Thursday, July 30, 2009

Our Reach

What follows is a communique from the illustrious Amfortas. It has been cleared by the Propaganda Ministry for general distribution because it contains no sensitive information that would compromise our position in any way:


"I am looking forward to working on and with it. Let him know that I am really keen.

"News – all my podcasts are being played on Radio.

"I had three ‘parts’ played on Tuesday. Two parts of the ‘Stolen Generation’ and the first part of Give a Dog a Bad Name. Your narrated script on Feminism as a Hate Movement is scheduled in the next few weeks as they work their way through.

"If you want to hear the programme, which is internet streamed live – it is also on an MP3 for download at : - http://www.dadsontheair.net/

"It was a one and a half hour programme and I guess my part was just over an hour of it.

"I had an almost immediate response, very positive, from Canada, of all places. The programme has ‘reach’. Perhaps you could mention it on your blog."

Amfortas

So, I have indeed mentioned it on my blog—as you see! That streaming web programme reaches. . . how many people? Thousands, I'm sure!

The start of the message might be a mystery for you, since no context is provided. Well, the "he" in question is somebody I will just call MysteryMan.

MysteryMan is the soon-to-be-author of the script for Amfortas's next podcast. (He says he'll send it to me next week.) I have been communicating with MysteryMan about this project, and helping to arrange stuff in general. As usual, Amfortas will record the script. Amfortas, with his authoritative, patriarchal British accent, makes a damn fine official "voice" of the men's movement in my opinion! ;) And it does my heart good to know that such a voice is speaking to thousands around the world via streaming web radio. Yee-haw!

MysteryMan's identity is a mystery only to you, the readers of this blog. It is no mystery to Amfortas and myself. But I am keeping it under wraps because, well, I reckon I'm just mysterious that way! ;-}

But yes, you will learn who MysteryMan is as soon as the podcast is released. I think you've heard his name before, hereabouts.

The podcast library is growing, as you will observe. And now that it is streaming live, a lot more people will decide to download the MP3s and then. . . copy them, and then. . . spread those copies everywhere on the web, by e-mail, by CD-ROM, and so on.

Viral pyramidic meme propagation, friends!

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Real Nitty-Gritty

An Australian correspondent surprised me yesterday with THIS in my inbox!

And I saw that it was good. And behold, it is very, very good. In fact, I believe it takes MRA visuals to the next level. It certainly does have that art school/graphic design studio look, don't you think?

Anyway, there is no question that we have plenty of talent here in the sector. Literary, artistic, sarcastic . . . you name it! I look forward to seeing more.

I think these would work well as mysterious leaflets that appear unbidden, in unexpected places, with no explanation. For example, on surfaces where a greater-than-average buildup of feminists might be found.

---------------------------------------------------
Postscriptum: My fellow blogger Factory has left a link to some very sharp bumper stickers which he created some time ago, and I will post it here in the spirit of accumulation:

http://s48.photobucket.com/albums/f209/factory_ca_2000/

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

E-mail Campaign: Won't You Join?

I send you now to the False Rape Society, to read and fully absorb the following:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/07/email-exchange-with-reporter-who.html

After you have studied, pondered and completely digested every aspect of the matter in question, consider sending an e-mail to Christina Hernandez, the young greenhorn reporter in Florida who has not yet been sufficiently embarrassed in my opinion.

Please try NOT to sound like a wild, nutjob MRA spewing rabid spittle and brimstone. Instead, compose your message with icy civility and minimal politeness. Take the time to get your spelling and grammar right. And then, elliptically as you please, make her understand that she has achieved notoriety, that her "fame" is au courant for more than just a handful of people.

Kindly do not mention the False Rape Society (or CF) as the 'instigator' of your action. Make it sound like you simply discovered this all on your own, and felt "moved by the spirit" to speak your mind as any concerned citizen might do.

Then, inform anybody and everybody about this, and get them to join in the fun. Spread it through your network! (When I get done posting, I'm going to go and Twitter this!)

If you are from outside the USA, please make your international status known, since we want to make it clear that this is a worldwide thing.

