Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Feminism's Motivational Sequiturs - Redux

Today I will brush the sparkling golden dust from a golden oldy which has lain long forgotten in the archives. This post, entitled Feminism's Motivational Sequiturs, first saw the light of day in June, 2007. After that, it was rapidly buried beneath post after post which followed. (Blog posts are funny that way; they go the way of all flesh and become psychic compost! )

I resurrect this essay now because it think it would add a useful element to the intellectual crystallization of the MRM and NF sector that is presently underway. Also, it is possibly more relevant and topical now than it was then:
I would like to undertake an interrogational scrutiny of feminism's motivational sequiturs.

As the word implies, sequiturs are things which "follow", logically and consequently, from one to the next, with a discernible nexus running through them all. Motivational sequiturs then, are sequiturs of motive—that is to say, stages along an operative sequence decipherable in terms of a unifying goal or ambition.

Feminism's motivational sequiturs lie buried beneath the seeming non-rationality and non-coherence of feminism's outward manifestations.These sequiturs operate at the occulted core of the women's movement. Among such sequiturs, we may discern the following tacit presumptions which embody the vector sum of feminism's seemingly non-rational and non-coherent outward manifestations:

A. MEN AS A CLASS ARE COLLECTIVELY ACCOUNTABLE FOR A HOST OF VIOLATIONS AGAINST WOMEN AS A CLASS.

B. GIVEN THAT MEN ARE COLLECTIVELY ACCOUNTABLE IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED, THE LOCALIZED GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL MAN HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE.

C. GIVEN THAT WOMEN ARE COLLECTIVELY VIOLATED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED, THE LOCALIZED GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WOMAN HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE.

If you allow the truth of certain presuppositions embedded in these items, you will see that the items entail each other logically enough in terms of sequence.

Feminism implicitly seeks revenge. Revenge may be named as a goal or ambition which operates, for feminism, as a motivator. But...revenge against WHOM? Revenge for WHAT? Answer: Against MEN, owing to something that "MEN" collectively have done to "WOMEN" collectively. Or so the narrative would have it.

In other words, feminism's revenge is the revenge of one Collective (women), against another Collective (men).

Understand, that under any collectivist scenario, customary models of assessment which presuppose individual identity and agency will necessarily suffer infringement. The actual extent of such infringement will vary to the same extent that collectivism has been embodied in the broader culture. In practical terms, it means that they will push things to a prudential limit - meaning, what they can prudently get away with under the circumstances, often with a barely restrained "champing at the bit" to push things even further.

At a THEORETICAL limit, if women are collectively the "victim", then by the terms of the alien logic in question no PARTICULAR female can be held to account for her behavior—for that would compromise the internal unity of the paradigm.

So in summary, the innocent female Collective cannot (if ostensive consistency were valued) be assembled from particles which are either 1.) guilty, or 2.) morally accountable for themselves in any way.

Note that accountability entails the power to make any moral choice at all—meaning, to be a moral agent. The alternative to being a moral agent is to be a moral robot, an automaton, a toy of some mysterious "fate".

Accordingly, the Innocent Female Collective we are describing cannot but be composed of moral robots. Were it otherwise, it would be inconsistent with its own terms, thereby compromising the internal unity of its paradigm. Understand that we are not presently interrogating the actual truth or falsehood of that paradigm—only attempting to display its internal logic.

So the only way to sustain the paradigm is to abrogate the idea of individual moral accountability altogether. Therefore, by the terms of the Innocent Female Collective paradigm, every woman ipso facto becomes a moral robot. And, I might add, an INNOCENT moral robot - even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence could enter into the composition of a moral robot. But remember, we are only laying out the internal logic (such as it is) of the paradigm. So bear with me.

Must individual accountability as applied to MEN remain in effect? Even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence enters the composition of a moral robot, is it the case that men too are moral robots? Note that a guilty Collective cannot by its nature encompass particles which are even potentially innocent, since to allow even potential innocence defeats the purpose of collective guilt. So it must perforce be the case that men are guilty...but if guilt implies choice, how can such a thing be? It doesn't appear to make sense, but this is emphatically not my own thinking which I describe, so I am not responsible for that. Thus, it would appear that men are somehow "guilty moral robots". Absurd as that may sound, the collectivist guilt paradigm requires it.

