The Dawn of a New Era
It happens but rarely in this life, to be a herald who sounds the trumpet. But today, I am right honored to be just that kind of horn player!
The intellectual crystallization of the non-feminist revolution has been long a-building, and many have been the pioneering philosophers who have contributed to this ongoing effort over the course of years. Yes, I should know, for I have been one of them! We have all, in our ways, piled stone upon stone, building on the work of those who came before us.
And this thing of ours began how? It began with ordinary men -- men who knew that something was not right!
These men knew that a foul wind was astir, and that it blew from all directions. Understandably, they could not trace it; they could not unriddle the mystery of it; they could not reduce it to order. And finally, they could not comprehend what to do about it. For in the midst of this tempest they wandered in darkness, through an unknown landscape where entirely new forces prevailed, where old maps were useless and compass needles vacillated crazily in search of a magnetic north that had simply vanished.
Again, ordinary men knew that something was not right. And how did these men know? Well, some got their knowledge the hard way, through personal suffering or even tragedy. And others? Well. . they just knew. For it is only natural to heed your nose when a foul tempest strikes from all directions, yes?
So knowledge dawned, by degrees, upon men in growing numbers. And these men, largely by the grace of the internet, began to find each other and to share information. The most precious gift they acquired was the knowledge that they were not alone. And knowing this, they let the torch beam of their pooled comprehension play randomly upon the alien landscape where they found themselves, and they commenced by stages to know something of its topography, of the laws which formed it, and of the forces which governed their own place within it.
Every step along that road of knowledge not only brought renewed conviction that something was not right, but yielded growing evidence of what, in particular, was wrong. And bit by bit, the accumulations of analysis would crystallize into synthesis, leading to more analysis and more synthesis, layer by layer.
And so in time, we have witnessed the growth of understanding as a sequential progression of logic beginning in the microcosm of personal experience, and rippling ever outward into greater circumferences. Simply put, we have gained, through hard-fought battles of clarification, a view of the big picture. And here we pause for breath while we take in the panorama.
Yes, the panorama seems to swirl for a minute, but very soon settles into focus. And gazing out upon it, it dawns upon us little-by-little that we have arrived at the Next Level, that the game from henceforward will be very, very different indeed. We are ready to cast off the "mind-forged manacles" of the past, and face the future with a different set of implements.
In sum, the intellectual crystallization of the non-feminist revolution has reached a milestone, and is now set to grow exponentially, as never before.
Today, the first day of the new year 2011, marks the inauguration of a bold new website in the field of counter-feminism and pro-male advocacy. I expect this new website will become notorious, even infamous, and brew quite a storm! The author of this website is Adam Kostakis -- and Adam is a new man in every way. And although you've not heard of him, be assured, oh yes, that he has heard of you!
Now, it has been my good fortune to work closely with Adam Kostakis over the past few months, and I guarantee that he and I are of one mind upon the thought that feminists have no sense of humor!
But cutting to the chase: Adam Kostakis is a mysterious Slavic revolutionary from the dark hinterlands, an arcane doctor of epistemetaphysiology, an accomplished violinist who plays tortuously difficult Tartini sonatas on his vintage Stradivarius and lives in a dark, baronial castle atop the basalt cliffs overlooking the Yakima River Canyon in eastern Washington state, USA. In addition, Adam Kostakis wears a monocle, clicks his heels like a Prussian junker, and carries a manly duelling scar across his left cheekbone. All-in-all, patriarchally considered, quite the deuce of a fellow!
Adam has spent years in his tower pondering the work of the MRA philosophers (including my own!) and generally scrutinizing the MRA scene, and he believes the hour has struck in which he too must enter the lists and cross swords with the femplex. As an arcane doctor of epistemetaphysiology, Adam Kostakis has a superbly synthesizing mind which he has brought to bear upon the business now in hand. And Adam has formulated an innovative world-paradigm that will compose the efficient philosophical foundation for the non-feminist revolution as it moves ever deeper into the post-argumentalist phase of the feminist war.
Adam Kostakis's website is a blog which bears the straightforward title of Gynocentrism Theory. Starting immediately, Adam will make known his counter-feminist teachings in regular installments, or lectures, to be posted on a weekly basis. The whole wide world is invited to attend these lectures, but non-feminist partisans, at all levels of training, are particularly invited. For it is such folk especially whom we hope to inspire with a new modality of thinking, feeling, operating, and being-in-the-world.
Adam's blog has been in preparation for several months, and the lecture material stands ready well in advance. Adam has submitted numerous manuscripts to me for critical perusal and advisement, and this work, for me, has been a pleasure indeed!
