Sunday, February 21, 2010

An Olive Branch for the Feminists

Is it possible to live with the feminists? Is it feasible to occupy the same universe with them? Is it workable to dwell upon the same planet with them? Is it asking too much, that we should do our own thing in our own corner while they do their thing in theirs and, thuswise occupied, pass peacefully down the corridor of centuries until that final day which sets a term to all human endeavor?

Simply stated: can we co-exist?

I ask this because I wish to clear the deck and clear the register. I extend this olive branch to the feminist sector as a gesture in good faith, and I leave it to them to make the next move. Are they, or are they not, willing to co-exist with the rest of the world?

I believe it is important to make such a gesture in order to give peace a chance. Therefore consider the gesture made. A quid pro quo from their side is next on the agenda, and even though I lean heavily toward cynicism, I would not yield entirely to that emotion until I have exhausted all the other possibilities. So I will bide my time anticipating their next move.

I'll not pretend that I wish to prevent war, for war indeed is what we presently have: we've had it for quite some time, and there is no longer any question of prevention. But although I cannot hope to prevent war, I might still hope to prevent the escalation of it. So much at least looks feasible, assuming that the other side is amenable.

War therefore shall not cease, nor the preparation of it, until the other side makes clear by word or gesture that they will cease their aggression against the non-feminist sector. On that day the olive branch will be delivered—but not sooner.

In the interim, we shall need to arrange a ceasefire—and negotiation is the customary way that such things are brought about. Negotiation, be it understood, is a dialogue between sovereign powers. And the sovereign powers presently in question, are the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector. We of the non-feminist sector will acknowledge the sovereignty of the feminist sector, and demand in return that our own sovereignty be acknowledged. Such are the preconditions necessary to negotiation.

Once the ceasefire has been established, further negotiations between our sovereign sectors will be necessary in order to secure the lasting peace of co-existence. In practical terms, co-existence would entail an unequivocal end to feminist triumphalism, and to any pretension, on the part of the feminists themselves, that feminism "is the world." Above all, co-existence would entail an end to all feminist aggression against the non-feminist sector.

What I have sketched in metaphoric language shall, I trust, be manifested in the fullness of time. Bear in mind however, that co-existence entails stasis, as against the dynamism of war, and that counter-feminist theory predicts that stasis will be to feminism what kryptonite is to Superman.

But the feminists are welcome to prove counter-feminist theory wrong if they believe they can do so by their exemplary future behavior. We grant them that opportunity. The only alternative is continued war, and the annihilation of either one side or the other.

We'll see how it rolls.

10 Comments:

Blogger Snark said...

I think that you and I both know who we're dealing with, and that they will not accept any kind of peace with the non-feminist world, and that the annihilation of the non-feminist world is precisely what they have in mind.

To them, this is all a zero sum game, and any power at all which is held by any non-feminist man is perceived by them as power which rightfully belongs to them.

To be honest, I don't really understand the purpose of this post.

3:52 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"Do you really believe that we have anything other than total female dominance and the utter suppression of the male sex in mind? It is not for you to offer an olive branch as if though you have a right. A slave in revolt has no right to demand any other form of co-existence with the master but slavery. It is for you to grovel and beg our forgiveness for years of patriarchy, and then to relinquish what little hold on power you grasp for or still maintain."

< Burns olive branch and laughs maniacally >

;) The radical feminist response *sigh* that was fun...

6:34 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"To be honest, I don't really understand the purpose of this post."

The purpose? It is a gesture.

I made an offer which they are free to refuse. I didn't have to make that offer, but I made it anyway. And so now the onus is on them. . .

Of course, you and I know what they are. . .

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Since rarely any feminists voice their opinion here, how are we going to know whether any of them accept or decline your offer, fidel?

Oh by the way I thought some of you here were a bit harsh and pompous towards Christine... just my opinion. Would you criticise someone on the brink of leaving a sect for still using that sect's jargon when expressing some thoughts and concepts? Not fair, counterproductive too.

3:17 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Michael:

"Since rarely any feminists voice their opinion here, how are we going to know whether any of them accept or decline your offer, fidel?"

Michael, the point is to get this circulating in the meme pool. No, I don't expect feminists to individually step forward to "accept or decline my offer". That's not the game here. The game here is indirect communication via the ideospheric ecosystem. . .

Planting seeds. . .

And also, to stimulate the thinking of fellow partisans in the sector, leading toward intellectual crystallization and critical consensus.

As for Christine: Nobody initially knew that she was on the brink of leaving a sect. Her initial statement sounded exactly like something a feminist would say, and the people took it at face value.

BTW: I am putting the present post into podcast form. This will be available in 1 or 3 hours.

5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is war and feminists will not cede an inch. They're not interested in olive branches, only in the supremacy of their ideas.

Anyway, to extend olive braches you have to be in a bargaining position, a position of power: men don't have that.

2:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To them, this is all a zero sum game

Which it is

and any power at all which is held by any non-feminist man is perceived by them as power which rightfully belongs to them.

Correct.

It's an Us vs. Them, Zero Sum Game scenario based around Male Power vs. Female Power (Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy).

Men need to realise that, and give up these buzzword pretensions invented by feminists about "equality", etc.

3:00 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Men need to realise that, and give up these buzzword pretensions invented by feminists about "equality", etc."

Quite right. "Equality" is just another feminist word trick, a prime example of expansible terminology - and there is no end to the possible expansion for this one.

However, it IS possible to hold them accountable to a strict, finite and formal sense of equality, and tell them: "If you don't like the bed you made for yourselves, bad luck! Lie in it anyway!" That would fix them!

Calling out their patently double-standardized and selective application of this term, in order to highlight their underlying hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy, is also a worthy modus operandus.

However. . . as a general thing I would agree that "equality" ought to be left to mathematicians and fans of the French Revolution.

A more meaningful and productive word, in my opinion, would be "equity".

7:18 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"This is war and feminists will not cede an inch. They're not interested in olive branches, only in the supremacy of their ideas."

Oh, but they WILL cede an inch or two IF they feel the ground shifting under their feet. They will do so if the pragmatic danger of NOT doing so inspires them (regretfully perhaps) to maximize their advantage in such a way.

And you're right, they are only interested in the supremacy of their ideas, but as political weasels they know that they must not be OBVIOUS about this. It is imperative for them to make a hypocritical charade, and that is exactly where a pry-bar can be inserted.

And no, they are not personally interested in olive branches, but again, being political weasels, they don't want to be obvious about this.


"Anyway, to extend olive braches you have to be in a bargaining position, a position of power: men don't have that."

I would beg to differ. Anybody can extend an olive branch. It is easy: snap that sucker off the tree and shove it in their face. What counts here, is the gesture.

You don't need to be in a "position of power." All you need is a winning attitude. Acting like you already have the power is a powerful thing all by itself - it positions you powerfully.

Consider: if somebody offers you an olive branch, and you fling the branch away while mocking them, then you look like a scumbag! But if you are a smart political weasel, you will know it's not good to look like a scumbag. So if you calculate your potential gains and losses, you will see that while accepting the branch is a "loss", rejecting it would be an even greater loss. . .

8:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"However, it IS possible to hold them accountable to a strict, finite and formal sense of equality, and tell them: "If you don't like the bed you made for yourselves, bad luck! Lie in it anyway!" That would fix them!"

Not really. They and the rest of society have internalized a version of "equality" which means feminists and women getting and taking whatever they want. It simply does not matter that this vision of "equality" internally contradicts itself. If something gets beat into people's mind - which feminist dogma is - they just believe it.

If calling women out on their lack of "equality" worked, MRAs would have made more progress by now. Calling them out on "equality" is a failed strategy, bound to fail. Besides everything else, it's reactionary, not revolutionary; and reactionaries (MRAs) lose when they are put against revolutionaries (feminists).

"Calling out their patently double-standardized and selective application of this term, in order to highlight their underlying hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy, is also a worthy modus operandus."

Hypocrisy and moral bankrupsy, maybe. Indoctrinated folk might be able to understand this, and feminists can't worm their way out as easily as they can with a charge of being "un-egalitarian". However, even if people do understand our concern we come up against POWER ISSUES, which are of course, at the heart of everything. Even if our rhetoric is good, and people can see the logic and sympathise, if feminist matriarchists have the power, then we have a problem.

"However. . . as a general thing I would agree that "equality" ought to be left to mathematicians and fans of the French Revolution."

Mathematics, I agree. Equality has a place in mathematics. It has no place with regard to politics and human beings. Politics and humans don't and never will operate on the basis of "equality". The French Revolution guys were actually just proto-feminists. They set up the "equality" lie which feminists would "extend and embrace". Classical liberalism - i.e. classical "equality" as per French Revolution, etc. - paved the way for feminism and matriarchy, as natural inevitable ends of those ideas.

"A more meaningful and productive word, in my opinion, would be "equity"."

It amounts to the same thing: an anti-reality fantastical buzzword.

The term will be abused and extended, because it's non-precise, wishful and rooted in deception. It's based on a misunderstanding of human nature and reality.

"And you're right, they are only interested in the supremacy of their ideas, but as political weasels they know that they must not be OBVIOUS about this. It is imperative for them to make a hypocritical charade, and that is exactly where a pry-bar can be inserted."

I agree, FB. "Equality", "rights", "equal treatment" is their crowbar, their political weaseling, their sneaky way to achieve their ends. But the problem is, we can't exactly "catch them out" on this - because they have gotten the public to internalize that "equality" and "rights" means female supremacist matriarchy.

2:47 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home