oday, I bring an open message to the politically awakened women of the non-feminist sector. It is a speech I have been thinking about making for quite a long time, and it is not simply a podcast or a blog post as usual, but something quite different. I could even say, something of pivotal importance.
For you see, the non-feminist revolution contains far more than just those notorious people called MRAs, and far more than whatever might be conjured in the facile expression "men's movement". That is why I would address the talk not specifically to men, but to the growing number of women—non-feminist women, mind you—who have smelled the coffee!
And not only smelled it, but drank a few strong cups and are now wide awake, ready for what lies ahead in the growing light of dawn.
Pardon me for making one or two assumptions about the present audience, but expediency requires that I do so. This is not an introductory lecture, and I will skip the 101 curriculum because I take for granted that you are already up to speed.
You don't need to be told that FEMINISM is the enemy, or why
it is the enemy. Nor do you lack an array of talking points and arguments to share with your less-awakened sisters.
You are fully aware of the damage inflicted on men by the growth of feminist innovation over the years, and you know this damage will only get worse, and that women too have been damaged and will be damaged even further. Yes, you are already well-informed about this and quite a bit more besides, so I don't need to rehash any of it. I can cut to the chase and be very, very direct with you!
I wish to clear new ground today, so I will touch upon some less common points of politics which I believe to be of critical importance—matters which call for measured reflection and response from all of us and for careful planning in the interest of policy. Understand also, that I will not gloss over the formidable difficulties and even moral paradoxes which the present crisis sets before us. I will not sugarcoat these matters. I will be very, very frank about them, even at the hazard of placing myself in a politically troublesome light. Yes, I fear the path ahead is fraught with ambiguity and all manner of double-edged things.
To begin: I'd like you to introspect a bit, and ask yourself something. Why have you aligned yourself with the non-feminist sector? Needless to say, you understand all too clearly what feminism has inflicted upon men, but for whose sake do you join this struggle? Think about it. What do you hope to gain from all of this tangled politics? Are you in this for the sake of men?Well, I certainly hope not!
Or if you insist that you are, then I certainly hope it is not only
for the sake of men that you have shown an interest in this chaotic imbroglio. For I would like to appeal to your self-interest. Your rational
self-interest, I mean. Your enlightened
self-interest. I would much rather you were in this thing not for my sake, or for the sake of any male person on earth, but clearly and frankly for your own sake! Yes, I want this to be about YOU.
Curse me, but the very last thing I want to see is the non-feminist revolution turning into a horrid, degrading, melodramatic pity party for men! Banish any scenario of that kind to the limit of outer darkness, please! I'll have no part of it!
I trust your understanding far enough to presume
upon it. Hence, I presume your understanding suffices to inform you that we live in a social ecology,
where effects (for either good or ill) will propagate across a web of causative interrelations. Likewise, I know you understand that feminism has introduced, into this web, much that was intended to damage the male population. I know that we are on the same page in knowing these things, and I know I can address you with a well-founded assurance that my meaning will not go amiss.
Accordingly, if one would poison the world against men, one would poison the world against women as well. Men and women, in the mutual fabric of their interwoven existence, share far too many base factors for such effects to be limited in their range or scope of operation. And THAT, I submit, is where your rational self-interest comes into play.
Feminism, I would aver, has brought a particular social world into existence, namely the one which presently engulfs us. And left to its predictable devices, feminism will operate true to form by adding new layers upon former layers to create that same world over and over again into the indefinite future—only more so!
Therefore ask yourself: is that the kind of world I want to live in? Would it be healthy for me to live in such a world? Profitable for me to live in such a world? Enjoyable for me to live in such a world? Safe for me to live in such a world?
On and on the questions go, but all to the same unvarying purpose, all converging upon the point of your rational and enlightened self-interest. What kind of world do YOU want to live in? And do you believe for even five seconds that feminism will construct such a world if given a free hand? Where does YOUR rational and enlightened self-interest lie?
In that spirit, and with that thought echoing in your brain, let us turn now to matters of a differing and yet closely related tenor. I am referring to the objective political situation which now applies to both men and women in the aftermath of epochal feminist change. It is a posture of affairs fraught with perplexities of a catch-22 order, and it all turns upon the axial difficulty that the social contract
between men and women is no longer in effect.