What you will find is a grand new synthesis that builds upon the best MRA traditions of the past, and yet surpasses them -- keeping what is profitable while purging away the dross, in a way that combines both conventional and unconventional strategies. Welcome to the New Level, and brace yourself for the power boost! We lay the foundation here for a new political understanding and a new model of disciplined preaching -- a stabilizing center of gravity amidst the intellectual chaos which, until now, has prevailed in both the pro-male men's movement and the non-feminist sector as a whole.
Scattering memes in the wind, steady as we go . . .
Go now:
http://gynotheory.blogspot.com
The intellectual crystallization of the non-feminist revolution has been long a-building, and many have been the pioneering philosophers who have contributed to this ongoing effort over the course of years. Yes, I should know, for I have been one of them! We have all, in our ways, piled stone upon stone, building on the work of those who came before us.
And this thing of ours began how? It began with ordinary men -- men who knew that something was not right!
These men knew that a foul wind was astir, and that it blew from all directions. Understandably, they could not trace it; they could not unriddle the mystery of it; they could not reduce it to order. And finally, they could not comprehend what to do about it. For in the midst of this tempest they wandered in darkness, through an unknown landscape where entirely new forces prevailed, where old maps were useless and compass needles vacillated crazily in search of a magnetic north that had simply vanished.
Again, ordinary men knew that something was not right. And how did these men know? Well, some got their knowledge the hard way, through personal suffering or even tragedy. And others? Well. . they just knew. For it is only natural to heed your nose when a foul tempest strikes from all directions, yes?
So knowledge dawned, by degrees, upon men in growing numbers. And these men, largely by the grace of the internet, began to find each other and to share information. The most precious gift they acquired was the knowledge that they were not alone. And knowing this, they let the torch beam of their pooled comprehension play randomly upon the alien landscape where they found themselves, and they commenced by stages to know something of its topography, of the laws which formed it, and of the forces which governed their own place within it.
Every step along that road of knowledge not only brought renewed conviction that something was not right, but yielded growing evidence of what, in particular, was wrong. And bit by bit, the accumulations of analysis would crystallize into synthesis, leading to more analysis and more synthesis, layer by layer.
And so in time, we have witnessed the growth of understanding as a sequential progression of logic beginning in the microcosm of personal experience, and rippling ever outward into greater circumferences. Simply put, we have gained, through hard-fought battles of clarification, a view of the big picture. And here we pause for breath while we take in the panorama.
Yes, the panorama seems to swirl for a minute, but very soon settles into focus. And gazing out upon it, it dawns upon us little-by-little that we have arrived at the Next Level, that the game from henceforward will be very, very different indeed. We are ready to cast off the "mind-forged manacles" of the past, and face the future with a different set of implements.
In sum, the intellectual crystallization of the non-feminist revolution has reached a milestone, and is now set to grow exponentially, as never before.
Today, the first day of the new year 2011, marks the inauguration of a bold new website in the field of counter-feminism and pro-male advocacy. I expect this new website will become notorious, even infamous, and brew quite a storm! The author of this website is Adam Kostakis -- and Adam is a new man in every way. And although you've not heard of him, be assured, oh yes, that he has heard of you!
Now, it has been my good fortune to work closely with Adam Kostakis over the past few months, and I guarantee that he and I are of one mind upon the thought that feminists have no sense of humor!
But cutting to the chase: Adam Kostakis is a mysterious Slavic revolutionary from the dark hinterlands, an arcane doctor of epistemetaphysiology, an accomplished violinist who plays tortuously difficult Tartini sonatas on his vintage Stradivarius and lives in a dark, baronial castle atop the basalt cliffs overlooking the Yakima River Canyon in eastern Washington state, USA. In addition, Adam Kostakis wears a monocle, clicks his heels like a Prussian junker, and carries a manly duelling scar across his left cheekbone. All-in-all, patriarchally considered, quite the deuce of a fellow!
Adam has spent years in his tower pondering the work of the MRA philosophers (including my own!) and generally scrutinizing the MRA scene, and he believes the hour has struck in which he too must enter the lists and cross swords with the femplex. As an arcane doctor of epistemetaphysiology, Adam Kostakis has a superbly synthesizing mind which he has brought to bear upon the business now in hand. And Adam has formulated an innovative world-paradigm that will compose the efficient philosophical foundation for the non-feminist revolution as it moves ever deeper into the post-argumentalist phase of the feminist war.
Adam Kostakis's website is a blog which bears the straightforward title of Gynocentrism Theory. Starting immediately, Adam will make known his counter-feminist teachings in regular installments, or lectures, to be posted on a weekly basis. The whole wide world is invited to attend these lectures, but non-feminist partisans, at all levels of training, are particularly invited. For it is such folk especially whom we hope to inspire with a new modality of thinking, feeling, operating, and being-in-the-world.
