Friday, July 30, 2010

What the Sisterhood Talks About
in Closed Sessions

Here I go again, sending you away for offshore reading. The following is (in the author's words) "a hypothetical commentary that contains real facts", meaning it was not actually written by a feminist, but is rather a summary (or distillation) of MRA conclusions based on years of study. However, it employs the postulated voice of a feminist as a literary vehicle to convey its message. So please understand: this is emphatically NOT an opus in the "Elders of Zion" tradition—heaven help us, it is far more truthful than that!

But now, the customary dangling snippet, for bait:
"The goal of feminism is to obtain power and control over the things which we are able to be dependent on men for while creating the options and choices that allow us to depend on men when we want to without explicitly needing them and thus “independence”. This, combined with our sexual barganing power will allow us to dominate and control men in their public lives i.e. on a societal level and in their personal lives and relationships. If we can gain such control men will have no choice but to continue to do what they have always done for us anyway, namely provide resources to us and sacrifice for us and this includes their very lives. Women will have more choices than ever before and less reciprocal obligation or liabilities to men at the same time... We will be liberated. We now have choices and men do not."
Very well, you will want to read all of this. Warning: it is long. But. . you will want to read it all! I mean that seriously, and you know me—I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true:

This is strong stuff; in fact, stronger than I myself would publish! It is a grim tableau of the future which the author sets before us; grim not only for its predictions, but for what it says about the growing alienation among men toward women. I monitor these things pretty closely, and if you are a newcomer to all of this—especially a non-feminist woman wishing to help in some way—then I can hardly overstate the case: this is all very, very REAL, and is growing steadily worse.

More and more men all the time are drifting toward a settled conviction that women are evil, mercenary animals who cannot be trusted. And you can hardly blame these men for feeling that way, when so much in our present-day culture conspires to lend weight and bear witness (if falsely?) to the possible veracity of such dark conclusions.


For many years, the feminist endeavor has been to drive a wedge between men and women—to infect the atmosphere between them, to poison the water between them, to render normal, natural productive relations impossible between them. And the present deteriorating state of social existence will testify to the considerable success of feminist efforts.

Make no mistake: feminists are aggressive, driven, worldly-minded, "alpha" people—full of vanity and craving! They are not mellow. They are not laid-back. They are not philosophers. They do not have "the gift to be simple."

Feminism has quite willfully and skillfully set men and women at odds with each other, almost at each other's throats, by undermining their sense of shared interest and mutual obligation. Moral constraints upon women's behavior have been largely redefined as forms of "oppression" or "controlling" - as if anybody could hope to go through life with no occasional sense of "heaviness" and absolved from even self-control?

The feminists love to toss around the word "misogyny" as a kind of pan-womanistic moral atom-bomb device, a way to stampede ALL women into a state of cooperative moral panic—even women who wouldn't normally give feminism the time of day! It is a way to sell feminism by high-pressure sales tactics, since misogyny is a kind of ambient poison that would (in theory anyway) strike women universally and irrespectively.

And yet, the growth of "misogyny" is positively guaranteed to happen under the septic conditions which feminist innovation has introduced into the world. There is no conceivable way it couldn't happen! For years, feminism has been like a busy farmer, growing misogyny like a crop: mulching, manuring, disking, harrowing, plowing, sowing, constantly bringing new acreage under cultivation—and reaping progressively bigger harvests!

So, the present state of social existence pushes men and women both down an escalating spiral of bad behavior and mutual recrimination, and the worst of it is that the average man OR woman doesn't know what is really going on, and accordingly takes appearances at face value, falling into the same trap time and time again at every iteration of the cycle.

And feminism grants women a free license to do their worst at every stage. . . while men are held fully accountable for every misstep or misdeed, and for every cross word about women that might roll off their tongues for any reason whatsoever!

At any rate, one thing is certain: if present trends continue, then "misogyny" will grow and grow. And the feminists will never stop blaming men for this—for if they did, they would, ipso facto, no longer be feminist. But if non-feminist women in appreciable numbers don't ultimately wake up, hoist their colors, and raise their voices militantly against feminism and feminists, then men shall be entitled to draw the worst conclusion about women that might ultimately seem right to them. That day, of course, is not yet. However, it is not looming smaller on the horizon.