I blame feminism principally, though not entirely, for this state of things. Elsewhere, I have considered at length
how feminism contaminates the machinery of government, and the entire body-politic, with anti-male bias. I have argued that feminist corruption of the social polity on all levels finally guts the legitimacy of the social contract itself, leaving only a moral vacuum in its place.
Let the feminists preach and screech any way the spirit moves them, but they presently have no objective foundation from which to leverage ANY form of moral injunction, or to adopt ANY sermonizing posture whatsoever, toward men either individually or as a group. Such being given, no feminist may rightfully take me to task for what I will say next.
And that is, that men and women have become separate political interest groups, and that due to the extinction of any effective social contract, they no longer owe any form of social duty or political obligation to one another. It is only the outward shell of laws and institutions, combined with sheer force of habit or convention, and common ignorance of the state of things, which keeps society glued together and functioning day by day. As a social polity, we've not YET had our Wile E. Coyote moment when we realize we are walking on air.
Again, I chiefly blame feminism for bringing the world to this pass. Men and women are, in a purely objective, pragmatic and structural way, enemies.
I say "purely objective" because it is true independently
of whether we like it or not. And given that "enemies" is so ugly a word, I could proffer "rivals" or "competitors" by way of euphemism, but I think the point is clear enough. The world has fallen to a sad estate indeed, when the very foundation of society itself ordains that the two sexes shall go through life scrambling to outbid or outdo each other.
The saddest part is that most people, men and women both, never wanted this and never asked for it. It was foisted on them, slowly, gradualistically, by insensible degrees, under cover of darkness and through various agencies of psychic seduction.
But sad or otherwise, we are prisoners of all this. And the first step toward securing our freedom is to admit that we are indeed trapped. A series of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemmas have pinned us to the board, and it can be next to impossible to conspire against such a system, to rail against it, or even to criticize it intelligently,
without electing yourself among the "damned". That is just how diabolically the game is rigged.
And yet it gets worse, for if you play dumb, if you collaborate, if you "go along to get along", then you will only multiply your damnation in the long run when the snare pulls tighter and tighter around you, when all possibility of honor deserts you, and when you not only die as a coward, but know with sickening poignancy in your final days that such is indeed the manner of your departure.
No. Far better to be numbered among the "damned" who are damned only because they speak out honestly,
even at the hazard of placing themselves (heaven help us!) in a politically troublesome light! In composing such heroic words, I speak as a male person in today's world, from a standpoint that is distinctly male as opposed to female. Women, owing to their worldly situation, will not find themselves in quite the same dilemma—although they may experience dilemmas of their own.
So as a male person, I am alive to the dilemma which it entails, to say that the social contract between men and women no longer exists. I know that merely drawing attention to this puts me in a politically troublesome light, because it means that women are on their own
—and that is a politically troublesome proposition. Yet troublesome or no, I must declare it now from my own mouth as a plain truth whose concealment would do the world no good service: women are on their own.
The idea that I, as a male citizen, have any social duty at all to any woman or to women generally, is very simply an illusion. Due to the objective historical reality which feminist innovation has brought about, such a duty has no longer any legitimate moral basis for existence.
In view of the rank abominations that have been inflicted upon men, and continue to be inflicted on them in an escalating growth curve, it is ironic (to say the least) that anybody at all should preach at men about any
imagined duty toward women. Due to the objective political condition of men in these times, it is simply laughable and contemptible to prate of such matters any more.
Given that men and maleness are under attack on so very many fronts, and given that women are pampered and treated like royalty in so very many ways, it is simply to be expected that sour feeling toward women, by men, will show a steady increase over time. It is neither plausible nor logical to expect any opposite scenario.
And so, feminists and fellow travelers who blow their ninny-whistle about "misogyny" and insist on men's duty to "control themselves" are pompous hypocrites and jackasses—manipulators at worst, moral idiots at best. This is not to suggest that men should never control themselves (depending on the situation), but rather that the people who commonly preach that style of sermon are a passel of shameless parasites with no moral license to do what they are doing, and that we don't owe their sadistic windbaggery any respectful hearing whatsoever. Simply stated, they must cast the beam out of their own eye before they pluck the mote out of their neighbor's eye.