Adam's blog has been in preparation for several months, and the lecture material stands ready well in advance. Adam has submitted numerous manuscripts to me for critical perusal and advisement, and this work, for me, has been a pleasure indeed!
What you will find is a grand new synthesis that builds upon the best MRA traditions of the past, and yet surpasses them -- keeping what is profitable while purging away the dross, in a way that combines both conventional and unconventional strategies. Welcome to the New Level, and brace yourself for the power boost! We lay the foundation here for a new political understanding and a new model of disciplined preaching -- a stabilizing center of gravity amidst the intellectual chaos which, until now, has prevailed in both the pro-male men's movement and the non-feminist sector as a whole.
Scattering memes in the wind, steady as we go . . .
Go now:
http://gynotheory.blogspot.com
posted by Fidelbogen at 12:01 AM
47 Comments:
First off, great article! I'm going to bookmark the site.
Secondly, I found a radical creature that has talked about you by the name of Julian Real. He is hateful to white "het" men and anyone who doesn't share his ideology. I promise you that he doesn't speak for the rest of the LBGT community. As a bisexual man, I bear no hatred for straight people and I want hateful creatures like him to just go away.
You may now continue with your scheduled dissection of feminism.
Hey SilentBlood, I'm not fidelbogen, but I want to thank you for coming out.
You see, the problem with a lot of movements is that they're lead by extremists (or at least, the extremists are the loudest) so it can give a bad name to the group.
From my knowledge, most homosexuals do not hate or dislike heterosexuals... yet, its easy for people to get that perception due to people like Julian Real.
So thank you for coming out and saying "let me assure you he doesn't speak for everyone". I think homosexual men are just as affected by a misandric society, (on top of homophobia) so they get a double-blast. So I think homosexuals and bisexuals should be just as big of a part of the counter-fem revolution as anyone.
So more LGBT folks need to speak up and say things like you just did, because it will help. Unfortunately there are some immature "MRAs" who've fallen under feminazi propaganda and actually think that "all non hetero men are feminists", lol. So the more lgbt men come in here, the faster we'll help those guys dissolve that useless notion.
Thanks!
Don't just bookmark the article. Save it to your physical hard disk. Make backup copies of it.
@AlexKovy
You're absolutely welcome! I generally dislike talking about my alternative sexual tastes because of the assholes like Julian Real and his ilk. His recent post* about a movie about gay men(Red and Blue? I believe the title was) made me want reach through my computer and punch him in the face. It's people like him that makes LGBT people look like hateful men and women who hate heterosexual people. We don't, we just want equal rights.
*His blog is called Radical Pro-Feminist.
@silentblood:
Way ahead of you here. I know all about this Julian Real creature (real name, Paul Seidman). But see the following:
Clink on this!
Also, something tells me that you will be intrigued by a certain "Cyber Cat Lady" who just left a comment (near the end of the thread) on the More Evidence That It Is Happening post -- two posts prior to this. Check it out.
[Back later]
Well, I won't be posting a link to Mr. Seidman's blog. I decided to start my own blog which I'm reading through a whole bunch of feminist *and* MRA blogs and posting links to them.I plan to post my perspectives on gender issues and seek to engender genuine discussion between both movements(and submovements, like the ifeminist movement and MGTOW movement).
By the way:
Mind if I post links to your blogs, Fidelbogen and AlekNovy?
Gratz on coming out SB - and lol, even that is politically relevant here, given the difference how society sees male vs female non-traditional sexuality. Honestly there is no grats for me(as i said in the other post - i'm too =] ) to say the same...well little grats, social conservatives and corrective rape sadly are a reality, just on average less commonplace than the violent threats to gay men.
And yea, unsurprisingly that difference for women is not an achievement of feminism - given it was primarily gay/bi men targetted by Hitler, Stalin et al.
I oppose all prejudice, not just against women. The rationality and logic being that violence against men is NOT exclusively a men's problem, the same hateful idiot running loose is an increased threat to me, those i care about and everyone, regardless of gender.
'Diversion of female energy' my hind quarters.
@CCL
No problem. What is a problem is allowing the radicals to speak for all of us(like the Radical Fairys(ugh) or in my case the extremist female supremacists(like Saharah Eve and Elise Sutton) speak for kinky submissive men(yes, I am a kink as well) and kinky Dominant women(like my wife)
My wife, Lady Catherine, has recently started a blog. She describes herself as "pro-human" and she has her own unique perspective on gender issues.
:] Lol there you got the better deal, radical fairies are A LOT less creepy than the female counterpart, separatist radfems of any description. But yes, overpoliticised sexuality misses the point - to be about ourselves. I wish it wasn't all about feminism in queer community.