I thank you kindly for giving this your consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------

Postscriptum: It would be nice if she would publish some kind of correction or retraction, don't you think?;)


Postscriptum 2: Archivist, of the False Rape Society, has left the following comment on this post:
'Thanks for the post. I would really like to see a large number of people send Ms. Hernandez an email that lays out just where her story was wrong. My personal favorite of the article:

"False reports just feed into the myth that women lie about rape, and it's not true," Baer said.

'What is really funny, is the story is about 2 false rape reports. Uhhhhh, Ms. Baer, that means they lied about being raped. Odd place to state that women lying about rape are a myth. This story completely puts the lie to your statement.

'What a tool.

'All the best,

'E. Steven Berkimer
'www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com'

I Have Made a Grievous Erratum!

Mea culpa!

In the post prior to this, the Welmer.Org link was wrongly linked to MRN's blog. Thus, if you clinked on that link, you would not have gone to the website which I had intended.

Well, I fixed it. The Welmer link is now correctly pointed to the Welmer website as intended. So, I hope you will go there now, in order to get the proper effect which the post was meant to convey.

Gratias!

Monday, July 27, 2009

More in a Related Vein

When I am not composing words of mine own to share with the world, I busy myself like a bee gathering nectar from many blossoms. ;)

SO . . . I think you should go and study the following blog post, and especially the string of comments which are attached to it:

http://www.welmer.org/2009/07/24/hr-and-the-mancession/

For me, it was a riveting read. A convocation of intelligent people who have "been there", and offer an important window into the objective state of the world at this point in history.

I assume that you have all downloaded and at least partly read the PDF which I made available in the post before this one. What? You haven't done that? Tsk-tsk! Well here is the download link once again, you shameless laggards!

http://tinyurl.com/mq7vfx

As you will see, this all dovetails. What the morons on the PDF are talking about interfaces directly with the data on the Welmer.org discussion thread—these two documents illuminate each other!

From these, and countless other sources I have looked into, it is plain that "women", at least in the more developed nations, have no greater cause to complain about life in general than do men, and most likely LESS cause to do so. And I am being scrupulously conservative in making this statement, for my motto is always "measure twice, cut once." If women don't YET surpass men on the general quality of life index, then rest assured they soon will— and dramatically!

Wealth, power, education, legal privilege and a host of goods both tangible and intangible, are accruing to the female population at such a rate that if present trends continue, female supremacy will, in a few short years, become an accomplished fact of life in all but name. Please note that I said supremacy, not equality. For as any MRA worth his salt will tell you, feminism was NEVER about so-called equality—although they fooled a lot of people (including a lot of self-proclaimed feminists!) long enough to provide camouflage in the early stages. But now the mask is slipping.

So much for the idea that "women are oppressed". In a few short years, it will no longer be possible to assert any such thing with a straight face, and people will (albeit reluctantly for some) give up trying to do so.

And that is when full frontal female supremacy will come into its own, as in: pull out all the stops! The female oppression meme won't play any more, and the equality meme will be impossible to sustain without subverting the new regime, so it will be eased out the door. Since it will no longer be feasible to gouge men in the name of "redistribution", a new excuse will be necessary if gouging is to continue. That excuse shall be, that women are objectively better people than men, and that being so, they are entitled to greater authority in all domains of life, and to a deferential acknowledgment of this entitlement as a cultural norm.

That is how the de facto objective state of things will be regularized—and little by little made de jure. The idea that women are superior to men, will pass by open proclamation into the living instrumentalities of law, government and culture. And whoever takes exception to this new dispensation, will be morally stigmatized, politically ghettoized and criminalized, and forced into the underclass.

But then again, plenty of rogue variables may enter the picture and force the scenario to play out in a very different manner. For I have merely described how things will roll IF their designs go according to plan: I mean that this is how they would like things to happen! But snags and hitches may develop. May develop? No, they will develop! But the question is, just how far will the trajectory fly before these developments finally intervene? And how much sheer human misery might we anticipate in the course of all this? These, to be sure, are weighty considerations.

