Thursday, August 26, 2010

Non-Feminist Women are Welcome at
the Counter-Feminist

Trent13, an extremely non-feminist woman, has left a weighty comment on the post immediately prior to this, and her words have furnished me with matter for reflection. But first, the comment:
"The better safe than sorry attitude is understandable, and on average most women needn't declare that they are feminist. For those who adamantly declare they are anti-feminist (and show themselves to be so), I think a differentiation should be made. It isn't as if being an anti-feminist woman is considered by female-dom as laudable - in a sense, it's considered worse than if a male were anti-feminist, traitor to the cause and all that.

"Continued antagonization of the small minority of women who are against feminism, using the safer than sorry argument, will simply slow down the eradication of feminism. As the commenter stated, feminism is culturally pervasive; it can only be eradicated by a cultural movement away from it - the speed with which that will happen partly depends on the reception anti-feminist men give to those men and women who are struggling to see the light.

"One can't expect everyone to have a sudden epiphany about the evils of society; it's a slow process, and patience with the removal of entrenched feminist ideology is absolutely necessary if this is going to be fixed."

You may want to read this in context, HERE.

So, in step with the growing tidal wave of social reaction against feminism and its manifold evils, a growing number of women are awakening and bestirring themselves, looking cautiously about, and beginning to ask serious questions. And many such women are finding their way to the blogs, websites and forums of the men's rights proto-movement. These women are seeking information, and in many cases wishing to be of help in some way -- if only they knew how! At any rate, they are driven by earnest curiosity, and they want to orient themselves. What they seek, finally, is a map with an x-mark next to the words "you are here."

But all too often, what they find is a formidable wall of hair-trigger hostility, bristling vulgarity and sour cynicism. Understandably, plenty of these women haven't got a tough enough hide to "tough it out" until they earn a place of trust, while others are cursed with a knack for saying the worst things in the worst ways in violation of local politesse. Hence, many of them drop out before long, while many more will never pass beyond the larval lurker stage.

Yes. The lack of neophyte-friendly online venues for budding non-feminist revolutionary women is keenly felt, and ought to be remedied one way or another.

Very well. I would like the Counter-Feminist to be such a website. After all, the trend needs to begin somewhere . . . so why not here?

Therefore, I invite non-feminist women of all persuasions to log in as commenters and introduce themselves. Don't be a stranger. You will find a relaxed atmosphere hereabouts, and a complete absence of the scurrility which so often dominates the atmosphere of other men's rights websites. What you will also find is the art of rhetorical discipline skillfully practiced, as a model to others in the movement. But more on that subject later!

Meanwhile, do consider de-lurking. You have come to the right place, so step right up! And spread the word among womenfolk of your acquaintance -- whoever has a curiosity to learn about the non-feminist revolution, the MRM, and all such things. As Trent13 says, you can't expect everybody to have a sudden epiphany, but around here you may, if you wish, get a fine start along that road!

I will leave this post in the top position for several days, and then link to it in the sidebar.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

A Speech Delivered in a Ghost Town

As I was stumbling around teh interwebs just now, I revisited a feminist blog which I hadn't looked into for quite some time. The blog's publisher, Feministgal, was/is a pretty fair specimen of what we nowadays call an "earnest feminist", although just a tad bit on the snarky side. The blog appears to be defunct, given that it was last updated in November 2009. (Judging by the last few entries, she was running out of things to say.) Anyhow, somewhere deep in the post archive, I chanced upon a solitary reader comment with "MRA" written all over it! :) This comment is dated 20 July, 2010 -- which is surprisingly recent! I have edited slightly, for clarity:
"It is an interesting article posted. I don't think women own the term or definition of feminism any longer. What you declare is now irrelevant and doesn't really matter.

"Feminism is now a political institution, entrenched to the extent that it serves women and disenfranchises men. This is now so pervasive in society that if you are female you are a feminist. Regardless of what you declare.

"This [attitude] has become an extension of risk management for men. Any man who declares himself a feminist, as most men now know, has simply not been tapped on the shoulder by reality.

"It's like believing in God. The safe bet says you should. Potentially there's less to lose. Well now it's the same for feminists; the safe bet is that you are, meaning potentially less damage and less to lose. Women have achieved deity status in the risk management department. Well done.

