Wednesday, February 10, 2010

A Call for Essays

I have just gotten a comment on an earlier post, from a certain 'Christine', who appears to be a feminist. I repost Christine's comment verbatim, as follows:
"Neither men nor women are "all good", each of the sexes has a dark side. The male shadow has been cast over women for ages. Women have been hurt, shamed and humiliated by men in public and private and many women have chosen, out of fear for themselves and/or others, not to assert themselves, use their voice and take their power back. Womens model for power is men, so now they they are behaving like men in trying to take their power back. Logical. Monkey see, monkey do. Men don't like it because it is a mirror for their own past or present behavior. To what extent men and women want to be conscious of the above is an individual choice. Can we come up with a better choice? A compassionate model of equal voice and equal respect and equal power between the sexes and begin to implement it on an individual level in all our relationships? If anyone knows of one, please leave a comment as I would be interested in learning about it."
Since the post in question has gone somewhat astern now, I know that not everybody will find this on their own hook—which is why I'm giving a little nudge and a pointer:

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2010/02/feminisms-motivational-sequiturs-redux.html

This will keep you ones busy for a while, so that I may concentrate on the big monstrosity I am writing. It is a wine I'll not be selling before its time!

50 Comments:

Blogger ScareCrow said...

"Can we come up with a better choice? A compassionate model of equal voice and equal respect and equal power between the sexes and begin to implement it on an individual level in all our relationships? If anyone knows of one, please leave a comment as I would be interested in learning about it."

For starters, TERMINATE all WOMEN'S STUDIES programs on ALL COLLEGE CAMPUSES.

They poison women's minds - and hence, we hear nonsense about ALL women being oppressed in days past - when in fact, only lower class women fit the "oppression" model that you speak of - and guess what - the lower class MALES ALSO FIT THAT MODEL.

Once we start to acknowledge that life was hard for BOTH MEN AND women in DAYS PAST, the sooner we will be on an actual road to equality.

In the meantime, what you (the woman posting the comment) call "equality" is nothing more than hatred inspired by half-truths and propaganda.

9:32 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

I would say true Christian spirit is the only way society as a whole could establish equal respect for each other regardless of the sex, but equal respect does not mean that each sex has equal capabilities or should be open to applying themselves to whatever area of life they decide to. Each sex should knows its limitations and advantages and have respect for the other. What has gone in the past is neither here nor there because the only thing we can change is the present and how we interact with other people.

"Monkey see, monkey do." I have to say I consider this an incredibly juvenile argument, more especially so if it is true.

First of all, if what they (males) are doing is wrong, how does women copying it make it right? Or is it not about right and wrong, is it just about power, and the ethics of the situation are tools in the argument?

Second, do you claim that women have so little consideration for their intellects and their ability to critically discern acceptable behavior that they just copy what guys do like monkeys? Sorry, but that is just insulting. Speak for yourself when comparing women to animals with minimal intelligence.

I, for one, as a female rational animal (that would be a human) disagree with the analysis completely and think that reacting to chauvinism (true chauvinism not whatever the feminist movement drums up to support its cause) with creating a parallel reality (that women are equal, and even more, in all ways to men) will not fix the chauvinism but can only cement it and spread it. You feminists are only pushing the good men into a corner where they must either decide to be pu** ies or a**holes. Way to go - and thanks, but no thanks, that is not the society I care to live in. I love men being manly men, not whipped, snivelling, mindless peons or women-hating psychopaths.

8:28 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"You feminists are only pushing the good men into a corner where they must either decide to be pu** ies or a**holes."

Ahhh. . . a woman who "gets it"! :)

If I were to translate that into more technical terms, I would say that as a "good man" (read: a self-respecting man) one is confronted with a moral dilemma to either be a feminist enforcer, or to be an outright chauvinist, misogynist, or the like.


The only middle ground is to walk a tightrope between these two. And tightrope it is indeed! Most men have no idea how to do this. As for myself, i BARELY know how to do it - the learning curve is ferocious.

The question is, how to repudiate the feminist narrative without, at the same time, getting sucked into it and trapped by it.

The quandary for men is, that no matter which choice you make, you WILL be sucked into the feminist narrative.

The monster article which I'm presently composing touches upon the point somewhat, amongst other subject matter.

7:34 PM  
Blogger Phantom said...

FYI:

http://anti-feminist-phantom.blogspot.com/2010/02/feminist-indoctrination-now-in-schools.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8515601.stm

10:54 AM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

The only middle ground is to walk a tightrope between these two. And tightrope it is indeed! Most men have no idea how to do this.

This is the reason why MGTOW is such a completely rational response. Rational people constantly (sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously) perform cost-benefit analyses and make life decisions based on them, unless those decisions are overridden by the brain chemicals we call "emotions". Women, as a group, have placed themselves squarely in what a friend of mine calls the "too hard box". Women seem to function best in groupthink mode, so their attitudes about and behaviours towards men become self-reinforcing.

My personal criticisms of feminism have always centered on this simplistic view: life requires rules, called discipline. The only viable discipline is that imposed by the self. Feminism, based by Simone deBeauvoir entirely on victimhood, threw away the old rules for women, then failed to come up with new ones. The new rule, in fact, was that there were no rules for women, and that women were free to make up their own rules.

So modern women have become totally hedonistic, and this should surprise no one. And when one side of nearly all "relationships" is a hedonist, completely unable to compromise, is it any wonder that relationships don't work?

Younger men are learning to control their emotions. Women are finally figuring this out, and now some are beginning to want a truce. Perhaps these are younger ones, products of the women's studies programs, entering their 30's and who are wanting to settle down and have children in a stable environment. Perhaps some are looking at their friends following the single mother-by-choice route and seeing how incredibly difficult it is (in nature, there are two parents for a reason). And they're finding that men want nothing to do with them.

