The following comes straight from the transatlantic part of the counter-feminist global pipeline -- virtually as I received it. The purpose of sharing this is to inform. That is how we do things now: we think globally and we share information. Ours is a global movement; we need to repeat that to ourselves until it becomes second nature. You will see that this material covers the topic of gender mainstreaming, which is a very important subject indeed, even if the term itself is not so well known outside of the European Union and areas overshadowed by the United Nations:
"World Women´s Conference
"Gender-mainstreaming. Have you ever heard that before? It is not at all a marginal phenomenon. The concept of gender-mainstreaming is implemented in the recommendations of the UN, the guidelines of the EU and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.
"The German Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth maintains its own website with the domain "gender-mainstreaming.net". But what does gender-mainstreaming mean? Hedwig von Beverfoerde wanted to explain that in her speech "Gender-mainstreaming – gender-political government ideology on velvet paws" at the Center for Education in Wilmershain, Berlin on February 25th.
"The Federal Ministry of Family Affairs states: "Gender mainstreaming means to consider the different situations of living and interests of women and men from the first and regularly, because there is no gender-neutral reality".
"Abolition of genders
"That sounds empty, rhetorical. In reality, the consequences of this concept are far reaching indeed. Why will become clear, when we examine the goal of gender-mainstreaming as defined by the UN: "gender equality" and accordingly "gender egalitarianism", not "equal rights under the law", but analogousness of genders. This analogousness would have to be an abolition of gender, for gender is a characteristic that defines a distinction. Or, as Mrs. von Beverfoerde puts it, “gender-mainstreaming wants to create a new form of human being, one who should choose his gender and sexual orientation by himself, i.e. haphazardly deciding, whether he or she wants to be a man or a woman, hetero-, homo-, bi-, or transsexual.
"Since, biologically speaking, an abolition of genders/sexes is impossible, an ideology that seeks to abolish genders must presume that all differences between genders/sexes aside from anatomical characteristics are purely social constructs that, under certain conditions, can be arbitrarily changed. This assumption goes back to Simone de Beauvoir inter alia, who in 1949 stated in her book “The Second Sex” that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman“. This opinion became increasingly popular in the 1960´s and 1970´s, and little by little, the term “gender” as in “social sex role” was established in opposition to “sex” as “biological sex role”. At this time, the supporters of the hypothesis of the purely social sex role tried to back up their claims scientifically. One of the first to try this was the New Zealand – born American psychologist and sexologist John Money. Money became famous due to a case, called in scientific literature the John/Joan case.
"In 1966, the identical twins Bruce and Brian Reimer (born 1965) were circumcised because of phimosis. The circumcision of Bruce went badly – his penis was irreparably damaged. Bruce Reimer´s parents then called on John Money. John Money had already had a certain reputation in the theory of purely socially learned gender. On his recommendation, 22 months old Bruce had “still remaining testicle removed and rudimentary labia formed out of his scrotum. Furthermore, the child was treated with female hormones. From that point on, Bruce was called Brenda.” The Reimers raised Bruce/Brenda as a girl. Money was especially enthusiastic about this case, because Bruce´s identical twin brother could be used as a comparison. Thus he hoped to prove his thesis that solely education in early childhood years is important for the development of sexual and gender-specific identity. John Money described Brenda as a “normal, happy girl” and called the experiment, for which he was internationally congratulated on, a huge success.
"The German publicist Alice Schwarzer used it in 1975 as evidence in her book “Der Kleine Unterschied” [“The Little Difference”] for her theses of equality feminism and called it a “paradigm of the duty of enlightenment of science”. She wrote that “the ability to bear children is the only remaining difference between man and woman. Everything else is artificially imposed” and she honored Money´s experiment as “one of the few exceptions that doesn´t manipulate, but does justice to the paradigm of the duty of enlightenment of science”.
"But the success of the experiment postulated by Money and enthusiastically picked up by Schwarzer never existed, and seldom has a scientist been more manipulative, fraudulent and motivated by ideology than John Money. Bruce/Brenda was not a normal, happy girl. From the very beginning, the altered boy rebelled against wearing girls´clothes and playing with girls´toys, and was described by family and friends and later by himself as a deeply unhappy child with grave social problems.
"At the age of 13, Brenda threatened to commit suicide, if she was taken to another therapeutic appointment with John Money, which he perceived as traumatic. Thereupon, the parents told their child about the failed circumcision and the consequences. Brenda immediately chose to live as a man, called himself David and underwent surgery and hormone treatment to make him physically a man as well. As an adult he married and became the stepfather of three children his wife brought into the marriage. Although John Money knew about the failure of his human experiment, he still made propaganda for it as a huge success. Only when David Reimer decided to go public with his story in 1997 did Money stop.
"David Reimer suffered from his dramatic childhood experiences his entire life. In 2004 he shot himself with a sawed-off shotgun at the age of 38. Even after David Reimer´s suicide, John Money and many of his supporters, among them Alice Schwarzer, declined to correct their earlier evaluations.
"John Money died 2006. In line with his concept of “sex reassignment” he has “reassigned” an unknown number of children with deformed genitalia. To this end he had installed a special clinic in his function as director of the psychological department at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, which was closed by his successor in 1979. Some of his former patients tried to overcome their experiences in self-help groups.
"Gender-mainstreaming is unscientific
"This is not the only case in which gender-mainstreaming and it´s precursor theories respectively have proven scientifically untenable. A study done in 2000 according to modern scientific standards – done at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, where John Money once was a member of the staff, of all places – could prove that male children with the chromosome combination XY develop a male gender identity even if they are born without a penis due to birth defects, and are later reassigned as “female”. Doctors treated them with hormones and surgically gave them vaginae. Knowledge gained in genetics in the past years have also shown: Many aspects of our behavior are inherent, not acquired. Theories postulating 100% social acquirement are disqualified.
"Gender-mainstreaming at universities
"But in defiance of all science, gender-mainstreaming has not vanished. The subject of “gender studies” can be studied at many German universities, colleges and academies. According to study regulations, the subject is specifically required for an ever growing number of courses. You can even get a degree in it at the University of Bielefeld. There is even a “Center for Gender Research” at some universities (although the “Center for Medical Gender Research”, founded in 2004 at the Charité in Berlin also counts as one. It concerns itself with meaningful research like why some illnesses affect men and women differently with different symptoms, etc).
"Those students, who can no longer avoid “gender studies” can no longer avoid Judith Butler. Butler, who is a professor for rhetoric and comparative literature studies at the University of California and the European Graduate School, is counted among the most influential feminist theoreticians. Butler´s goal is the abolition of genders/sexes on an even more radical level than her predecessors: According to her, not only social gender is a construct, but also biological sex. When concerning oneself with Butler´s statements, one truly understands what “gender” implies; what Volker Zastrow realized and published in the FAZ [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]: “[...] that there is no biological sex. Dividing newborns into boys and girls is totally random, and one could just as well define them by other characteristics, like large ones and small ones. Hence even assuming there are sexes/genders is a forced determination of identity: the `heterosexual matrix´”.].
"The imperative consequence of Butler´s theories is therefore that the concept of two genders/sexes is something to be surpassed and abolished.