I thank the anonymous commenter who shared the first-linked item above. That same commenter kindly shared some other links, and I pass them along with recommendation:

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

A Growing Urban Cancer

As I was surfing around today, keeping a weather-eye on the world as my manner is, I chanced upon the following:

It is the website of a Real New Yorker. Specifically, a Brooklynite who is madder than hell about the devouring plague of young, parentally-bankrolled, bohemian, artsy-fartsy, loft-dwelling, roof-partying, gentrifying children of the Ruling Class (from Upper Trustfund, Connecticut or Latte-Liberalville, Oregon) known as "hipsters" - who are invading his old, beloved neighborhoods like bedbugs, and driving out the regular working folk who have always lived there.

I recently blogged about the Ruling Class—in fact, very recently. Do you recall?

And these new-fangled young 'uns are not simply the spawn of the Ruling Class: they are themselves (by their own ipse dixit) the cultural ruling class! Yes, I once heard one of them say exactly that very thing! That's pretty hard to take, isn't it?

The author of the Diehipster blog sketches, for our educational benefit, the contours of a new social war zone which is shaping up not only in Brooklyn, but in cities (and entire regions) everywhere. And yes: by way of confirmation, I can vouch that Portland, Oregon (in my neck of the woods) was NOT always what it is now!

And the solution to the hipster-bedbug invasion? Diehipster has a modest proposal, which he iterates periodically: turn them into dogfood! And Diehipster has a string of other fiendish methods up his sleeve, which you'll learn about if you spend some time at his website.

You will find that a very large proportion of the ditzy, pompous, arrogant, privileged young third-wave feminists whom we so dearly love - including many of your fave bloggers! - seep from the very same social layers we have been considering. "Guilty lefties", as a rule, originate further up the socioeconomic ladder—and the higher on the ladder, the greater the concentration of such people. This inclines me to suspect that they feel guilty precisely because they are more likely to have a reason to do so! And external consideration of their cultural behaviors would appear to bear this out.

Amanda Marcotte, the feminist blogger at pandagon.netand member of the Ruling Class—who royally stuck her foot in her mouth on the subject of false rape accusations, has deserted her native Texas and settled into one of the hipster enclaves in Brooklyn. Too many Republicans and rednecks in Texas, don'cha know? And even though Austin is also a hipster enclave, the Big Apple must be quite the change for a Texas gal like Amanda—and besides, Jessica Valenti lives practically next door, in Queens, so the two of them can hang out! Cool, huh?

Here we see Amanda in her new "digs"—she hasn't quite unpacked yet. And hey, look . . she even has a cat!

I'm certain that Amanda will enjoy a fun, stimulating lifestyle among the smart, cool, avant-garde critters who compose the bulk of her new neighbors. And when she is out and about, I've no doubt she will savor the residual ambiance of urban grittiness that lingers as a memory of former times. I, too, dig that kind of ambiance!

So, I wonder how much Amanda pays for that flat, and what Average Working Joe paid for it back in the day?

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Soup: It Thickens!

The following is worthy of slow, thoughtful reading and re-reading:

The subject of the above-linked article is not, of course, feminism. At least not directly. And yet, the political blueprint which the article lays out for our inspection is a template which feminism very directly mirrors and participates in.

Long-time MRAs know the feeling well: both the feminists and the left-progressive political tribe consider folk such as ourselves to be ignorant, dirty farm animals, or at best unruly children, whose intelligence and moral competence are not to be taken seriously. All evidence to the contrary is quickly brushed aside or "explained away".

But MRAs are not the only ones who know this feeling! And the above-linked article enlarges—
with considerable nuance, eloquence and erudition—upon the theme of left-wing moral arrogance toward the rest of the world. Their base psychology is materially akin to racism or colonialism. Both the feminists and their political peer group believe they are the vanguard of cultural evolution, and at the same time they have (as the author explains) achieved a controlling power-lock upon the machinery of state in most of its dimensions. Those two things, moral arrogance and political power, are a poisonous combination—and the poison is accumulating. This new Ruling Class is on a roll, is invincibly ignorant about its own capacity for evil, and . . . is due to get its nose bloodied!

There! That was a nervy thing to say—but I said it!