I'm older, so allow me to indulge a little bit of hopefulness. Some women may be rationally reexamining the wake of destruction left by divorce rates over 50%. Some may be pining for the relative security of the two-income household. CHILDREN SUFFER THE MOST IN ANY DIVORCE; perhaps women are starting to realize this.

A compassionate model of equal voice and equal respect and equal power between the sexes and begin to implement it on an individual level in all our relationships? If anyone knows of one, please leave a comment as I would be interested in learning about it."

This woman has been cast adrift by a philosophy she willingly embraced. Now she is finally beginning to realize she is lost, that her life sucks, that her future is empty, and needs someone to show her how to relate successfully to men. What she doesn't realize is that her mind is so poisoned that she is beyond hope. I meet women like this nearly every day; their lives are defined by their suspicion of men. This is a throw-away generation of young women.

Honey, I suggest you adopt the same solution adopted by an increasing number of women who've gone down your path: become a lesbian, and leave us alone. We are becoming smarter every day, and better able to evaluate the women we meet, and we're on our guard.


P.S. The next leg down in the economic crisis is coming soon, so look for this whining by women to escalate. And hey! China's one-child per couple policy has caused a bumper crop of boys, and these are now young men looking for wives that are nowhere to be found. Maybe your poster can learn to speak Chinese. Just be sure to not mention "women's studies".

5:27 AM  
Anonymous Christine said...

Thank you for posting my comment although it related to an older post.

I honestly have never called myself a feminist, or thought of myself in that way. The comment I posted was an observation on how I see some women relating to some men and how it got to be that way. I do not think it is right.

Naming me as a "certain" Christine and naming me a "feminist"...well, that was interesting.

I wanted to ask the person whose idea was to eliminate Womens Studies programs if he thinks mens and womens programs would be helpful, or a general gender studies program or neither?

The comment from the person who suggested a Christian model of male and female relationships was also helpful.

I appreciated everyone's comments. Thank you.

9:56 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Naming me as a "certain" Christine and naming me a "feminist"...well, that was interesting."

1. If I had merely said "Christine" (omitting the word 'certain') it would imply that you were a person already known to the readers of this blog, who needed no introduction - which was not in fact the case. Now, I could have said 'a commenter by the name of Christine', but that's wordy, so I opted for "a certain Christine". I think it's an elegant solution.

2. You might not call yourself a feminist, but the entire tone and content of your discourse marks you as one, with big red flags. Trust me, we MRAs are keen, sharp critters; we know. We have studied these things for years. You are like a duck who waddles along saying "quack-quack, I'm not a duck! Quack-quack, I'm not a duck!"

Aside note: MRAs are the world's foremost authorities on the subject of feminism. To anybody who would ask "what is feminism?", I would reply, "ask an MRA". I would emphatically not counsel that querent to ask a feminist, because feminists are the least likely people on Earth to provide an honest answer.

So, Christine. . I will give your present comment a post all to itself, even as I did for the original one. That is a good way to keep readers occupied while I continue working on the big monster article I am presently composing (It is the most difficult thing I have ever written in the history of this blog.)

12:43 PM  
Blogger Snark said...

Fidelbogen, I am positively TINGLY awaiting your 'huge monster' post!

2:44 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Snark:

Progress report: the item is now about four-fifths completed.

4:11 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@NotNOW:

"Younger men are learning to control their emotions."

Hurrah for them!

The feminists love to say "men must control themselves", but trust me, the very LAST thing they want to see is a growth curve for self-control among the male population as a whole.

The style of control these men need to be learning is what I would call "lordly indifference".

That would be the ticket, in my opinion! ;)

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Christine said...

Thank you Fidelbogen for responding. I appreciate everyone's comments and the opportunity for some growth on my part.

6:11 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"I appreciate everyone's comments and the opportunity for some growth on my part."

If I am to take you at face value, then you appear to be a fairly mainstream type who has not yet caught up with a certain cutting-edge information curve. That you say you are NOT a feminist speaks tons in view of the ideas you've expressed; it marks you as one who has grown up in a society where feminist ideas are so normified that they are part of the cultural air, and therefore not recognized specifically as feminist.

Due to luck (or maybe some other factor) you have landed here, rather than stepping into some MRA lion's den elsewhere where they would have ripped you to shreds and eaten you alive! ;)

It's actually pretty laid-back around here. Oh don't get me wrong; I'm as radical and uncompromising as they come, and I too can be a lion. But . . . most of the time I sheathe my claws. Unlike a lot of MRAs (and feminists!), I don't act chronically angry. I don't see any point to that - it doth not strengthen me against mine enemy. Also, it would suggest that somebody or something is controlling me, and I'd rather not be in that position. I believe my agency can be more effective if I am ruled by ice rather than fire.

7:30 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

I wanted to ask the person whose idea was to eliminate Womens Studies programs if he thinks mens and womens programs would be helpful, or a general gender studies program or neither?


NEITHER.

If I understand the history of women's studies, it started out benign - but later turned into some serious poison for women's minds.

I am guessing that if they started a "men's studies" to constipate it (pun intended), it would just make things worse - and that too would get hijacked by so-called "radicals" - i.e. SEVERE woman haters (irrational hatred at that).

That is why I do not call myself an "MRA" - here is a section on my web-site to explain this:
http://www.rip-factor.com/formen/mensrights/mra1.html

Yes, that blurb has ticked some people off...

8:47 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@ScareCrow:

A men's studies program in higher education would establish an institutional power base in a vitally important social sector. It would be a foot in the door. That much is to be said in its favor: there is nothing like having an institutional power base, and so far our side hasn't got this.