"The World Women´s Conference of 1995
"But how could such an absurd theory, belonging more to pseudo-science, as shown above, have become such an aspect of policy not only in Germany, but in all countries in the sphere of influence of the United Nations? The greatest corner stone was laid at the World Women´s Conference in Beijing in 1995. The UN-resolution “mainstreaming a gender perspective” was passed during this conference. One of the consequences of the conference was that the word “gender” replace “sex” in all official documents, since it implies the concept of two sexes/genders.
"The American journalist Dale O´Leary who attended the conference wrote in her book “The Gender Agenda” that she witnessed the following demands being proclaimed, not all of them making it into the final document however:
"1. The world has need of less people and more sexual pleasures. we demand the abolition of all differences between men and women and the abolition of full-time mothers.
"2. As more sexual pleasures might lead to more children, we demand free access to contraceptives and abortions, and the promotion of homosexual activity, because children cannot be conceived this way.
"3. The world has need of sex education for children and young adults that encourages sexual experimentation. It has need of the abolition of the rights of parents over their children.
"4. The world has need of a 50/50 man/woman quota regulation for all areas of work and society. Preferably all women at all times should work.
"5. Religions opposed to this agenda should be publicly scorned and ridiculed.
"The most important goal by far was to anchor the “gender perspective” into the thinking of mainstream politics.
"Gender-mainstreaming is undemocratic [Note: "undemocratic" means the "little people" were not consulted.-- Fidelbogen]
"Not only does gender-mainstreaming lack scientific legitimation, it also lacks democratic legitimation. Gender-mainstreaming was first fixated at the European level in 1999 via the Treaty of Amsterdam. This treaty made gender-mainstreaming: “[...] a high-ranking political goal of the European Union integral part of European politics [...]”.
"The German Federal Government acknowledged the equality i.e. analogousness) of men and women (in opposition to the equality of men and women before the law, equality of opportunities, etc, which has been a part of German Basic Law since the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany) with the ruling of 06.23.1999 as a universal guiding principle of the government, and will implement it via gender-mainstreaming.
"These policies have been continued by changing governments since 1999, but neither parliament nor the people have had a chance to vote on gender-mainstreaming.
"Gender-mainstreaming is expensive
"At the same time many tax payers would probably like to a say in deciding, whether their money should be used to pay for all the countless gender institutions, gender appointees, and gender research. The attempt to firmly establish gender-mainstreaming at all levels of administration, work and education from kindergarden to univestity is expensive. A study on “gender equality in the Eifel National Park” cost € 27,000 alone. .
". . which ended with the recommendation to cut out pictures of deer during the mating season, because it would propagate stereotype gender roles. The cost for work on “gender equality in the forest”, commissioned by the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia´s Minister for the Environment Bärbel Höhn in 2004, was hundreds of thousands of Euros. The “Parents´ Guidebook for Children´s Sex Education”, designed for children ages 1 to 6 was payed for by taxes and commisioned by the Federal Center for Health Affairs. This brochure contained tips and pointers for handling children´s genitalia, which would have constituted sexual abuse in a court of law. They were revoked in 2007 after massive protests.
"The most promising way to stop the gender-ideology would be to prevent funding of their projects. Furthermore, Hedwig von Beverfoerde suggests a massive awareness campaign, since many citizens are not even aware of this concept; in this framework one should strongly appeal to elected politicians and perhaps take one´s own children out of sex education, if gender-mainstreaming is taught there, rather than common biological knowledge.
I am grateful to Ulf Anderson of Sweden, father's rights activist extraordinaire, for notifying me of what I will next share with you. This is a Swedish television documentary on the subject of Swedish feminism, aired once and once only, in 2005. After that, the governing authorities sternly forbade it to be shown ever, ever again. But happily for us, this is the information age, and information wants to be free! And so, a certain Figaropravda (intriguing name!) has made the entire two-hour program available to us in a series of twelve YouTube segments. What you will see below is the fifth of the series. So, it is like opening a book in the middle. But this particular segment works extremely well as a "teaser"; you'll be hooked, and want to see them all. Trust me, this is horrid, appalling stuff -- and it gets worse!
The name of the documentary is Könskriget. In Swedish, that means Gender War:
Friends, this is what happens when feminism "has its way" in a society, and "rapes" it. The outcome is totalitarian. For some reason, feminism has gotten an abnormally deep claw-hold in Sweden -- and not being a Swedish national psychology expert, I won't presume to speculate about the reasons. All the same, the stark factuality confronts us. And we in the rest of the world are not so different from the Swedes that it won't happen to us, too, at some point down the road. Indeed, if we sit back and let things take their course, it WILL happen to us. And not only that, but it will get even WORSE than what we presently see in Sweden!
Right now, some earnest feminist is spluttering "but not all feminists are like that! Don't judge all feminists by Swedish feminists; they are just extremists!"
Well those "extremists" were able to put an entire country on lockdown, weren't they? They have established a moral reign of terror, and they don't even need to conceal their mental illness from the general population any more, do they? They've infected a whole nation with it! So I say they are "extreme" only in a psychological way, relative to decent human normality. But in an objective historical-political way, they are smack in the middle of things. . . aren't they? Of course they are.
I've said it before: feminism is an anti-male hate movement. If man-hating did not exist in some form or other, then feminism would not exist. And all of the earnest nice feminists would drift away into cultural space even as planets would drift away into interstellar space, if the anomalous disappearance of their sun would abruptly untether those planets from their orbits.
Bear in mind, as you are watching the documentary, that almost everything which flows from the mouths of these feminists is a case of projection. More to the point, when they talk about the evil things which "men" supposedly do to "women", they are actually talking about what feminists are doing to men -- or planning to do eventually in one form or another.
You will conclude, from watching this documentary, that the ROKS organization is a cult. It has all the earmarks of a cult, and anybody who has not been brainwashed can see this very, very clearly. And their psychic affinity to the Nazis cannot possibly be overlooked. If you object to the word "feminazi", that is YOUR problem.
What is perhaps not immediately apparent to the awakening counter-feminist, is that ALL of feminism is a cult. The ROKS ideology, as shown in the present video (above), is the pure distilled essence of patriarchy theory -- without which feminism as a whole would have no enduring traction, and would have gone out of business by now.
Even you old-school liberal feminists who claim to be just as appalled by this as I am, are inducted members of the feminist cult whether you know it or not! Yes -- I say you are! You are the patsies who provide cover; you are the friendly flunkies in the lobby who don't know who you are really working for; you are the nice, ordinary National Socialists with a copy of Mein Kampf gathering dust on your sitting-room shelf -- you have never cracked it open and looked into it and thought about what it was saying -- have you?
So, earnest feminist, ya wanna get off the hook? Well it's easy: stop calling yourself a feminist!
Shun that word! Renounce that word! Never call yourself a "feminist" again! And then, get busy and help the rest of us to expose feminism's rotten, pustulent and truly satanic core to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze.
All right. Here, for your convenience, are the entire twelve YouTube episodes covering the Könskriget documentary. The videos are nicely embedded, seriatim, on a Swedish anti-feminist blog which is partly written in English and worth a read. But scroll down a bit, and you will find the videos:
I hope that the English subtitles will appear for you. If they do not, then you might need to click through to the YouTube channel where you can activate this by means of the CC button at the bottom of the frame.