I will leave you to consider all these points in the light of Prophecy, as given HERE:

http://tinyurl.com/njv4xo

Notice that a "Part 2" was promised. And I never wrote that Part 2, did I? But trust me, I shall.

Finally, the following post on MRN's blog is of interest in the context of all that has been presented today. The comment thread includes contributions of my own:

http://tinyurl.com/m65h2h

Friday, July 24, 2009

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! :)

Real Feminists™ Are So Cute
When They're Mad!

Here is a very famous YouTube which "everybody" has seen. And of course, you know exactly what THAT means: it means that a lot of people have in fact NOT seen it! It is called Feminists Disrupt a Forum About Battered Husbands:



Yes, those are Real Feminists™, doing what Real Feminists™ really do, flaunting their real colors so that all the world can really see what Real Feminism™ really is! For real!

They are full of violence, aren't they?
I wouldn't put it past some of these people to use their fists, or a handy firearm if they had one—and I think they would do so on a totally fraudulent ground of provocation, with no conscience or moral scruples of any kind. I think they would lie outrageously, for that is exactly the kind of people they are.

Their behavior is vintage NSDAP stuff straight from the early Weimar Republic, the principal difference being that these Real Feminists™ are girls, which makes it cute: they have curvaceous bodies with subcutaneous fat layers, melodious voices in a high register, and none of that beastly stubble on their faces!! And that is why society lets them get away with acting the way they act.

Furthermore, they are feminists. As we know. Whether any or all of them would frankly own up to that name is beside the point. And the point is what? It is, that they fit the feminist profile. They are violating a gathering of men who want to address the problem of female violence against men—and who but a feminist would commit such a violation? Would a non-feminist do such a thing?

And besides, if you put it to them, would ANY of these violent, violating females volunteer to step up and loudly proclaim to the world: "I am not a feminist!"? Seems a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

But again, look at what is happening here. Is this a symposium of domestic abusers sharing tips on how to beat their wives more effectively? No, it is a group of men who want to address the problem of female violence against men. They want to DO something about it. They want to raise awareness of the issue.

And evidently, the Real Feminists™ have an issue with that. The fact that certain men want to raise awareness of female violence against men, makes the Real Feminists™ violently angry at those men, doesn't it?

Now, hypothetically speaking, I could suggest that those Real Feminists™ be horsewhipped within an inch of their lives and expelled from the auditorium with extreme prejudice. But I am NOT going to say that, because I don't want to sound like a National Socialist. :(
---------------------------------------------------

But now, just for fun, here's another little goody for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7tX4Ma941E


;)

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

News From Around the World

















This picture is from a men's rights demonstration in Mexico City. Several hundred men took part in this protest march, with some women scattered among them.

In case your Español is not up to scratch, the picket sign declares: "MEN OF THE WORLD, UNITE!"

I like that. After all, they could have said "men of Mexico", but there's nothing like acting locally and thinking globally, eh? ;) I mean. . . we ARE a global movement!

And need I remind you all, yet again, that the time for argument is past? If we grow our numbers and mobilize, then we can roll right over the opposition and make them part of the tarmac. Feminism was a very big event in history, no doubt, but the movement to blow feminism off its self-constructed pedestal shall be equally big if not bigger.

And I believe it is going to happen. Already, I see a few of them mending their dispositions and easing nonchalantly toward the exit doors. I hope, in time, to see that motion swell into a panic-stricken stampede.

The verdict of history will not assess feminism kindly. It had BETTER not. If feminism gets out of this scrimmage with a crumb of honor to its name, it will mean that our work is incomplete. For even if all the iniquity toward men be set to rights, our revolution will have failed if feminism moults its skin like a serpent, and reinvents itself, and keeps going under a freshly-minted cloak of respectability. That must not occur.

No new lease on life for them! When their lease is up, it's up!

Somehow, we must overturn the ink bottle upon the ledger of history, to leave an indelible blot. Feminism must come out permanently marked or branded with a dramatic scar across its face—the way that scoundrels were marked or branded in the olden days of cruel-and-unusual criminal justice, the better to flag them as a warning to all and sundry.

