How Feminism Constructs "Patriarchy"

Here is a picture of the Patriarchy! Take a look: that is a mighty fine, rugged, impressive-looking patriarch -- don't you think so?

But stop, and linger, and give this a closer look-see. Hey presto! The old curmudgeon completely disappears, doesn't he?

He doesn't even exist.

Well, all right, maybe he does exist. On a certain perceptual level. I mean, after all, reality has a number of aspects, right? And I grant you it is pretty hard not to "see" that old man in the picture; everything conspires and falls together just so, to assist your eye in forming the necessary image.

And yet, on closer examination, it is equally certain that he is a complete figment of your imagination.

Boy, we sure do need to get Don Juan and Carlos Castaneda in here to expand more eloquently upon the theme, eh?

All right, so that is how feminism constructs "patriarchy": by magical thinking, and . . . "seeing."

Some may raise an objection: "But Fidelbogen, aren't you doing the same thing with 'feminism', when you talk about the 'femplex', and 'target consensus' and all the rest of that stuff?"

Actually, no. I have reason to believe that I am NOT doing such a thing.

However, I am willing to be open-minded, and be a sport. If the feminists will agree to give up their game of 'constructing' the patriarchy, and to agree it is all just an illusionary play of light, shadow and shifting perspective, then I will agree to do likewise in my analysis of feminism.

Because, if the feminists do the former, I will no longer need to do the latter.

But do you reckon the feminists will take me up on my offer?

Hell no.