This Swedish documentary needs to become widely known among activated non-feminists everywhere, so please do what you can to spread the word and to push web traffic in the right direction.
I was just thinking of something. Do we need to start a 'Free Sweden' campaign similar to the notorious 'Free Tibet' that we see so widely on t-shirts and bumperstickers?
Mind you, I don't generally approve of intervention as a foreign policy, but what's it gonna take to topple that feminist regime, anyway? Should we parachute teams of MRA commandos into Sweden by night, to fan out across the countryside and organize armed resistance? Or should we do it in sneaky "commie" style, by infiltrating our agents into the country to organize cells and cadres, and eventually power networks reaching into the higher levels of government? How shall we swing this? Sweden is a small country, and a few motivated counter-feminist revolutionaries ought to be able to shake things up considerably, don't you think? ;)
The following, recently dispatched to a European correspondent, is timely and up-to-the-minute:
"When you talk about your encounter with the women's refuges in Switzerland, you are providing a very good illustration of what is different about matters MRA in Europe v. in the USA. Nothing even remotely comparable to that is happening in the USA. We are miles and miles from initiating any political activism on THAT level, the kind which "goes for the jugular" and attacks the problem very directly at the root by holding the immediate perpetrators directly to account.
"Instead, we have a lot of people just talking on the internet -- basically fighting a propaganda war. And yet. . . steadily gaining on the enemy.
"We ALSO have activism from the likes of RADAR, Glenn Sacks, MVA, NCFM, Roy Den Hollander (who is now ruined financially), father's rights groups, etc etc etc.... all of whom are chewing at different parts of the feminist elephant -- while sometimes aware of the entire elephant, and other times not.
"But as I wrote elsewhere, almost nobody activistic is attacking feminism, by name, as the root of the problem. Certainly, no men's "parties", and nothing that I am aware of based on a platform of "masculism". Back in the 1990s, we had something called the mytho-poetic men's movement -- which was a kind of "masculism", I suppose. But that movement is long since defunct. We have a certain number of MRA writers who like to throw around the word "masculism", but there is not much agreement among them on what that word actually means or might mean or should mean.
"Warren Farrell has done good work, especially in his book which debunks the feminist idea of the wage gap. But my own assessment of Farrell is that he is too much of a wishy-washy liberal. He needs to radicalize himself, and I do not see that happening.
"The difference between the MRM in Europe, and in the USA, can best be understood if you look at the different conditions which governance has reached in each of these regions.
"In Europe, socialism is much further advanced; the political spectrum as a whole is shifted more generally to the left, and supra-state systems of power like the United Nations and the European Union are very, very big. Also, in Europe you have "gender mainstreaming" being overtly imposed (under that exact name) as a unified, organized, systematic state policy.
"This 'gender mainstreaming', in my opinion, is what feminism overall seeks to achieve. I have read enough official European literature on that subject to see that the people promoting it are covering their agenda with a very thin layer of rhetoric meant to deceive the general population. They talk about "equality" quite a bit, and they even throw in some nice words about taking care of men as well as women, but on the whole I see a mass social engineering under way here -- almost like a forced religious conversion. In the end, gender mainstreaming will take from men and give to women, and leave men in a weakened position in regard to women. And alongside gender mainstreaming, the usual feminist innovations are also in effect in Europe -- z.b. false rape prosecutions, bias against men in the criminal justice system, the separation of fathers from their children, the robbery of men in divorce proceedings, general hatred and slander of maleness by radical feminists -- all of these things and THEN . . . gender mainstreaming gets added on top of it, as a powerfully enforced (supra) state mandate!
"Well, as I said, gender mainstreaming is what feminism overall seeks to achieve. But only in certain parts of the world does it march under that exact title. In Europe it is logical for things to happen this way because there is such a centralization of state power where socialism is so far advanced -- and this paves the way for consolidating a lot of feminist operations under one very tightly organized system. And the presence of the EU and the UN adds to that effect.
"But in the USA this is not nearly so much the case because of differences in the general culture, but the political culture especially. Although we have plenty of radical feminists here, just as radical as their European sisters, they are inhibited by local conditions. So, in the long run, American feminists (and left - progressivists) are pursuing the same agenda as in Europe -- but they are doing this in a more piecemeal way, a scattered and fragmented way, and not under the color of official government policy. In the USA, as I see it, the feminists are gaining ground by a combination of highly skilled political manipulating, and garnering support for different parts of their agenda from different parts of the political spectrum. (Putting their eggs in different baskets, you might say.) Plus, they are getting plenty of support from big corporations -- in addition to what they bilk from government and taxpayers. Needless to say, their techniques of lying, propagandizing and grandstanding are much the same as you would see in Europe. A feminist is a feminist, all over the world.......
"And so, I believe that this difference in the political machinery of feminism accounts for much of the difference in the resistance toward feminism that you will see in the USA as compared to Europe. In Europe, things are further along the road and overall worse. This would explain the more organized and politicized nature of the European MRM, and the more bold, direct style of activism that I see happening over there. Feminists and anti-feminists are confronting each other openly and politically AS SUCH, in a way unlike anything in the USA. Of course, inherent (non-political) cultural differences can also explain much of this -- Americans have quite a leaning toward polite social fictions.
"Somebody once said, the "the curtain of fascism is always descending in America, but always landing in Europe." A very clever expression, and we can perhaps see the truth of in the present development of feminist "fascism".
"Getting back to the subject of "masculism": From what I am learning, I can easily see how that would become a European men's "obsession" in particular, given the state of things with regard to gender mainstreaming. This seems perfectly logical, and I can see how the phrase "natural masculinity" might have a more acute, localized, specialized shade of meaning in the vocabulary of a European MRA under the circumstances. Simple action and reaction.
"As for 'equal rights and responsibilities for women', that is a good phrase and I must remind myself to use it as much as I can. Those who want to set up a "real patriarchy" need not bother with such a project. All they need to do is allow "equal rights AND responsibilities", and the feminists will hate the outcome as much setting up a so-called "real patriarchy". Of course, equal rights and responsibilities for women is the very last thing that feminism aims to achieve. Feminism ideally aims to "empower" women to do just about anything they please, with impunity and no moral accountability. In fact, that is the ONLY logical endpoint feminism could ever reach for, since it feeds upon a totally bottomless greed. And "gender mainstreaming", for all its rhetoric of equality, is the very same thing.
"Of course, it is more than that. It is also a way to control the population in general by putting men in chains. This happens because women are "empowered" (propped up artificially) by the state and used as enforcers to keep the general male population in a state of subjection. It also happens because men are divided against men, with male supporters of feminism betraying any men who refuse to self-betray. And so with men effectively kept on lockdown, and women receiving benefits ("empowerments") for cooperating with this plan, revolution against the (male) ruling elite becomes near-impossible. But the serious question is to know if such a plan is feasible and stable in the long run, or whether it contains a fatal flaw. I think it very well might contain such a flaw, or even several such.
"Inherent biological differences? I will say this: although I think it is likely, I am not ideologically committed to either yea or nay. Whatever the truth on that question turns out to be, I am fine with it. However..... I will expect other people (feminists) to "govern their game" according to the rules that either possibility would dictate. Right now, the basic feminist position is "constructivism", and yet feminists and quasi-feminists are constantly wandering on both sides of the fence depending on where they sense the advantage (for women) to be. That is, they are happy to be "secret essentialists" at least some of the time (z.b. they are happy to crow about "women are better at multi-tasking" or such). But the real "secret" is, that if the feminists lost their "fear of commitment" upon this question, then feminism itself would be in pretty serious danger of collapsing. . . . . And that is exactly what they are afraid of!