Feminism's paradigm deprives everybody—men and women alike—of moral agency. Is THAT the epistemic consequence feminism wants to live with? Even if it leads feminism into trouble? Even if somewhere down the road this idea becomes a political stumbling-block?

However, I pass that by....

Feminism's motivational sequiturs are continually striving beneath the surface to actualize occult ends through a variety of conflicting means. We have spoken of this elsewhere, as the drive for female supremacy. We have touched upon it also in our discussion of "cognitive fragmentation". Many things contribute to female supremacy in the long run, even if they are doctrinally conflicting. All that is necessary is for each item to enhance the worldly advantages of women in some manner. When you strip away the truly contradictive bits, you find that the various items share a core agreement insofar as they all point toward the goal of "more for women". Anything that puts women more at ease in any way puts them at an advantage - which in turn makes them more powerful, both personally and politically. And empowerment of any sort cannot but boost women closer to a state of supremacy—or autocracy of the female will, if you will. As a German feminist , Renate Solbach, remarked, "whatever is of use to women is a good thing."

Feminism, for nearly a half-century, has been walking a fine line of respectability. They cannot declare openly their drive for female supremacy—that wouldn't sound very nice. Granted, a few feminists are honest enough to admit this openly—but only a few. A larger number are willing to say incredible things that might seem to condemn men to the doghouse, yet they deploy all manner of wafflebuggery and piddle-paddle to explain why they don't actually mean what they seem to be saying, and that if YOU think they actually mean what they appear to mean, then the fault lies with YOU somehow. Finally, the largest and least vocal number will act innocent and say "I'm not that kind of feminist; I don't hate men; we're not all alike; don't be judgmental!"

Little by little, feminist ideas have seeped into the culture at large—a mainstreaming effect. Alongside of such seepage has come substantive political victory and power gain. Those two things - the seepage and the political gain—are mutually reinforcing and mutually propellant.This has led to an emboldenment of the more radical spirits who, having once tasted the comfort of a growing power base, have made bold to say rash things more openly in the belief that the culture at large is finally prepared to hear such things without raising any fuss about it. And to a certain extent they are correct in this assumption - although they are courting trouble nonetheless.

Even so, when the radfems periodically get ahead of the curve and become too intemperately overconfident and frankly embarrassing—which they tend to do—we can predict a general movement (on the part of the lessrads) to hustle them out of sight and put a more respectable face on the movement, in order to dampen the suspicions of the world even while feminism's occult machinations continue to creep in the night.

The point is that feminism's motivational sequiturs are always chugging away like an unfailing engine, and always deadly consistent in what they aim to accomplish even when they hide behind a baffling smokescreen of incoherent tendencies and declarations of innocence.

Feminism's occult unity of purpose operates like a submarine, sometimes diving deep and other times surfacing for a spell. We need to recognize it when we see it, and educate the rest of the world to such powers of recognition also.

For example, during the Duke lacrosse affair the submarine broke surface in all of its glory and ploughed the swells many a day in blazing sunlight for all the world to behold...........

Other times, you'd scarcely know it. Perhaps it is only a bit of deck or a periscope that appears, and only for a moment in the murky light.

Finally, there are long spells where we can only rely on counter-feminist sonar—which, happily, is good and getting better! As the war escalates, we'll want to to drop our depth charges with greater and greater precision.

In summary: Feminism strives continually toward the goal of female supremacy, based upon a theory of collective guilt which is philosophically unsound and apt to trigger a paradigm meltdown at some future date. However, feminism manages its affairs rather effectively for the present by generating a cloud of confusion about its activities in order to cloak the advancement of its designs.
I hope that proved illuminating. Now, in the interest of further intellectual crystallization on the non-feminist side, I will send you to the following items on a different blog. You will find them to be a worthy investment of your reading time:

http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/01/feminist-assault-on-logic.html

http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/01/history-shall-judge-you.html


http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/01/liberty-equality-fraternity.html

Feminist readers should also visit the links given above. I understand that you might not wish to do so, and that you would find it distasteful to do so. Yet distasteful though it be, you really, really ought to visit those links. It is the "adult" thing to do, like eating your brussels sprouts! It will "build your character" and all of that good crap — know what I mean?

