The Sector System Briefly Explained
So again, there is a world beyond feminism -- and we are that world.
The project of feminism, as we all know, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit and no clearly stated plan to cease operations at any discernible time. In pursuit of this project, feminism has for many years conducted a war against men and maleness, on all fronts large and small. Men as a class have been targeted for hostile actions meant both to deprive them of the tangible and intangible goods of life, and to redistribute those goods to women.
And so it devolves in practice that the effect of feminism is to generate the ascendency of women, and to make the ruling power in most areas of life, both large and small, a female power. This project has taken great strides, and further progress is clearly projected. For that reason we conclude that feminism is a female supremacist project, and for all purposes indistinguishable from female supremacism.
Understand, that we do not say feminism is similar to female supremacism, or contains an element of female supremacism, or has a female supremacist aspect. No, we say that feminism and female supremacism are one and the same object; that the terms may be freely interchanged on whatever occasion you please. And frankly, if you could expel all of the female supremacism from feminism, then "feminism" would become a paltry, vanilla sort of thing that would melt back into the terrain of liberal humanism and cease to be salient.
Our decision, to make feminism and female supremacism interchangeable terms, is a LINGUISTIC FIAT. We, by our good sovereign pleasure, have ordained it so. A word by itself has no inherent meaning; rather, meaning is assigned to it, or mapped to it. And we have made our linguistic choice well knowing that we ride roughshod over the linguistic choices which others have made. Still, nothing prevents those others from speaking in their customary way within their own speech communities.
We understand that not every self-identified feminist identifies subjectively as a female supremacist. Nevertheless, we recognize feminism in toto to be a female supremacist project on an organic level -- and that every human participant in the feminist project is a contributor to this; a supporter of this; an enabler of this. Thus, we may name any self-identified feminist (of either sex) as an objective or de facto female supremacist.
The project of feminism, again, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit. The effect of this will be to drive a wedge between men and women by generating a disequilibrium of power between them. So it is accurate to say that the purpose of feminism (read: female supremacism) is to make men and women "unequal".
Now, the project of counter-feminism is, to isolate feminism in order to make it available as a target of social and political operations. And the first stage in this project is the rough cut. To isolate feminism, is to recognize it as recognizable, and we make it at least roughly so when we recognize that feminism is one thing, while the rest of the world is something else. At any rate, we have taken the critical first step in so doing, and further steps may follow by way of refinement. The rough cut establishes the sector system, meaning the division of the world into a feminist sector, and a non-feminist sector. This foundational binary composes the bedrock for an entire way of working and thinking. Little wonder then, that we call it the bedrock binary.
So, the non-feminist sector is a sovereign zone of existence, inhabited by a range of entities, communities, and forces. What all of these have in common is that they do not partake of feminism. The sector is not merely "not feminist" in a statistical-demographic way, but in a primordial way; it represents everything in the universe which lies beyond the explanatory competence of feminist theory -- in sum, all the forces and principles of that realm. Viewed in this context, feminism is very small and non-feminism is very large. Indeed, feminism is like a transient pattern of ripples upon a timeless river.
Female supremacism is nothing if not a war against men. However, in waging war against men, one bites off a far bigger chunk of the universe than just maleness. I mean, that politically organized anti-male aggression has a collateral effect upon the world at large because it generates fallout; because it transmits ripples from one end to the other of the social ecology. This is consequential for men and women both. And a lot of women will not want those consequences, because you might say that feminism hurts women too. Such women will know very well how to maximize their advantage when the time comes.
So it works out that the feminist war against men generates consequences for more than just men. This means that feminist anti-male aggression is, in the long run, aggression against the non-feminist world as a whole -- meaning anybody or anything which might, directly or indirectly, pose an obstacle to feminist plans.
Feminism then, is pernicious to the rest of the world. So again, our master strategy is to ISOLATE FEMINISM. And having once done this, to commence operations that will dismember its effective power on earth. Our establishment of the sector system sets the process in motion. For it is an elemental power gesture of surpassing importance, to affirm that feminism is a definite thing, and that WE are a sovereign thing apart from it and in no way subservient to it. This, at least, begins to isolate feminism.
And the question "what is a non-feminist?" will naturally arise. This will trigger the question "what is a feminist?". In other words, it will establish the necessary frame. For we know that not every self-declared non-feminist would give the same answer. No -- not every non-feminist would agree on what feminism is!
Or at any rate, not yet.
But as non-feminists, we may concur that feminism is not the best plan. That is why we are not feminists. And so whatever we severally understand feminism to be, we can at least agree that the word feminism itself cannot mean anything good. So we can agree that the word itself is contaminated, and that we ought to place a social stigma upon it. And we can agree that to be not a feminist is a thing of decisive consequence, and that whosoever repudiates feminism must do so with adamantine resolution.
Under the feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will obtain. Call this situation F. Under the non-feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will likewise obtain. Call this situation N. As non-feminist partisans, we claim that situation N is preferable to situation F, because it will generate less human misery in the long term. Our view is not utopian; we aspire not to a perfect world, but to a less imperfect one.