The article talks about the state of politics in the USA, but a very similar Ruling Class has arisen in other nations as well—especially in the Anglosphere. Just ask anybody in England, for example, if any of this resonates for them! I believe it is the same Ruling Class everywhere, and the same Country Party that needs to rise up against it.

Over three years ago I blogged upon related matters, and I am gratified to see so much in this recent article that dovetails with my own vision:

Now, although we as activated non-feminists ought to keep our political focus largely upon feminism and whatever damages feminism, it will certainly profit us to navigate with the broader terrain in mind, and tip the hat occasionally to our cohorts in the Country Party at large.

A more expansive application of the following tract will suggest itself if you consider that the polarity of Progressive v. Country Party is very closely analogous to the polarity of Feminist v. Non-feminist:

Again, I recommend reading the first-linked article slowly, thoroughly and repeatedly. I would also recommend archiving a copy for future study, and sharing the material with others.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

New Blog: Balance of Power

Here is a new pro-male blog with a political/philosophical "policy wonk" orientation that is very much to my taste. It has been open for business for a few weeks now, and I should have posted this intro sooner, but anyway . . .

I have linked to a post with a uniquely clever message that is right on target, and I hope (seriously!) that it will form the nucleus for an entire "movement within the Movement":

Friday, July 23, 2010

"I Blame Patriarchy, of Course!"

Auckland, New Zealand- A teenage girl was in state care when she crept into a former boyfriend's home, doused his clothes in absinthe and started a fire which burned his mother to death:

Thursday, July 22, 2010

The Diverse Politics of Starvation

The man you see in this picture is named Len Miskulin. He is wasting away for lack of food, and the sign to the left of him reads: "On hunger strike, 59, homeless, robbed of all assets."

Len Miskulin (native of Croatia) is a father who has been denied contact with his children for ten years. Here we see him encamped on the green across from Westminster in London.

The green did I say? Well no, looks like it is the brown! Puts me in mind of a neglected city park in Yakima, Washington, USA, in the blast-furnace heat of an eastern Washington summer.

And right now, somebody is plaintively asking: "But. . but . . what's this got to do with feminism??"

Anyway, I am grateful to George Rolph in England for sending me this photo—along with his accompanying article, which talks a lot about Len Miskulin and . . . other people.

George's article is a bit lengthy, so I have posted it in a supplementary blog in order not to overshadow the proportions of the present blog.

You'll want to read George's article. Trust me, you will want to read it:

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

New Blog: Man of the Month

I have just been informed (by e-mail) of a new pro-male blog. Here it is; check it out:

I am glad to see the honorarium given to Roy Den Hollander.

I will be adding MOTM to my link list in the near future.

UPDATE: This has been done.

CF Podcast: The Fourteenth

Here is the latest Counter-feminist podcast, titled The Bright Line:

Feminism does not hold women morally accountable, although it seeks by clever devices to camouflage this fact. However, this fact is fatal to feminism because it morally isolates feminism from non-feminism, and makes feminism available as a target.

Personal copies of the MP3 are available for download, as always. Get yours HERE:

Propagate them if you've a mind to do so.

The Bright Line

Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide . . . greetings!

The talk today has a very simple title. It is called "The Bright Line".

In this talk, I would like to explain the most damning and revealing thing it is possible to know about feminism. I say damning and revealing, and my choice of words is well considered. It damns feminism not only by revealing its fundamentally damnable nature, but by revealing a principle which infallibly isolates feminism from the rest of the moral universe, and makes it available as a target.

Let me tell you how it is. Feminism offers women a generous system of incentives to indulge their baser human proclivities, but offers little or no incentive in the opposite direction. For you see, If women were held morally accountable to any meaningful extent, especially in their dealings with men, it would set feminism on a slippery slope toward extinction. Call that the executive summary. Now let's dig into the fine points.

Feminism, as I have explained elsewhere, is built upon a system of manichean essentialism. This, like any kind of manicheism, holds that good and evil are a categorically absolute duality. And like any kind of essentialism, it holds that certain qualities are inherent to an object from the moment of its creation - factory-installed if you will.

Thus, the manichean essentialism of feminism holds that women are categorically good by nature, and men categorically evil. As a principle for daily application, this translates as: men in their essence are morally inferior to women; therefore men are the bad guys when any conflict with women arises.