You undoubtedly don't want to think about the things that you will be made to think about when you read that material, but see, here's the deal: you will eventually be forced to think about such things anyway, when they finally force their way into the common ideosphere and even the less radical members of your very own peer group are flapping their yappers about it, damn them!

When that time comes, you will be sucked into a conversation about those things whether you like it or not, because it will so pervade the ambient intellectual "buzz" that you'll find you cannot afford to pretend not to know about it any more; your "pose" will be transparent to one and all.

So you might as well get a jump on the game, and start NOW, and fortify yourself for the assault. This will be to your advantage because forewarned is forearmed. So, you will be ready to face the onslaught from a position of strength because you will not be taken by surprise. Hey, isn't it cool when your enemy offers useful tips on how to fight your enemy? ;)

Now, I realize that you'd like us MRAs to believe that you are "not that into" us, and I am bound to admit that you maintain your elaborate charade fairly well most of the time. However, it is far from the truth. For in point of fact you are very much indeed "into" us; you are obsessed with us in much the same way that ancient Romans would be obsessed with a horde of Langobards or Visigoths marching toward the city gates. You are compulsively scrutinizing us, whether you purport to be doing so or otherwise. Yes, you are very very into us, because you fear our growing numbers and our growing power!

And don't forget that MRAs are only a small part of the picture; the non-feminist revolution is indescribably more vast and pervasive than little old MRA world could ever hope to be, and includes groups and forces that you can't even begin to imagine yet! And it surrounds you everywhere, fools!!

All right. Now get over there and spend a few hours studying what you will find behind those links. Go along!!

16 Comments:

Blogger Snark said...

THREE Remasculation links in one post? You wouldn't be looking for a favour, would you Fidelbogen? ;)

4:16 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Well, no, actually I just wanted to plague you with feminist trolls and hostile lurkers. . ;)

Seriously though, it's hard NOT to link to some of your posts, since they are like "standard references" - especially that one about feminist logic.

5:48 AM  
Blogger Snark said...

"Well, no, actually I just wanted to plague you with feminist trolls and hostile lurkers. . ;)"

Well then, you met with partial success, judging by some of the comments I've had to deny publishing lately ... LOL!

You know what they say ... when you're catching flak, you're hitting close to the target.

I'd actually like to publish some of them ... some are rather funny, and quite often put forward half-baked notions which I've already refuted in the main post ... or shaming tactics used against me in a post which has already deconstructed the motivations of those who use said tactics.

On the other hand, I don't want to give these wingnuts and goofballs ANY air space! So I'll merely continue chuckling to myself at all their furious expletives. Send them all my way! LOL!

7:07 AM  
Anonymous julie said...

Could you please bring up another oldie's URL. I need to show someone about the feminist who thinks we should only have 10% of men in the world. This feminist is/was fighting the university she works at because she doesn't want women's studies to become gender studies. Just the URL if you have time. (please)

4:49 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"You know what they say ... when you're catching flak, you're hitting close to the target."

Then I must not be hitting close to the target, because they almost NEVER hover around here! :(

Anyway. . . I do hope that you are archiving those comments for future analysis/exegesis. It is grist, and it grinds. . .

Send 'em to me privately, if you've a mind to. . .

5:53 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Julie:

ltns

I believe that THIS is the one you are seeking?

http://tinyurl.com/ykm5d93

6:35 PM  
Anonymous julie said...

I believe that THIS is the one you are seeking?

Thank-you. That was a well written post IMO.

5:56 AM  
Blogger Snark said...

"Anyway. . . I do hope that you are archiving those comments for future analysis/exegesis. It is grist, and it grinds. . .

Send 'em to me privately, if you've a mind to. . ."


Eh ... I haven't kept any of them.

I shall make sure to archive them from here on in, though.

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thus, it would appear that men are somehow "guilty moral robots". Absurd as that may sound, the collectivist guilt paradigm requires it."

Sometimes.