So long as women's studies (or feminist-controlled "gender studies") continue existing on campus, and show no sign of getting booted, then I would (a bit reluctantly I suppose) support an unequivocally non-feminist and male-friendly program in order to establish a balance of power.

And so long as irrational man-hating continues existing in society generally, it is predictable and non-voidable that irrational woman-hating will take root and grow to mirror it.

I'd rather not see either of these hatings, but if given no other choice, I would sooner tolerate the presence of BOTH rather than let only one of them run rampant.

9:16 PM  
Blogger Phantom said...

There are already both "Men's Studies" programs and "Gender Studies".

BUT, Men's Studies are just Women's Studies for men. With the same anti-male bias.

AND, Gender Studies are just Women's Studies renamed and pretending to be gender neutral to the outside world.

Perhaps Male Studies (malestudies.org) will work out better?

2:47 AM  
Blogger Snark said...

Male studies is coming this year, and it's uncompromising in its anti-misandric stance. About time too! It will be our route back into power.

http://www.malestudies.org/

3:06 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

@Fidelbogen

Yes, I guess that eliminating Women's studies is a pipe-dream - and will not happen...

The thought of lowering some men to be at the same level as "feminists" just makes me cringe though...

Yes, it's a pipe-dream, but it is what I would rather see...

I think that if people were properly educated as to what young women were being taught in "women's studies", the majority of them would be disgusted, and want them revamped, or abolished...

Maybe its not a pipe-dream???

10:51 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Maybe its not a pipe-dream???"

Best I can say is, it's a pipe dream until it becomes a reality. Which, manifestly, it ain't yet.

IF all women's studies/gender studies got the axe, then I would wholeheartedly agree that the equivalent for men would be inappropriate. It is only a sign of our own sick times that so-called "gender issues" even exist AT ALL. Hell man, back in grandpa's day folks had more important stuff to think about!

Now, as for preaching against women's studies until the world wakes up and screams "death to it!", I say this: in order to preach effectively, we need a pulpit. In other words, we need an institutional power base. Having such a base confers credibility - tons of it! Not having such a base makes you a marginal underground person, a "crank" whom most of the world ignores if it even knows you exist at all.

ANY institutional power base would be beneficial, but a power foothold in academia would be the absolute plum of the lot. Why, the very thought of that succulent fruit makes me salivate. . .

Preaching against women's studies from outside of academia: what chance would that stand? Uphill all the way, I'd say!

But from a power base other than academia? Maybe some possibilities there, but which power base? A lobbying group with deep pockets running ad campaigns? That's about the only idea which occurs to me at the moment.

Any amateurish and obviously low-budget group of agitators ("outside" or otherwise) would clearly lack credibility and would make headway only slowly and painfully. But a well-financed lobbying group running an equivalent campaign would have the credibility that automatically comes with being well-connected and plugged in to a power structure of ANY kind. Not quite the same as an institutional power base, but close enough. By the end of the day, power is power, and like money, it "all spends".

Anyway, at the moment, our side seems poised to secure an institutional power footing, and despite misgivings such as you have expressed, I would say "grab that plum!"

Realistically, it would be a pity to leave the feminists in sole possession of the academic field. I do believe that would be the greater of two evils in this case.

6:33 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Christine:

I've decided not to topside your second comment after all. The time no longer feels right for this, as it did when I made that statement.

6:36 PM  
Anonymous Christine said...

FYI...18th Annual Conference of the AMSA (American Mens Studies Association)...Men and Masculinities...to be held March 25 - 28, 2010 in Atlanta, GA.

www.mensstudies.org

7:01 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Snark:

From the malestudies.org website:

"The live teleconferenced colloquium will be co-chaired by Judith Kleinfeld, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Boys Project at the University of Alaska. . ."

Judith Kleinfeld is the author of that PDF which I recently linked to - the one which debunks the AAUW report about the schoolgirls. I'd say JK sounds like a real onside person. I must learn more about her. . .

7:41 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Christine:

AMSA is a collaborationist org.

They're all about "building positive manhood within the feminist paradigm."

(I've got a few copies of their academic journal right here on my hard drive!;)

Uncle Toms, I would call them.

Or maybe "house niggers" would be more like it.

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neither men and women are "all good", for sure, but women have a more evil nature, and consequently there is more evil expressed in women.

8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For starters, TERMINATE all WOMEN'S STUDIES programs on ALL COLLEGE CAMPUSES."

Feminism (the primary cause of hatred between men and women) is embedded far too deeply for that. It's there right at the heart of our culture. Shutting down women's studies won't make a damn difference - that stuff has long been mainstreamed into the media and politics and culture.

No, combating every single feminist "advance" and "goal", past and present, is the only way to change things.

Full spectrum offense against Them just as they have launched a full spectrum offense against Us.

9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once we start to acknowledge that life was hard for BOTH MEN AND women in DAYS PAST, the sooner we will be on an actual road to equality."

Oh please you have to move beyond this equality lark-false paradigm-strawman that the feminist have constructed.

Men and women are not equal, never will be, there are many irreconciliables in their relationship with each other. Calling for "equality" really means creating a vacuum in which the best armed group (women, today) take over the unreclaimed space.

You have to move beyond feminist false paradigms.

This is a war, plain and simple. Cheap, meaningless language like "equality" won't cut it against our enemies. "We'll plead with them until they back it off!" - don't be ridiculuous. That's what the equality call is essentially, a plea, a pathetic, toothless plea.