Now, almost any self-declared feminist would deny that manichean essentialism is a feminist doctrine—and I doubt that you would find it flatly stated anywhere in the allegedly "official" corpus of feminist writings. After all, it's a nervy thing for even a radical feminist to say! Even Mary Daly doesn't quite say it unequivocally, and as for Valerie Solanas - well, you know the drill: she's "not really a feminist".

So in order to uncloak feminism's manichean essentialism, you must proceed by reverse investigation from other feminist ideas, or from commonplace feminist behaviors. The presence of such ideas or behaviors will logically signal the existence of a certain prior concept, on the principle that where there is smoke there is fire.

And what we find is, that real-life feminists persistently behave in a style that comports with manichean essentialism—as if this were a motivating subtext at the bottom of all their words and deeds. Listen closely and you will catch the sound of it, like a serpent hissing deep inside the woodpile: "Sssssss! Man bad! Woman good!"

How, for example, to explain the almost unfailing feminist habit of letting women off the hook for nearly any transgression large or small - especially if it gains wide exposure in the media? Such feminist behavior seems to operate with even greater force when the transgression involves a man.

Yes. Feminism, as an ideology and as a movement, must always put women in the right and men in the wrong. And why is this? Because: feminism equals female supremacism. Female supremacism is an objectively real force in the world, a culture virus borne by many people who reveal it in many ways, and whatever you might think feminism is, it can neither exist in moral isolation from the reality of female supremacism, or fail to adopt a consistent moral stance toward that reality.

Manichean essentialism is the metaphysical cornerstone for female supremacism: it is the tiger in the female supremacist tank, and without it, female supremacism wouldn't travel far at all. And the distillation of female supremacism in practice, is to give women the upper hand over men in every possible situation.

In order to rationalize female supremacism, feminist apologetics begins with a conspiracy theory of history, known as patriarchy theory. According to patriarchy theory, men have always held most of the power on earth, and have employed this power willfully to trap women in a state of subjugation. Patriarchy theory, you would say, is a macro-construct, and yet it purports to explain all of life—even daily life at the micro-level.

Feminism wouldn't survive long without patriarchy theory because it would need to treat both men and women as individuals with moral agency. If feminist analysis had to factor life in all of its moral complexity and shades of grey, it would never develop enough traction to either make political headway or justify feminism's existence in the first place.

Luckily, patriarchy theory rides to the rescue and makes life morally simple. Women, we are given to understand, lack equal power under the patriarchy system and so are constantly driven to "game" that system in order to level the playing field and "get their own back". Thus, according to feminism, every woman becomes a kind of moral Robin Hood on behalf of the sisterhood, robbing the rich (read: men) and giving to the poor (read: women).

So, if it appears that the woman in your life is "playing games" with you, you need to become more sensitive to your patriarchal privilege, and try to understand the subtle ways that you are violating her and making it necessary for her to act that way in the first place. That is how patriarchy theory explains your life! Men have all the power, therefore men are the problem.

The possibility that women might be wrongdoers on their own initiative, and actually do wrong (especially toward men), simply does not factor into feminism's moral calculus. Your average feminist will only grudgingly and with great reluctance allow that woman X might have been the guilty party in transaction Y—and only after every mitigating possibility has been hyper-analyzed to the last molecule. To extract any "judgmental" statement about a guilty woman from the average feminist, is like extracting teeth.

As a rule, a feminist hates to admit that women, or any particular woman, could be in the wrong about anything at all! Time and time again you see this. Feminist Robin Morgan (who once famously remarked that men should "possibly not exist") campaigned to get the would-be murderess Valerie Solanas out of jail; feminists everywhere were curiously untroubled when Lorena Bobbitt sliced off her husband's penis with a kitchen knife, and they even gloated about this; feminists everywhere will (on deeply flawed evidence) insist that "women are only violent in self-defense", or that "women never lie about rape", despite well-grounded probative evidence that neither of these statements is true. On it goes. . .

Keep your eyes open and you will see this pattern of feminist behavior replay itself time and time again.

Among other useful functions, patriarchy theory veils manichean essentialism, by offering a 'structural' explanation of male transgression. Men are "bad" only because patriarchy "makes them" that way. "I blame patriarchy" is the standard feminist cop-out: they may continually place men in the wrong (and on the defensive) without professing any belief in manichean essentialism—not even to themselves!