To collaborate with the feminist plan, to endorse the feminist narrative
either openly or implicitly, is to betray oneself and to betray all other men. I speak from a male standpoint. Feminism regularly issues moral injunctions toward the male population—toward men in the abstract—and yet this very procedure is a vacuous idiocy because feminism has no moral authority whatsoever.
It has only a pretended
moral authority, along with a load of gullible supporters who are intimidated by this pretense, and swayed by it.
However, there are some who will not be so intimidated or so swayed. To go along with such a regime—to drive, so to speak, in its wagon-ruts—gives it a default validation, and makes you the patsy in an ethical swindle: the kind of swindle practiced by any sanctimonious twit who goes around presumptuously commanding people to "do the right thing", and takes credit for their action when they appear to "obey". Such petty tyrants are a social cancer and they make the world unspeakably worse.
But again, men have gotten a raw deal, and by the look of things, the powers-that-be aren't done with us yet. And the fallout from such past, present and future dealings will entail ongoing consequences if the difficulty goes uncorrected.
Feminism's wedge-driving campaign will continue to alienate men and women from each other, with a predictable growth of ill feeling on both sides, and as always the feminists will focus on the male side of this while leaving the female side unexamined, and so a renewed cry of "misogyny" will fill the air along with a demand for new laws and "programs" to correct male intransigence wherever it rears its nasty, patriarchal head.
But men in large numbers will stubbornly refuse to be corrected in this way, and will instead grow more and more truculent toward women. Women will mirror this truculence, and men will mirror it back in turn, and on and on this will spiral while the feminists (like audio loops) will never stop braying about misogyny, patriarchy, male privilege, male violence, power and control,
and so forth.
The death of the social contract will become painfully obvious when the alienation of men and boys reaches critical mass and the polite fiction grows too unwieldy to sustain. What theorists like myself merely write about on obscure websites, will in time become the common currency of male discourse among widening circles of the politically-awakened intelligentsia.
But for unintellectual men, and especially the young ones, such realization will surface as a malaise
—a poorly articulated feeling to be ACTED OUT, sometimes violently, sometimes with headline-making consequences for women, yet in practice just as likely to be directed toward other men or toward the world at random. This increasingly feral and barbarian "lumpenproletariat" will not intellectualize
the death of the social contract, but their dysfunctional behavior will demonstrate an instinct, an intuition, a primitive cognition that such a thing has occurred.
Such men and boys are, you would say, politically unawakened
—and living in a state of false consciousness. That makes them dangerous, destructive, a force to be feared. Since their understanding is merely visceral and inchoate, they cannot direct their anger toward a proper target, and so they are likely to focus it however and wherever—and as a rule, with unpleasant consequences
That is exactly what the feminists wish to see happen, because the presence of dysfunctional male behavior gives feminism a permanent "job" in the field of anti-male crisis management, along with endless opportunities to throw good money after bad while digging us all deeper and deeper into a hole.
In order to thwart the feminists, and to prevent the worst in every form, men in large numbers must be politically awakened. And to be politically awakened, men must learn to know feminism as their enemy. Knowing feminism as their enemy, men will be inspired to direct their polemical energy—their anger,
I mean—in a style that best comports with the objective state of the world. For to know the objective state of the world means, for one thing, to know who your actual enemy is. It will not do to confuse an enemy with an innocent bystander.
A consensus has long existed among core MRAs that feminism alone must be the target, and not women generally.
The many "loose cannon-mouths" who lambaste women in the abstract are counter-productive rather than counter-feminist, because their invective against women simply mirrors feminism's transgression against men. Feminism made a deadly mistake when it launched a war against all men, and if we are smart we'll not commit the equivalent error. Our endeavor should be to redirect male disaffection exclusively toward feminism as an ideology, and feminism as a movement. We must dig channels, build dikes and levees, pile up sandbags—whatever it takes to harness the turbulent power of those waters to the correct purpose.
However, it is no business of ours to moralize or preach against the destructive forces we are witnessing. More precisely, I mean that we have no business blaming MEN for the damage which feminism has inflicted initially upon men themselves, and consequently upon the social ecology at large. For we know that certain poisonous inputs to the social ecology (in the form of anti-male politics) will make poisonous repercussions unavoidable, and that if any blame is to be apportioned, the accusing finger should point nowhere if not upstream, to where the poison was first introduced into the system.