So. . . I have observed something about our worldwide movement. It divides into a pair of distinctly noticeable lobes. On the one hand: the Anglosphere—that means England, the USA, and the Commonwealth nations. On the other: Everybody Else—that means Continental Europe, for example. And India. And Mexico, as we see. And other places too, no doubt.

Now since I am writing in English, from North America, it's a fair bet that I belong to the Anglosphere. Furthermore, I am a mighty man with words, and that makes me a poster boy for the Anglosphere at large. And why? Because: the Anglophone sector of the worldwide men's movement is ALL TALK. All blogs, all manifestos, all brainstormings, all trollings on feminist websites! And, at best, scattered activisms.

But Everybody Else is beginning to organize on a large scale, and even taking it to the streets in a serious way.

How very, very different they are, from us! How very, very different we are, from them! Really, what are we Anglospherics good for? What is our special gift? What unique thing have we got to offer to this worldwide movement, other than words, words, words? Are we rotten wood? Can we even be carved at all?

At any rate, I thank you kindly for reading my words. Now, go and watch the Reuters news clip on YouTube, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcIL93nTOY

Saturday, July 18, 2009

For What It's Worth

The blog will be in shutdown mode for 4-5 days.

Then I shall return with my cool new HIGH-SPEED CONNECTION . :))

That ought to be good for the Movement, and good for the Sector. . eh? ;)

Ever tried loading a YouTube via dialup, only to suffer a dropped connection before your are halfway there....: :((((

It gets mighty old mighty fast, chums!

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Feminism vs Men's Rights

Today, it is my honor to share with you another man's work. Let it be known to all present, and to the entire universe, that here we behold an MRA classic. Henceforth, consider this a part of the canon. Ipse dixit!

Factory, who publishes the Hunting for Archetypes blog, has posted a dozen or so videos on YouTube. But this one is the crown jewel of the lot. Fidelbogen's Pick, if you will. So what can I say? It is pure genius, a masterpiece of lawyer-esque ratiocination! I watched it seven times in a row, and even went to the trouble of transcribing the entire monologue into written form.

Trouble, did I say? No: it was a pleasure!

I am so impressed, that I have made a special dispensation to my 'No Embedded Videos' design law. It deserves exposure, and that is what I intend to give it. Even the feminists need to watch this. Yea, for it shall plant a bug in their brains, the buzzing whereof shall be a sore affliction, and a grievous burden unto their spirit!

So on behalf of the MRM region of the Non-Feminist Sector, here is Factory, speaking ex cathedra from what appears to be a very comfortable couch:




------------------------------------------------
The transcript follows directly:


"The ongoing discussion between men's groups, masculism, MRAs and the rest, brings to light a simple question: why do men's rights groups need to justify themselves? The dynamic of feminist group versus men's rights group may seem on its face quite natural —the battle of the sexes and all that—but move beyond the face and the question becomes more problematic.

"Both groups claim to speak for equality; both groups claim that their goals and ideas are legitimate, and just. Both groups claim that their ideas are based on observed human behavior, and both groups claim to be addressing pressing social injustices. There may be more claims, or more nuance to the claims, but these generalizations hold true for both groups.

"Now, if that's true, how exactly are they diametrically opposed? What is it that makes these groups natural opponents? If both groups act in a manner that is consistent with these principles, there cannot BE a conflict between these groups.

"Then one has to consider this as well: the mere existence of a men's rights movement justifies its need. Feminism is SUPPOSED to be about gender equality, and feminism has shown no interest in adopting a male position regarding equality for ANY reason.

"That's all fine and good, but it makes feminism a women's advocacy group. Again, this is not a problem, but such status creates a need for a counterpart advocacy group representing men—the other half of the human race. It also disqualifies feminist groups from making judgments AT ALL regarding the legitimacy of men's rights groups.

"Most importantly, this position negates the idea that feminists are authorities on men's rights, or anything related to them, since by their OWN ADMISSION they have done no work in these areas, and have never felt the need to.

"In short, feminists cannot tell the world that they are the arbiters of all things equality-related, then represent only women's interests, then decide if a movement arisen in response to such one-sided perspectives has legitimacy, or if the sex they represent has legitimate gripes.

"It is not up to feminists to legitimize or accept the men's movement. It's here, whether they like it or not. There IS reason for it whether they admit it or not. Things will change, whether they help us or not. There are very specific and quantifiable issues that MRAs are fighting to correct. They are glaring injustices, and obvious connections made invisible ONLY by the lens of feminist idealism.

"Feminism argues to correct ideas and "patriarchy" — and you can't even define, let alone quantify. Feminists lie and mislead as a matter of course, be it for dramatic effect, or out of simple ignorance of the truth. MRAs point to the half of the statistics ROUTINELY ignored in mainstream reporting. Feminists point to the past to justify their current and future actions. MRAs point to the present and ask what the future will be like.

"If feminists were what they tell everyone that they are, the men's rights movement wouldn't exist. Period. "

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Another Glimpse of the Real Feminism™

Here is a long, revealing interview with the infamous radical lesbian separatist feminist (and lapsed Catholic) Mary Daly, published in What Is Enlightenment? magazine in 1998:

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j16/daly.asp?page=1

So now you know what a Real Feminist™ is. They don't get any realer than Mary Daly! In this interview, Mary mentions a book that she had recently published, called Quintessence. Well, I would say that Mary Daly herself is the quintessence of feminism—and that means all of feminism, not just some small, obscure corner of it. Mary Daly is the quintessential feminist, the gravitating singularity, the gold standard if you will, the true index by which you must gauge your own feminism, or lack of same. Simply put, the less like Mary Daly you are, the more feministically marginal you are, the more irrelevant you are in terms of feminism's core principles. And yet, if you insist on embracing the "feminist" descriptor for any reason whatsoever, then you are living on a slippery hillside pointing directly toward Mary Daly and people of her kind. Think very carefully, and decide if that is the sort of company you wish to keep. Then consider disowning the word "feminist", and calling yourself something entirely different. Because if you don't, you should expect the same treatment that Mary Daly dishes out to MEN!

What's that you say? It's unfair to treat all feminists the way that radfems treat all men? Well I think its bloody ill-mannered of radfems to treat all men that way in the first place! So please don't cry on my shoulder about unfairness: of course its unfair! When was unfairness ever fair? Quit your damned whining! And then, do the right thing and get on the right side. After all, we're not treating all women the way radfems treat all men. Just all feminists! So I think that sounds pretty fair after all!

Here is an extract from the interview:
WIE: Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" writes: "At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race." What do you think about this statement?

MD: I think it's not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.

WIE: Yes. I find myself now thinking that's a bit shocking.

MD: Well, it's shocking that it would be shocking.

WIE: So it doesn't sound like your vision of a separate nation for women is something you see as an interim stage that would eventually lead to men and women living together in true equality.

MD: No. That's a very old question. I answered that to audiences twenty-five, thirty years ago. I just don't think that way. See, right now, I would be totally joyous to have a great community of women—whether men are somewhere out on the periphery or not. I don't have this goal of: "Oh, then we can all get together again!" That doesn't seem to be a very promising future. So why would I think about it? I think it's pretty evident that men are not central to my thought.


Fine. If Mary Daly declares that men are "not central to her thought", then I certainly won't hold it against her. However, Mary Daly (or anybody else for that matter) ought to understand that by the principle of compensative symmetry, certain men may likewise refuse to make women central to their thought, and that if this be the case, these men are certainly entitled to their opinion.

Very well then. Real Feminism™ is a many-splendored thing with a great diversity of aspects, yet we need not entertain a single crumb of doubt what kind of future it would create for men. A couple of months ago, I posted about another Real Feminist™ and the Real Feminism™ that she wishes to realize. Now would be an excellent time to read that post again: counterfem.blogspot.com/2009/05/real-feminism-as-real-as-it-gets.html

So, do you STILL prefer to call yourself a "feminist"? Then go line up with Mary Daly, Susan Caringella, and a passel of others like them. Or if you unfortunately haven't got the stomach to do that, then just stop calling yourself a feminist altogether! But either way, make your critical decision and get the hell off that fence!