Without patriarchy theory serving as a prop, the feminist would need to address a complex world in which men and women share the blame equally, albeit in varied measure from place to place, and the business of liberating women would collapse into the all-but-unanswerable question of: "liberate women from what?"

From men? From other women? Or from the entire big, sprawling human mess?

Patriarchy theory would go to pieces like a bad suit if women were held morally accountable as individuals. And after that it would be impossible any longer to fudge the question of manichean essentialism, for it would soon become necessary to make a flat statement of belief or disbelief in this idea—at which point, the entire feminist enterprise would stand before a board of inquest. If you said, "yes, I think women are essentially good and men are essentially evil", you would look like a moral idiot. And if you said "no, I think men and women are morally equal", then you would render feminism pointless and toothless. Either way, you would condemn it to a long slide down the slippery slope to extinction.

But patriarchy theory keeps manichean essentialism forever at bay by means of an evasionary dither. It is no wonder that the average feminist hates to admit that women might upon occasion be in the wrong. Once you start down the road of allowing that women are even capable of wrongdoing (and then admitting more and more cases in practice), it ends in the collapse of feminism altogether, by rendering any theory of collective male transgression unworkable.

Patriarchy theory is manifestly flawed, and disingenuously employed by the feminists. It is a theory which pretends to explain all of life, and yet if it truly DID explain all of life, this would mean that no sector of reality could operate outside its reach. And if such were the case, nobody would have any moral agency, being trapped by the patriarchal "script" in a state of moral robot-hood.

Yes, feminism's inborn proclivity is to bestow moral robot-hood on everybody—but most especially on women. And the shimmering, razor-thin line which divides moral robot-hood from moral agency, is the very same line that divides the feminist zone of influence from the entire non-feminist sector. That bright line, precisely, is the boundary.

Connect the dots and you will discover that bright line readily enough. Consider the many, many ways that women are given a pass or given a waiver—the prevarications, rationalizations, strained extenuations, praisings by faint damnations. Trace them from one to the next until they join together in an all-embracing circuit, like a contour line on a topographical map which wraps clear around the base of a mountain. You could even run a yellow highlighting pen around that line on the map, to make it stand out brightly.

The feminist strategy of concealment is to shade by gradual degrees into the surrounding world, so that the boundary between feminism and the rest of the universe becomes impossible to fix with any precision. This renders feminism invulnerable to attack because it offers no well-defined target area. But we have seen that the issue of women's moral accountability marks off the feminist perimeter with all of the necessary exactitude. This makes feminism available as a target, as a zone of common understanding easily recognized and agreed upon by the rest of the world.

And that bright line around the mountain: you might picture it as a collar. Or possibly even a noose! And to call attention to that bright line—to PREACH that line, let us say—would be almost as if your were pulling the noose tighter. Need I say more?

So . . . when will the feminists hold women morally accountable?

In other words, when will feminism PREACH THAT BRIGHT LINE?

Fidelbogen . . . out!


Monday, July 19, 2010

The Evil that Mice Do

Kim of Equal but Different left a comment on my previous post, and in my response I made certain points about certain things which, as I reflect upon it, others might find enlightening. And since I really ought to post something anyway, I will share (a portion of) my reply to Kim as follows:

Well, the way I see it, there are plenty of people who WOULD take seriously a monniker such as "angry mouse", e.g. the same people who would INVENT such a monniker in the first place. And such people do exist, and they cluster around node points such as the Daily KOS. So, I am long past feeling any amazement about such things, given that such things are boringly predictable - and boredom and amazement mix precisely as well as oil and water.

Also: I cannot dispute that there is an element of poetry about the name "angry mouse", hence poetic appeal.

But taking it further, I see a certain psychology at work here, which is revelatory of feminism as a whole.

Mice are commonly known as cute, innocent, helpless creatures. One does not attack a mouse as a mortal enemy.

Just imagine if the name had been "angry bear" or "angry alligator".

Yes, one may logically move with aggressive heroism against such creatures as bears and alligators. . . but certainly not against mice!

Feminism has all along exploited the male instinct to protect women, and view them as cute, innocent, helpless creatures - like mice.