"Finally, on the matter of gay men in the MRM: Gay men, if they are smart, will realize that feminists are not their friends and will eventually sell them out. But the MRM (or non-feminist revolution if you prefer) is so very very big that it is not really a "movement" at all, but a collection of different movements under a big tent. And gay men will have no trouble finding a place under that tent even if not everybody appreciates them being there -- and let's face it, not everybody will. But gay men will become acutely aware of feminist hypocrisy later if not sooner, and the smell of it will drive them toward other camps regardless.
"And no, gay issues are not something that the men's movement ought to opinionate about. I am all for keeping the rhetoric and the agenda narrow and not getting pulled into other conversations. I only wish that more MRAs would take that principle to heart.
"Well, I will wrap this up now, and look forward to future communiques.
I haven't written for a while. So, I will break the silence with a bit of recent correspondence which hints at the quickening developments among our overseas brethren of the Männerbewegung. Sorry, when I say "overseas", I am being USA-centric. About one-third of this blog's readers are themselves "overseas"; therefore the following is not really "overseas" for them:
". . . How are things going in the US? . . . you mentioned developments within the English-speaking MRA being different than here in Europe. I also stumbled across a feminist infested place called "Good Men Project" - are they responsible for any bad developments? Are they undermining your progress in convincing males and fighting feminism? They seem to throw a lot of bullshit in your direction.
"We were quite busy here in the German speaking parts of Europe. We challenged state feminism in Switzerland by threatening to publish the addresses of women's shelters and demanded that they get closed and replaced by shelters for both sexes without ideology - we primarily wanted to start a debate about these corrupted institutions. We also announced that several of our people plan to participate in the upcoming national elections in the fall of this year. These events caused quite a media stir.
"German Feminists produced a 70 pages thick report of antifeminist arguments and how feminists should denounce them - we are currently working on a counter-project debunking their points. We also had quite some unrest within the movement concerning the definition of masculism and whether women should have equal rights and responsibilities within a masculist world view or not. Although many of us don't have a problem with this some dream of setting up a real "patriarchy". Many of us acknowledge that there are inherent biological differences between men and women - the state should not interfere with this by applying gender ideology. But these natural differences are in my opinion no obstacle in the way of giving men and women equal rights and responsibilities within society.
"What role does masculism play in your area of activism? What do your people think about masculism? And how do they define it?
"I heard of a "Masculist Manifesto" ("patriarchy"-focused ...) and of Warren Farrell who seems to be making good points but also appears to sympathize with genderism and gender state policies in general - things which many masculists here do not appreciate. What is your opinion on these different proponents of masculism?
"We also had quite some debate about homosexual men whether they should participate in the movement or not and whether their interests should be advocated or not. Most of us don't mind gays being part of the MRA although I think we should not split our efforts by also concerning us with gays' interests.
"I still owe you and your readers a detailed report on the situation of the MRA here in "Germantown" of Europe - I will try to do it as soon as possible, I promise. It is just that so much is currently going on ... so many new developments and events which I would not have believed possible just one or two years ago."
I share now a portion of an e-mail sent to a correspondent in Europe, who wished for an overview of anti-feminist developments in the United States. Actually, I sent this to two different people: I copied the text I'd sent to correspondent A., and pasted it to correspondent B in a separate e-mail so as to save the work of writing the same story twice. I believe that such a summary would be helpful to a lot of Americans as well, who don't always have the big picture. Why, even feminists may benefit, since they are the most woefully "illiterate" ones of all as concerns matters MRM and non-feminist. Yes...I'm looking at YOU, Schwyzer!
"So. . . you ask about the state of things, antifeminist-wise, in the USA. All right, first the short answer:
"Scattered and fragmented. The rest is details. . .
"So now, the details - or some of them anyway.
"Antifeminism in the USA is currently a grassroots popular movement among "unpopular" people. Nevertheless, it shows signs of slow and steady growth. Emphasis on the word steady. The "slow" part just might be changing. Hopefully.
"Only in Europe, I think, is it currently conceivable to start a well-publicized organization with the word "antifeminist" in its name. Such a thing would be unheard of in the USA, and pretty sure it would be unheard of in England as well - or almost anywhere in the Anglosphere.
"Americans in particular are very conservative and don't like to rock the boat. They don't want to be associated with anything "radical". Americans are slow to accept new ideas, and once they do, they are equally slow to let go of them, even if they are not such good ideas after all! And feminism seems to be one of those ideas. Call this cultural inertia.
"The grassroots antifeminist trend in the USA is growing from many different centers, and these centers are gradually becoming aware of each other. But they are still far from being linked into any kind of effective political device. A lot of people, individually, don't like feminism, or don't like the results of feminism which they see in the world. Some of them are developing a keen analysis of the situation, while others are just barely opening their eyes and not able to put things into words yet.
"It is socially not cool to criticize feminism in mainstream everyday life, and for plenty of people (I would say most) feminism is a "no go" subject altogether. They just don't talk about it, full stop.
"However, the social undercurrent of discontent is growing - as anybody who watches the internet can soon figure out. On the internet, people speak their minds freely.
"I am happy to say that the activities of internet MRAs are doing quite a bit to fan the flames, both in the USA and elsewhere, although the exact percentage of this is hard to estimate. I am sure that other forces are producing this effect as well. A lot is happening, more than one person can possibly know about.
"I am certain that there are far more enemies of feminism who have never heard the term 'MRA', than there are people who call themselves MRAs. And there are also a lot of MRAs who refuse to call themselves MRAs!
"In addition to the populistic grassroots, there are actual political orgs and lobbying groups in the USA, but as I suggested earlier, they are not ostensively "anti-feminist". Generally, they are reform movements working on various separate issues (father's rights, family rights, paternity fraud, etc etc..). These issues are not "feminism" per se, but they all pertain to the feminist socio-political power structure in some way - the "femplex", as I call it. And so, as you might expect, the feminists see such groups and orgs as enemies!
"SOME of the members of these groups and orgs, if you talk to them privately, will agree that feminism is the enemy. OTHER members of these groups, however, don't appear to "see the elephant"; they just see the immediate issue they are working on.
"I'm afraid that the 2 major political parties are currently not much help at all. That is the consensus of most MRAs in the USA.
"And most MRAs will tell you that "right" and "left" don't amount to anything either: feminism extends through the entire political spectrum even if it takes a different form on the right than on the left.
"Right and Left feminists might despise each other in a lot of ways, but neither of them is about to do men, as a group, any favors. Some of the worst anti-male legislation in this country was supported by both liberals and conservatives, for example, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
"Also, there is plenty of organized corruption, and shady money to be made, within the various feminist-tainted institutional structures. Plenty of crooks want to keep things just the way they are, because they find this profitable.
"That's the USA picture in broad outline, as it now stands.
"You ask about the MRA blogs. Yes, they are doing quite well, and new ones are regularly appearing. My own blog has a solid core of readers -- about two-thirds USA and one-third international -- which is slowly but steadily growing. And there is nobody anywhere who does quite exactly what I am doing.