Thus, I cannot be bothered to get my head in a tizzy every time some chap makes a remark that sounds vaguely "chauvinistic"—or even a bit more than vaguely! My responsibility on such occasions is rather to parse the subtext, to weigh the complex interplay of socio-political factors that might have given rise to such an utterance within our present anti-male environment, and to make duly charitable allowances.
So when a man is ironic, or facetious, or sarcastic, or voices an absolutely justifiable outrage
at the state of things, I feel it is my bounden counter-feminist duty to proffer him something better than a tin ear. I will never, but never, say anything that would make him think I am working for the feminists, but rather, I will advise him in a frank, brotherly and good-humored way that his tone is politically counter-productive and unnecessary to the cause.
And I will never MORALIZE about this. Full stop. I will play the perfect pragmatist throughout, and discourse in political
terms to him, and plant political
seeds in his mind. And I might even drink a few brotherly beers with the brotherman, and with his brotherly say-so, recruit him!
And if he continues to say depreciatory things about women, I will simply shrug it off, and thereafter only on occasion will I suavely and urbanely counsel him to adopt a different tone. I will try to impress upon him that he shouldn't let women have such power over his mind.
And once again, I will not moralize.
All right. Since I am intending this for a female audience, I should steer the talk once more in a direction that sounds like I am speaking to women in particular. I have stressed that the force of male anger must be directed toward feminism as a movement and as an ideology. But I have not talked about the role that women ought to play in all of this, so I go now to make good on that omission.
If we are to channel the force of male anger purely and narrowly against feminism, we must make it clear that feminist
are distinctly separate things. The worst mind-job that the feminists have hoisted upon the world is the hazily conceived mental folly that "women" and "feminism" are interchangeable terms. There are plenty of people, men and women both, who loosely harbor this idea or something close to it.
In retrospect, one sees that the feminists have given men and women every possible inducement to be mutually hostile and mistrustful, and that their effort has been twofold. Firstly, they have conducted a massive smear campaign against the male population both in order to turn women against men, and to induce paranoia in men themselves. And secondly, they have procured advantages and special considerations for women while failing to hold women morally accountable in their new powers and freedoms.
The synergism of these factors is particularly deadly. Consider that feminism has not encouraged women to be morally introspective.
Quite the contrary: the expression "you go girl" best epitomizes the character of feminist instruction to women. You will hear next to nothing on the theme of "you: whoa girl!"
or "you: WOE girl!"
As a study in contrast, such phrases as "stand by your man", or "do right by your man" are known to flow from the mouths of traditional conservative women. Their attitude is the sinews of civilization—by which I mean that it binds civilization together. It is not, however, what feminism encourages.
Indeed, feminism has absolutely no reason to encourage the growth of moral intelligence among women at large, and every reason to encourage the opposite—and to blame men for the dysfunctionality which follows.
And feminism's void of edifying discourse melds seamlessly with the human proclivity to be lazy and venal. This proclivity is common to both men and women, but here the tendency is one-sidedly encouraged among the female population: women are led to believe they can do no wrong, while men are potentially subjected to an adverse construction or negative transvaluation of any word or deed.
It is small wonder therefore, that a lot of men look at women in the aggregate and see an undifferentiated mass of complicit sheep at best, and feministically-minded man-haters at worst. This makes a ripe breeding ground for misogynistic feeling; it generates a set of conditions that virtually guarantee the growth of such feeling, and under such conditions you would ask too much to ask otherwise. Yes: under certain conditions mildew will grow. Likewise, under certain conditions misogyny will grow. Given the necessary conditions, both outcomes are predictable.
Truly, there are many ways that a male person might learn—quite rationally and justifiably within his own lights
—to distrust women. And from distrusting them, to travel the slippery slope into the valley of still darker feelings. So it ought to be our rational concern as a society, to starve the process that would cause any man, or men generally, to evolve in such a way. But to teach women that they are not morally accountable to men,
can only feed this process on a grand scale. And that is precisely what feminism does.