Now you might say feminist pleaded too - which they did, but in a very different way. They always outlined their goal of Matriarchy/rule by women/subjugation of men, and then added "oh by the way, we're for equality" at the end of it. Misguided MRAs don't use "equality" as a "softener" for revolutionary rhetoric, they actually put it out as a legitimate, believable concept.

There's no fighting talk - no opposition, revolutionary talk - at all. Very much UNLIKE the feminists. (And yes, before someone says it, we must borrow their tactics to beat them.. This is a war as I said and there is only one way to do it. It's not a matter of choice. You have to be a hard-core agitator, not a pleading reactionary.)

9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would say true Christian spirit is the only way society as a whole could establish equal respect for each other regardless of the sex, but equal respect does not mean that each sex has equal capabilities or should be open to applying themselves to whatever area of life they decide to. Each sex should knows its limitations and advantages and have respect for the other. What has gone in the past is neither here nor there because the only thing we can change is the present and how we interact with other people."

I'm afraid not. There's far too much fluffy "equality" wishful thinking stuff in christianity, and feminist/matriarchist women are only too willing to take advantage of that.

9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Feminism, based by Simone deBeauvoir entirely on victimhood, threw away the old rules for women, then failed to come up with new ones."

"Victimhood" was merely a stepping stone, a means to end. Women are clever in this sense, in that they do not care about logical/moral consistency; they just use what suits their cause at the time. Feminists will drop the "victimhood" shtick in short time, indeed they are doing it already.

Nothing in feminism is constant except pro-matriarchy, hatred of men, and desire to empower women and disempower men in all circumstances. The rest is means-to-end bluster.

9:17 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Neither men and women are "all good", for sure, but women have a more evil nature, and consequently there is more evil expressed in women."

Just for the record, the above statement does not reflect the editorial standpoint of this blog. So, I'll not endorse it.

However, a man's mind is his castle, and I am NOT the fuckin' feminazi thought police, so far be it from me to suggest that you are not entitled to your opinion. If THEY don't like what you are saying, then as far as I'm concerned THEY can get in here right now and dogpile your ass their own goddamn slimy selves; that's not MY job! ;)

I should note that opinions such as yours are on the rise in the world generally, and FEMINISM is chiefly to blame for creating the conditions that make this growth curve inevitable.

And of course. . . some feminist is reading this right now, and using it as evidence against the so-called "MRA movement."

(I will assume that you are not a feminist provocateur posing as an "MRA type" in order to draw people into self-inculpative statements. I don't think you are, because your voice sounds far too authentic for that! ;)

Oh..by the way. If women indeed have a more evil nature, as you've suggested, then in theory (you might think) it would be possible to harness this "evil" in a way that would be to your own advantage. It seems to me the trick would be to not let them know that you think they are evil. If by evil you mean amorality, well. . THAT quality can be turned for or against ANYTHING as the case requires, eh? ;)

Your comments (they are all by you, I assume) are interesting and thought-provoking, and for the most part roughly in line with my own thinking. I say "for the most part", which means that I disagree with about 10% of what you are saying.

I will probably get back tomorrow and share more thoughts about your thoughts.

10:27 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"BUT, Men's Studies are just Women's Studies for men. With the same anti-male bias.

AND, Gender Studies are just Women's Studies renamed and pretending to be gender neutral to the outside world."

This made me laugh in a sad kind of way, because it's tragically true.

And this...

"Neither men and women are "all good", for sure, but women have a more evil nature, and consequently there is more evil expressed in women."

...just pissed me off, evidently. this is where I think, see? Thanks all you wonderful feminists! This is the outcome of your dream world - back them into a corner and look what happens.

Oh, and of course, I have to comment on "the warrior"'s comment to my comment:

"There's far too much fluffy "equality" wishful thinking stuff in christianity, and feminist/matriarchist women are only too willing to take advantage of that."

I don't view Christianity just as a tool to be used at the service of society - because the assumption then is that any religious paradigm (proper use of word, F? I don't know, but hopefully you get my meaning) has as much of a right to be used in the service of society as any other. I think feminism is messed up and screwing up society, but in the end, it's just one part of the greater war...and um, that wouldn't be the war between men and women ("who are intrinsically more evil") but between God and the devil, <---- who likes to use radical feminists and people like you to do his hate mongering for him. Isn't that just peachy?

F, I realize this approaches the boundaries of the blog, but when people ask for solutions, and I throw one out there, and then that gets shot down, I can't not defend it can I? Hope you'll post it, despite it's inflammatory religious thesis.

6:41 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"F, I realize this approaches the boundaries of the blog, but when people ask for solutions, and I throw one out there, and then that gets shot down, I can't not defend it can I? Hope you'll post it, despite it's inflammatory religious thesis."

Trent, not to worry. You are well within the boundaries of the blog - and yes, I will admit that my criteria can be rather mysterious at times. But you have not touched any of the political "no go" zones; all you have done is say something a bit on the theological side.

Further, your remarks are interesting in their own right in that they shed light upon the central issues (feminism, etc..) from a particular point on the cultural spectrum, and thus permit readers to form a useful map of the political terrain . . .

You say the greater war is between God and the devil; I would define it as between the feminist and the non-feminist sectors - but then, I would say that, being a policy wonk and all. . ;)

I think we would agree in not framing it as a war between men and women - even if it SEEMS that way at times! Framing it as a war between men and women only feeds feminism's plans, since war between men and women is exactly the scenario which the feminists have sought to make real in the first place.

6:40 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"I think we would agree in not framing it as a war between men and women - even if it SEEMS that way at times! Framing it as a war between men and women only feeds feminism's plans, since war between men and women is exactly the scenario which the feminists have sought to make real in the first place."

too true

7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Framing it as a war between men and women only feeds feminism's plans"

It IS a war.