"Websites such as the Spearhead and the False Rape Society are getting a LOT of traffic. Reddit Men's Rights is also a big draw.
"All right, so what is going to make things move in the USA?
"One: continued recruitment by way of the grassroots and word of mouth; in other words, just what we have been doing all along. But hopefully, doing it better. "Two: the organization of men as a self-aware political force in the realm of electoral politics. Elected politicians will learn to respect the male vote when there IS a male vote. And there have recently been signs that men are starting to wake up in this way -- still embryonic, but promising. Also, an organization called the Men's Voting Alliance (MVA) has recently started up, which I take to be a sign of the times! The MVA has an excellent lobbying platform, but of course they don't call themselves "antifeminist" -- that wouldn't be respectable in the USA, you know! ;)
"Three: a pro-male force in academia. The Male Studies initiative seeks to create such a force, to establish a new academic discipline which is no longer under the thumb of feminist ideology. Their second conference will be held this coming Spring, and I have heard that they have had some successes even since their first conference.
Here is an excellent academic paper, in PDF, on the subject of domestic violence, titled Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men. The paper is authored by Charles E. Corry, Martin Fiebert, and Erin Pizzey. Famous names, yes? But first, to stimulate your interest, I share the "executive summary":
"Primary aggressor laws usually result in arrest of the male and ignore research showing 50% of domestic assaults are mutual combat. The woman is thus encouraged to abuse her partner further until finally he will take no more. Such provocation of the human male is dangerous.
"Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their fist or an object.
"There is no support in the present data for the hypothesis that women use violence only in self defense. Three common reasons women give for male abuse are: to resolve the argument; to respond to family crisis; and to stop him bothering me.
"Male abuse of a woman, requiring self defense, is one of the less-frequently stated reasons by women for their assaults. Our research shows that a gender-balanced approach to domestic violence is essential in order to reduce both the frequency and severity of such incidents for both men and women. Present laws and practices appear to commonly have the opposite effect."
As you will see, this paper tells quite a different story than the one which the feminists have been repeating like robots for over a quarter of a century. But, the feminist story has got to go. It must be rooted out of the collective mind and blown to atoms, and retired for all time. And by repeating the counter-message here, over and over, I am helping to undo what the feminists have done. Bit by bit, such information must be seeded into people's brains until the sum total of it reaches a tipping point or critical mass. When that happens, the process will shift into a new phase of wildly accelerated growth that will sweep the old paradigm off the map, and in so doing, disgrace a lot of people and wreck a lot of careers. Which is to say: lives that were built upon lies will collapse in ruin because their foundations will crack, crumble, and be swept away in the angry, obliterating torrent of pent-up karma. What goes around, comes around.
Yes. I blame feminism for the intellectual narcosis, moral hysteria and societal disintegration which is now spreading as a layer of gangrene all around the planet. I, along with growing numbers of other people everywhere, hold feminism fully to account for all of this. And I for one will not slacken my severity in the days ahead when feminism's world comes crashing down. I will be unrelentingly harsh, for example, to the individual culprits who are linked by evidence to the perpetration of feminism's various crimes. I will raise my voice against these people any way I can, and I will heap burning coals upon their heads in order to augment their burning shame in every possible way. I will not show mercy. I will hold them to account for every speck of human misery they have spawned in this world, and every one of the innocent lives they have destroyed. Finito!
What's that you say? NAFALT? Not all feminists are like that?
And perchance are you, yourself, one of those feminists who are not "like that"?
Well don't you dare "NAFALT" me like it's not your fault! Put your money where your mouth is, sister! Never forget that I am a non-feminist, so I don't owe you any answers. But if you even remotely call yourself a feminist, then you owe me plenty. And I don't mean graciously "femsplaining" feminism to me, like I have any duty to listen. I am not bound to spend one precious morsel of my short time upon this earth studying feminism in any way at all, if it doesn't strike my fancy to do so. Nor do I have any duty to understand feminism "correctly", because as a non-feminist I have a different mindset and a different perspective on feminism altogether -- an outside perspective which is just as valid for me as the feminist's inside perspective is valid for the feminist. Furthermore, I have no duty to underwrite feminism's continued existence in any way because, honestly, why should I care? I am perfectly happy to see feminism go the way of all flesh because I am not a feminist.
Furthermore, I have zero duty to tell you why I am not a feminist. Logically then, you have zero right to ask me why I am not a feminist, and you have even less than zero right to presume that you know what my non-feminism consists of in the first place. And if I don't pointedly inform you, there is zero way for you to know any of this whatsoever, is there?
I am a non-feminist, and that is the solid-citizen, default position which requires no explaining. It is YOU who owe the explanation, and if you call yourself a feminist, then you've got some explaining to do. See, I've got a checklist of feminism's crimes compiled in my head, and I will work my way down that list item by item, and linger over the nuances also, and let me say this: you had better clear your name of every last one.
And if, after I have finished my interrogation, you still insist on calling yourself a feminist, then I shall be bound to wonder why you would do something so empty, silly, perverse and pointless. Other people have made it clear that they are not feminist, so when you call yourself a feminist, it is like putting up a wall and making yourself "special" in a way that sets a burden upon them. Furthermore, seeing how much nasty baggage the word "feminism" has accrued to itself, why in heaven's name would you even want to lug that baggage at all unless you felt it was precious for some reason?
Are feminism's crimes precious to you? No? Then do you really need to haul them around like a worthless bag of rocks? Because that is exactly what you are doing when you insist on calling yourself a "feminist". To be sure, you are setting a burden upon other people in this way. Yet far more importantly, from your own standpoint, you are setting a burden upon yourself. Do you really want to do that?
So yes, there is a simple, easy way to spare yourself all of that burdensome and exhausting trouble: stop calling yourself a feminist. Disown that word altogether -- mind you, just the word. A little semantic tweak; that's all it takes! I am not asking you to change who or what you are, and if you are an exemplary human being, then by all means stick to that. Yes, please keep whatever is good about yourself. All I am requesting, is that you settle on a different tag. A different "handle".So use your imagination; it can be almost anything, but it cannot be "feminist". That word is out of bounds because it is permanently tainted.
"Feminist" is a nasty word; why would you ever wish to call yourself such a thing?
Very well, one of feminism's greatest crimes, which has generated such untold misery and strife, has been the heinous and pernicious domestic violence libel against men. Here is the URL where you can download the earlier-cited academic article which treats that woeful topic at considerable length.
Misandry. The hatred of men and things male. Anybody out there is welcome to explain to me why this television ad for Progressive Insurance, captured in the above video, does not pertain to the hatred of men and things male.
Do you think that Progressive Insurance would hire a savvy ad agency that would do their motivational research? And do you think it is possible that this ad was designed to tap the base emotions of its targeted (female) audience? And if so, what might that, in theory, tell us about the contemporary zeitgeist -- especially the female zeitgeist? Do you believe that such queries might expedite us along the pathway of a deeper, albeit darker, understanding of the world?
Or. . do you feel that all of this is just a coincidence, and that the ad itself was merely bad judgment and bad taste by a daffy amateur scriptwriter who acted on a lark? Do you feel that the ad was intended only as a witty, ironic "jeu d'esprit" or something like that?
