Wednesday, September 28, 2011

S.A.V.E. calls for outrage after Biden appearance

The following was posted on AV4M by Robert O'Hara. Give it a read, and consider getting in touch with Joseph Biden in order to express your stern displeasure. (I am not quite sure what "letter" is being referred to here):

WASHINGTON (AVfM) Yesterday, September 28th, Vice President Joseph Biden appeared on “The View” a popular daytime television show to talk about violence perpetrated against young women aged between 18 and 30. Biden, champion of the Violence Against Women Act which passed in 1994 which is currently past due for renewal, predictably spoke of all types of intimate partner violence as a gender specific crime with men being the sole perpetrators and women being the sole victims. He even invoked the memory of his father who he quoted as saying “you should never ever raise your hand to a woman in anger” and then went on to tell viewers that violence against women and victim blaming was a norm in our society.

Woopie Goldburg, moderator on the show and a popular entertainer known for her role in the 1985 film “The Color Purple” in which she portrayed a victim of domestic violence, interjected abruptly during Biden’s diatribe stating: “And will you just also remind people, remind the women that the way to get a man’s attention is not to hit him? Do not hit him. (applause) Because this is something violent in itself, is something we need to teach kids is not to perpetrate on each other. No?”

Despite a smattering of applause, Neither Biden or any of the other moderators on the show showed any appreciable reaction to her comments.

The letter cited a number of credible sources including studies performed by the CDC and the American Journal of Public Health that cite violence perpetrated by teenage females as a rapidly growing problem.

Excerpt from the letter:

“• According to the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, 10% of teenage boys were victimized by dating violence in the past year, compared to only 9% of teenage girls experiencing dating violence (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5905.pdf – Table 12)
• According to a national survey of young adults ages 18-25, in cases of one-way violence, females were the aggressors in 71% of the cases, and males the initiators 29% of the time. (Whitaker DJ et al. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007)”

This letter, like Woopie Goldburg’s comments on the show, was ignored by Vice President Biden.

S.A.V.E. also called upon concerned citizens on Monday to contact the White House to express their concerns. After Biden’s appearance emails were sent out to those on S.A.V.E.’s email list urging people to express outrage at the misrepresentation of the true nature of intimate partner violence and an email link to the White House was provided.

Sources:

http://www.saveservices.org/2011/09/save-sends-letter-to-vp-biden-regarding-his-upcoming-appearance-on-the-view/

http://abc.go.com/watch/the-view/SH559080/VD55145134/the-view-927

New Video -- The Criminal Nature of Feminism



Speaking of truly criminal matters affiliated with feminism, please make note of the following, which is also an opportunity for activism:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/vladek-filler-action-alert-press-release/


Now, somebody may be asking, "what's Mary Kellett got to do with feminism"? Well that's easy: the present criminal justice culture, obsessed with obtaining rape convictions, would not exist but for the criminal legacy of feminist anti-rape hysteria in the past, which secured the necessary innovations in the system and fostered the necessary growth of institutional misandry. This made it possible for criminals under color of law -- such as Mary Kellett, Mike Nifong, Jody Vaughan et al -- to find a place for themselves where nobody would challenge their criminal behavior. Innocent men's lives were destroyed, and feminism is largely to blame for this. Feminists in the past got this rolling, and feminists today keep it rolling when they mock it, trivialize it, ignore it, deny it, block efforts to change it, and duck responsibility for their historical role in creating it.

The feminists will once again betray their criminal nature, in a glaring way, when their guilt is exposed and their power structure begins to crumble. That day has not arrived quite yet, but when it does the mask will drop and the snarling face with fangs will finally show itself.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Exhibitionism



PWC.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Dr. T - What Every Man Should Know Before He Gets Married 09/26 by AVoiceforMen | Blog Talk Radio

Dr. T - What Every Man Should Know Before He Gets Married 09/26 by AVoiceforMen | Blog Talk Radio

Go and listen to this.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A FEMINIST, YOU GUILTY DOG!

Pay attention to the English guy who describes the behavior of abusive wives. It is a microcosm for the behavior of feminism toward men en masse.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Two Videos Well Worth Watching

I share with you now a couple of YouTube videos well worth watching. Here is the first:



Incidentally, I left the following comment after watching this vid on its native YouTube channel:

Excellent. You are no friend of feminism. But at the same time I clearly see that you are not a fat, bitter, conservative old man.

I think it is important for the world to understand what a non-feminist looks like -- and that can be damned near anything!

All right, here is the next video I want to share:



This video, like the first, evidences a demographic variety among those who oppose feminism. It also gives you a window into what is happening out yonder in the big wide world -- doesn't it?

I hope these videos have repaid your viewing time.

Video Remake -- Feminism Will Never Yield to Mere Persuasion



You will find the audio quality much improved here, with some novel effects.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Amanda Marcotte Ducks My Question

Do you remember that piece which Amanda Marcotte posted on the Good Men Project a few months ago? The one which stated in its title that we need "more feminism"? Needless to say, it was everything you might expect from Amanda. But I posted a comment there which pointedly addressed Amanda herself, in person. I was hoping for a clear, direct response, but that never happened. (Not that I am actually surprised.)