"This serves another objective of the movement, which is, to wipe out the institution of marriage. Since the risk is no longer worthwhile, again, well done. I think the point I'm trying to make is it doesn't matter to another woman whether you say you are a feminist or not.

"Now it no longer matters to men what you declare. For men, if you are a woman you are a feminist. End of story. The old saying "you go girl" now means "go away", and "go it alone".

"July 20, 2010 7:36 PM"
Some things intrigue me here. Firstly, the comment itself, which is interesting. Secondly, that Feministgal let it through moderation at all, considering what it is saying. Thirdly, that the blog has apparently withered on the vine, and yet Feministgal still checks in . . .

This Is How Feminism Empowers Women

The following appears on a discussion thread at the Topix forum:
"Here in Tennessee we violent women are worshipped everyday. We can beat a man and have him put in jail, or tell the police the man raped/molested us, gave us a threatening look and the man will be put in prison. The violence against women act guarantees this. Our word is held above that of any man. I have called the police and had many men put in jail, even a soldier( because I did not like the way he looked). It was fun to see him hancuffed and taken away, he was looking at a class C felony (I told the police he waved a revolver at me and my friends. There was no proof needed for the DA to seek a conviction. The soldier plead guilty to a misdemeanor but, I got my point across. If I don't like the way a man looks or anything, I just file charges against him and let him rot in jail. The police know who rules this city, we women run this place."
You'll want to read the entire thread, which runs to five screen pages, HERE:

The original thread topic, although somewhat interesting, is not the point of interest presently.

So yes, this is from the state of Tennessee -- a bastion of conservative, white-knight southern chivalry if I am not mistaken. Leftism, in any form, is not a hot commodity in Tennessee! And yet see what a cross-cultural foothold feminist ideology (which originated on the Left) has established in a land which pedestalizes women in the traditional, time-honored way!

Socially conservative white knight males are the biggest idiots presently crawling upon planet earth. I say idiots, because they are moronic simpletons who don't know what the hell is going on: they are living in the past. And I would add that they are sadistic scumbags; they have betrayed other men because they think the betrayal does not apply to men like themselves. Somehow, they think it will never happen to them! Little do they know that they have sold the ground under their own feet, and are subject to eviction at any time.

So how does the conservative white knight differ from his left-wing counterpart, the collaborationist? The difference is, that the collaborationist does what his name implies: he collaborates (co-labors), very directly and closely, with the entire feminist ideological programme -- the full spectrum of it. And that includes (among other points) a personal demasculization and a quasi-deification of women. By contrast, the white knight does not so much "worship" women, as treat them like precious objects -- works of art you might say, which go on a pedestal.

In the end, the chief mark of difference between the Right male traitor and the Left male traitor is, that Righty still clings to an outmoded, self-betraying concept of "manhood", while Lefty wants to get shut of the manhood business altogether.

In the future, the collaborationists will enact a "house nigger" role in the feminarchy, while the white knights will act as useful idiot, field nigger thug-cops to crack down on MRAs and other such riffraff. (After all, the sensitive hipster-esthete collaborationists wouldn't want to get their smooth, soft aristocratic hands dirty!)

But I turn once again to the discussion thread at the Topix forum. One cannot expect the average reader, who merely stumbled upon this, to take the entire story on faith sight unseen. After all, anybody can log onto a web forum and type anything at all. But suffice it to know that the present state of law, in Tennessee and elsewhere, makes it entirely possible for women to behave in exactly the manner described here. Feminism has empowered women to do exactly such things, and any man who is in the wrong place at the wrong time could very easily fall victim to such predatory behavior. Such things are objectively real, such things happen all the time, and neither the law nor the cultural zeitgeist care enough about men's lives to prevent such things.

The future will bring more of the same, and worse, and more widespread. And the longer it goes unchallenged, the deeper it will dig itself into the culture, and the harder it shall be to dislodge it by any means short of a violent social cataclysm.

Long story short: men are on their own, the social contract is voided, and women too are on their own! You, brotherman, don't owe any social-contractual duty (political obligation) to women as a group. You are free, of course, to bestow blessings upon women individually if they show themselves worthy.