Of course, that is just one way of looking at mice. It is equally correct to say that mice are vermin who spread disease. Even if they are cute and helpless little buggers!

"Rabid Mouse" might have been a better alias than "Angry Mouse."

Men have a weakness as regards the real or imagined weakness of women, and one of feminism's prime tactics has been to exploit this male weakness ABOUT women's weakness as a source of female strength. Or, "empowerment" as the feminists like to say.

It is an ancient subterfuge. Women - well, certain women anyway - have been practicing this for all of human history. And when female evil assumed a politicized form as feminism, it carried on right handily with this old, old trick.

If the principle of female evil were to incarnate as any particular animal, a mouse would not be a bad choice.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Pouring Benzine on the Fire

We face a culturally entrenched enemy who is irredeemably vicious, vindictive, fat-headed, morally shallow. . . and commands a very large political power base! Appealing to their reason, or their better nature, is entirely useless and shall continue to reap a harvest of futility. They will NEVER change unless some outside agency acts forcefully upon them. Only if we galvanize large numbers against them will they ever learn to know shame, embarrassment, and above all fear; only then will they mend their arrogant disposition and comport themselves with plain and simple human decency.

Such are the people who confront us in this miserable war. In witness, I invite you to have a look at the following. It is a puerile opinion piece in the Daily KOS (of Kent State University, Ohio), with over a thousand reader comments trailing in its wake. The writer seems to be an undergraduate bimbo who perfectly recalls everything that her professor said, and the subject, as you will soon find out, is the proposed academic curriculum of 'Male Studies'. You might already be aware that this idea has drawn a shitstorm of unreasoning acrimony, if not downright vitriol, from certain quarters:

Setting the Record Straight on the Sanctimonious Male Studies Set - by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse

The article and the reader thread, you will note, are all of a piece. Not surprisingly for the Daily KOS, it is the effluent of a left-wing academic ghetto: an echo chamber reverberating with snide, twittering, college educated smart-assery and self-preening cutesy sophistication, a place for intellectually inbred twits who have never in their lives had to answer to anybody but themselves. And if I am mistaken about this, then they had better step right up and answer to ME, and mind their tone of voice while they're about it!

Contrary to the escalating trend elsewhere, dissenting voices on the comment thread are few and far between. But I reckon that's understandable; after all, this is the Daily KOS! We're talking about diehards here!

But truly, I don't think I have ever seen a group of people that more richly deserves to have its collective ass barbecued and handed to it with a bucket of tabasco, than the lot we are observing here. If they are meaning to stir up an ugly, nasty, brutish social war. . . then I believe they are following the correct recipe. Yes, they are pouring benzine on the fire! And by sharing this now, to the accompaniment of my acid-dipped, razor-wired commentary, I am pouring more! Is there realistically any other way to roll? I want you, my reader, to read this and get sizzling mad. I want you to store up rage in your heart, and pass that feeling along to others.

In parting (since I have established the proper mood), please partake of the following if you didn't do so earlier:

Some Encouraging News from the Scepter'd Isle of Albion

The new-fangled coalition gummit in Great Britain has rudely shoved political enemies out of the way, and passed the motion to give anonymity to rape defendents.

Well, not quite. Actually, they are only anonymous until they are formally CHARGED. After getting charged, they can still get their name smeared all over the media.

So this is not quite as good as we had hoped for! :(

But still, it is progress.

It is a symbolic victory — a propaganda victory — of great magnitude. Call it a marker; call it a milestone. Call it a shot heard 'round the world, because we know that feminists around the world know about it, and can process the implications of it!

And in one shape or another, the waves will wash up on American shores. Think of it as one of those "British invasion" phenomena which occur periodically. . .

I don't know how much our FRSF e-mailing campaign contributed to this, but I thank everybody who took the time to message their local MP! I have officially removed the pertaining posts from FRSF, since they no longer serve any purpose.

Anyway, read all about it in the UK Telegraph:

Thursday, July 08, 2010

It is unusual, to make an e-mail address the title of a blog post. . . don't you think? Well read the following Men's News Daily story to find out what's up with that:

All right, so I just sent an e-mail to "Kelly", as follows:

I will not support the WCADV, in any way, toward obtaining the Pepsi Refresh Grant.

As a man (and Seattle area resident), I am DEEPLY offended, and personally affronted, by the anti-male bias and sexism which is inherent to your campaign.