It would still be a war without feminism.

The question is, do we want this stage of the Sex War - ongoing since teh beginning of time - to be fought where women do all the fighting/winning and men just hold back?

Isn't it better that men recognise the way things actually are, and engage?

"since war between men and women is exactly the scenario which the feminists have sought to make real in the first place"

As I said, men and women are/were always at war; feminism merely brough the conflict out into the open, to the fore. When the dust settles, and Matriarchy is fully installed, it won't be called a "war": that "war" will be gone underground - mainstreamed into society itself.

MRAs need to look at things more objectively and realistically.

"I think we would agree in not framing it as a war between men and women"

I don't. That's the whole heart of the issue.

3:13 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"It would still be a war without feminism.

The question is, do we want this stage of the Sex War - ongoing since teh beginning of time - to be fought where women do all the fighting/winning and men just hold back?"


Taking a stroll in the shoes of your theory: if "war" is the natural, default state of life between the sexes anyway, then clearly it will NEVER go away - but merely go underground, as you have implied.

So that leaves us plenty of latitude in how we choose to define the task, and go about the work. .

It seems to me that pushing the 'war' back underground is the way to go. If such be the case, then merely attacking feminism in a narrow way (as I have always preached) ought to do the trick just as well as anything else.

But I have various reasons for believing that your theory is oversimplified. Men and women are far from being monolithic power blocs, and even if women are fundamentally at war with men, they are at war with other things as well - including other women, and of course feminism itself. In fact, many of these localized, secondary wars are significant enough to override the underlying conflict, so that men and women will make pragmatic alliances with each other quite a bit, for one cause or another. So in the end, it's all about maximizing your advantage.

And that is where strategic thinking would enter the picture.

For example, I know perfectly well that tons of women would be willing to line up against feminism. And why? Well, I can only assume that their maximal advantage lies in that direction. They ought to know.

So then, in purely pragmatic terms - regardless of what the actual case might be - I cannot see the benefit of explicitly framing this thing as a war between men and women. I do not believe that such a policy would maximize our advantage.

12:41 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"But I have various reasons for believing that your theory is oversimplified. Men and women are far from being monolithic power blocs, and even if women are fundamentally at war with men, they are at war with other things as well - including other women, and of course feminism itself. In fact, many of these localized, secondary wars are significant enough to override the underlying conflict, so that men and women will make pragmatic alliances with each other quite a bit, for one cause or another. So in the end, it's all about maximizing your advantage."

Well put F. I definitely disagree with Anon (we really should just call him the "Warrior") - no surprise there. If one could say there is a war it isn't so much between the sexes as it would be each person warring for their own ends (and even then I would argue that there is a spiritual war which vies for souls of men and everything else is somehow or another related to that). If it so happens, and it may or may not depending on what state society is in, that they feel the opposite sex stands in the way of them acquiring what they desire, than yes, it would be war between the sexes, but that isn't always the case.

If one has ever read the works of St. Teresa of Avila (middle ages) one can see that there is obvious acknowledgement there of men having the lead in society, by God-given right - and that was the mindset even if some few (certain queens - Catherine de Medici perhaps) may have railed against it b/c it was in the way of their personal ambition. I don't see how you can claim that there has been a mass war between both of the sexes since the beginning of time. Your theory vastly ignores years of history which bespeak the contrary, that the sexes were not meant to function in competition with each other, but in cooperation with each other.

I am sure, however, that a feminist would argue much like the Warrior has, that "there always has been a war, and how could I possibly laud the middle ages considering how backwards they were, and how women were treated like cattle, etc....Women have been fighting oppression and the class struggle for thousands of years..."

I really think that is straight out of the revisionist history textbooks - and the lines have become so blurred, the distance between those who were taught the true history and those who were taught the "new history" is so far, that the new feminists, the new generations in general actually, both sexes, have come to believe it actually is the truth.

I contend that the whole point of living is to save one's soul, and society has to work towards those ends - that is how one judges society's failure or success. Despite whatever accusations of oppression, lack of technological progress, the feudal system, unscientific superstitions,etc. one might throw at the middle ages, it cannot be denied from a Church view point that society was properly ordered (Patriarchy in its truest sense) and it was a time when Religion was at its zenith - it was the best society (despite wars, no toliets and paper, and no women's vote!) because it was the most conducive atmosphere in which one might save their souls.

Any Catholic woman worth her salt would say this idea of a war between the sexes from the beginning is a load of crap, because our religion admits of ONE right order to society - and it's not matriarchy! You can't discount the influence of religion on society and act as if there is a war between the sexes which is outside the arena of day to day life; a SEX WAR which will rear it's head despite a society's religious based belief that patriarchy (in its proper definition) is good, right, and proper - and that everything should go to pot without it, which it is.

Right or wrong, humanity constantly wars on itself. Period. Gender is just a side factor. It's you and the feminists who are trying to give it greater credit than it deserves.

Allright. I'm off my soapbox now.

6:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For example, I know perfectly well that tons of women would be willing to line up against feminism."

Why haven't they, then? Why must we coax women to join the ranks "against feminism"? If they haven't done it thus far it means it's doesn't feel natural or right to them, which means they don't feel it's in their interest. Feminism/matriarchy is in their interests. Women know this, so they don't oppose feminism/matriarchy.

The fact that women have not, at any point really, spontaneously organised against feminism in any meaningful way means that they are not inclined to anti-feminism. I don't think there's any point in beating a dead horse, or wishful thinking.

"It seems to me that pushing the 'war' back underground is the way to go."

I agree: but it's not as simple as that. It can go underground IN PATRIARCHY or underground IN MATRIARCHY. This society, led by feminist/matriarchist women is going for the latter.