A parting thought. Some hypothetical nitwit, after reading the story of Sandi Delk, wants to say to me: "Oh what are you worried about? That'll probably never happen to you!"

Assuming that this hypothetical nitwit is female, I would respond thuswise:

"Hey, let's make rape legal! Oh what are you worried about? It'll probably never happen to you!"

Monday, August 23, 2010

All Right: Some Stuff to Read

A couple of items.

First, nip on over to The Spearhead for a look at the following post, and especially the reader comments which follow. (I even left one myself!):

I call this to your attention, because I find it interesting that the most evil and dangerous sector of the entire feminist empire (feminist jurisprudence) is now "looking at us looking at them". That is, they are aware that we are aware of them; that our collective political attention is laser-focused upon their sector specifically and upon what their sector is doing in the larger scheme of things. Yes. . . even to the point of making their individual names known! They now know that we now know this of them, and they have made known to us that they know that we know this of them! The ante spirals up and up, does it not? And the presence of Our People in their proximity becomes a growing possibility. . . yes? I am sure that this cannot have failed to have crossed the mind of the feminist attorney who commented at the Spearhead.

The reader discussion, of course, wandered a bit off-topic. However, it wandered interestingly, and it makes informative reading if you aim to be "cutting edge" about the present state of the psychological game in MRA land. Critical thought trends, issues of significance, and the accompanying controversies, are here laid out for your consideration.

Next, you'll want to download a copy of the following excellent 95-page PDF:

You will see that this Obama administration report recaps what we already know (from Warren Farrell and other sources) about the so-called gender wage gap -- or more accurately, the PAY gap:
". . . despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public. . . . . . The major findings are: There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. . . . Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. . . Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
Feminism, as we know, depends on a number of whopping lies, or at least highly-contested stories, to prop itself up and justify its own continued existence as an ideology and as a movement. And the best overall strategy that we as counter-feminists could employ, is to hammer away at a few narrowly selected issues that will effectively lay bare the lying nature of feminism as a whole. The pay gap, false accusation of rape, and phony DV statistics are three items which straightway recommend themselves. Such rhetorical discipline will pound our central message quickly and efficiently into the mind of the silent majority, and serve to collapse the structural framework of feminist credibility. After this, we can swoop in and make the more subtle things clear to a "neutral" public which is now effectively primed to understand them.

Enjoy the rest of your day! :)

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

CF Podcast: The Fifteenth

Here, after an unplanned postponement, is Counter-Feminist Podcast number fifteen, titled The Colonization of Male Space:

'Women are culturally licensed to exclude men from female spaces, while corresponding behavior by men toward women is negatively sanctioned. The planned feminist effect of this, is to boost female power over male power, and to advance female supremacy.'

So yes, I am able to broadcast once again, although the production side is a bit hindered compared to earlier capacity. (I need to pick up an external hard drive, USB style, to use with the somewhat antiquated Compaq which presently serves as my "axe". That would help greatly.)

As always, this pod is available for download:

Finally, I should add that this pod contains radically subversive ideas that are meant not only to provide intellectual fodder, but also to be swung into action in ways both large and small, and above all, to be virally spread far and wide through every medium at your disposal, and seeded into as many brains as possible. Yes, Our People are everywhere, often quite usefully positioned, and they want only awakening.

I thank you greatly, oh fellow workers in the vineyard! :)


The podcast contains nothing of a misogynistic nature -- unless you insist on creatively "seeing" such things, as feminists will do. However, it is fairly strong stuff, so in order to provide balance and context (especially to any potential female allies who have stumbled upon this), I would urge you to consume the following cyber-pamphlet if you have not already done so:

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

For the Record: I Did Not Write This!

I was browsing through an old thread on a feminist blog called "Eleanor's Trousers" - the name Eleanor being, I think, a reference to Eleanor Roosevelt. But yes. . I was browsing through that thread, and I came upon the following delectable bonbon deposited by the unspeakable Julian Real (a.k.a Paul Seidman). I share the item here because, as the CF header says, I want to expose feminism to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze, and such a ripe pocket of pus sorely wants disinfection -- don't you think so?. This is feminism at its finest, folks! Go, and gaze! Believe me, it is classic and quintessential. I know that uninitiated readers pass through here all the time, and it is for their edification that I share such things, so that they will gain at least a partial understanding of what us "MRA types" are so worked up about, and will form at least an initial comprehension of what the Non-Feminist insurgency is in-surging against, and so that they will be inspired to look further into these matters!

Let none decieve you. What follows is not the "extremist fringe" of feminism; no, it is the "purist core". It is the fuel rod. It is the authentic face beneath the mask, that shall be revealed in the fullness of time as the mask progressively cracks and dissolves and crumbles away. Please believe me NOW. . and not later! I can positively assure you that feminism does NOT stoke its inner steam boiler on kum-ba-yah and touchy-feely drivel.

No, Feminism is not "liberal".

But here now, is what I did not write:


"First, Kyle is not “innocent until proven guilty.” He is, according to U.S. laws, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” If he did what he is charged with doing, he hasn’t “undone it” simply because there is now a serious charge against him. Hence, “presumption of innocence,” not “innocence.”

"As many already know, most rapes aren’t reported, and most women who do take matters into the courts are violated there as well. In very few rape cases, in which there WAS a rape, does the rapist get any significant jail time, or any time at all. Meanwhile there is at least one black man in prison serving decades for pot possession. So much for justice.

"I posted this to Kyle’s page, and we’ll see if he leaves it up there:


"Publicly posted response by JR:

"You say you can’t speak about it publicly, Kyle. But that’s not true. You are choosing not to. Is that because you are facing criminal charges? Obviously facing charges doesn’t equal “guilt” of said crime. However, I don’t believe men (re: our racist sexism and misogyny) are entitled to what this country terms, to men’s tremendously self-serving and harmful-to-women-and-girls advantage, “privacy”. You may be choosing to participate in (and likely benefit from) a system that harms women in any number of ways: the legal and criminal justice systems are racist and misogynistic to the core, as you well know. As a white man who has been supportive of radical antiracist feminist and Womanist actions for a long, long time, I can tell you something you may already know: EXPECT profeminist men, including radically profeminist men, to fuck over women in any number of ways, inside and outside “the movement”. Myself included. Accountability is the issue here.

"What I tell the women who know me is this: I support you publicly discussing anything I do that harms you, in any way, as determined by you, not me. That is not usually what men tell women, is it? Usually we men try and silence and control women, and girls, don’t we?

"I can’t offer you any presumptions of innocence. No man I know, especially any white man, is “innocent” of harming women, sometimes in ways termed “sexual”, in racist patriarchy. Not one. You and I are no exceptions.

"The Rich White Duke Dudes aren’t either. They were guilty of overtly misogynist and racist acts, of denigrating and exploiting at least two women’s humanity (at least two that one night alone) by “renting” them to come to their frat home to perform as sexxx-things for their entertainment. Legal rape is another matter: those whiteboys DID (at least visually) violate and (at least verbally) denigrate two women. Of course in this country, there’s no crime there, except and unless either woman had “sex” with any of them, in which case the women could be charged with the crime of prostitution. We are not surprised.

"In Sweden, being a “john” (most often a procurer, renter, user of women and/or girls) is a crime. It should be a crime here also. A man having “sex” with an intoxicated woman should also be a crime and/or a civil rights/human rights violation, regardless of intent. Such acts should legally be considered a form of rape. Do you agree with that statement? Answering this is not about you or anything you have done, it is simply a statement of your values. I await your answer.

"I don’t know the details of what you have been charged with, and obviously cannot know the truth, or one of several truths–yours being the most “valid” and “believed” in this society–of the charges or claims. But why should you get “room to breathe”, “trust”, and “freedom from judgment and speculation based on incomplete information”, when no raped woman or any woman charged with anything (including the charge of being somehow responsible for a man’s or men’s rapist behaviors) ever gets any of those things, for even one day?

"What you are asking for is the advantage of your male supremacist privileges and entitlements; your statement above requests that they remain in tact during this challenging time for you and your family. I can certainly imagine it is a challenging time for your family. My heart goes out to them.