The growth of ill-feeling toward women is bound to occur if men perceive women in general to be acquiescent toward feminism and toward anti-male politics. And if female supremacist plans continue to unfold (as they appear set to do), this effect can only be the worse, and can only accelerate as time goes on. Similarly, the growing political enlightenment of men about the nature of feminism can only undermine its own purpose if a corresponding enlightenment, in tandem, does not take place among women. The political enlightenment of women is imperative
because the absence of such a thing would only validate men's worst suspicions about women, and from this, the alleged interchangeability of female
would appear (in their minds) to be confirmed.
To sum up, a political awakening of women about the nature of feminism MUST occur alongside the political awakening of men, for if it does not occur, then politically awakened men will conclude that most women are feminists by nature,
and therefore as much the enemy as feminism itself. At that point, the death of the social contract will become impossible to ignore, and objective conditions will spiral from bad to worse.
Therefore: women must be brought on board as aggressive agitators against feminism.
You see, political awakening is merely the first step; they must also get loud about it. If overwhelming, complicit silence from women is the only thing which men at the political vanguard believe themselves to be hearing, then in the long term they will feel justified in drawing unfavorable conclusions about the female population as a whole.
And if that
happens, only two significant outcomes may be predicted. The first is, that civilization will collapse and a general pandemonium will follow in which women will fare worse than presently. The second is, that men will act decisively to reclaim masculine power and prerogative before
civilization collapses, but with a permanently soured and "wised up" view of women—and again women will fare the worse for it.
You would think that any feminist would be keen to avoid either of the two scenarios sketched above. Yet knowing them as I do, I would anticipate no support and no receptive hearing, from any feminist, for anything at all which I have stated. On the contrary, to speak in such a vein will set me, as I am only too well aware, in a politically troublesome light. Yet I feel in duty bound to frankness, for it would ill serve the world to discourse otherwise.
Clearly feminism will be no help, and will cast no illumination in the troubled years ahead. Clearly, feminism must be swept out of the road with a big broom. We are all working together on that clean-up crew: men, women, MRAs, and non-feminists of every description. But I have suggested that women especially have a critical part in all of this. And the remainder of the talk will build purposefully, step by step, toward the role that women can or should play in the non-feminist revolution that is now gathering force around the planet.
I would remind the women who are reading this to reflect upon what they stand to gain. . . or to lose. This is not about men—it is about all of us. And if you are a woman, then "all of us" means YOU if it means anything whatsoever. So please, think about YOU, because you know that in a social ecology what goes around comes around, and you know that in the end it always comes around to you—again and again!
Cynics and suchlike philosophers will inform you that "the nature of woman is mercenary." But is that really true? Mind you, I am not one to lose my composure when I hear a man talk that way. What do I look like, a feminist, that I should correct his opinion? Who can say what his experience has been, and who am I to make doubt of it? For it is possible, at least in theory, that he knows more of the world than do I—and I am far, far indeed from knowing all there is to know of the world!
And yet, born skeptic that I am, I would no sooner make doubt of my own experience—and I have seen a fair bit that inspires me to think for myself. So I cannot bring myself to bar the broad gate of possibility without directing your attention to a wicket-gate in the hedge just down the way.
Assuredly, the world has no lack of mercenary women in it—as likewise, mercenary men. And mercenary is as mercenary does, so in the end all will be manifested to the broad light of day, is not that so? So I will forbear to rule abstractively about the so-called "nature of woman". Rather, in a spirit of unadulterated science and pragmatism, I am willing to let results speak for themselves.
And let me tell you a little secret: I am something of a mercenary myself!
I think we all have a drop or two of that blood nowadays; it's just the way things are. In an age where avenues of loyalty are apt to betray the loyalist without warning, how is it possible not to see the world through mercenary eyes upon occasion?
Now, any good mercenary knows how to maximize his advantage, and knows which side his bread is buttered on—and my own mercenary instincts certainly do instruct ME in all the needful wisdom of that sort. And I am trusting that you too possess those instincts. So, just between us mercenaries, a touch of renegade understanding is in the warrant, wouldn't you say?
Yes, I feel certain that critical numbers of women will know perfectly well, in the present debacle, which side their bread is buttered on.