In addition, do you feel that the present writer needs to "lighten up", and "laugh it off", and "stop taking things so seriously"?
Oh, very well. It is only a dot, you would say -- but one among thousands. Connect those dots if you wish to grok why the MRAs are so bat-shit mean and crazy, and why they are NOT going to shut up, and why more and more of them are popping up all the time.
Go ahead Sparkles: connect those dots and make the connection! I am plumb tired of spelling it out. Get off your lazy ass and do the work yourself.
Oddly enough, I personally see nothing wrong with this advertisement, aimed at the female market, which compares buying auto insurance on the internet with cyber-voodoo revenge castration. I think this is just fine.
Furthermore, I would see nothing wrong if the Progressive Insurance Company should ALSO run an ad for the male market, regaling them with the counterpart voodoo fantasy about a man (let's call him Chris Martin) who tortures and humiliates a woman from the distant safety of his computer screen. However, decency forbids I should narrate the exact possibilities that occur to me -- so I will draw a veil of discretion here.
I can make absolutely no moral objection to running such an advertisment, depicting a treatment of women similar to the treatment of men depicted in the existing ad. And if Progressive actually did run such an ad, showing a woman being treated in such a way, by a man, via computer network, then I would make nary a squeak about this. I would be serenely untroubled by such an eventuality, and I would enjoy a glass of claret.
And yes, I fully realize that patriarchy has degraded women with these kinds of television ads for 4,627 years. Well, at least until recently. And I know it is jolly well time for women to get a piece of that action too. Indeed, that is why I think men and women should be permitted to enjoy such fun EQUALLY.
Yes. If men and women initiate serious domestic violence at an equal rate, then symmetry dictates that they ought to initiate entertaining show-biz violence at an equal rate also.
Isn't that what feminism is all about? Equality?
Surely no feminist could object to what I am proposing here.
So let's open up a window and get some equality in here. Then those nasty MRAs will have nothing to complain about any more, and misogyny might go into remission instead of growing and growing as it shows every sign of doing.
And isn't that what feminism is all about? Less misogyny?
Today, I offer two very potent items that will fortify you spirit and put iron in your resolve if you are an MRA. And if you are a new arrival and potential recruit, this might even be the red pill moment when you got recruited -- so that years from now you will look back upon this day as a landmark, a blazing beacon, a turning point in your life that separates you from everything that came before it. Well, you never know. It might truly be that kind of moment for you.
Firstly: the second episode of Voice For Men Radio, titled "Violent Women and Government Lies". This episode is all about the feminist fraud of domestic violence, and about the domestic violence industry which has destroyed the lives of so many good and honorable men and is tearing apart the fabric of our society. Yes, I blame feminism for this. And why? Because: feminism will not blame feminism for this. So it looks like somebody needs to do that job, right? And it is with with gusto that I take the assignment. Always.
But here, this pours table salt on the giant feminist slug. As you are listening to the descriptions of abusive criminal females and how they operate, see if you can discern the quintessential analogy between their individual behaviors and the political modus operandi of feminism against the male population:
Secondly: a very easy thought experiment (as I will call it) for anybody who possibly hasn't got time to read Warren Farrell's book about the gender wage gap. The web page I will link you to offers a quick, clear and damnably plausible facts-on-the-ground demonstration that this popular feminist tale is an unmitigated fraud. It will take you about five minutes to grind it in your mill, and then you can easily pass it along to anybody you meet:
"So unless you're constantly meeting women who earn significantly less than their male equivalents, you have no reason to believe the wage gap to by anything like 20%. Not even close. No matter what statistics they throw at you, it just can't add up. . . . Hence, the wage gap is either massively exaggerated or non existent. . . . . .
"If you try to run this by certain feminists, they might tell you that mathematics is a male dominated field and that numbers were invented by men so they're anyway only going to show results that support the patriarchy and the suppression of women which is why the argument above is wrong. Just a little warning."
Oh, I am so terribly, terribly evil. And so lazy! This week's Gynocentrism lecture is nearly last week's lecture, seeing how it was posted six days ago. But better late than never. Here is the customary teaser snippet:
"It seems sensible, at this stage, to pose the question: why is all this happening? The answer I can offer up, for the purpose of this lecture, is not historical but psychological: it offers explanation through reference to the mental state of feminism's operators. There certainly are historical processes at work, explored elsewhere, but no social movement survives purely for the sake of its history. Nobody is born a feminist. There must be some stimulus, or stimuli, working to remodel formerly non-feminist women and men into activated feminists. But we cannot explain feminist conversion by the agitation of those already existing feminist activists. We can certainly believe that feminist activism plays a role in recruitment, but this is not adequate as an explanation. Why would an individual then commit to feminism, rather than any other particular social movement whose advocates engage in agitation for the purposes of ideological recruitment?"
Next, Adam Kostakis goes on to talk about how feminism offers catharsis to man-haters, and a socio-cultural space in which they can congregate, share their hate, and gain communal reinforcement for it. And subsequently to this initial stage, Adam informs us, the man-haters (both male and female) will realize they are in a position to embrace activism and actually damage men -- that is, to swing their hate into practical, real-world action.
Personal confession: I have, from time to time in the course of my varied existence, and especially when I was younger, experienced sharp and often bitter conflict with so-called traditional males and maleness. I reckon that makes me one of those celebrated "sensitive males" which the feminists used to call for.
And guess what?
I despise feminism with every single molecule I've got.
Yes, I blame feminism for propagating the idea that men are responsible for most domestic violence. That is why I am sharing this video today.
There is no creditable evidence that men commit 95% of domestic violence, as the feminists have drilled into our brains for so many years. This is not by any stretch a "fact"; it is merely an assertion. Or, if you will, a thing asserted. And anything, but anything, can be asserted -- even the most flagrant humbuggeries. Yet it remains never more and never less than a thing asserted, and that all by itself counts for diddly.
Now, it seems that men in fact commit only half of all domestic violence. Truckloads of highly creditable academic studies, made to the best specifications you could hope for, all bear witness to this, while the documentation for the feminist case is paltry. Yes I know, for I have looked into it. Trust me, the non-feminists have a far stronger case.
So, that means that men are being assaulted and battered by women. And the question naturally arises: what ought we to do about this? Open up existing shelters to male victims? Or, as some have suggested, construct all-new shelters for men? Certain malicious jackasses, of the feminist persuasion, have wondered out loud why "the MRAs" (whoever those are) don't "build domestic violence shelters for men."
Well, I can't answer for every activated non-feminist on planet Earth. But for myself, I must confess that I have no immediate plans to run out and "build a domestic violence shelter" for men. Nor do I have any long range plans to do this. In fact, I have no plans at all to do this, and I can honestly inform you that I will NEVER do this. I would have absolutely no idea how to carry such a project into effect. I haven't got the know-how, the connections, the savoir-faire, the moxie, and so on, to do such a thing. I wouldn't know the first thing about it, let alone the tenth or twelfth or fourteenth thing about it.
