Sunday, March 07, 2010

A Woman's Nation

If you are not up to speed on this, here it is now. Again, I am posting this because of the reverb effect. You know, because my recent monster post ("Message to Non-feminist Women") is still echoing in your mind, and because all of this ties together:

http://www.awomansnation.com/

It is getting harder and harder to uphold, with a straight face, the rancid old tripe that women are oppressed—and only the most pompous of hacks are hacking away at this game. You can hear these people a mile away because their voices ring so. . . pompously and hackishly! The women's oppression meme is sounding patently, transparently and unmistakably like tripe nowadays, and critical numbers of people are developing a keen ear and a Hemingwayan crap detector for all this. The "men's movement", as we so lazily and imprecisely call it, is taking serious strides and is on the cusp of breaking big. Yet simultaneously to this, the forces of evil that work against us are upping their game and growing relentlessly more entrenched in their power. So. . . it is the best of times and the worst of times. We are nowhere close to being out of the forest yet, and although there is reason for optimism on some fronts, we must expect things to continue getting worse for men and boys everywhere—at least for the foreseeable future. And that summarizes where the major trend arrows are so contradictorily pointing. Forgive me for blowing both hot and cold!

So. . . it is a woman's nation now! A powerful, official voice (with Rockefeller money behind it, no less!) has told us so and therefore, who are we to doubt this? Accordingly, if the future for men is a harsh, grim desert, then men can at least cast a worthless bag of rocks off their shoulders and travel light. Let that be their harsh, grim solace! And what do I mean by such a statement? I mean that if this is a woman's nation, then women are on their own! They're big girls now and they can fend for themselves, in their own nation. Exclusively. Entirely. And we can even "wish them all the best", because after all, wishes are cheap. But if they want the real goods, then they must "root hog or die", the same as anybody else. Luckily, since they are now privileged royalty living off the fat of the land, they needn't root hard at all.

But they don't get any special considerations from us menfolk any more. Women's issues are no longer a point of melodramatic obsession. Chivalry, manifestly enough, is dead. We've known that for quite a long time. And from here on out, it shall be men helping men AS men. If the feminists insist on upping the ante without limit then we shall have no choice but reciprocate, and the sexes will continue drifting further and further apart. Women in the abstract, women as a group, no longer exist as an object of concern for us—although we are free to shower blessings at will upon any individual woman who shows herself worthy by making the all-important cognitive leap known as "getting it".

If you haven't been HERE before, you may wish to go now, for it very much pertains to the mood of the time.: http://www.4shared.com/file/143935331/7f21a612/2partySystem.html?

Finally, be sure to read the following lengthy PDF, which details a highly approving conversation (stretching over several years) upon the subject of Female Supremacy. Yes, FS is a very live and very real force on earth, which awaits only the right moment and the right signal to bring it gushing to the surface of society and spreading visibly, as a layer of noxious gelatin, over everything, everywhere.

http://www.4shared.com/file/120477362/8fcf6d62/CFintell.html

Postscriptum: Here is a link to the original CF post (from summer, 2009) which discusses the material linked immediately above. This may be of interest to readers:

A Report From the Low Country


And here is more in related vein, from around the same time:

More in a Related Vein

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The lesson to learn from "A Woman's Nation" (and whatever else) is that we need to stop pleading to women. They only care for themselves, their own distinct interests. What we as men need to do instead is oppose women as a class. Advocate exclusively in OUR own interests, and deny women theirs - just as women have done to us for the last forty years. Whether we like any of this is IRRELEVANT, this is the impasse we are at. This is the only viable strategy for taking down matriarchy/women's rights/feminism/female supremacy.

6:52 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

Hear! Hear!

It made me want to puke, reading that socialist feminism article that someone had provided the link for. They kept on referring to this oppression, this being kept under the male thumb, and it's all crap! They are talking about creating this utopia where if women were in control, everything would just peachy. They are SOO stupid!!! Why do they think that after 6,000 years of human history, they can diagnose or provide the solution to evil in society? Their arrogance and monstrous ignorance is beyond words. It's the same old junk regurgitated in different language and with a different emphasis, using "collectivists" female hegemony as the solution to the problem.

But it was enlightening. They really are that stupid, they explicitly have every intention to acquire power and "fix" everything. I just don't understand - and this has been pointed out before - where they think they have the authority to judge. Well, they don't.

You know the movie Boondock Saints? Gosh, but for the fact that it would be a sin, and it would also just enable their movement, something like that for all these key radical fems is just so tempting!! That's what should have been done in the first place - if the government is to protect right order in society, people like that would have been penalized, severely. Well, that is where "freedom of" everything will get you.

7:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

EQUALITY IS A FALSE PARADIGM AND A FALSE GOAL.

Women and feminists know this instinctively, and in their actions they do not work on the principle of "equality". They work for the cause of a pro-female status quo. (Sure, they do not say as much in their SUPERFICIAL RHETORIC, but it is longitundinal actions that count, isn't it?)

It is time now for the male power movement to take note of this fact.

We could do like women did/do and put out general vibes of "equality" when in fact we want to tip the power-balance, from pro-female to pro-male. (I wouldn't do this personally because I don't this this sort of deception/dishonesty is the masculine way, whereas it comes naturally for the feminine.)

Either way, the utter invalidity of the "equality" concept - that ruse, that lie, that means-to-end rhetorical device - must be seen.

Saying to women: "Hey we have some grievances but really we want EQUALITY, okay, could you give that to us please?" is really just asking them to continue their wholesale rape of men, full speed ahead.

7:44 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

I agree. They want to be treated as a class - let's treat them as a class.

They want equality - by god - let's give it to them - only this time, it'll be real equality - not the feminist cakewalk they have enjoyed for the last 50 years.

3:28 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Anon6:52:

"The lesson to learn from "A Woman's Nation" (and whatever else) is that we need to stop pleading to women."

Agreed. Only I would be careful to say "pleading with feminists". Anyway, logically enough, one does not "plead" with a bully or a criminal - one trades in his own coin; one speaks in an idiom he understands! I think that most MRAs would admit this point readily enough, even though a lot of their own rhetoric (quite ironically) amounts to "pleading" of a sort, even if they don't realize it!

"They only care for themselves, their own distinct interests. What we as men need to do instead is oppose women as a class."

Indeed, it describes a lot of women (AND men) to say that they only care for their own distinct interests. And if such attitude is growing among men and women generally (I say it is!), then feminism shoulders much of the blame for making this happen.

What we as men need to do is to conduct our counter-feminist agency in such manner that women who *see themselves as a class or conduct themselves as a class* would ipso facto find themselves in opposition to us. So it is all a question of setting up the game in a certain way.

"Advocate exclusively in OUR own interests, and deny women theirs - just as women have done to us for the last forty years."

Advocate exclusively for our interests, certainly. As I have stressed repeatedly, 'women are on their own'. But deny women theirs? No, I draw the line short of any such proposition. What women need, is . . . "freedom". As do men likewise. And this "freedom": it is a good thing? A bad thing? Well, I suppose it is a matter capable of question. ;)


"Whether we like any of this is IRRELEVANT, this is the impasse we are at. This is the only viable strategy for taking down matriarchy/women's rights/feminism/female supremacy."

The strategic irrelevancy of likes and dislikes, in the present impasse, has long been apparent to me. As to the policy you propose, and whether it be "viable", the question is, will it LIVE? And if so, for how long?

My own response to the impasse has been, as suggested earlier, to declare that 'women are on their own'. Such a response, to my mind, appears viable - else I would not propose it.

Now to aver that women are on their own, is to endow them with a great freedom - to fly, to fall, or. . . to form contracts. That final point is the crux of the biscuit.

I would not, as you have done, include women's 'rights' on a list of things to be "taken down." This to me does not seem a viable strategy - either as a rhetorical model or as a policy in itself. For it concerns us not merely to win the war, but to secure the peace.

And to secure the peace will, in my judgment, involve a contract.

For I trust that some women, a critical number let us say, will make judicious use of their freedom when they see that they can best maximize their advantage by balancing freedom with responsibility.

That such women exist, and in substantial numbers, I have not the least doubt. Nor do I have the least doubt that many women - too many, alas! - are as perverse as you suggest they are. In the end, all shall reap as they have sown. But in the interim, I cleave to my impartiality, that I be not misled to either one side or the other.


In conclusion, sir, you wield the battleaxe, and I the stiletto. Both are useful instruments in their way, but an impartial world may judge, between the two of us, who makes the more qualified surgeon. ;)

9:21 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@ScareCrow:

"They want equality - by god - let's give it to them - only this time, it'll be real equality - not the feminist cakewalk they have enjoyed for the last 50 years."

Although it is a SCAM, this concept of "equality" certainly is a blade that cuts in all directions, eh? ;)

10:12 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Saying to women: "Hey we have some grievances but really we want EQUALITY, okay, could you give that to us please?" is really just asking them to continue their wholesale rape of men, full speed ahead."