If men must be "taught" to "respect" women, then women must also be "taught" to EARN that respect. And the only way to accomplish this, is by teaching women to respect men in the first place.

Yet I cannot see that your proposed campaign includes anything at all about teaching women to respect men, and I know that self-respecting men everywhere will read that as a personal insult.

I, myself, certainly do.

As a member of the WCADV, you are undoubtedly aware that women commit domestic violence against men as often as men do against women. So I cannot understand why a person like yourself, who certainly knows better, would endorse the one-sided anti-male campaign which you are evidently promoting.

Apparently men are not worthy of respect?

You are poisoning the waters.

Your proposed program sends a politically loaded message that "men are the problem" - and this will only make the problem worse. It will NOT make men (or young boys) respect women. Quite the contrary; it will foment ill-will and resentment among them, especially when they see that women are being "given a pass" for THEIR behavior!

And. . . their respect for women will drop lower and lower.

Please reflect on this.

Again, I will not support your effort. And I will use my power of persuasion to inspire others along that line.


Very well, I have given you Kelly's e-mail address. You know what to do.

By the way, Kelly can also be reached at the following phone number:

(206) 389-2515 ext. 210

Area code 206. . . yikes, that is Bainbridge Island!!

Gendercide: Men More Likely than
Women to be Targeted in War

Some people, as we are too well aware, insist that women are the primary victims of war. And yet that picture is shot full of holes, busting out everywhere you look! Witness the following citation, from an article published in the highly reputable New England Journal of Medicine. The subject is civilian deaths in the Iraq war, and the highlightings are my own:

"Among victims of known sex — that is, those identified as male or female, regardless of age — the proportion of female civilians killed varied according to the weapon used, as did the proportion of children killed among victims of known age. Because the media may tend to specifically identify female and young victims more readily than male adults among the dead, which could inflate our findings for the percentages of female civilians and children killed, these findings should not be considered absolute proportions; they are, however, relatively robust indicators of the varying demographic characteristics of civilians killed by different weapons. Female Iraqis and Iraqi children constituted the highest proportions of civilian victims when the methods of violence involved indiscriminate weapons fired from a distance: air attacks and mortars. That air attacks, whether involving bombs or missiles, killed relatively high proportions of female civilians and children is additional evidence in support of the argument that these weapons, like mortars, should not be directed at civilian areas because of their indiscriminate nature.

By contrast, the methods that resulted in the highest proportions of male civilians among victims of known sex were the relatively close-quarter, precise methods of gunfire (91% male civilians), execution (95% male civilians), and execution with torture (97% male civilians). Execution with torture, the most intimate, brutal method of killing, was used the most selectively against male (rather than female) civilians and against adults (rather than children). By nature, execution is precise and deliberate — the highly controlled, usually planned killing of a captured person. The character of this form of killing, combined with our findings that a great many civilians were killed by execution, in many events, with strong selection according to the sex and age of potential victims, supports the assessment that executions have been applied systematically and strategically to civilians in Iraq."
The full article is available from the following link:

So, did you catch that? It says that female civilians are killed MAINLY by indiscriminate "dumb" weapons such as bombs and artillery, but when the killers are up close and able to choose their victims, they are FAR more likely to kill men—and overwhelmingly more likely to torture them!

Let me say that another way: the "weaponistas" in Iraq who kill or torture civilians in war would much rather NOT kill or torture female civilians!

Looking at the broader picture, in the Iraq war overall, male civilian deaths appear to outnumber female civilian deaths by at least 4 to 1. The following report, compiled from the years 2003-2005, bears witness to this:

Yes, yes, I know, I know! Some she-ass is gonna pipe up and remind me it is mainly MEN who are doing this killing!

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Whatever this Guy is Smoking. . .
I Want Some Too!

Greetings NF revolutionaries, students of counter-feminism, and members of the pro-male men's movement!

A couple of days ago, I stumbled upon a mousy little blog post which appears to be courting obscurity. In this, it has so well succeeded that even though it was first published on 28 May, 2009, I didn't find it until much, much later. But find it I did—and I found it interesting!

The item in question is from a blog kept by a collaborationist who writes under the monikker of The Longest War—which, by the way, is also the name of the blog itself. For convenience henceforward, I shall refer to the author as TLW.