"But I don’t accept that any man’s male supremacist privileges and entitlements are legitimate to begin with. Including here, now."

I could recommend reading the entire comment thread, in order to get the flavor of that culture, and what certain people, alas, do tediously yap about! Please observe that I got the final word on that thread - in a comment posted during May, 2009:
May 18, 2009 at 7:20 am

If the funky truth were known, the entire pro-feminist men’s movement is riddled with guys like Kyle Payne.

Really, what the hell drew them to feminism in the first place. .? Such things happen for a reason.
This is how it ought to be done. We merely assert our position -- coldly, factualistically, and non-chalantly -- as if it were common knowledge, but at the same time, as if planting seeds in people's minds. And at some point later on, others will come along with watering cans, to water those seeds and make them grow. . .

We are farmers. How does that grab ya. .?

Friday, August 06, 2010


I am having computer problems. :(

So. . . expect silence for a while. I'm not sure how long.

It's too bad, really. . . there is quite a bit I'd like to be blogging about at the moment.

Anyway, see you again anon.

Thursday, August 05, 2010

The Colonization of Male Space

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

The title of today's talk is: The Colonization of Male Space.

Yes. Feminism, in the nearly half-century of its systematic cultural revolution, has worked doggedly and persistently to erode male space in every possible form. From the beginning, it has been a central feminist project not only to whittle down the amount of time that men spend together in the absence of women, but to fragment the continuity of such time, to break it into smaller and smaller chunks, and to cast the very idea of it into disrepute.

It is a classic recipe. If you aim to take away the power of a targeted group, you must undermine their solidarity by making it progressively more difficult for them to bond with each other. And if you fragment the continuity of their time together, what bonds they might form will be correspondingly fragmentary, and accordingly ineffectual.

The colonization of male-only workspaces and institutions, under the convenient banner of "equality", "ending discrimination" or the like, is only the most commonly understood and popularly visible 'wedge' manifestation of something that runs far deeper—but the politically motivated double-standard is clear enough when you consider how many female-only clubs, jobs and other settings will pass without a murmur where the male equivalent would soon come under hostile scrutiny or even litigation.

Clearly, the ruling energy in society has dictated that women are welcome to be alone with other women, but that men ought not assemble in the absence of female supervision or female presence in some form. For the colonization of male space means not simply that male-only time has dwindled in quantitative terms, but that qualitatively speaking, the likelihood of female influence or even intervention has proportionately grown, and now throws a shadow over such occasions.

Male space, in a conceptual sense, encompasses many things. Thus, male preserves, domains and "discourses" of any sort whatever are under direct or indirect pressure to, as it were, lower the drawbridge, and admit the circulation of females or at the very least some infused awareness of femaleness in principle.

In the long run, the final frontier of male space is the space inside your male head. So when male space breaks down into small enough pieces, the last chunk to be cracked open will be the sovereign castle of your own mind. By then, the defending forces will barely exist any more, and the besieging forces will hold every possible advantage. Yes, the colonization of male space advances by logical steps to a logical endpoint, which is the colonization of male INNER space.

In the feminist war, men and maleness are under attack. And if men collectively cannot grow a robust, inwardly articulated community of interest among themselves, endowed with durable focal points and folkways, then each man as an individual will be more and more thrown upon his own devices, hence a sitting duck. Hang together or hang separately: such is bonding; such is solidarity.

The feminist campaign of attrition against male space, which operates on so many levels, aims chiefly to weaken men and to strengthen women by building up "womanspace" as much as possible. On the surface, this appears to be an extension of patriarchy theory, and patriarchy, as any counter-feminist will tell you, is merely a feminist codeword for male power of any kind.

Accordingly, the best way to deplete "patriarchy" is to deplete male space, since men cannot effectively "hang together" if they are not together in the first place—they cannot compare notes about their experience; they cannot connect the dots; they cannot "do the arithmetic"; they cannot develop a culture of resistance; they cannot build networks. And being thus separated, it's a pretty sure bet they will "hang separately".

At this point, a feminist might chime in with more patriarchy theory, informing us that men and women are alike, that patriarchy forced men and women to assume separate roles in society, and that integrating them into the same social spaces (with interchangeable roles) is how we end four thousand years of patriarchal oppression.