You can have systematic, structural restrictions on men (function of the War of the Sexes; we call this Matriarchy) or systematic, structural restrictions on women (function of the War of the Sexes; we call this Patriarchy). It's either or; a zero sum game.

In both of these cases, the Eternal War simply becomes embedded into society's codes, norms and rules; and thus it goes underground; no one talks about the War because it is embedded in society itself, but the War is still ongoing nonetheless.

So the question is do we want the Undergrounding of the Sex War in Patriarchy, or in Matriarchy?

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think about the phrase "War Of The Sexes". Why would that phrase be coined, and why would it be so popular, if it didn't have some validity to it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conflict

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well put F. I definitely disagree with Anon (we really should just call him the "Warrior") - no surprise there."

You are engaging in a very feminine/feminist debating style, trent13, and I am not impressed. The essence of this debating style is avoidance, strawmen and deception. I'm all too familiar with it and the practioners of it, who are in nearly all cases, feminists.

Right or wrong, humanity constantly wars on itself. Period. Gender is just a side factor."

"Gender" is a word made up by feminists. The word you should be using is "sex". And yes, feminists were certainly correct in saying that the relationship between the sexes has EVERYTHING to do with how a society operates. It's like a central nexus.

Of course it wasn't just feminists who said this, other philosophers throughout time have noted this. Feminists took this idea and put behind it great chutzpah and political intent.

The idea is nonetheless basically sound whether or not feminists said it. It's simply reality.

"Allright. I'm off my soapbox now."

Would you like a medal or something? You haven't contributed any great insights, nor refutations of what I said; just bluster.

6:00 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Warrior:

The fisking points on the several posts have multiplied past my time and energy to do them justice (at least for the moment), so I'll offer a digest version of a few things here.

point: ALL organized systems of human life will evolve ultimately toward a "crisis" (i.e. logical endpoint) where they suffer either collapse or radical 'perestroika'. Such, I fear, is the way of the world. . .

point: Yes, I understood what you meant about the undergrounding of the War Between the Sexes - the choice between patriarchy and matriarchy. I would respond that a decision is unnecessary if you merely attack feminism. Do that, and the question will sort itself out on its own. (And at the very least, it would NOT be in favor of matriarchy - that much ought to be a self-evident comfort.)

point: To embrace, for political purposes, an above-board rhetoric of Sex War, appears to me as an unwise policy no matter which way your belief leans on the subject (of whether such a war really exists). To espouse such a rhetoric would be, in my estimation, both unnecessary and counterproductive. (Whether an assumed sex war model would implicitly factor into policy calculations, is an entirely separate question.)

point: the existence of an 'eternal sex war' is not a notion to which I, myself, would lend rhetorical sanction. And as to the actual truth or falsity of such a thesis, my position is, simply stated, agnostic.

point: my endeavor then, would be to craft an effective policy that would comport equally with belief, disbelief, or agnosticism concerning the sex war thesis, and would not require said thesis as a political talking point. I believe this can be accomplished in a number of ways that would involve collateral, outside-the-box thinking.

point: that women en masse have not yet spontaneously rallied against feminism, could be explained by a long list of other factors - with laziness, ignorance and inertia riding high among these.

------------------

For the next few days, I will turn my full attention to other work - i.e. an extremely long post that addresses some of the points discussed here, among other points. This post is stalled in the finishing stages, and I need to power through my writer's block, and get the thing online.

@Trent13: Your historical account of medieval life was quite illuminating upon matters of present-day concern, and I look forward to anything else in that vein that you might wish to share. . .

9:31 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Would you like a medal or something? You haven't contributed any great insights, nor refutations of what I said; just bluster."

Warrior: I have known Trent13 long enough that I could not possibly, by the wildest stretch of my creative imagination, mistake her for a feminist.

Although Trent's remarks were admittedly not cast in high debating format, she did voice her honest opinion in good faith, and her primary sin appears to be that she contradicted you - although admittedly she got a bit high-spirited at moments.

I would kindly recommend that you learn to give as well as you take, bearing in mind that wit (even of the acid variety, if need be) is more effective, and productive, than acrimony.

10:17 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

F thank you

@ the Warrior

"The essence of this debating style is avoidance, strawmen and deception."

I honestly don't follow at all- I don't think this is exactly the arena, and nor do I have the time or inclination to take part in something like it, wherein we are involved in debate according to its purest forms. I never took debate, and I'm no st. Thomas Aquinas, I'm just attempting to clarify what I think about things.

If a woman disagrees with your position, and is against feminism, and you get all hyped up about it and start throwing around disparaging comments, it would be small wonder that those women who are "neutral" on the issue, if they began to question gender relationships, would be turned off. Not everyone is the same, and it seems that people who are just so ready to jump all over other people b/c they don't believe ENOUGH in a certain way, are a little tyrannical about it.

You obviously have very strong, clear beliefs on the issue. I disagree with them. I attempted to explain why, and I am not understanding of how I managed to imitate feminist styled debate. ?

"saying that the relationship between the sexes has EVERYTHING to do with how a society operates. It's like a central nexus."

How does that argue against what I said? Well, I suppose, regarding the idea that gender is a side issue to the failings of human nature, you could draw the conclusion that I don't believe gender (yeah, get over it - it just means male or female - don't really care who coined the word as long as it fits) has everything to do with how society operates.

The bad things that go on in society aren't the product of some over riding gender war. I don't believe that there always has been a gender war, or that even now one could say all men are against all women, that's just silly. But it is inevitable that society (considering it is made up of humans) and its operations, are influenced to a great degree by gender relations. I don't see how anyone who has thought upon or studied the least bit of history could deny that.