So I am recusing myself from such a responsibility because I feel I am eminently unqualified for it. My talent lies elsewhere, as likewise my agenda. Plenty of other people, whether they call themselves "MRAs" or something else, would know exactly what to do in order to "build a domestic violence shelter for men", but I lack even the necessary construction trades knowledge, and I damn sure would have NO idea of what the day-to-day necessities would be in running such an establishment. Also, I would probably need some kind of college degree in social psychology or the like, in order to be a domestic violence shelter operator. Wouldn't you suppose? And I haven't got any such diploma, so I guess I am out of luck. Finally, I am pretty sure I would need to be a "people person" to succeed in this line of work, and honestly now, I am not much of a people person.
And besides, my plate is full. My life situation would not be compatible with building or operating a domestic violence shelter, even if I did know how in heaven's name to go about it. I simply haven't got the time.
And so, in case anybody is wondering, that is why I am not personally "building a domestic violence shelter for men". I can only speak for myself, but if you wanted to query a bunch of others, I am sure they would have plenty of perfectly good reasons why they, too, are not "building a domestic violence shelter for men". In fact, reasons largely similar to my own.
As an activated non-feminist, I feel it is my calling to attack the problem at a more upstream location. And so my endeavor is not "activism" as that word is commonly understood, but rather, agitation. I am not accountable to any "activist" frame of reference because I am not involved in such a theatre of operation in the first place -- and more significantly, I do not pretend to be.
I wish to attack feminism as a movement and as an ideology, to slow it down, to muster forces against it, to discredit it, and eventually liquidate it altogether. And I am going about this with nothing more sophisticated than the power of words, combined with the wonders of modern-day information technology. If I were living in the eighteenth century, I would likely be writing pamphlets or something along that line. But nowadays, in the twenty-first century, cyberspace is how we pamphleteer.
As regards the issue of domestic violence, what interests me chiefly is using it to score rhetorical points against feminism. That is a worthwhile endeavor if you accept the premise that feminism is a bad thing, and has got to go. To score rhetorical points against feminism is all part and parcel of the larger endeavor, and just one of many operations that will conduct ultimately toward the desired outcome. It's all in the game, and it's all good.
And so, I am an agitator who wants to score rhetorical points against feminism in order to assist in bringing about its ultimate collapse. And I use the issue of domestic violence as a device or prop, or "springboard" if you will, toward that end.
Feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, has a lot to answer for. Yes, feminist guilt lies heavy indeed, for as I said earlier feminism is responsible for spreading that vile story that men are physically assaulting women, in the home, in plague proportions -- and that women, like innocent doves, are doing nothing remotely comparable to men.
And why would the feminists conduct such a despicable, reprehensible character assassination against half the human race? Well, I am not the devil's proctologist so I won't go there now. But we know that the feminists are indeed NASTY THINGS, as Angry Harry would say, and that their nastiness must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze. It is an urgent priority that we do this.
We know that feminists spread lies with reckless abandon, and in our micro-dealings with them on a conversational level, we have discovered that they are the most shameless, arrogant and repulsive little weasels you will ever meet. We know they are appallingly fanatical people who twist words and distort meanings fourteen ways from Friday, that they have gained much too much influence in the world, and that it is past time somebody shot them out of the saddle.
Some people want to focus the conversation entirely upon the problem of domestic violence as such -- in order to get feminism off the hook by drawing attention away from it. However, I am only secondarily interested in solving the problem of domestic violence. I am primarily interested in solving the problem of feminism. This is called setting your priorities straight by attacking the root of the difficulty. For if feminism remains in business, it will most undoubtedly breed more and worse violence than you can ever hope to imagine.
So yes. In the end, my endeavor is to HELP MEN. And along the way, everybody else.
And the most upstream way to help men and everybody else, which taps the source directly, is to attack feminism and damage it any way you can.
That is elementary, and just as plain as broad daylight.
Here is the full text of an e-mail that I recently sent to somebody whose first language is not English. I think I will try French on him next, and see how that works. By the way, you Anglophone critters ought to start working on a second language if you have not already done so. Spanish and German would both be good choices. Anyway, the e-mail:
Hello; yes your English is totally clear and understandable... :)
I will share a few quick thoughts.
In my humble opinion, the basic war at this stage is a grassroots struggle to win hearts and minds, and build solidarity for a movement.
When you send letters to agencies, ministers, etc etc, you are basically asking the established powers to "play nice" and give up some of their power. Problem is, they are not 'nice', and they will not give up their power just because some little mouse is squeaking at them.
So that is why I believe that the focus, for now, should be on the grassroots side of things. Spreading propaganda among ordinary people, forming networks and communities, etc. But mainly. . .
. . . waking people up and making them think.
This will build power against power...
Our problem now is that we are small (or at least weak, which comes to the same thing). And as you know, small things are easy to bury. A little rock is easy to bury.
But a big rock, not so much; and the rock of Gibraltar -- well, forget it!
So, the idea is: get so big it is impossible to bury us.
But whatever happens, I believe it cannot be any kind of a regimented plan. It needs to be organic. It needs to grow naturally, and be flexible.
So I see the present task as creating a flow of information, with all sorts of channels to make this happen, and spreading internationally.
Information means planting suggestions in the minds of people, who will form local cells, committees, etc.. in order to spread information further and faster.
Many people in many places, with many skills, and many social networks, etc...etc... already in place. So it is not necessary to 'create' all of these things -- that would be too much work. Rather, the game is to make use of what already exists; to 'plug in' to it and make it part of a grid.
Eventually, this will get too big to bury. Then, Our Side may begin to dictate the terms of the conversation. Right now, the other side controls the terms of the conversation. Because they have the power, of course....
A lone fighter, as you say, will reap mockery and contempt. Effectively, he will be the village idiot. But if he is a smart 'idiot', he will recruit other 'idiots', slowly, patiently. . . and finally, the tables will turn and then somebody else gets to be the village idiot for a change. ;)
Well, those are my thoughts for now. I have plenty more where that came from, and I can spend as many e-mails as needed. Next, I think I need to say something about ideas for that ... [suggested project].
Meanwhile, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on whatever...
In case you haven' t been paying attention, the word is that we are dramatically gaining ground in the feminist war. I myself have been paying attention, because I make it my business to do so. I have monitored the vital signs faithfully in my nearly four-and-a-half years of blogging, and let me tell you, those years have brought dramatic change. In fact, the non-feminist revolution is developing very much as I predicted in early 2007, and the pace is accelerating. The inauguration of Voice For Men Radio will give it a tremendous boost, but even without that, the game is cooking along good and proper.
Yes, the genie is out of the bottle. We MRAs have been ranting and agitating for years, and compiling our knowledge, and honing our craft. And people outside of our immediate circle have grown aware of our presence and what we are saying. These people started listening -- just a few at first, but then a few more, and a few more. And they went about spreading the word to their uncle Fred, their aunt Sally, their cousin Ralph and a bunch of other people too. And the crowd got bigger.
Meanwhile, other crowds in other locations were gathering, often entirely unaware of each other. They didn't always know the meaning of "MRA" -- and often still don't. They organized for different reasons, addressing different issues at different levels of sophistication -- and they didn't always identify feminism as the fountainhead of the particular malady they sought to remedy. Yet these many groups, movements, proto-movements and sub-movements were all chewing away at some part of the feminist elephant even if they were not yet aware of the beast in its entirety.
So what is happening now? These different groups, all across the social landscape, are becoming aware of each other, and aware that they are aware of each other, and aware that they are laboring against a common enemy. I mean, that they are beginning to see the elephant.
And they are talking loudly, confidently, articulately about what they are seeing -- drowning out feminist voices altogether in many cases. For example, if you spend much time reading articles on the internet, you will notice that in the more open forums -- the ones without feminist moderators, I mean -- the non-feminists and anti-feminists will almost completely dominate the discussion. The few feminist commenters are quickly buried or pushed to the margin. This happens more often than not! And it happens FAR more than it did when I first started blogging.
To be sure, the feminists remain stubbornly entrenched in their lobbying organizations, vocational power bases and cyberspace echo chambers. But outside of those carefully controlled settings they are most decidedly in retreat. They are losing the battle on the street, among average men and women -- who are more and more turning against them and ignoring their message.
We MRAs are just a dot on the map in the midst of all this, but that is a point which the feminists have one hell of a time processing. They understand next to nothing about MRAs and the men's rights movement, and absolutely nothing about the all-encompassing non-feminist revolution which dwarfs and overshadows the men's movement. Thus, the feminists are the most ill-informed people in the world as regards the forces which threaten the continued existence of feminism itself.
The non-feminist revolution , with the men's rights movement as a gravitating focal point, is a grassroots cultural insurgency chiefly in the business of propagating information. It is now undergoing a dramatic crystallization due to the relentless preaching and teaching of MRAs over roughly the last decade. People in mushrooming numbers have had their "eureka!" moment where everything falls into place -- or as we so dearly love to say, they have taken the red pill. And the MRAs have been the catalyst in making this happen. They are the axial center of political consciousness chiefly responsible for synthesizing and interpreting the chaotic flux of affairs and feeding this awareness in coherent form to ever-growing circles of people -- resulting in their political galvanization. Those people awoke under their own power, but the MRAs have guided them to a concise knowledge of each other as a movement, and supplied a coherent body of theory.
And this growing consciousness is spreading around the earth as a kind of planetary brain, with a proliferation of informal networks and committees of correspondence on an international level. Thus, a shadow power structure is in process of formation which shall, in time, gradually twine itself around the femplex and suck the life out of it on a cellular level. Meanwhile, memes are under rapid propagation.
Yes, the activated non-feminist army grows and grows not only outside of feminism's door, but within its premises as well. The feminists can no longer be sure of who their real friends are, because our people are everywhere. Our people are, of course, capable of infiltrating. But more significantly, they need not even infiltrate at all because they are already inside. A certain number of feminists, I doubt not, may be "turned". But in most cases it is simply a matter of awakening the inert non-feminist "sleepers" who are already usefully situated within various industries or in proximity to various power nodes.
Here, courtesy of YouTube, is some feminism for exposure to the sunlight of the world's gaze:
As you see, this is a German pop singer. The German lyrics are displayed across the screen. Translate them for yourself if you are inclined, but if you are not inclined, they boil down to this: "Men are shit, dead fish in my man-ocean, I control them with my sexual power, my ass and tits are deadly weapons."
You get the idea.
Real Feminism is a many-faceted gem, as the present case will attest. What you are seeing here is what I would call pop-radical feminism -- as contrasted to the academic radical kind. It is nonetheless "real" feminism given that the female-supremacist subtext is indisputable. But no, wait a minute, there is nothing "sub" about it; the text is right there in plain daylight where all of us may study it and comment upon it. And I am grateful to the shitty little fräulein for being so very plain-spoken about this. I appreciate the honesty.
Again, this is real feminism -- let none inform you otherwise. It is what feminism has empowered women to pursue, and actively encouraged them to pursue. And unlike the SCUM Manifesto (from which it spiritually descends) this was not created waaaay back in 1967. No, this dates from the year 2010. That sounds rather contemporary, wouldn't you say? So what does it tell us about the soil chemistry of the current zeitgeist if such mushrooms as these are still so vigorously sprouting? Do you believe that such things merely pop into the universe through a side door, out of nowhere, for no reason? Or do you believe that such things bear some organic relation to the social ecology and the forces of history? And do you feel that such things are only a "passing phase" in the culture that we are best advised to simply ignore?
If you are a feminist, don't bother screaming at me that I don't understand feminism. Au contraire. I understand it very well indeed, as do plenty of other observers and thinkers in the non-feminist community. So please take your feminist subjectivism and stuff it into some dark, obscure, unspecified location!
All right, so what do you think, have you had enough feminist music for a while? Well here is some spiritual de-toxification, courtesy of the patriarchy. This is from an old-school German guy, Georg Phillipp Telemann (1682-1767). Note the clear, level gaze; the open, honest, benevolent demeanor. Avery different kind of German from the one featured above, I can assure you!
The indefatigable Adam Kostakis of the Yakima River Canyon has posted lecture number nine of his series on gynocentrism theory -- which, as you undoubtedly know by now, is a slow, fiendlishly slow, unraveling of feminism and all that pertains to it. As fiendish, in fact, as my own unraveling, although not as slow as my own, because I have spent altogether as much time in fashioning tools as in actual demolition. At any rate, Adam goes step by step, clearly and systematically, and prolongs the torture to heavenly lengths.
The title of this week's lecture is False Consciousness & Kafka-Trapping:
"The 'false consciousness' trick is, ultimately, an evasion. In one dishonorable move, the feminist has sidestepped the argument itself and attacked the interlocutor – "you can't possibly be right, because you are male." For the feminist, this is enough. She considers the matter closed, and moves on. By the same undisclosed reasoning by which Marx knew that the proletariat possessed the truth, the feminist 'knows' (i.e. strongly feels) that her own ideology possesses the truth. But that undisclosed reasoning, whatever it is, does not work in reverse. The feminist is confident enough that a counter-argument, using the same tactic - "you wouldn't be saying that if you weren't a woman" - is inapplicable and impossible. The implication is that feminist women view the world objectively, whereas mere men are 'locked in' to a privileged perspective and cannot see the way things truly are. An attack on the perspective of a man, for it being a male perspective - even the identification of a perspective as peculiarly 'male' - is nothing less than a statement of female supremacy."
The passage quoted above shines yet more light upon the many-faceted "gem" of feminist subjectivism. After all, when you establish for yourself an hermetically-sealed bubble of invincible, self-referential logic -- unavailable to outside fact-checking -- then I can hardly understand why the word "subjectivism" would not count as a proper appellative.
And yet feminist subjectivism is feminism's preeminent gift to women -- or at least to any woman who is lazy enough, ignorant enough, vicious enough or unethical enough to make use of it. One need not even be a self-defined feminist to benefit from this particular scam: any woman can tap into it and be "empowered" by it. That was the feminist plan all along. And plenty of women -- far too many -- have just the opportunistic nature to take advantage of this. Percentage-wise, about equal to the proportion of men who would take similar advantage under similar circumstances. That last sentence clears me from any imputation of "misogyny" -- not that I was terribly worried about it.
All of this reminds me that, in the long run, the feminists will fall victim to their own tactics and they will have NO right to complain. Yes, we will turn most of their tricks around on them. All but for one. We will not spread quantitatively certifiable false information. For example, if men and women commit domestic violence at equal rates, we will NOT fraudulently assert that women commit 95% of it. We are not "greedy" in that way; we are happy to stick to the truth.
The feminists have declared war; they are "out to get" men. But we non-feminists are not "out to get" women; we are out to get justice.