And about the kink background - acknowledged. My last ex was too (i am sexually adventurous rather than lifestyle), but at least i'm not totally clueless ;]
I will look at the blog only do not see myself doing any bridging the issues and communication work. If it was possible i would live my life entirely outside the feminist sphere - but you can imagine how it's a religious dogma with queer women of every variety, gay, bi, ts, cis, black, white, every fucking one, sometimes i doubt my own sanity. Imagine me telling anyone i post here...
@CCL
I aknowledge that you want nothing to do with the feminist sphere. It is perfectly acceptable. My goals are to bridge the gaps between the sexes and to put my perspective in the mix.
As I mentioned in my first blog post, I might link to a feminist blog or even a MRA blog but that doesn't mean I share those views.
I am sick and tired of the US versus THEM attitude that pervades our society and culture. Whether the attitude is vanilla versus kink, woman versus man, black versus white, straight versus gay, and even MRA versus feminist.
Our species is capable of wonderful things and terrible things, only if we learn to work together can we solve those issues. I don't care what your personal beliefs, ideology, political stances, or whatever labels you identify with are.
So that's what I thought about for the last few weeks, it's been eating at me and I decided to speak my mind via my blog. As a certain band(Iron Maiden, the song "Journeyman") puts it "I say what I want and I know what I want, and no one can take that away."
If only the fairly numerous socially conservative readers of this blog would log in to this thread right now, what merry hell it would be! Yee-haw! ;)
Anyhoo, for various reasons, there is trouble in the feminist camp. I've seen that coming for a long time. They are not just threatened by enemies from without, but they are cracking up from within.
In fact, the distinction between 'without' and 'within' is getting harder (for them) to uphold any more.
Historically, the feminists have developed coalition muscle by making every possible issue (somehow) into a feminist issue, and so gathering allies/supporters under the rubrics of those various issues, then linking them all together as chained cannon-shot to sweep the field and mow down the ranks of their enemies. This is a totalitarian strategy, interlocked with the strategy of the political left overall.
The trouble now facing the feminists (as I see it) is that they are exhausting their natural elastic limits and running their karma over their dogma. Or, as Adam Kostakis puts it, they are nearly to the top of the mountain and they can't go any further without going back down again.
To put it another way: feminism (mainly the left-wing version), is pissing off too many people for its own long-term survival. Add to that, folk such as MRAs hammering at them from the outside, and things are looking decidedly ticklish.
Female supremacism is bound to overplay its hand and run into a brick wall eventually. And that is all feminism is, at its core: female supremacism.
(I am familiar with both Elise Sutton and Saharah Eve.The latter is a pure intellectual squid, ink and all!)
At any rate, CCL and SB, you are both very, very, informative. And the fact that you are both here now, commenting at the Counter-Feminist of all places, is surely a matter that speaks large.
CCL, if it be the case that you want no truck with the feminist sector, it must be that said sector offers nothing you couldn't just as well live without.
Lady, I appreciate the link offer, but I must decline as my blog is not an MRA blog. In fact, its maybe 5% of my total life interests.
We do come from a similar philosophy (more humanist than mra/feminist), but again, I don't have an MRA blog.
I will be linking to you though and quoting your more important posts as they come up.
Good luck on the new blog, I just linked to it.
@AlekNovy
Oh well :-) I posted a link anyway.(I got bored*) It suits my purposes and is more of the moderate stuff I seek to promote, while denouncing the radical stuff. I'm going to dig around for some moderate blogs(and some more radical) and pimp my blog out.
*Not really, I liked your first post and I agree for the most part about gynocentrism for at least 20 years. Besides, according to Fidelbogen, if you think men deserve rights you're a MRA. ;-)
@LadyCatherine:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but are you mistaking AlekNovy for the author of Gynocentrism Theory?
It sounds like you might be.
'Gynocentrism Theory' is not AlekNovy's blog.
Whoops. :-s
See what being really involved in my blog does to me? I barely even started and I'm already confused. :-)
I got a post to work on too...
Oh and Fidelbogen, I'm going to critique Julian Real and Gang(TM) for my next post. Meaning I'm going to see what's good*, bad, and just plain ugly in radfem land. I may post to your Julian Real post(and any of your other 'radfem' posts) to aid in my critique.
*Let's face it, there's probably something salvageable in their posts, even if it's buried in their shit.(excuse my bad language).
"if you think men deserve rights you're a MRA. ;-)"
Well, there's the last letter there is "activist" ;) But again, main point is I will cover on my blog everything from cooking, to travel and lifestyle building, to books, to dating, to muscle building, to sex, to making money and business...
So, very little of it will have any relation to gender or mra stuff. So a person following a link to my blog will stumble onto maybe a bunch of recipes, analysis of bodyfat, some traveling tips or whatever happens to be on the frontpage at that moment, lol.
Nevermind, ignore comment above. I see that LC confused me with Adam Kostakis. :)
"*Let's face it, there's probably something salvageable in their posts, even if it's buried in their shit.(excuse my bad language)."
Whatever is salvageable in their shit is not inherently part of feminism at all.
And personally, I'd rather eat my corn fresh from the cob, than to "salvage" undigested kernels from steaming piles of horse hockey! ;)
Whatever is respectable about feminism is not original, and whatever is original about feminism is not respectable.
Dare to Call it Feminism
But anyhow, bon appetit if ya got the stomach for it! ;)
@Fidelbogen
Fair enough. The point of my next post is about radical politics damage good things. I'm pretty sure your average "foot soldier" feminist really wants equality and is misguided on the issues and by their radical leaders. The problem with radicals is that their rhetoric takes the precedence over reality and it infects even the most moderate of whatever their cause is. Considering some of my recent discussions, I'd wager that to be the case for feminism and other such movements.
"I'm pretty sure your average "foot soldier" feminist really wants equality and is misguided on the issues and by their radical leaders."
And right there exactly lies the nub of the difficulty.
"Equality" is a bogus concept UNLESS it is used in a VERY constricted and delimited way.
Anybody who says "I believe in equality", without specifying very concretely what is being referenced, is talking semantic rubbish right off the block.
And when the equality "meme" spreads to millions of people, the common language and discourse becomes polluted with semantic rubbish, followed by bad cognitive hygiene and eventually, collective mental dysfunction in one form or another.
It is best to confine all use of the word "equality" to mathematical operations, e.g. "men and women should be paid equally". This would be mathematically operationalizable, and therefore impeccably honest!
If "equality" gets used in a loose, rhetorical, abstract way, then hanky-panky creeps in very quickly.
www.4shared.com/audio/JPGewctH/_2__CF12.html
@LC and Fidelbogen
i totally see the logic in how radicals are the 'devil', but would almost be inclined to disagree. Moderates would prefer to think they're genuinely concerned about equality, it's what they do think most of the time. From observation, what they're after is a kind of tribal culture and a place therein. They might act along minimal qualifiers which is being concerned for the equality, but subject to situation changing, if that minimum would be guarding concentration camps of non-feminist captives - it would be that. Moderates ARE genuinely motivated by empathy and do on instinctive level attempt to cushion the impact, but cultural allegiance is many times stronger a force than the empathy. Well, imagine yourself, if you were suddenly ripped out of your culture, whichever that is - and had to rebuild your social network from scratch, in an alien place?
CL, i am aware you would see yourself as a moderate but it's intellectual, your cultural loyalty has failed, at a guess - individualist strain took the upper hand in an internal conflict. Same me, except my low cultural loyalty is explained by a severe marginalisation background and theory fineries of technoprogressive philosophy (as a technoprogressive i can't think bioessentialist full stop, which includes gender essentialist), but even i would feel a certain amount of culture shock if the feminist culture (rights and freedoms staying intact) was gone tomorrow. I would not fear that but most moderates would find it devastating beyond belief. It'd be to them like moving to China.
On another note i would like to return to the article of Kostakis - and the Male Studies link. It's a truly wonderful turn of things if it works out - men developing their own intellectual self-awareness rather than staying with an imposed, inadequate framework and dictated problems and answers. Chaos, yes, but in conflict the truth is born. I totally want to see how that pans out - because i can't see a valid intellectual argument that would hold against it, only lobbying and bullying.
"I'm pretty sure your average "foot soldier" feminist really wants equality and is misguided on the issues and by their radical leaders."
I disagree entirely. To use Fidelbogen's phrase, they are advantage maximizers, the comparative status of men be damned.
I do believe in the earnest/radical feminist distinction, though they are two halves of one whole rather than separate entities; and most crucially, could not function without each other.
But, I do not believe that earnest feminists are misguided. I do not believe they have 'hearts of gold.'
On the contrary, they are often just as vindictive and tribalistic, just less outspoken about it. They practise rhetorical discipline.
Try this out sometime.
If any given earnest feminist is truly concerned with the equal treatment of men and women, she will respond positively to the idea of women losing female-specific privileges so that men and women are placed on an even footing in that particular example.
This never happens; what we tend to hear is that 'women have been oppressed for so long' etc., and so they are due some compensatory privilege to make up for it. Earnest feminists are typically sold on the idea that men today must be punished for the sins (real, imagined or exaggerated) that other men committed in the past. They are simply advantage-maximizers for whom misandry serves its purpose; but they like to keep their own hands clean of that stuff, naturally.