What I am sharing requires considerable back-story. The question is, where to start? All right, first I will send you to the TLW post. Read it slowly and thoughtfully—but fear not, 'tis brief:

So tell me, what do you make of this sensitive, soul-scraping male feminist blogger and his maudlin, guilt-drenched dribble? He says "pro-male" precisely as if it were a bad thing—and that screams metric tons! I would opine, that like too many of his tribe, TLW is living in a different moral universe; a Castanedean "separate reality"; a bubble of invincible self-reference which, in the end, only rude force will ever prick! However, that is by-the-by. At the moment, I must send you away for additional off-post reading to complete the back-story. For some of you, the following would be new material; for others, a timely refresher:

Very well, that wraps up the outside reading. Now let's piece this together. The first thing you should have noticed is that TLW writes of a critter named Kyle Payne, and that my own lengthy CF post is likewise about Kyle Payne! The next point of interest is that both the TLW post, and my own, were published close to the same time—mine on 8 April 2009, and the TLW item about 7 weeks later, on 28 May of that year.

All right. When I posted the Kyle Payne piece, my daily hit count spiked dramatically for about three days—and the increase went specifically to the post page itself! So how to account for that? Well clearly, the article provoked a LOT of interest: somebody saw it and told somebody else, or more likely a passel of somebodies—and the rush was on!

And the demographic composition of this visitor spike? Not MRAs or random websurfers, of course—I know those people well enough and trust me, it wasn't them! No, such an obsession with Kyle Payne would only originate, asymmetrically, from the feminist side. After all, Kyle was one hell of a stink bomb in their world at that time, and what I wrote about Kyle was, in its own way I suppose, a stink bomb as well! For I am certain that nobody on planet Earth—bar none!—had such an antagonistically mind-reaming and abrasively original slant on the subject as did I in that particular blog post. It must have punched through their brain-tunnels like a riptide from left field! It was offensive in just the right way, and I doubt if anything they had ever seen before quite prepared them for it!

Trust me, I know these people well; better than they know themselves!

And that brings us back to the mousy little post on TLW's blog. TLW has very evidently read my article on Kyle Payne. It has lodged in his cerebrum and, from the look of it, done some quirky things there. Consider the post title:

The Counter-Feminist Fidel-what’s-his-name and Kyle Payne: Could they both be on the same side?

What the hell is this dude talking about, anyway?

Honestly, I have no idea.

But wait, it gets better. Here is something that most will miss—indeed, I too nearly overlooked it. It is the cumbersomely long URL of the TLW blog post. Read it patiently; study it thoughtfully; chew it thoroughly, and let the juices trickle slowly down your gullet:

What the hell is this dude talking about, anyway?

Honestly, I have no idea. And yet, what a rush it is, to know we've got the power to mess their minds into such fantastical grotesqueries by the mere exercise of our native wit and gumption! ;)

I was going to write several paragraphs of clever, scathing, scintillating stuff, but I decided to hell with it! So, take a good look at the rest of the TLW blog; read some of the other posts just to get the flavor. This is quintessential feminism in its most characteristic and fully-developed form, however, it is the masochistic male side of the coin. Masochism is a recurring theme among these people; TLW and his political cohort Kyle Payne are both shining examples of this.

Whosoever loathest himself maketh himself loathsome, and shall be loathed like unto an unclean thing!

To cap it all off, here is a recent item at Men's News Daily that you absolutely WILL read—and I mean it! No excuses!:

In conclusion: men who support feminism are a big problem—even bigger than female feminists are—and . . . they are the Enemy! If they would only keep their dirty little cult to themselves, I would gladly live and let live. But no, they are aggressive little buggers spoiling for trouble, and . . . I predict they will get it!

You ought to scrutinize these people closely when you get the chance, and take notes. Nothing hinders my belief that guys like Kyle Payne are fairly common in the pro-feminist men's movement. Why would they not be? Given your personal knowledge of the world and the way it works, would the contrary be any MORE plausible?

Saturday, July 03, 2010

CF Podcast: The Thirteenth

Here is the thirteenth Counter-Feminist podcast, titled Redstockings Manifesto-Part 3:

And here is the link for downloading personal copies of the MP3 file: