NCFM Activism Against False DV Allegations

The following arrived from a correspondent via e-mail. I believe it will be of interest, so I offer the message verbatim for your consideration. And you'll want to download that PDF for sure:

"I found this on the NCFM group board - If you do not want me sending you things like this, let me know... (You seem like somebody who likes activism...)

"False Allegations of Domestic Violence Cost Taxpayers $20 Billion a Year.* That's 20,000 million dollars, thanks to wrongful allegations of abuse.

"Families are being broken up, children harmed, men discriminated against, and the Constitution trampled on. Why is the mainstream media so damn complacent? Why hasn't the President sounded the alarm? And why hasn't Congress launched an investigation?

"TODAY, call 202-224-3121 – that's the Capitol Switchboard. Ask to be connected to your congressman. State your name and city of residence. Then ask your elected official to "Investigate Abusegate, the failure of the domestic violence industry to live up to its promises."

"Our lobbyists are working Capitol Hill this week. Your call is important. Do it today."

*Source:
www.radarsvcs.org/docs/RADARreport-False-DV-Allegations-Cost-20-Billion.pdf

NCFM has something setup for it too (I have not looked into this yet):

NCFM.org has 800 numbers to call congress. (save a dime and donate it to NCFM) http://www.ncfm.org/?page_id=528

Hiatus

I am working like a beast on a huge monster of a post. The kind of thing I call a "fat boy". I write those occasionally, and in between times I post quickie, easy items. Such has been the pattern on this blog almost since the beginning.

So, expect silence for the next few days, since I want to do my damnedest and give this project every drop of energy I can spare to it.

Don't let anybody fool you. Writing, if you are the least bit serious about it, is HARD WORK.

Patriarchy Reasserted

I link you to the following PDF, which is an academic article by the academic radical feminst Molly Dragiewicz—a follower, to some degree, of the late Mary Daly. The article includes various slanders and distortions about the Father's Rights Movement, and a close reading will teach you quite a bit about the way these academic radfems operate. Clink on the link and the download will start immediately:

http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/Patriarchy%20Reasserted.pdf

At one point, the authoress speaks of the "dynamic" nature of Patriarchy—how it is continually morphing and evolving and shape-shifting like Proteus. From that, you would logically conclude (as you are intended to do) that feminism must forever vary its approach in order to stay on top of the game and teach those uppity patriarchs their place again and again. Hmmm. . . that sounds like perpetual revolution to me! And it sounds like they don't want feminism to be out thrown of a job.

Interestingly, this article was first published in the journal Feminist Criminology. Did you catch that? Criminology! Molly Dragiewicz views people like us in criminological terms! That is how she filters us; that is how she "lenses" us; that is the sociological hillside she wants to push us down.

However, what is REALLY interesting about this article, is that Molly D. includes 'Fidelbogen' in her bibliography, and cites me in several places. That seems a bit odd given that I am not principally a father's rights person per se - although I am certainly onside in spirit.

The PDF is hosted on the website of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, a Canadian org which, as you will find, is the usual purveyor of anti-male memetic psy-ops wrapped in a "skin" that looks sweet and noble—everything from the 'in your face' photo on the front page, to the reiterated shibboleths and jargons which afford no crevice for any critical viewpoint to slip in edgwise; you'll find it all:

http://www.crvawc.ca

Put Them in a Pipe and Smoke Them!

Know them forwards and backwards, inside and out! Savvy how they think and what they are on about! Feminists love to inform us that it's not their job to educate us about feminism. Therefore, it is left to our own sovereign pleasure to educate ourselves about feminism in whatever manner would make them wish they'd been careful what they'd wished for. For truly, if we intend to dismantle their world then we ought to learn how their world is put together, yes?

Our great strength (and consequently their great weakness) is that we know more about them than they know about us—and they will not condescend to know about us; that is their attitude, and I have seen it displayed again and again. However, it is always a great strength to "know thine enemy", and this great strength waxes even greater when thine enemy knoweth not thee! So just imagine the multiplication of force that finally happens, when you know more about thine enemy than thine enemy knoweth even about himself! That is when you begin to OWN thine enemy; that is when thine enemy's soul passes into YOUR possession!