I am confident they will know to maximize their advantage, and have the discreet intelligence to be governed by prudential considerations rather than empty loyalties to false friends, false values, false gods, or any other form of fool's gold. Some would declare that women are incapable of this, but I for one am willing to wager differently.I do not mean to suggest that the movement of men cannot succeed without female help.
Men will mobilize on their own behalf come what may, and the question is not whether they will succeed in their game. Rather, the question is whether they will succeed too well in the wrong way,
at the expense of women, and in the end give the world a feminism in reverse. If we desire to avoid the latter outcome, then the presence of non-feminist women is needful to the game of counter-feminist agitation.
Men need to see dramatic evidence that women "get it". Mind you, one does not expect miracles. If, let us say, the United States harbors a female population of 150 million, one does not anticipate that all or most of that number will rise up in unison for the cause. Luckily, no such turnout is needed—or anything close to it. For although we might be pessimistic about the numbers, let us consider the grounds for optimism: if only 2 or 3 million women and girls in the whole United States became counter-feminist agitators, that would be more than enough to put the game over the top. 2 or 3 million is a lot of people; enough to make a lot of noise; enough to send a clear message both to men and to the world at large.
2 or 3 million; that is all it would take. And if anything, I am highballing when I offer that figure: ONE million, or even a bit less, would probably do the trick. And so what then, is the trick? It is to be smart, organized, passionate, aggressive and full of energy. Quantity counts less than quality.
To be frank, most people, men and women alike, are sheep
—which is an impolite way of saying they are followers!
But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Depending on the case, it can work either for you or against you. So the needful art, understandably enough, is to pilot this effect to the furtherance of your purposes. Yes. . . if you address them in a way they can understand, the broad mass of women will follow you. Or if not follow, at the very least part the way for you, and speak no word against you. The silent majority is not so much silent as INERT. And being inert, they have inertia,
which is always a developed
quality—even a mercenary
quality you might say, since it can swing one way or the other.
Another chauvinistic stereotype about women is, that they understand only domestic morality.
And here again, the field is wide open for any woman to demonstrate the contrary. But still, domestic morality is just as important as public morality in its own way, and I wouldn't doubt that along with everything else, women understand domestic morality very well indeed.
So remember that women are your constituency, and when you address them you must appeal to them "where they live". In practical terms, you must talk about their sons, their fathers, their brothers, their uncles—simply stated, their families and especially the male members of their families for whom they cherish a familial affection. Remember that you are not talking about "men" in some abstract political way, but rather addressing the personal life of women precisely where it intersects with male life.Most women will perceive their rational self-interest to be invested in this realm,
and if you want to reach them, you must start here. This is their social ecology.
This, for them, is both personal and political—and here the feminists will have occasion to think further upon their precept that the personal is the political, and finally eat those words with a bit more barbecue sauce than they'd like.
I should in fairness add that many feminists do claim to care about their male family members. However, while I don't doubt that these persons are mentally convinced of their own sincerity, I cannot overlook the power of compartmentalization to anesthetize cognitive dissonance. The only way such a feminist can pretend to care about male family members in the teeth of feminist depredation toward men generally, is to grow a "flat spot" in her brain which effectively blocks or filters out the mismatch between her fine sense of domestic morality on the one side, and her blazing stupidity about public morality on the other. Also, I suspect that such women are practicing the "it can't happen here" brand of magical thinking.
I would gladly wager that non-feminist women are not burdened by such mental deficiencies as sketched above; that they understand perfectly well how events in the public sphere can generate grievous consequences in the domestic sphere, and that they will apportion their care and concern in a manner befitting their intelligence.
I have suggested that only a tiny percentage of women will become active in counter-feminist agitation, but that the influence of such agitators can be out of proportion to their numbers, and that many additional women can be pulled in as passive supporters and sympathizers if approached in the manner described. I would also like to suggest that when the time is ripe for an idea or an innovation, the spread of it can occur in unexpected ways that look like magic. And such a venture, to be set in motion, wants only a venturesome spirit in its application.
Such being said, I turn now to the question of active practice and the organization of it. I would like to sketch, lightly and from a distance, the outward structure of women's participation in the business which lies ahead. The structure of our revolution must reflect, in embryonic form, the natural order of life that will rise to the surface as feminism sinks to its demise. We are not YET living in a post-feminist world, but we ought to plan for it, and put up a few survey markers in advance of it.