Having concurred that the word feminism signifies something not-good, we may likewise concur that feminism itself must be targeted for corrective operations. But in order for that to happen, we must concur upon a target -- which brings back the problem that we have not concurred upon a definition. So it looks like we must, eventually, somehow, concur upon a definition of feminism. And having done so, we may at last reach target consensus, so as to know precisely where we should direct our operations.
Target consensus, accordingly, reminds us that feminism equals female supremacism. Counter-feminist analysis concludes this, and we assert that no other analysis will generate effective political traction. You may agree, or not, that feminism equals female supremacism -- yet female supremacism as a datum is not to be doubted. It is out there. It is real. And if you are serious in opposing feminism you cannot avoid asking how feminism relates to female supremacism. How would the absence of one affect the other, and what is their precise chemistry of co-existence? Are those two things at odds with each other? Are they symbiotic with each other? Are they part- and- parcel of each other? Or do they run on separate rails oblivious to each other? If you oppose feminism, and yet believe that female supremacism is a separate object all by itself, then how precisely does female supremacism factor into your political calculations? Do you even think about this at all? How can you not entertain such questions?
I have met certain people who avow that they are not feminist, yet voice no objection to feminism as such. In fact, some of their friends are feminists -- wouldn't you know it? These gentry are practicing, as it seems to me, a misguided liberality or open-mindedness -- as if they are merely Quakers and the feminists are merely Amish, and naught of greater import hangs in the balance. I cannot, by any trial of intellectual pressure, make them agree that feminism and female supremacism are the same thing. And when I enquire to know what they think feminism is, they respond with platitudes.
Yes. There is a sizeable centrist party, a tribe of fence-sitters who harbor the illusion of middle ground between pro and anti. These folk are nearly always stuffed with clichés and marked by the shallowness of their political understanding, and their understanding is often saturated by the conventions of feminist discourse. They fail to comprehend that their middle ground is only a transitory condition, that the growth of polarization will finally shrink that ground to nothing. In the end they will be forced off their fence and compelled to take a stand -- either to the side of female supremacism, or to the side opposing it.
So target consensus is the goal of shared understanding to which we, as non-feminist partisans, direct our efforts. And the process of reaching this goal is called clarificatory discourse. In practice, clarificatory discourse amounts to intellectual crystallization through broadening circles of discussion. This generates social mass, or if you will, "gravity" -- which, in the end, establishes non-feminism as a factor in the equations of power.
Target consensus makes female supremacism the point of conjunction for all non-feminist understandings of what feminism is. This permits us to differ at least somewhat, and to benefit from the creative flexibility such difference affords, while sharing a foundational understanding upon points where misunderstanding would compromise our work.
So once again, our master strategy is to isolate feminism. And in order to do that, we must clarify the basis of a distinction between feminist and non-feminist -- both in order to know what feminism is, and to know what we ourselves are by knowing what we are not. Having reached that point, we are finally in a position to go forward with any project of a political nature that might occur to us.
Feminism thrives on fuzzy categories. It is a fuzzy category itself, and embraces many fuzzy categories, and fuzzy ideas, within itself. To put that another way, feminism has fuzzy borders because it merges so gradually with the non-feminist world that it is not clear where feminism ends and non-feminism begins. This state of things has arrived by a series of steps, and shall be reversed by a series of steps. So our first order of business is to make the fuzziness into something solid, or as we say, to collapse feminism's fuzzy borders. That is what it means, in practice, to isolate feminism. By creating a clear border, you create a clear target that you can operate upon.
We have already spoken of the rough cut, which establishes feminism and non-feminism as the bedrock binary from which our subsequent understanding grows.
Next, we reject any method of studying feminism which commences by adopting the feminist worldview, recognizing that any feminist definition of feminism can only be a product of the feminist worldview -- a worldview we do not share! As non-feminists, we understand that you cannot begin within feminism and then argue your way out of it by using feminist vocabulary and discourse to pave your road. No. You must declare yourself alien to feminism as a necessary first step; you must occupy the Archimedian standpoint, and proceed from there. As the feminist Audre Lorde famously remarked, "you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools." As non-feminists, we understand feminism on independent terms, and we do not reach our conclusion by any feminist chain of reasoning. So our strategy is to reframe the entire discussion, forcing them to engage our issues on our terms while roadblocking their customary avenues of evasion.
You don't need to read every feminist book ever written, and refute it line by line. You have NO legal, moral or intellectual duty to do any such thing. They'll just write more books anyway, and then what will you do? The point is to stop arguing with them on their own terms. Instead, locate their intellectual weak spots and drill, drill, drill! Pick your battles wisely; many are not worth fighting. And don't fight your way out of quicksand in which you are not standing! Stand clear, and force them to come out and engage you on ground which you have chosen. We don't owe them any answers, but they owe us plenty.
We "study" feminism only as one might study a machine or a complex system, with the intention of wrecking it. The classic advice to "know your enemy" means knowing him the better to wreck him.