I will expand on some of these themes in future posts to my blog.
Well...I finished my post
Why radicalism taints good things
I dissected Julian Real's recent post and I referenced your blog, it's all good. ^_^
"It is best to confine all use of the word "equality" to mathematical operations, e.g. "men and women should be paid equally". This would be mathematically operationalizable, and therefore impeccably honest!"
Numbers can be bullshit
"CL, i am aware you would see yourself as a moderate but it's intellectual, your cultural loyalty has failed, at a guess - individualist strain took the upper hand in an internal conflict."
Possibly :-p
Or perhaps, I really want to make the world a better place and I realize that issues affecting each gender are multi-faceted. Consider false rape accusations for example: Not only do they wreck men's lives but they soften the impact of real rape which women are the primary targets of.
@Adam
Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree. I'll probably target that sentiment in my next post...
@LC:
I just posted the first comment on your blog, and it's good enough to repost here, too. It is in snippet-and-response mode:
"For the benefit of normal feminists that will read my blog:
I do realize that these view points are not representative of all feminists. What I do acknowledge is that most feminists do care about men's issues and do care about genuine equality. Radicalism taints good things and I encourage others to speak out against such hatred. "
I would need to demur. In the case of feminism, the radicalism does more than "taint" the batch. Oh, I suppose you could say that acidophilus et al "taints" yogurt, and that most of the yogurt is just milk in a modified form. And that is just the point: without the acidiphilus, yogurt would technically not be yogurt.
Likewise, without those spicy radfems and their "patriarchy theory", the "yogurt" of feminism would relapse into boring old "milk" ideas, catchphrases, commonplaces, liberal platitudes, etc...
The future of liberal feminism is radical. Always has been.
From my response:
"The future of liberal feminism is radical. Always has been."
The problem then of course is considering conservative and libertarian feminists don't fit into that equation.Especially since economically and socially, they are bound to differ in their goals.
@AdamK:
"But, I do not believe that earnest feminists are misguided. I do not believe they have 'hearts of gold.'"
I gotta quibble with this, a little. Human psychology is a mite more complex than you are suggesting, and it is entirely possible that those Earnest Feminists have hearts of gold in their own minds.
File it under feminist subjectivism.
What they lack is Purity of Heart in the Kierkegaardian sense, because they are "double-minded"; they fail to "will One Thing".
So in a way, I think that they DO have hearts of gold, and yet they are fooling themselves, so they have hearts of fool's gold.
I'd agree Libertarian feminists seem very different. In fact, they break the yogurt metaphor above :D
That makes it weird... why would they call themselves feminists then. Like why do iFeminists have a "feminist" in the name?
I think there's some emotional attachment to the name or something... because libertarian feminists don't even use the basic terms or ideas of feminism... so its kind of oxymoronic.
Christina Hoff Sommers and the IWF made it a bit different, and they just call themselves a women's group, where the word feminism/feminist is never even mentioned except in a negative light. There's plenty of women's groups out there too like women business owners or stuff like that, and many of them make it CLEAR they want nothing to do with feminists, and actually say to not join if you're a feminist, lol.
So... If there's the option of women's groups... Why do people like "libertarian feminists", an oxymoron if I've ever seen one, still choose to use the term feminist? Makes no sense...
"I'd agree Libertarian feminists seem very different. In fact, they break the yogurt metaphor above :D"
Yup. What they break, to be more precise, is the inherent dialectical motion which progresses from liberal to radical. So, from a radically (i.e. essentially) feminist POV, they are a dead end. They arrest perpetual revolution.
Or more accurately, they turn aside into a cul-de-sac and sit there, speaking fine words and engaging in reformism. They may safely be left to their devices, but still, it is a nettlesome question why they continue to call themselves "feminist." That label, for them, is effectively empty, and it generates confusion.
Why, why, WHY, do they cling to the F-word? Simple naïveté? Failure to think things through sufficiently? Why? Therein lies the subject for a thesis or dissertation, I suppose.
The most commonly accepted definition of feminist is someone who believes women should have equal rights with men. This is a majority of people. So by strict definiton a majority of people are feminists. iFeminists are really unique cookies because they realize that issues that affect men will eventually affect *gasp* WOMEN. Too bad radical and liberal feminists can't grasp that. Despite that, my blog is an attempt to curb that problem and engender discussion between those involved in gender politics.
"The most commonly accepted definition of feminist is someone who believes women should have equal rights with men. This is a majority of people."
Ahhhh . . so there we have it!
The majority of people are foggy in their heads. It's the semantic rubbish factor that I mentioned earlier, upthread.
One perplexity of mine, at the moment: what, precisely, is the difference between a liberal feminist and a libertarian feminist?