Two things:

1. We need to hammer away at feminism as feminism.

2. We need to hammer away at
the issues - e.g. false accusation, Abusegate, etc...


These two efforts will both reinforce each other, and have a domino effect in many areas.

I would say that the "equality" thing needs to become a dead horse in everybody's discourse.

If the femmeroids want to yabber about "equality", let THEM be the ones to raise the subject, since it is THEIR pet obsession, not ours! WE would condescend to talk about it, on such occasions, only in a tone of condescending mockery.

10:27 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Trent13:

You've got me curious about that Boondocks movie. I'm gonna have to rent or buy it!

@All:

I shall return later to post more comments, here and on other posts.

10:32 PM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

A woman's nation of liberated STDs:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=2219672&posted=1#post2219672

6:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following are placards that were distributed on international women's day. They reek of misandry.



http://www.mediafire.com/?m5o5jfi1rmn

6:47 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"The following are placards that were distributed on international women's day. They reek of misandry."

Very clever of those counter-feminist activists to inject those memes on that occasion! :)

"A woman's nation of liberated STDs:"

NotNOW, I was not able to read those Google stat pages, but I think I can guess what the drift is! :(

9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They want equality - by god - let's give it to them - only this time, it'll be real equality"

I already told you that equality is a false paradigm and a false goal invented by feminist women to advance THEIR interest at the expense of men's.

You are not learning, are you?

Asking for "real equality" is the same as asking for "equality".

The root concept - "equality between the sexes" - is invalid.

3:29 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Asking for "real equality" is the same as asking for "equality".

One needs to take context into account.

I know EXACTLY what NotNOW means when he says "real equality". And trust me, the feminists won't like it!

However, if you want to argue that using enemy terminology in ANY way (even ironically) is not good, you should clearly so state from the get-go.

5:54 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

Not only would any feminist not like it, no woman, period, would like it. Which is why, I'm guessing, so many men support it. I'm still for patriarchy though.

6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"However, if you want to argue that using enemy terminology in ANY way (even ironically) is not good, you should clearly so state from the get-go."

Yes, although it's difficult to declare all of one's positions from the get-go.

I hereby would like to say that I don't think invalid root-concepts invented by feminist women to advance their interests at the expense of men (e.g. "equality", "gender") should not be used by MRAs.

The term "equality" in particular is meaningless and has absolutely no legitimate use in the men's movement. The terms can be deconstructed and derised, but they cannot be treated as anything other than deceptive illusions invented by women to benefit their interests at the expense of men. They are fundamentally illegitimate and invalid.

There, my positions on this point are declared.

It should be self-evident that equality between the sexes is unattainable, a false paradigm and a false goal. Alas, it isn't self-evident for most; even MRAs use this fraudulent feminist terminology.

"I know EXACTLY what NotNOW means when he says "real equality". And trust me, the feminists won't like it!"

When NotNOW mentions "real equality" it cannot mean anything other than the false concepts of "equality between the sexes" and "sexual equality", which feed into feminism, which takes the free space of equality as licence to destroy men's rights.

7:01 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"I hereby would like to say that I don't think invalid root-concepts invented by feminist women to advance their interests at the expense of men (e.g. "equality", "gender") should not be used by MRAs."

You DON'T think they should NOT be used? Meaning, you think they SHOULD be used? ;)

"When NotNOW mentions "real equality" it cannot mean anything other than the false concepts of "equality between the sexes" and "sexual equality", which feed into feminism, which takes the free space of equality as licence to destroy men's rights."

Agreed that the feminist term "equality" should not be used in formal speech, writing and argumentation.

NotNOW was, of course, being sarcastic. I am occasionally guilty of sarcasm myself! ;)

(Insert tongue in cheek!)

6:09 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"I disagree also on your point of feminists "not allowing dialogue" to be "just for appearances". Like so much else, "zero-dialogue and zero-compromise" is an essential part of the feminist ideology/spirit, they are not just "putting it on for an act"."

No, my point was that they (the feminists) will sometimes put on a shallow charade of allowing "dialogue" - just for appearances. Say what you will, but they (some of them anyway) ARE sensitive to outside opinion. (Again, for appearances. They know that bad opinion of outsiders can in SOME cases damage them. MRAs know it too, which is exactly why they seek to arouse such opinion.)

"Feminist lies and anti-man hate have been peddled for centuries, feminists have had total free reign for the last forty years; why are people going to suddenly wake up now and scrutinise them?"

Judging by the growing number of anti-feminist voices, and the feminists' evident discomfiture, people indeed can and will "wake up and scrutinize them." Unless I am hallucinating, this is veritably HAPPENING.

6:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home