In the case of our enemy feminism, we've got the upper hand and always will! They cannot truly know us, because doing so would force them to know themselves—and that is a world-shattering moment which they maneuver to avoid. They do not want to know the truth about themselves, and in that way they are very, very human indeed, because to avoid the truth about oneself is a classic human behavior. They may be our enemies, but we oughtn't fail to see their humanity—by which I mean their human fallibility, frailty, vanity and venality. That they are human, that they bleed when you cut them, is not in question. We must learn to see them as human, otherwise we'll not get the proper measure of them.

At any rate, let us by all means educate ourselves about feminism, on the principle of know thine enemy. Be it personally, politically, or what you will. It's all good, it's all grist for the mill, and it all grinds.

Very well. The following is from an article on 'Feminist Epistemology' at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ('Epistemology' means roughly "the organized foundational theory of knowledge or knowing." Therefore, Feminist Epistemology means roughly "the organized foundational theory of knowledge or knowing organized upon a feminist foundation". So you will quickly realize the political importance of studying such things.) :

"Feminist epistemology is an outgrowth of both feminist theorizing about gender and traditional epistemological concerns. Feminist epistemology is a loosely organized approach to epistemology, rather than a particular school or theory. Its diversity mirrors the diversity of epistemology generally, as well as the diversity of theoretical positions that constitute the fields of gender studies, women’s studies, and feminist theory. What is common to feminist epistemologies is an emphasis on the epistemic salience of gender and the use of gender as an analytic category in discussions, criticisms, and reconstructions of epistemic practices, norms, and ideals. While feminist epistemology is not easily and simply characterized, feminist approaches to epistemology tend to share an emphasis on the ways in which knowers are particular and concrete, rather than abstract and universalizable. Feminist epistemologies take seriously the ways in which knowers are enmeshed in social relations that are generally hierarchical while also being historically and culturally specific. In addition, feminist epistemologies assume that the ways in which knowers are constituted as particular subjects are significant to epistemological problems such as warrant, evidence, justification, and theory-construction, as well as to our understanding of terms like “objectivity,” “rationality,” and “knowledge.” "

Go HERE to read the complete article: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-epis/print/

Next, from the same website, an article on Feminist Jurisprudence. ("Jurisprudence" means roughly "how the law works". Therefore, Feminist Jurisprudence means roughly "how the law works after feminism works on it." So you will quickly realize the political importance of studying such things.) :

"American feminist jurisprudence is the study of the construction and workings of the law from perspectives which foreground the implications of the law for women and women’s lives. . . On all . . levels, feminist scholars, lawyers, and activists raise questions about the meaning and the impact of law on women’s lives. Feminist jurisprudence seeks to analyze and redress more traditional legal theory and practice. It focuses on the ways in which law has been structured (sometimes unwittingly) that deny the experiences and needs of women. Feminist jurisprudence claims that patriarchy (the system of interconnected relations and institutions that oppress women) infuses the legal system and all its workings, and that this is an unacceptable state of affairs. Consequently, feminist jurisprudence is not politically neutral, but a normative approach . . ."

Go HERE to read the complete article: http://www.iep.utm.edu/jurisfem/print/

And if you are a glutton for punishment, you will surely relish THIS article about the French post-modernist philosopher Michel Foucault and how his ideas have been applied to feminist theory. Warning: heavy slogging ahead!

http://www.iep.utm.edu/foucfem/print/

Finally, our little banquet of ideas would scarcely be complete without Luce Irigaray. And who the hell is Luce Irigaray, you might ask? Well, consider the following:

"Luce Irigaray is a prominent author in contemporary French feminism and Continental philosophy. She is an interdisciplinary thinker who works between philosophy, psychoanalysis, and linguistics. Originally a student of the famous analyst Jacques Lacan, Irigaray’s departure from Lacan in Speculum of the Other Woman, where she critiques the exclusion of women from both philosophy and psychoanalytic theory, earned her recognition as a leading feminist theorist and continental philosopher. Her subsequent texts provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of the exclusion of women from the history of philosophy, psychoanalytic theory and structural linguistics."

And in case you are pining to know even more about Luce Irigaray, the complete article will keep you very, very busy indeed my friend. Warning: more heavy slogging ahead!

http://www.iep.utm.edu/irigaray/print/

Okay, enough already! What I've given you here will set your brain abuzz beyond all doubt. You will now be empowered to reassert patriarchy by feeding their own jargons and epistemic categories back to them in all manner of cleverly twisted ways, subverting their priesthood and violating the temple of their arcanum through the simple act of showing them that you too know about this stuff! After that, you can instruct them to shut the hell up! (And I'm sure that somewhere deep in their academic babble-bag they've got a nomenclatural appellative for the process I have described here.)