But the sheer hypocrisy of actual practice gives the lie to this speech, for no such programme has been followed. Instead, the practice has been to invade male space in order to gain advantage for women, while continuing to ban men if women don't want them around for any reason.

The view that men and women are non-physically different in a way that cultural training does not explain, is called essentialism. The old school feminists of the 1960s and 1970s were staunchly ANTI-essentialist, and anti-essentialism remains, overtly at least, a critical prop of feminist ideology to this very day.

Anti-essentialism is, let me say it, a scientifically dubious notion. But that didn't stop certain people from launching a monumental campaign to re-engineer society on the strength of it. They didn't even blink about what they were doing; they went right ahead and did it anyway because it fit their politics, and because they sold their plan to a passel of idiots who thought it sounded like a cool idea.

But we must reflect on the mass of evidence which favors essentialism. Now is not the time to review this evidence, but trust me, it is a lot. Enough, I dare say, to open an ominous crack, from top to bottom, in the facade of patriarchy theory. For if men and women turn out to be naturally different, then they would naturally gravitate toward different things, yes? And so the idea that men collectively forced women to stay home and clean the house becomes a hard sell.

Once again, women in general (thanks to feminism) were able to invade male space and gain material advantages—jobs, for example—while at the same time banning men from female space if they wished to do so. Meanwhile, the feminist plotters in particular were advancing their deeper agenda of weakening "patriarchy" (to wit, male power) by making it harder for men to be alone together, less likely to pool their observations, less likely to bond, less likely to become political, and less likely to gain solidarity for any purpose whatsoever.

The feminist plan was to destroy the male power structure ("patriarchy"), by colonizing male space. In this project they have been quite successful, although they have no intention of slowing down until they have eradicated as much "patriarchy" as they can possibly get their hands on. For it surely troubles them to see men conferring seriously when no woman is nearby to barge in and, if necessary, derail the proceedings. Feminist hostility toward male space is, in most cases, barely concealed. They fear the growth of cabals and combinations, and their fear is not unjustified.

Now, most men have not conceptualized the loss of male space in terms of a collective deprivation: that is to say, they have not conceptualized it politically. And so men must understand, that the division of male and female space in society is fundamentally a division of power. Male space equals male power, and female space equals female power.

That's all there is to it.

The feminists jabber on and on about "patriarchal power and control", but what do they really mean by that expression? I will tell you: they mean men having power as opposed to being powerless, and they mean men being in control as opposed to being either out of control or controlled. In the end, they don't want men to have power for any reason, and they don't want men to be in control of anything at all—especially themselves!

Again, male space is identical with male power. The two are one. And the secret of this power is, that it controls nothing but itself. I mean, that "patriarchal" power and control signifies no more, and no less, than power and control within the perimeter of male space.

Simply stated, this means that patriarchal power is not truly about controlling at all. No. Patriarchal power is about not being controlled. Properly speaking, patriarchal power is not even asserted, being rather a passive power—a mighty boulder in the stream which parts the rushing waters, an unmoved mover like unto the god of Aristotle.

Cross this power, and you shall reap the harvest that your own free will has brought upon you. Patriarchal power is only violent in self-defense.

"Only violent in self-defense". Where have you heard that phrase before?

Yes, we have heard that phrase before. . . haven't we? And all I've got to say is: two can play at that game. I grant you it is a dirty game of reversal—especially when the feminists play it. Still, two can play at that game! No principle of moral equilibrium rules out any such two-way traffic.

So "patriarchal power and control" is, finally, the assertion of equilibrium, integrity and home rule within the realm of men's business. It is male authority in the foundational sense of local expertise, the pristine autonomy of male space and the principle of undefiled male identity—which at its inmost core excludes female input.

Barring women from male spaces (as with the boys club sign that reads "no girls allowed") is regrettably apt to be taken for "misogyny" by people of shallow understanding. Yet this will prove unavoidable and, in the long run, a necessary prophylaxis against the growth of ACTUAL misogyny. It is neither evil, nor a "necessary" evil. It is a necessary good.