Yes, the world slouches toward Armageddon, and I am exactly the kind of 'patriarch' that Mary Daly thinks I am. As if I had any decent choice. . .

Thank you! ;)

Monday, July 06, 2009

Hey Feminists: Here's Some Stuff About RAPE!

Gang rape of 'infidel' women by young Muslim males seems be a recurrent sport in Europe and other Western areas. And non-Western areas too, undoubtedly. It doesn't yet appear to be happening in the USA. But give it time. . .?

Anyhoo. . . the worst of it is, these lads don't even apply the Antioch Dating Code!! :(

Now, you'd think that the social kanker sores. . . er. . . pardon me, the feminists, would be up in arms about this. You would think maybe they'd have a little something to say about it, wouldn't you? Or maybe one hell of a lot to say about it, eh?

Especially considering that here we have a rape phenomenology which evidently IS "all about power" — unlike the generality of rapes. So you'd think that these hypocritical moral cowards. . . er. . . pardon me, the femmeroids, would be all over this . . . wouldn't you?

Nope. They have been oddly, curiously, enigmatically silent. Well no, that's not quite true. Actually, 10 or 12 of them have spoken out very, very loudly upon the subject. But those 10 or 12 are all on the east coast somewhere, and I'm on the west coast, so I reckon their voices haven't reached me quite yet. Yeah. . . that must be it!

And those 10 or 12 individuals must be the same exact ones who have felt morally driven to address the issue of false rape accusation, and to speak out loudly against it. But again, they are so few, so far away, and so far between, that I cannot possibly "hear them roar" — even though I am sure they must be roaring somewhere!

Anyhooo . . . here is more for your reading pleasure. Please do read it; it's worth your while:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5347


http://islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/UncoveredMeat.htm


...............................................................................

Postscriptum: Remember 'The Apostate', whom I wrote about recently (here), and who has a blog HERE?: http://tinyurl.com/mmc5nz

You know, the ex-muslima feminist who made a lateral arabesque from one fanatical dogma to another? Yes. . . HER!

Well, it turns out she is/was a contributor to islam-watch.org (one of the URLS linked above). She made a single contribution, in 2007: a piece entitled "Islam's Lolita", about Mohammed's marriage to his child-bride Aisha. See HERE: http://islam-watch.org/Apostate/islam-lolita.htm

It is mildly interesting, in a feminist-subjective sort of way.

Saturday, July 04, 2009

A Title

A couple of weeks ago, I spent some time browsing around Left Bank Books ("A worker owned collective") near Seattle's Pike Place Market, and I ended up buying a paperback entitled The Gender Knot: Unravelling Our Patriarchal Legacy (by Allan G. Johnson - Temple University Press, 1997, 2005). If you are looking for a comprehensive, state-of-the-art "Patriarchy 101" handbook from the feminist-subjective point of view, you'll find this to be a worthwhile read. Because, you know, it is always smart to hear your enemy explain himself in his own words—so you can learn to "think behind" him!

So, I wolfed my way through the book like a hoagie and, sandwiched between doing other things, this took me about two days. And now the pages are well-marked with yellow highlightings and pencilled notations in the margins. We autodidacts are voracious gluttons in our quest for knowledge, let me tell ya! ;)

As for the book: it was impressive. At first. But then, you know the ancient wisdom about first impressions. Yes, although I was initially overwhelmed by the author's command of language and argument, it didn't take long for me to see that it was just another sample of feminist literature — and we all know what that means! The book was oozing with ambiguity and half-truth, perverse distortion and falsification of life, badly grounded assumption and flawed interpretation, cracked syllogism and chain-linked circular argument, below-the-belt emotional manipulation, inflated definition, and so on.