I would recommend archiving this material and sharing it, either as hardcopy or as PDF.

MRm! - Second Issue

The second issue of MRm!, the edgy new magazine of an unapologetically pro-male political slant, is now available for the enjoyment of the world. The PDF e-version may be downloaded HERE:

http://www.4shared.com/file/196480555/1f3651b4/Magazine_Issue_2.html

This edition features contributions by such notables as Paul Elam, Hawaiian Libertarian, Welmer, Christopher Vogel, Federz, Dr. Tara J. Palmatier, Stephen Baskerville, Teri Stoddard, and Zed.

You will note that two of these contributors are women. You also will note the absence of divisive, non-MRA issues. Good policy there! This magazine does not lug extraneous baggage into the conversation. Message discipline!

My own humble input is an article entitled Female Freedom and the Death of Marriage, which begins on page 42. It is a rewrite of an old CF item.

Enjoy. Spread copies all over the universe. I expect that Factory will make the print version available one of these days for whomsoever hankers for hardcopies.

In case you missed the first issue of MRm!, you can download it HERE:

http://tinyurl.com/ylfmkn2

Out There Be Monsters!

Isn't this cute? Check it out:

http://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://counterfem.blogspot.com/

The Misandry Bubble

This will keep you busy for a while. Quite a while. And you really ought to read it, to gain the benefit of the cram-packed abundance of information which it offers. This article pulls together the major strands of MRA/MGTOW/PUA and related culture lore which people like us have been creating, studying, discussing and broadcasting for years. And if you are a Jane or Johnny-come-lately to the gender war scene in general, this repository of summational material will get you up to speed very quickly:

"Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020."

That was the intro. Now go HERE for the rest of it.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

I recommend you follow the author's advice, and read the article slowly over the course of several days—there is a LOT to be digested. Meanwhile, I can go easy on updating the blog because you will all be busy elsewhere! ;)

One more thing: if you are a feminist, then you had jolly goddamned well BETTER read this, sister!

--------------------------------------------
Postscript: I have unfortunately found it necessary to take the author to task in the comment thread.

Go and See How It's Done!

Please go immediately and read the following. It is a post on a radical feminist blog (remember "Jen", the alleged MRA Expert?), and there is a long comment thread attached to it. When you are reading that thread, you will make the acquaintance of a commenter who calls himself 'D'. All I've got to say is that D is a world-class wizard! Watch him at work. See how he completely VAPORIZES all of the feminists in the vicinity and exposes them as a herd of ignorant jackasses. And note the invincible puerility and unsinkable stupidity of their reactions—they have been worsted in the worst way, and their immediate comeback is absolute stone-deaf denial, as if they had gone into shock. Watch them stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la-la-la-la-la". The education in feminist psychology alone will be priceless for you!

This material needs to be a standard MRA text. I would even say, required reading! Be sure to archive the post and the thread in PDF or other suitable format, and spread these all over the MRA universe! ;)

http://tinyurl.com/y8gwhn5

New Law in France Against 'Psychological Violence'

I shouldn't need to say much about the following. It speaks more than eloquently on its own account, and I am confident the ramifications will not be lost on my fine, intelligent, politically awakened readers:

http://tinyurl.com/ye4bhte

The only bright spot, if you wish to call it that, is that women and men are BOTH subject to arrest and prosecution under this enactment. But I certainly don't mean to imply that such "equality" makes the law any less unconscionable.

So, today France. . . and tomorrow. . . . a country near YOU?

What the hell is the world coming to? Fifty, forty, even thirty years ago, if you'd floated any such proposal, nearly anybody would have reckoned it was a dysfunctional jeu d'esprit—which, manifestly it is! Such a thing would very simply never have occurred to any right-thinking person. But today, politicians can not only propose such things, they can wave such things into law with absolute stone-cold self-assurance that NOBODY will summon the moral courage, political muscle or cultural voice to do anything about it! Yes, ideas that were culturally unthinkable years ago are both thinkable and discussable today because a slow, incremental buildup in the baseline of cultural acceptance has rotted our collective ability to either comprehend the crisis or to act resolutely against it. And so we sink helplessly, deeper and deeper into the rot.

And oh, bloody hell, I need scarcely remind you that our good friend feminism has been a mighty contributor to this . . . rot!