Feminist ideology, as touched upon earlier, has bequeathed us an anti-essentialist legacy, and this legacy pervades law, public policy, pedagogy, and, to a great extent, even popular culture. The pervasion is regrettable because it means that too much of our common life and common understanding is built on something questionably true at best, if not disastrously wrong. For if we accept that men and women are endowed by their creator with different inclinations, then it should come as no surprise that a social experiment which tries to iron this flat would end in a social train wreck.

All of which is to say, that men and women just might need to get away from each other at times, so that each sex can do what it does best without the other sex throwing a spanner in the works.

But the focus now is on men, so of men I will speak.

Men cannot do what men do best if they cannot work as men among men, unhindered by women. Men cannot follow their natural rhythmn, their natural logic, their natural genius and their natural joy, if they must forever accommodate to the alien demands of a different behavioral idiom. This will only slow them down and cripple them, which, unless you have a political reason to encourage such things, is not a good idea.

And upon that note, I turn to the political. The colonization of male space is designed principally to exploit men, and to oppress them. It amounts to a method of poisoning their environment, hence their well-being and their existence on every level. And it brings about all of this very simply by robbing them of power—for male power, as we have established, is identical with male space.

The pre-feminist system of life made rational allowance for the natural differences between men and women, and most importantly, allowed for male and female space by mandating separate roles. The feminist system of life has done away with this, and in the process given men the short end of the stick. Men can no longer function optimally AS men (among men), but in addition their political and social power has been cut off at the root in an absolute sense. And this, once again, was part of the feminist plan.

Women are, of course, free. Free to live as they will, to move unencumbered in the world, to taste the bitter and sweet alike from the orchards of life, and even chart their destinies by the stars if it suits them. They are also free to shoot themselves in the foot, for that, unfortunately, comes with the package. One would not think to interfere with women's freedom. One would not think to oppress them. One knows them to be capable adults, willing to assume full responsibility for their lives, and willing to embrace equality in the entirety of its aspects. In good faith, one knows women to be on their own.

And a consequence of the feminist plan (whether planned or not), is that men and women are now separate political power blocs, and the idea that they owe any political obligation to one another is a quaint fiction—a vain conceit with no foundation in either morality or objective circumstance. Men, accordingly, are entitled to grab what they can grab, and to look out for their own. Feminism has licensed the same for women, so the demands of symmetry are clear enough.

I call upon men, therefore, to reclaim and reoccupy male space by whatever methods their creative imagination might suggest to them—and those methods might be very, very many indeed!

No need to be coy, Roy. . .

Just DO IT!

You don't even need a pretext, although at times that can be useful. But there is nothing more to it, than to charter an organization or start a club, and announce very, very openly that you mean for this to be a men's club. And if you intend to reclaim male space, then why not announce that fact itself very, very openly for all the world to hear. In fact, why not start your club for OPENLY STATED POLITICAL REASONS, and if anybody doesn't like this, ask them what the hell they plan to do about it?

For example, you could organize a study group with the plainly stated intention of re-establishing the patriarchy. You could make this sound tongue-in-cheek. . . or you could make it sound deadly serious—that's up to you. And you would have leeway in your definition of terms. But whichever way it goes, you would be thumbing your nose at the world and asking people what the hell they planned to do about it!

And really, what COULD they do about it? If they did something really stupid, you would be ready to hit them with a lawsuit. . . wouldn't you?

I say, you could have great fun all of this, and you could inspire others. . . couldn't you?

Do you understand the principle of what I am telling you here?


And damn the torpedoes.

Think about that.

Fidelbogen. . . .out.

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Abusegate: Public Awareness Campaign
about Violence Against Men

You ought to read the following brief item at Men's News Daily:

And after you have finished reading, consider getting involved as the writer is suggesting.

What makes this especially timely is that DAHMW is not the only group competing for Pepsi Refresh Grant money—our enemy is also making a grab for it! Do you recall the following item which I posted 2 or 3 weeks ago?

That's right, these are the very same well-poisoners who feel that women needn't be taught to respect men! As you see, I tried to set those people straight. (I still haven't heard back.)

I don't know about you, but I'll do what I can to make sure their competition gets the Pepsi money!