The arguments are hard to keep track of because they have no internal consistency and change as the situation calls for it. It appears to be thus- when calls are being made to change some aspect of law for the benefit of women, men have moral agency and women do not and women are therefore victims of individual monstrous men(the Poor Widdle Woman argument), but when feminist academics are churning out the "studies" that are cited for the changing of public policy, then EVERYONE lacks moral agency, being nothing more than the product of societal forces (supposedly), and men are "guilty" of "manufacturing,sustaining, and benefiting from the patriarchy".

What comes through most clearly though, is how women in general are mystified at and frightened of male sexuality,having no clue whatsoever how it actually works.

The paradigms,memes and shibboleths of feminism are nothing more than the female's preferred method of mythologizing male sexuality and women's as a result, since womens' solipsism comes into play here as in all other places.

Inserting themselves even into the core of male sexuality, projecting their biases,prejudices and motivations onto us even as they attempt rationalize away the harmful materializations of those prejudices and motivations for women, and amplify them in their model of men,this is the way the mythology manifests.

Feminism is the attempt to politicize,regulate, and overcome a sexual dynamic that only exists in female erotica, but to do so in the real world.

That is why it is dangerous, just as dangerous as allowing children to play with loaded pistols for their game of "Cops and Robbers", because actions have no consequences in a fantasy world, and deadly ones in the real world.

12:49 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"The arguments are hard to keep track of because they have no internal consistency and change as the situation calls for it."

Bingo! Whenever the game goes against them, they change the rules.


". . . women in general are mystified at and frightened of male sexuality,having no clue whatsoever how it actually works."

Then I will give them a clue. There is no need to be mystified, and no need to be frightened either, once you have gained true knowledge.

In a nutshell:

"Red light, green light! Red light green light! Just lemme know, when you're ready to roll!"

4:18 PM  
Anonymous Christine said...

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.

12:28 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"The male shadow has been cast over women for ages."

I find that statement far from intelligible, let alone self-evident.

". .Women have been hurt, shamed and humiliated by men in public and private. ."

True. And if you reverse the terms 'men' and 'women' in this statement, equally true.

"Womens model for power is men, so now they they are behaving like men . ."

Oh really? Well, I'm a man, and i WISH more women were behaving like me! :(

" 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?"

Yes. And pass laws to make sure everybody walks the line. (On an individual level, mind you! ;)

"If anyone knows of one, please leave a comment as I would be interested in learning about it."

Okay, see, it's like this: it's all about sharing. And here is my very own philosophy in a nutshell - it contains everything you need to know:

"SHARE THE ROAD, BUT DRIVE YOUR OWN CAR."

3:29 PM  
Blogger Snark said...

"Monkey see, monkey do."

Yes, Christine, that very accurately sums up most female behaviour, and is unfortunately the root of many of our problems.

Being 'equal' at the 'individual level' isn't going to change anything when men get shafted by the law.

By your own reckoning,
1. Men are / have been so horrible to women
2. Women will act like men in trying to 'empower' themselves

So then surely, women should be horrible to men wherever they can - that's the corollary of what you're saying. So what's this crap about being 'compassionate' on the individual level, hmm? I wonder how far that extends, considering how differently the law will treat men to women, given that the law will be a woman's first port of call when anything happens which she does not like?

Equal and compassionate on an individual level, my ass.

I get sick and tired of feminists and feminised women emerging from the woodwork, once they realise that men's consciousness is growing, and that men are very very pissed off at women; and start asking for 'equality' and 'compassion' and for men to just sit down and shut up and keep their grievances to themselves.

Let me ask you, Christine, where were you BEFORE you became cognizant of the Men's Movement? Were you taking a stand against the misandry you see everywhere around you? Or were you joining in?

THIS movement will not happen on YOUR terms.

Perhaps you should have spoken up sooner, when feminists abandoned equality in favour of hate. I didn't see many women advocating equality then, while they racked up endless privileges.

Don't INSULT US with this 'equality' crap any longer.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amfortas says:

Christine, you at least attempt to be polite in addressing Fidelbogan, and at his invitation, I respond politely too.

You say - "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".

An unsupported assertion, Christine, and dealt with and refuted in a thousand posts on Antimisandry.com.

"Women have been hurt,", you say," 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."