All right. Now that your brain has been correctly primed by all of the foregoing, you might benefit by visiting (or re-visiting) the following item—which will throw a pertaining backlight upon the subject of this post: http://tinyurl.com/np2k6r

Bring Back the Patriarchy!

Definition of 'Patriarchy': A decent life for men.

Very well, but let us now reflect a bit on how a feminist would understand that word. For a feminist, this "patriarchy" is a thing that exists PARTLY in the objective world, and PARTLY in the world of imagination—the latter owing to creative interpretation or interpolation of objective-world data. But the bare fact that ANY of it exists in their imagination, is enough to discredit the entirety of it! If it were known to you that a bowl of soup contained some noxious ingredient, you would not be swayed by the assurance that nine-tenths of that soup was wholesome, would you? No, you would fling the entire bowl away!

So when the feminists babble about "patriarchy", we laugh! We know that they are discoursing rubbish, and we know it is dishonest on their part, not to say bloody ill-mannered, to impose upon us in this way with their pseudo-cognitional claptrap. We know that they are talking about something vacant, something which means too many different things to effectively mean anything at all! And meaning nothing at all, it could as well mean everything—which brings it back around once more, yes, to meaning anything at all which they might need it to mean in order to secure their advantage over us. Well it is poisonous of them to cook this poison soup in the first place, and doubly poisonous on their part to demand of us that we should spoon it down!

Given that "patriarchy" is something which the feminists are hell-bent upon destroying, and given that most of their efforts along that line are damaging to men and effective only to rob men of power in any form, we as men feel justifiably suspicious—with a suspicion bordering on certainty—of any use of this word by any feminist under any condition whatsoever! The word "patriarchy" is loaded with menticidal semantic baggage, and so we fling it away as we would fling away the poison soup which I have described above. We bristle when we hear this word, and we are deeply offended that we should be asked to take this word intellectually on board in any way. For in so doing we are admitting defeat, granting a right-of-way to the feminist worldview, and finally affixing our signature (by implication) to what they are saying about us.

Yes, the way I see it, if we accept any feminist meaning of "patriarchy", and agree to use that word according to their rules, then we are cooperating with their plans for us. So tell me, does that sound like a wise plan?

Now, if we repudiate out of hand the word "patriarchy", we are merely standing our ground. And that is very well, but do you suppose we could do better?

I believe we could. I believe that by CLAIMING that word and making it our own, we do better than merely standing our ground. In fact, we take our campaign to the next level because we advance into enemy territory and steal their very own ground from under their very own feet!

How does that idea grab you? ;)

CF Podcast:The Sixth

Here now, is the second part of my podcast series which talks about the Redstockings Manifesto, that very important and revealing document of early second-wave feminism which lays bare feminism's quintessential guts. This pod is just over nine minutes long, and the MP3 is available via the link given below:

http://www.4shared.com/file/188510579/7e6fb50a/Redstockings2.html

In the FIRST podcast of the series, I read aloud the entire text of Redstockings. So in case you missed that one, the MP3 is available HERE:

http://www.4shared.com/file/178514886/37d2a2fc/redstockings1.html

Part Three of the series will explore at greater length why Redstockings is politically important to us in the non-feminist sector, and how it can be used to develop leverage against feminism by creating polarization. I will post this pod when I have recorded it, which might be a while. . . but not too long!

Prime Policy Directive

The flipside of "treating them cavalierly" is noblesse oblige. If you can flip from one to the other, you're on the right track.

Kevin Driscoll: Life is Sweeter for a While

Kevin Driscoll had his court hearing on 23 Dec, 2009. The judge lifted his house arrest, so Kevin's a free man now—or at any rate, more free than he was! So, no more walking around with a gizmo on his ankle and an Eye in the Sky tracking his every move. I would call that a lifestyle upgrade.

Kevin's retrial is scheduled for Sept 2010, so that gives him roughly 8 months to prepare and hopefully to patch up his life as best he is able. And it gives other people the same amount of time to spread the word about Kevin's situation to larger and larger sectors of the public mind.

I post this because I know that plenty of you folks out yonder are just about drooling to know what is going on! ;) Well, now you are current with the points of greatest significance. I will be posting a more detailed report, along with some personal reflections, fairly soon.

Meanwhile, happy new year and happy new decade to all counter-feminists and non-feminists everywhere!