game is female supremacism. And the future of liberal feminism, as the feminist writer Zillah Eisenstein would say, is "radical."
Enjoy your reading! :)
http://www.4shared.com/file/120477362/8fcf6d62/CFintell.html
This material was brought to my attention by MRN, and I thank him for making it available. Turning it into a PDF was my own idea, as I felt this was a more expedient form in which to offer it to CF readers.
As you will see, this 136-page document consists of an extended discussion (stretching from 2003 up to quite recently) on the topic of female supremacy. The conversants are both male and female, and I think you will find their words revelatory. (Although to be honest, I found the moral and intellectual calibre quite inferior, irrespective of the writer's stance upon the issues.)
Call this objective information about the state of the world. In my view, it offers a valuable window into the primal emotions and undisciplined impulses of the collective psyche—the 'dark underbelly', as you might call it. Throughout my reading, I remained emotionally disengaged from the matter under consideration—I merely processed it. I would urge that you do likewise. That, friends, is how we stay on top of the game.
Upon reflection, I discern three points of immediate interest in this material.
Firstly: that most of the female conversants could be objectively classified as feminist for the simple reason that they openly declare female supremacy a good idea. Since the counter-feminist equation is that feminism = female supremacism, it makes no matter whether they embrace the name of 'feminist' voluntarily or otherwise.
Secondly: that a non-trivial portion of the female population leans either overtly or latently toward female supremacist thinking, as does a smaller yet still non-trivial portion of the male population.
Thirdly: that feminism is essentialist because female supremacism is essentialist. The female supremacist conversants preponderantly build their claim upon essentialist presuppositions. They are decidedly NOT old-school feminists, or liberal feminists. They have very clearly and openly abandoned all pretense to any belief in "equality".. For if they believed, as the old-school feminists do, that men and women are different only because of cultural training, then they could not logically or morally occupy the position that they do. In sum, old-school feminism was a convenience doctrine, useful in its day, but destined to fall by the wayside in any prospective female supremacist future.
Feminism will reverse its dogmas as often as necessary in order to stay on top of its game—and that game is female supremacism. And the future of liberal feminism, as the feminist writer Zillah Eisenstein would say, is "radical."
Enjoy your reading! :)
posted by Fidelbogen at 8:24 PM
11 Comments:
Enjoyed your critique - and that's downright scary that so many and a certain percentage of men actually go along with the concept of female supremacy. Not to mention that I personally think it is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard. If one of the sexes is to have supremacy over the other, it definitely makes more sense for males to have it given that they aren't as emotionally lead as females are. Don't get me wrong, I think that women are great, but we are meant to be the weaker and fairer sex for a reason. It is entirely unatural to flip the gender roles. James Brown put it perfectly: "It's a man's world, but it wouldn't be nothing without a woman..."
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm already well acquainted with the dark underbelly,my friend.
You mention remaining emotionally disengaged from the comments, which is a good idea for more sensitive readers, as reading the comments from these females would be like watching a train run over a busload of crippled orphans cradling puppies and then backing up and doing it again, at least for anyone with even the tiniest shred of moral fiber or human decency.
I can't believe there wasn't an armed resistance to female suffrage,in light of how women have repaid us for allowing them to vote in the country men gave their lives to secure.
These fools should ask themselves how people socialized from childhood to be non-violent can make up one fifth of America's serial killers, most of the serious child beaters, and be just as violent towards their partners as men are, when they find themselves in a situation where the size difference virtually disappears, namely lesbian relationships. Think about it, statistically, if Rhianna was humping Lindsay Lohan she would be as likely to get beaten up as dating a male like Chris Brown. How can this happen in a society that invests so much effort in taming female violence and so much energy in maximizing male violence? There's only one explanation this little piggy can think of - women are by nature more violent and all that the difference in upbringing does is put us on roughly the same level - take away the lifetime of "be nice" messages and women will become...
"A nightmare walking,
Psychopath talking,
Queen of my jungle,
Just a gangster stalking"
If you dont buy that, you havent read Fidelbogen's PDF.
I've heard that since women are more emotionally lead than men when they do commit violent crimes the crimes are worse than what men commit. I would say that it's not just that women are more violent, it's that they are more emotional all around, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Take into account that if we didn't have such heightened emotional reactions we wouldn't make good mothers. On the flip side, when the order of society starts getting jacked around we will start to see these emotionl reactions rechanneled and misdirected into areas that are damaging to society rather than fostering good and balanced citizens.
God,
That had to be some of the most disgusting reading I've ever encountered. Too many kept on about how womyn are more intelligent than men. Too bad none of them are aware that there are more men with genius level IQ's than womyn. Of course, there are more men than womyn on the low end as well.
Porky....good points.
Men in the western world need to just start dropping out of society. LET the womyn take over and drive it into the ground. Sorry ladies, but emotion and empathy don't build a society or economy and keep it running. Feel free to screw it up, but you better be willing to take responsibility for it.
All the best,
E. Steven Berkimer
www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com
I read a few pages of the comments at the beginning and at the end. Ugh, that was hard to read. I strongly suspect that a LOT (most, even) of those "male" commenters were females (at least at the beginning and the end). Sick, twisted and evil feminasties. God help us.
Hi F,
I'm wondering where these comments came from. Seems like it would be an interesting place to lurk, if only to see how the dark side thinks.
@Jessy:
Regrettably, I do not know the URL. Some obscure forum, as I gather. I would suggest using Google search terms taken from the document itself and see what you can pull up.
But I'm pretty sure that lurking would be pointless. I don't think it gets updated very frequently any more.
As someone who has actually posted on that forum I think I need to disabuse you all that this is about serious socio-political commentary or gives any kind of insight into contemporary feminism. It most certainly does not. I know a large number of the people posting on these forums are sexually submissive men that find the fantasy of female supremacy a sexual turn on. That includes many of the so call 'women'. I can personally vouch for that as for several months I posted there as a female supremacist women I called Goddess Amanda. The surprising fact is that the vast majority of those believing in female supremacy are men not women. By all means critique the hard core feminist essentialists like Mary Daly or McKinnon. However, that forum is about sexual fantasy pure and simple.
Cracking good read, but trying to get through the 136 page document was rough. It's like nailing my tongue to a subway train, painful, and nerve racking as I read on, like waiting for the train to take off and cause me even more pain. I think the train took off close to the beginning with one comment by an anonymous writer, who couldn't have been more wrong Bart Simpson on his history test.
Also I agree, I think a lot of the men on the forum were actually women, what with referring to themselves in the effeminate and identifying with the whole female collective as if they were one and the same. And no the possibility of them being gay is mute because why would a gay man give a damn about women?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home