Defending yourself against these propaganda bombardments is like fighting off a bee swarm with an ice-pick! In the long run, the only method that will serve us is to grow a thick hide, to be cynical as hell, and to invent new weapons and unexpected strategies. So let us adjourn to our think tanks. In the meantime, I share with you the following snippet from pages 169-170:
"Prejudice against women, however, has deep and far-reaching consequences that do a lot more than make them feel bad, for it supports an entire system that privileges men at women's expense. Sexist prejudice doesn't just target individual women, for it is fundamentally about women and strikes at femaleness in every instance. Each expression of antifemale prejudice always amounts to more than what is said, for it reaffirms a cultural legacy of patriarchal privilege and oppression. When a particular woman is treated as less intelligent, less serious, and less important than the men she works with, for example, this specific view of her is easily linked to the patriarchal idea that women in general are inferior to men. . ."

So, does Allan Johnson mean to inform us that prejudice against MEN does not have "deep and far-reaching consequences"? Or that it does not support an entire system that privileges women at MEN'S expense? Or that sexist prejudice against MEN does not strike against maleness in every instance? Or that antiMALE prejudice (or any prejudice for that matter) does not "amount to more than what is said". Or that antiMALE prejudice does not reaffirm a "legacy" of any kind, or least a present reality of any kind? And what precisely makes a "legacy" worse than a present reality?

And if a particular woman is treated as "less intelligent, less serious, and less important than the men she works with", could it be at least theoretically possible that she as a person objectively IS, in veritable fact, all of those unflattering things? And IF that were the case, would it then be correct to aver that such treatment is due to "prejudice", or should we rather suppose that it issues from a considered judgment a posteriori?

And supposing the negative evaluation were indeed warrantable, hence non-prejudicial, does it therefore follow that a plain mental acknowledgment of the facts ought to be suppressed from our awareness for fear it might somehow be "linked" (easily or otherwise) to the supposed "patriarchal idea"? Or is it rather the case, that said "linkage" would occur only if the evaluation were prejudicial, and not otherwise?

All of these, and many similar points of analysis, are routinely glossed over by Mr. Allan Johnson in the course of his book. If I had enough time and patience, and nothing more important to do, I could eviscerate the entire goddamn thing cover to cover— all 243 pages of it!

That's the hell of it; I don't have time for such things. Really, none of us do! And the enemy knows this, and is banking on our inexorable fatigue in the face of their soaring (and exponentially propagating) Tower of Babble! We simply haven't got enough shovels, or shovellers, to turn aside their copious river of bullshit!!

And so I am willing to "surrender", as Faith would say, and take the line of least resistance to Allan Johnson's programme! Very simply, I mean that I will not target any individual woman with sexist prejudice. I think that is just and reasonable, and I am quite willing to go along with such a standard. I mean it. Nothing in my comportment toward any female will target femaleness. There shall be no antifemale prejudice emanating from ME, since I adamantly don't want my words to "amount to more than what is said". On the contrary, I want my words to mean exactly what they mean—no more and no less! ;)

So I certainly don't believe, no, not for one second, that women in general are inferior to men. I believe, rather, that they are inferior to men only one woman at a time! And that is an enormous difference. So, if I decide to "strike at" a woman it is never, but NEVER ,"about women" — depend upon it!

However, if I decide to strike at a feminist, then yes, in that case, it is indeed about feminists!

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Intersectionality

I found this on the web a while ago — I forget where. I'd forgotten all about it, but then I rediscovered it. I share my rediscovery here:



















This, for me, inspires thoughts along the line of policy advice.
1.) Do not engage in woman-blaming, compulsive or otherwise. When you voice blame (compulsively or otherwise), aim for a proper target: feminists and feminism.

2.) Do not engage in COMPULSIVE grievance-gathering . . . but by all means do collect some. Showcase your wares appropriately, but let your main effort be directed toward analysis, meta-analysis, and probable inference. And if you haven't got a sense of humor, obtain one at your earliest convenience. (To get started, practice in front of the mirror until you can display a sardonic twinkle in your eyes! ;)

3.) Don't do "narcissistic irascibility". Try cultivating a wide range of intellectual interests in areas other than men's rights/antifeminism — that, along with the aforementioned "sardonic twinkle", should vaccinate you.
Follow the sage advice I've given here, and you will shine by comparison with the enemy, and come across as a higher type of human being.