Depending on which mental dictionary one operates from, libertarian could be just another word for "liberal" -- well, in the 19th century sense of the term anyway.
Libertarian Feminists
They advocate that women should take full responsibility for their actions and they oppose coercive government structures that would impose themselves on women. As libertarians they believe the same should be extended to men.
Liberal Feminists
The typical feminist. They advocate for government programs to further women and other liberal programs. Usually very PC and has the traits of a SWPL..
Does that help?
"Does that help?"
Actually, it does. A bit.
Those "liberal" feminists would be, basically, the NOW cows and their ilk. They differ from radfems only in the way that a glass of raw sewage mixed with water differs from a glass of undiluted sewage.
As far as I'm concerned, they are no better than the radfems. Thanks anyway, but I don't care for ANY amount of sewage in my water. :(
In fact, the ONLY difference may be, that the "liberal" feminists are smoother talkers (i.e. effective double-talkers.)
Perpetual revolution is always progressing in a radical direction, and as the political frame shifts more and more to the "left", the "liberals" may be depended on to keep step in a proportionate way.
And at some point, the libertarian feminists might decide to be just libertarians.
"Numbers can be bullshit"
As in: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."?
Yes, if some bullshit artist makes 2 and 3 add up to 8, it is sho'nuff bullshit. Point taken! ;)
I'm sort of the opinion that libertarian feminists are just that, libertarians. The feminism part means that the focus is on women(obviously) but from my experiences(thus far) they really do care about men's right to life and liberty. Besides, they piss off liberal feminists and we both can agree that's a good thing. My own position is one of well... understanding that issues that HUMANS face are multi-faceted and affect both men and women in different ways.
"The most commonly accepted definition of feminist is someone who believes women should have equal rights with men. "
Nope, that's an academic definition, or a way of controlling the meaning of words. Dictionaries are written by Academics who are by definition mostly on the left.
If dictionaries were true, they would have the definition that the general population has. For example, if people on the street understand "ball" to be a round object and 99% use the term with this meaning... It doesn't matter that academics define a "ball" as "any object that isn't a cube".
Same with feminists and feminism. The word today carries the meaning of "a man-hating, patriarchal theory subscribing unattractive person with a totalitarian bent".
"Chaos, yes, but in conflict the truth is born. I totally want to see how that pans out - because i can't see a valid intellectual argument that would hold against it, only lobbying and bullying."
Lobbying and bullying has gotten the feminist culture this far to date, and as the saying goes, "ya can't larn an old dog new tricks", so . . the old bitch will stick to the old tricks I reckon. And that is where things will get . . interesting. (Read: potentially violent.)
"a certain amount of culture shock if the feminist culture (rights and freedoms staying intact) was gone tomorrow. I would not fear that but most moderates would find it devastating beyond belief. It'd be to them like moving to China."
This makes me think of the question I have sometimes heard, "what will you replace feminism with?". What does the questioner really fear? That life for women in general will take a dramatic nosedive for the worst, and only "feminism" can prevent this occurring? OR, more subtly, does the questioner fear that no such thing will happen at all, with the actual unstated question being "what will replace the psychic vacuum in MY life if feminism departs?"
""The most commonly accepted definition of feminist is someone who believes women should have equal rights with men. "
Nope, that's an academic definition, or a way of controlling the meaning of words. Dictionaries are written by Academics who are by definition mostly on the left."
A small quibble here. Actually, a lot of non-academic people in fact would spout a definition such as this, but the problem is, that these people aren't very bright! And if you started interrogating them, their lack of intellectual substance would soon become painfully evident. Yes, this describes a fair number of people.
But there is also (thankfully) a goodly number of people who WOULD offer a definition such as you are suggesting.
This polarization on a grand scale is what makes the developing scenario so dramatic.
"the old bitch will stick to the old tricks I reckon. And that is where things will get . . interesting. (Read: potentially violent.)"
yes. very much so. only i would in their (Male Studies academia) place prepare myself first and foremost against lobbying, bribery, threats to deans and rector and legal/academic procedural obstacles, followed by a violent protest only as a last resort. Feminists can't win here if they don't keep the profile low, because this is one instance where publicity would hurt them.
""what will you replace feminism with?". What does the questioner really fear? That life for women in general will take a dramatic nosedive for the worst, and only "feminism" can prevent this occurring? OR, more subtly, does the questioner fear that no such thing will happen at all, with the actual unstated question being "what will replace the psychic vacuum in MY life if feminism departs?""