You might think that the best way to learn what feminism is, is to ask a feminist, right? WRONG. That is one of the worst ways imaginable, and if you follow that road you will be led hopelessly astray. In fact, feminism is a system of obfuscatory rhetoric, intended to camouflage the advancement of female supremacism. There is a perennial tension between what we are told that feminism is, and what we can SEE that it is. So we map the term "feminism" to a certain objective pattern of things that we see in the world. That is our path of knowledge. And we are aware that it overwrites much of the feminist narrative.
Clearly, feminism for them is a journey, and most of their talk is about the smaller points of scenery and navigation upon that journey. And by inviting us to partake in their talk, or expecting us to do so, they imply that we have consented to take the same journey ourselves. They have hauled us aboard their train, and permitted us to wander freely up and down the train as it hustles us along. And so, for example, if we agree to explore the merits of one brand of feminism against another, we are only exploring different locations aboard that train, possibly in search of the first-class car so we can travel more comfortably to a place we never wanted to go to. So, if we truly don't want to go where the train is taking us, we have two choices: either jump off, or seize control of the locomotive.
Yes, whenever a new philosophy or belief system gains ascendency in a society, it will fragment into a variety of sub-systems which are more-or-less at odds with each other. Accordingly, those who originally opposed the new system as a whole are obliged, willy-nilly, to "pick the lesser of two evils" by taking sides in the conversation that follows -- and this validates the conversation as a whole. So, regardless which side prevails, the broader frame of the new system cements itself. Very well: for nearly half a century, the feminist strategy has been to draw the rest of the world into a feminist conversation. We must now undertake slowly and patiently to reverse that, and undo that. We must sabotage the entire conversation, and do this radically. We must inaugurate a counter-narrative that will confront the feminist narrative along a broad front -- in its entirety! -- and systematically dissolve that narrative like an acid.
Non-feminism is not a ideology or a movement, but merely the rest of the world -- the part that wants to live unmolested by feminism. It is no duty of yours, as a non-feminist, to justify your lack of feminism. It is the duty of any feminist, however, to LEAVE YOU ALONE, and to leave the rest of the world alone. Failure by any feminist or feminist group to do so, will be considered an act of aggression -- as likewise, the entire history of feminism, especially since the 1960s, has been a cumulative and sustained war of aggression.
Non-feminism has existed for the entire history of the human race. Feminism is very, very recent -- even if the elements of it were always present in undeveloped form. Most recent of all, however, is the largely male political coterie known as the "MRAs" or Male Renaissance Agitators. They are a colorful lot, these MRA people, and they certainly harbor their share of foibles. Some of them are transcendental geniuses while others, it pains me to admit, are flat-out idiots. In fact, they represent the full gamut of humanity in all of its lights and shadows -- they are nothing if not human! In that respect, they mirror the world. But unlike the feminists, they do not pretend to "be" the world. Nor do they even pretend to "be" the non-feminist world, for indeed they are not. In fact, they are just one among a variety of working parts in a developing global organism called the non-feminist revolution. And yes, they play a pivotal, catalytic role.
But the MRA cohort of the non-feminist revolution has been hyped to a degree that is both unwarranted and politically counter-productive. The trouble with the word "MRA" is that it's ad hoc terminology; it is not based on a coherent set of ideas; it has no true epistemic pedigree, and no consistent political message built into it. And so it obscures more than it illuminates. Furthermore, the Feminist-versus-MRA script is an inefficient dichotomy or polarity which falsifies the objective state of things. Feminist-versus-non-feminist makes a far more stable platform. You can build on it.
And there is no "MRA movement". It exists only in the feminist imagination: they invented it as a trick to ghettoize anybody who speaks out loudly against feminism. For the rest of us, "MRA movement", (or even "men's movement") is merely a figure of speech, a shorthand for talking about something too large and complex for words. After all, we can hardly escape the necessity of talking. Let it be so, and let the other side chase shadows.
We understand "non-feminist" to mean "against female supremacism", and we set the burden upon any self-declared feminist to show that he or she is not a female supremacist. At the same time, we make clear to them that they can shrug off that burden by simply discarding "feminist" as a self-appellative. Yes, we make it easy for them. We do not ask them to give up their personal beliefs about anything whatever. We request only that they stop sticking the word "feminist" to themselves. And if they will not agree to this, then we mentally classify them as doubtful or suspect people -- "persons of interest", if you will.
We of the non-feminist sector claim the status of a sovereign power with respect to the feminist power on earth, and we demand the full measure of diplomatic courtesy due to such a position. A number of behaviors, on the part of any feminist or feminist group, will be considered acts of discourtesy or outright aggression -- and the codification of such behaviors will be an ongoing project in the course of clarificatory discourse. For the good of the entire world, we advise the feminists to seek non-feminist counsel upon all matters concerning law, culture, public policy, and the common welfare.
Under the feminist regime, the non-feminist sector has been nothing. Henceforth, the sector must assume its rightful place in the sun and become something.
This concludes the present treatise upon the sector system.