Gender relationships have always existed in society but they have not always meant war. In fact I would go so far as to say, that it wasn't until the last 200 years, concomitant with the french revolution (isn't that interesting) that feminism and what would become a gender war as such, reared it's ugly little head.

It's not as if though every argument between a man and a woman stemmed, fundamentally, from a power struggle between the sexes. It was just a power struggle, and while each sex will struggle differently and with different powers and limitations, this in part being another example of how sex affects the operations of society, it is nevertheless a power struggle, of the wills.

He wants. She wants. They use their gender towards their ends, because that can't be helped (it would be more than a little weird if I started debating like a guy with my husband and in the end tried to get into a bout of fist-i-cuffs with him), but it doesn't define the struggle like our wills do.

A guy and a girl in an argument each think, "I want...." - that's just an argument. It's the feminists, arguing for feminism under the auspices of other issues, that argue "SHE wants" or "WE want" (meaning the whole of proverbial womanhood.) THAT is a gender war.

And two more things, I honestly wasn't trying to be clever or funny or... I don't know what, I was simply voicing. The other, haven't you ever felt like you had just got up on your soapbox about something and then you step off when you are done with your rant? Or are you on it so frequently that it's simply become the modus operandi for you and you don't ever have that feeling? (<--- okay, well, there I was trying to be just a wee bit needling, but natheless)

5:52 AM  
Anonymous Jessy 563 said...

Hi Trent, F, and Anon,

I have tremendously enjoyed this discussion. I too believe that if a war can be said to exist between the sexes it seems to be one of a spiritual ontology, and war is certainly harsh rhetoric used to describe it.

However Anon makes a good point when he says that the "war" would be sublimated in a matriarchy or a patriarchy. I think ultimately it comes down to the kind of society that is productive. A matriarchal society would be conducive to a zero-growth economy, which would by it's very nature be totalitarian in expression and totally unproductive, if we measure productivity by growth and the acquisition of knowledge et al. It would be by nature stagnant and would seek stasis and manifest in authoritarian control.

By contrast a patriarchal society would have the family unit as it's productive center, decentralized control over human endeavor, and a larger degree of freedom for all concerned.

Well I for one don't like to be micromanaged and told what is good for me in every aspect of life.

However feminism is just a tool in the hands of maniacal men and women who rule us by fiat. I think it is important to understand that those who create money from debt require feminism because they understand once women have the money, it will soon be theirs. To illustrate this I present this chart:

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Bevan/images/mar012010_2.gif

In addition, I would characterize my own views as humanist but recognize the current need for male agitation in order to achieve equity in most matters of concern today.

7:02 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

". . . if a war can be said to exist between the sexes it seems to be one of a spiritual ontology, and war is certainly harsh rhetoric used to describe it."

FWIW, I believe that a "war" (of whatever sort you wish to call it) is in full swing. Full stop.

It is, one may venture, bigger than what has been touched upon in the present limited discussion. And feminism (my own bete noire of preference) plays a decidedly pivotal role in the proceedings.

Whether or not you believe in the Eternal War Between the Sexes, you'd be hard put NOT to acknowledge the amount of male-female acrimony which has filled the air since the advent of feminism. Most of which (imo) men and women have been indirectly duped or drawn into. And feminism has been the primary agent responsible for scattering the apples of discord.

So. . what am I driving at here? Well, it would be, that if there is indeed an eternal war between the sexes (remember that I am agnostic about that!), then it has been artificially inflamed by feminist agitation in all spheres, and that for policy purposes we would be well-advised to take that thought pro-actively into account. Bottom line: We are not dealing with something monolithic. It is multi-lithic and therefore susceptible to division against itself.

"It would be by nature stagnant and would seek stasis and manifest in authoritarian control."

Oddly, "stasis" is the one thing which feminism seeks to avoid. Totalitarian systems in general require continual mass agitation in order to sustain themselves - whether in their revolutionary phase, or in their later more settled phase. Not exactly stasis.

The point about feminism being, that stasis would be DEATH to it. If feminism stopped moving, it would cease to exist AS feminism. Feminism's being is identical with its being-in-motion.

Or, as I like to call it, its *perpetual revolution*.

"However feminism is just a tool in the hands of maniacal men and women who rule us by fiat."

I think we would concur that feminism is a tool in the hands of ruling powers. There is no way in hell that feminism got as far as it's gotten without a bit of (male) help from high places!

8:15 PM  
Anonymous Jessy 563 said...

F (S?),

"
So. . what am I driving at here? Well, it would be, that if there is indeed an eternal war between the sexes (remember that I am agnostic about that!), then it has been artificially inflamed by feminist agitation in all spheres, and that for policy purposes we would be well-advised to take that thought pro-actively into account. Bottom line: We are not dealing with something monolithic. It is multi-lithic and therefore susceptible to division against itself.""

Agreed! Feminism has exploited the natural division of men and women, although I would argue this served at least in part corporatist and Keynesian purposes in that the traditional family did not need two houses and two sets of everything.

And because feminism is multi-lithic serious damage can be done (not least by themselves to their credibility!)!

"
Oddly, "stasis" is the one thing which feminism seeks to avoid. Totalitarian systems in general require continual mass agitation in order to sustain themselves - whether in their revolutionary phase, or in their later more settled phase. Not exactly stasis."

In my humble opinion it is hardly an arguable fact that matriarchy would serve an (alleged) zero-growth economy (the way we seem to be headed). Zero growth implies stasis from a growth perspective. I don't agree with such a rediculous concept of economics and totalitarian control however! We now have the police state apparatus to quell localized discontent quite well, that never existed before to this extent.