Yes. I am a proud (or humble, in some circles: *eyelid flutter* i can help a little, paint thingies, make coffee and keep company...erm did i say company...but don't take it the wrong way if i don't feel as outspoken and politically savvy as you, girls.) non-feminist, and even i am terrified of that. It's how a village priest's atheist-in-heart wife would feel with all religion suddenly gone. For a believer that possibility of 'psychic vacuum' would easily be terrifiying enough not to register with her consciousness at all, only subconsciously. And in fairness why would it be even considered? An international belief system with millions of followers can't disappear tomorrow.
@LC - i like your blog and the idea. But then i looked at the poor Julian for Real individual - and went just awww poor little thing. I have my own, available on a need-to-know basis, reasons to think that their(singular) screwedupness, hate and the childish classroom coprolalia dictionary sidebar might be just just a tough(?) front for something commonly known as the Stockholm Syndrome. At this point irreversible qua heavily culturally reinforced. I can't really be vitriolic about someone like that. At least there are lots of lovely, useful links written out in childish pedantry, the entire radical looper operations map so to say.
@CCL
Julian is a hateful man who projects his own insecurities on others. He may have Stockholm Syndrome effectively being a captor of radical feminism. But don't hold your breath. As a psychologist, I'm totally aware that he could really be a hateful misandrist man who loaths himself and his own masculinity.
". . followed by a violent protest only as a last resort. Feminists can't win here if they don't keep the profile low, because this is one instance where publicity would hurt them."
Feminism is now lodged in the institutional structures, hence, "respectable". I might compare it to organized crime, which was openly thuggish in the early racketeering days, but once they got their people into "city hall", and into electoral politics, learned to wear a silk tie and play the game in a different way. But. . that doesn't mean they still couldn't play it dirty, in the old street style, if it came to that.
Erin Pizzey (and others) caught the dirty, criminal side of (radical) feminism, at a time when it was still trying to "get its foot in the stirrup", hence, insecure and apt to react viciously to whatever threatened to wreck the game.
Nowadays, they are not so insecure. BUT. . . if a serious, tangible threat develops, watch the old thuggery come galloping back, with bomb threats, death threats, etc etc...
But as for the violence I was referring to, well. . that is more a pandemic, societal response to continued unchecked feminist innovation. E.G. more people such as Lepine and Sodini cropping up, not necessarily with any political consciousness at all, but reacting primitively to conditions in the social ecology which unchecked feminist innovation (spearheaded by "bullying and lobbying") would tend to propagate.
(Female violence will happen too, but only the male kind will catch any condemnation.)
" E.G. more people such as Lepine and Sodini cropping up, not necessarily with any political consciousness at all, but reacting primitively to conditions in the social ecology which unchecked feminist innovation (spearheaded by "bullying and lobbying") would tend to propagate."
Sadly, I have to agree with all of that. Unchecked radicalism of any sort will lead to a very unstable social ecology. And since most feminists are liberal and liberalism leads to radicalism. It leads to a very unstable social ecology.
@LC:
I was just inspired to visit the NOW website, for a quick sample of what "liberal" feminism is. From what I saw there, I must say that the NOW people are not as bad as, e.g. Sheila Jeffries. They are only half as bad as that -- which is like saying that a billionaire is only half as rich as a two-billionaire.
Finally, I think that the only difference worth noting between NOW feminists and so-called radical feminists, is that the former know how to image-manage themselves better than the latter -- and that is why they gain political traction.
Reading through the NOW website, you can see that most of their discourse and vocabulary traces directly or indirectly to radfems in academia (or other think-tanks). NOW discourse is essentially a "lite" version of what the radicals are saying.
I remember an earlier version of the NOW website where the page header openly said something about "the patriarchy".
Interestingly, that has gone down the memory hole.
LC: Agreed. Btw wasn't holding my breath, as per 'irreversible'. Just am a bit sad, that is all.
@Fidelbogen: True, the difference between mainstream feminist politics of NOW variety and radicalism is not much. And an excessively beautiful moment - race or class related internal criticism typically warrants replies 'yes, we should be more radical' or 'no, imo we should be more radical first'. And, over my already quite long life i have never met anyone who would primarily call herself a feminist activist, wield any degree of institutional power specifically through that and believe in 3rd wave liberal or otherwise intelligent versions. It's always been Greer and whomelse 70ies -80ies.
Something came to me. Lack of gender role, that's the enticing part about feminism. Or rather it's supposed to be. For people like my husband and I, we don't fit on the traditional gender binary. I'm a Dominant career woman and my husband is a submissive house-husband, but we also exhibit traditional masculine and feminine traits respectively. And yet "liberal" feminism does not fit our needs or wants. I think I smell a blog post coming. ;-p
"but we also exhibit traditional masculine and feminine traits respectively"
That reads wrong: It should read that we both exhibit masculine and feminine traits... oops. :-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home