Men have also been hurt, shamed and humiliated by women in public and private and many men have chosen, out of fear for themselves and/or others, particulalry their chilren, not to assert themselves, use their voice and take their power back. Instead they have developed many, many, ultimately self-defeating ways of 'keeping the peace'.

Then you say, - "Womens model for power is men, so now they they are behaving like men in trying to take their power back. "

This is facile nonesense. Women have utilised 'victimhood' to an extreme, a strategy that is unknown in male history. Women have many strategies not used by men in gender relationships, such as nagging, duplicity, 'traps', 'Mayhem', 'Rapo', and the now ubiquitous and socially Institutionalised 'Let's you and him fight' etc, all detailed in Dr Berne's capital little book, 'The Games People Play'.

You go on. - "Logical. Monkey see, monkey do. Men don't like it because it is a mirror for their own past or present behavior."

A conclusion without basis, as shown above.

"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."

Yes, it is called 'Love', a natural strategy built into the genes which holds the other person, the 'loved', as at least equally respected and at best held far above. But en masse, it is woman who have declared 'make war, not love' on men, who have been reeling under this un-natural attack for two generations at least.

Why can't you just be nice?

7:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Neither men nor women are "all good", each of the sexes has a dark side."

True enough.


"The male shadow has been cast over women for ages."

WHAAAAAAAT!? If you can name a group of people who have had more risked for their safety and provision than WOMEN, I would LOVE to hear that one! Asians,maybe? "Asians and children first", no, that doesn't sound quite right.

I'm sure the men on board the titanic were oppressing all the women into those life rafts, yeah, that sounds right. If the "male shadow" WAS cast over women, it's because they were sitting on their asses while a man stood over them laboring his ass off to put food in their mouths and keep them safe.



" 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."


If you're talking about women's "oppression", you can save it, the only "oppression" women suffered in the West was having too much time on their hands because their husband spent 16 hours a day in a fucking COAL MINE developing tuberculosis so that his wife and kids could eat.

All the pre-70's feminists pretty much admit as much.

"Womens model for power is men, so now they they are behaving like men in trying to take their power back."

See my earlier comment about women mythologizing men. What women are doing is basically like a white kid taking up eating collard greens,fried chicken, and watermelon to emulate his black role model. Women are behaving like male STEREOTYPES, and I find it incredibly offensive,as a male.

"Logical."

No,not really. Logical is working a way around your problems,like say, using a lever to move a large boulder that you can't lift with your hands. What women are doing is closing their eyes and pretending to be the Incredible Hulk and trying,with disastrous results, to do things that they don't possess the muscle mass to do.

"Monkey see, monkey do."

That sounds about accurate.

"Men don't like it because it is a mirror for their own past or present behavior."

WRONG. Men don't like it because it's a STEREOTYPE of what women perceive to be our behavior. Stereotypes are offensive and sexist, just ask NOW.


"To what extent men and women want to be conscious of the above is an individual choice."

One cannot "choose" to be conscious of the truth. That's a pretty good barometer for truth. If I hit you over the head with a hammer is your skull less cracked if you don't believe in hammers?

Truth doesn't require belief, it can be observed. That's why what you wrote is obviously bullshit.

"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?"

I hope you're asking your fellow feminists this and not us. We didn't start this shit, you did. Very soon,however, we WILL end it, one way or another.

"If anyone knows of one, please leave a comment as I would be interested in learning about it."

Yeah, here's one. The sexes ARE NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE, "EQUAL". GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS.

The average woman will never be able to lift as much as the average man, make the same scientific breakthroughs, compose the same musical masterpieces.


DEAL WITH IT.

Yes,you may try,no one should stop you, but you WILL FAIL. And when you do, ACCEPT YOUR FAILURE, rather than attempting to rewrite the rules for yourself so you can "succeed".

Do what you're always telling US to do, take it like a man.

2:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All the pre-70's feminists pretty much admit as much."

As if the "pre-70s" feminists were a different breed, goody-two-shoes who could do no harm?

Non-sense. They were no better.

Enablers who harboured a lot of hate but kept it down to reach their goals. Post-WWII feminism is the accumulation of everything pre-WWII feminists wanted to do, but couldn't, for strategic reasons.

6:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home