The natural order of life is marked by two distinctly differing forms of activity that we shall call men's business,
and women's business.
And to each of these zones is mapped a fundamentally exclusionary domain of social territory, respectively: male space and female space. Over the years, feminism has worked to integrate men and women forcibly into each other's business—except when women don't want this.
Feminism has also worked to destroy male space as far as possible while leaving women ample opportunity to be alone with other women if they so desire.
Feminism's destruction of so-called patriarchy is centered upon the colonization of male space. Patriarchy is simply a codeword for male power of any kind, and it is a well established principle that if you want to disempower a targeted group of people, you must reduce as far as you are able the amount of time this group spends together with no outsiders present. And that is precisely what has been done to men as a group; they have been scattered and fragmented, male institutions have been rendered anemic, and in consequence feminism has grown powerful by filling the resulting vacuum with cultural innovations.
And so, the primary and most efficient way to break feminism's back is to reconstitute male space by any and all means—along with male bonding, male friendship, and shared male activity in the absence of women. Any action to restore the sanctity of men's time with other men will be revolutionary and counter-feminist, and for that reason the reconstitution of male space must be enshrined at the heart of the non-feminist revolution. This will sow seeds for the new post-feminist social order that will gradually emerge from the predictable turmoil which lies ahead.
Men, therefore, must walk their own road on their own terms, as men among men.
Men must work out their own destiny, as men among men.
Men must reclaim their spiritual center of gravity, as men among men.
Women simply do not enter the picture here—or at any rate, not the heart of the picture. The men's rights movement is narrowly about men and about their rights, while the broader non-feminist revolution is about all of us and about feminism's wrongs. So the place for women is in the broader non-feminist revolution.
You might say that women are on their own in this; they are running their own show; they are their own boss. They are not
the women's auxiliary of the men's rights movement unless they insist on defining themselves that way—but we aren't responsible for that.
They don't take marching orders from men, and it ought to gladden the heart of any feminist that empowered women will be mauling feminism on their own
So, within the non-feminist revolution, men and women have their respective business and their respective space. That is how it should be in life as well; it is a vision which our revolution can grow into like a pair of boots.
But all of that is to dream of the future. A worthy occupation, to be sure, yet the present likewise deserves our attention, especially nowadays while it is indeed present. Therefore, we need next to outline the exact apportionment of tasks which ought to fall to men and women respectively, in order that the non-feminist revolution will move forward efficaciously.
In our movement, men and women both will spend time talking to people in order to sway them and eventually recruit them. But there is a logic to this procedure, a method to it—a template, you might call it. And into this template both men's business and women's business must be appropriately slotted.
I will discuss the role of women, but toss in some occasional words about the role of men as well, in order to balance the picture.
Bear in mind that each sex will communicate with especial proficiency to itself AS itself.
Accordingly, women who agitate against feminism will make the best use of their time, energy, and natural talents if they give special thought to the uncommitted women among their auditors. Being women themselves, they can talk to other women in a way that men cannot, by which I mean that they can talk to women AS women.
They are "from the hood"; they speak the language; they are able to navigate in female spaces, to broach topics, to introduce ideas, to initiate dialogues with women in a way no man can hope to emulate.
But women can speak to women as women not just in a charming or persuasive way, but if necessary, in a harsh
way—voicing anger with them, chastising them, taking them to task. Simply put, women can SHAME women AS women—and again, they can do this in a way that men cannot. Whether they are berating women-at-large for any kind of reprobate behavior, or speaking daggers to feminist women in particular, they know the psychology of their listeners in a way that only an insider can know it.
Furthermore, women can say things to women which, for political reasons, men would find it imprudent to say and which, for the very reason that a woman says it, a feminist could not so easily dismiss or argue against.
Men, in the meantime, should work to reach men as men, by appealing to masculine experience and masculine sensibility. Women can witness to men AS women, of course, and do so to quite good effect by offering the inside female perspective on feminism, or by making clear to men that since many women themselves think poorly of feminism, men needn't feel pressured to support it.
Men, I am very sure, would be the least
effective at talking women out of feminism in one-on-one encounters. Best to leave such work to women themselves.