However when you say:


"The point about feminism being, that stasis would be DEATH to it. If feminism stopped moving, it would cease to exist AS feminism. Feminism's being is identical with its being-in-motion."

Well let's be honest. Feminism must continue to invent boogey men in order to continue to subsist on victimization or any other of its foundational ethics.

So yes I agree with what you said there. But, my point is that in the not too distant future, what we will deal with is a highly technologic society capable of dealing out stasis insofar as culture is concerned (this is where you live, this is how much energy you can spend, this is what you can spend it on). As Anon (no relation) said, it will be sublimated into Matriarchy, and as you said if we do not succeed in creating an institutionalized counter narrative we're lost. Men and women of science, invention, innovation would cease to exist as the focus becomes female the imperative changes to that of "protection" "subsistence" "safety" rather than "invention" "exploration" "innovation" etc. Stasis seems to be what is sought, stasis with complete subjugation and control. As some famous feminist who I don't care to name said, we'd be living in grass huts.

So yeah, in my estimation, matriarchy is an effective tool for creating a zero growth economy, and we now have the tools for the police state to effect stasis.

Let me be clear. Feminism is a tool being used to institute totalitarian control. And feminism seeks the stasis of permanent ideological over-class and the subjugation of men (and women) who disagree.

9:22 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Jessy563:

Short summation:

Stasis = living in a pot

Perpetual Revolution = stirring the pot endlessly


SO. . . there would be stasis on one level, perpetual revolution on another.

"Are we at war with Oceania this week? Or Eastasia?"


I have given thought to pertaining issues HERE:

LINK

10:51 PM  
Blogger death said...

Wow, that was freaking awesome.

Anyways, all strategies baring violence remain viable, extremism (which I do not advocate) stretches the mean and the mean becomes the accepted manifestation of the meme.

The men's movement requires a memtic ninja...applications being accepted!

11:23 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@death:

I've tried to be that memetic ninja for over three years. I wish there was an army of 'em! ;)

12:33 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Jessy563:

As to your question: No, I am not that person whom you mention. I am just. . . Fidelbogen! ;)

5:39 PM  
Anonymous Jessy said...

Ah, well then, that is great! Fidelbogen is alright in my book :) Your blog is very entertaining and informative as well.

BTW - not sure how my previous post showed up as "Death" must be copy paste error.

6:03 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"BTW - not sure how my previous post showed up as "Death" must be copy paste error."

Oh bloody hell! For a minute there, I was sure that the legendary chap in the long black robe had paid me a social visit and paid me a compliment! ;)

6:45 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

This post is late, last night I had a revelation, an epiphany, whatever it's called.
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth
The videos show that with feminism, men&women lose -women being the bigger losers -watch them -they make the most sense out anything I have ever seen
By turning women against men - what does it accomplish?
1. It adds stress to both their lives.
2. The divorce industry is booming.
3. The domestic abuse industry is booming.
4. The false accusation industry is booming.
5. Items 2-4 add to people's stress.
Think: By forcing people to hire attorneys to defend themselves against false accusations, it stimulates the economy. Those people are also stressed out, more likely to develop health problems. Male-Female relationships, when they are healthy, (i.e. women are not raised to be these confrontational, oppositional, she-beasts), reduce stress in both the man & women -less health problems -more sex -more exercise -less health problems.
Think of how disastrous it would be for men & women to get along.
Think of how many health problems would vanish if women were not brain-washed to be oppositional, confrontational, antagonizing she-beasts.
Women would go back to being thin.
With all the birth control that got invented in years past, think of all the sex couples would be having. More exercise, less stress -all the sex they want, not worry about NOT having enough money to afford the children..
The health industry would suffer.
The divorce industry would suffer.
The abuse industry would suffer.
The legal industry would suffer.
How much money would be removed from the economy?
Feminism is dying. Women's studies (lies) are being disproven daily. More college professors are not going to sit by and let male-hating she-beasts say whatever they want. This actually started in the 90s (as far as my research led me to believe -the one feminist instr. who said, "all men are good for is f*king and running over with a truck" -and was reprimanded for it - 1997 I think??
What happens if feminism dies?
Men & women, humping like rabbits -thanks to modern birth control - getting exercise, reducing the stress in their daily lives. Better health for both, less medical bills.
Men & women - less divorce. Better mental & emotional health - better physical health, less legal fees for lawyers.
Men & women - less prone to domestic abuse. Less hospital visits, less attorney fees for false allegations, less medical expenses.
Children -raised in good homes -less stress -better physical & mental health. Less medical expenses. Less counselor sessions, less special needs teachers,less money on custody lawyers.
Children, after divorce, given to the MORE COMPETENT PARENT, not always the woman (but sometimes still). Children, better physical health. The more qualified parent, not as stressed out as the other. Better physical & mental health for both, less med. bills for poor health, less attorney fees for custody, divorce.
False accusers -in jail -no expensive attorneys needed. The falsly accused -less stress -better health -less money into the legal system. Better health -less medical problems -less money for the health system.
Men and women will spend more time humping instead of over-consuming things like food, TVs, cell-phones to compensate for the voids in their lives.
HOLY CRAP, with feminism gone -the economy is ruined!
Economy -devastated. What's the solution?
How about a new movement -this time -target men.
Yeah -MRM, MRA, we need symbols, labels, we need them NOW!
Let's make "men's studies" -fill men with hatred etc... Convince them from the 60s til now, they were oppressed, which they are, but we'll go much further than that.
It's not a solution to the problems feminism made -its all about keeping the wheels of gender hatred spinning and MONEY!
Feminism should be destroyed -not change the gender it targets.
About men's studies: Two wrongs won't make things right.

12:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home