Women, AS women, can shame not only other women, but men especially. Indeed, the power of women to shame men is legendary
—although some men are more susceptible to this, and others not so much.
But this is so important it ought to be treated at length. The prospective task as I see it, is very simply that women would shame men for supporting feminism.
Various lines of appeal are possible here, depending on the cultural demographic being subjected to this operation. Men from both the right and left of the political spectrum will be found supporting feminism—the former indirectly and naively, the latter aggressively and openly. We shall loosely
refer to the latter as the pro-feminist men's movement. We focus on them in particular because, of all male groups supporting feminism, they are by a considerable margin the most mischievous and septic.
It grieves and sickens me above all other things, to see young men and boys, at the vulnerable stage of identity formation, falling into the hands of the pro-feminist men's movement. The latter have developed a widespread mentoring and indoctrinating industry, and they are always looking for opportunities to socially engineer the younger generation.
It is common to think of these people as "traitors" — but I suppose that is a question of semantics. For to be a traitor is to betray,
specifically to betray a loyalty once pledged. Otherwise, one is not properly a traitor, but purely and simply an enemy.
However, I cannot bother myself to untangle that skein, which at all events would profit me nothing. Enemy, traitor . . . it's all the same in the end. I call them simply "collaborationists", a usage I would recommend to all.
The members of the pro-feminist men's movement have aligned themselves with feminism for complex reasons, but rest assured, they would not be doing this if it held no prospect of reward. Be it psychic, sexual, political, tangible or intangible, these males are gaining something from the bargain they have concluded. Now, since I lack the time or patience to explicate the nuances, I'll wrap it up simply: these fellows are positioning themselves as the male ruling class
in a projected feminist social order. For all of their angelic rhetoric, what they truly seek is POWER. Their chief conflict is with men of a different sub-cultural or socio-economic class than themselves, and they wish to become the top dogs. To that end, they have concluded an arrangement with, loosely speaking, "women", but more accurately feminism.
There is simply no way that the feminist ensemble of anti-male innovations could have been set in place without, paradoxical as it sounds, male support. It was so in the beginning, and it needs to be ongoing or else the innovations would swiftly be eroded and nullified by the sheer force of male non-cooperation and male solidarity. The feminist anti-male power structure could not continue existing without a class of male iscariots
permanently installed within that structure.
And these men, as said, make a proper target for the shaming action of non-feminist female agitators. They are, as they have abundantly demonstrated, vulnerable to female opinion—especially in their proclivity to be "so open-minded that they can't take their own side" (a trait which may be played upon!).
Accordingly, you may inform them that they are deaf to the diversity of women's voices, and therefore insensitive to women's real needs. You may aver that their concern for "women" is essentially phony and rooted in their own psychopathology.
You may convey to them that their evident want of self-respect makes them unworthy of your own respect, while at the same time making plain your personal feelings about feminism. You may impress upon them that they are not helping women by supporting feminism, that you are not pleased by the position they have taken, and that you will not support them socially or politically. Finally, you may submit to them that they are betraying other men, and that they ought to feel ashamed. You may communicate all of this either by direct conversation, or by injecting your message into every form of media you can access, so that the word will reach the targeted group by ambient circulation.
So much then, for the role of women in the game of non-feminist agitation. I have only begun to sketch the possibilities, but I wanted to offer a few suggestions as pointers for continued study. At any rate, this has been a long talk, and I think it is past time to wrap it up and draw to a conclusion.
The non-feminist revolution is a pattern, a paradigm, a path-breaking pilot project for a range of other innovationary initiatives. A life-sustaining balance of energy between male and female may, in the traffic of such endeavors, be brought about through spontaneous forces of organic development. If there is a viable social contract to be developed in the course of all this, it will emerge from the many reforms that will be set in motion, and upon the foundation of trust established while making this happen. In the end, I foresee the day when a dynamic coalition of sociopolitical forces, involving both men and women, will pin the beast of feminism in a kind of permanent wrestler's hold.
Very well. I have offered a number of policy suggestions in the present speech, and sheer luck, combined with my feeble powers of persuasion, might prevail on one or two people to swing these into practice. Accordingly, if you've a mind to such work, go forth and share these words with other women—and men too. More importantly, share your own words, but choose them wisely and make them count.
All the best to you.