However, my effort was not wasted, for it was all part of the greater plan. Whether Amanda Marcotte responded, or didn't respond, was less important than the fact that I raised the points I raised, at the time I raised them, in plain sight of a considerable readership. And so I take the opportunity now to raise those points again. Yes, in sight of a considerable readership. The points are important -- critically important, in a structural way -- and I have been hammering at them for a long time. And the fact that Amanda Marcotte failed to respond may still be considered spin-worthy. So with no further ado, here is what I wrote -- and pardon me for not providing a link to the GMP, but I can't be arsed with looking it up:

Fidelbogen says:
March 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm

@Amanda Marcotte:

I have a serious question for you.

What makes you think that you know what feminism is?

I consider myself a non-feminist .

(Forget the term “MRA”.)

So, when I call myself a non-feminist, it clearly means that I reject feminism. Otherwise, I would call myself a feminist, yes?

And if I reject feminism, it must be that I have some idea what feminism IS, yes? Otherwise, how could I reject it?

Clearly, I reject feminism because I know what feminism is, and knowing this, I say “no thanks.”

And I must have a good reason for this, yes? And since you don’t know what my reason is, you cannot tell me I am wrong. . . can you?

So are you, as a feminist, telling me, as a non-feminist, that I need “more feminism” even when I make clear that I don’t want ANY feminism?

Would you STILL insist that I need “more feminism”?

Please respond no or yes.

If you respond no, thank you for making clear that you think feminism is optional.

If you respond yes, explain to me on what ground you (a feminist) feel you are entitled to dictate terms to me (a non-feminist)?

How would you justify taking such a stance?

Please get back to me Amanda. I very seriously want to hear what you’ve got to say about this.

Don’t blow it off. It is important.

WORD

For me, it is a given that anybody who uses the word "misogyny" with a straight face more than three times in one year, is either a crook or a jackass.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Musical Interlude



I haven't done one of these for a while. . .

Thursday, September 15, 2011

What It All Boils Down To


"Do you, as a feminist, recognise the right to existence of people who are not feminists?"


I have shamelessly stolen this from Snark, who recently posted it on his blog. Occasionally I will do somebody the honor of stealing from them. This is one of those occasions; yes, it is that good. Such economy, such concision:

http://mens-rights.blogspot.com/2011/09/put-them-on-spot.html#comments

Really now, we wouldn't go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.

It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.


Recently Posted

It is quite a spectacle to watch feminists palavering with each other, in a huddle, in their own world. They don’t seem to realize just how small their world is, how big the outer world is, and how tedious and bizarre they sound to the rest of us. They are strong, snarky and cocky only among their own kind in their mutual admiration cavern, but turn them loose in a more culturally diverse environment which doesn’t reciprocate their reactions (or their jargons), and they are nothing but callow weaklings. If only they could see themselves as others see them. The trouble with most feminists, I conclude, is that they don’t know shit about feminism. Point being, that they have no privileged authority to self-define — the rest of the world can see perfectly well what feminism is, and draw its own conclusions.

So it is time to drag feminism out of its clubhouse, to ask it a lot of rude questions, and hold it accountable to the rest of the world.

And what do I mean by "the rest of the world"? I mean everybody and everything in the universe which is not feminist.

Feminism is not the world.

There is no more important lesson we need to be learning, than THAT.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

New Video -- A Foundational Analysis of the Femplex

Monday, September 12, 2011

Fascinating New Blog -- "Unknown Misandry"

I received the following e-mail today:
TO: fidelbogen@earthling.net

Includes info you will find useful – blog: The Unknown History of MISANDRY
Posts of particular interest:




I would encourage you to go and have good long read over that-a-ways! And I hope you will bookmark, and tell others about it.

Friday, September 09, 2011

A Foundational Schematic Analysis of the Femplex

We know that there is more to feminism than feminism, and that the feminist enterprise is connected under-the-table to many things which don't ostensibly pertain to feminism at all . This web of relations adds up to an extended cultural supply chain -- called the femplex -- and without it feminism would amount to very little. Accordingly, feminism is resident within society as a whole. That is why we say that feminism has fuzzy borders: because it is unclear where feminism ends and the rest of the world begins. We believe, however, that this may be remedied, and that feminism may be isolated and turned into a commonly understood target of operations.

The project of isolating feminism and turning it into a commonly understood target, is called clarificatory discourse. The projected outcome of clarificatory discourse is called target consensus. We of the non-feminist world propose to bring such things about, and we do not mean to seek feminist approval. If our conclusions violate official feminist self-presentation, that is not our concern. So in the end, feminism is what we say it is -- and we will make it stick.

For the present discussion, I divide feminism along a vertical axis. From top to bottom, feminism reveals an upper stratum we shall call the narrative superstructure, and a lower stratum we shall call the psychic sub-structure -- or if you prefer, the deep structure.

The narrative superstructure (or just superstructure) is the level of worldly agreements or conventional discourses about the nature of reality -- the realm of politic fictions, if you will. Please note that the superstructure often appears irrational, or two-faced, or inconsistent. It doesn't always "hang together".

The psychic sub-structure (let's say deep structure) is the foundation which the superstructure rests upon, including both the timeless bedrock of human nature, and the bedrock of longstanding cultural fixtures not easily eradicated. When the superstructural narrative doesn't seem to make sense it is because part of the story is missing. To get the complete story, you must dig into the deep structure and patch the superstructural narrative into what you find there.

This is nowhere better illustrated than by the nearly worthless left-right paradigm of political discourse. The majority of self-declared feminists are keen to inform you that feminism dwells strictly on the political "left". However, a great many non-feminist partisans have concluded that feminism is evenly distributed from one end of the so-called political spectrum to the other. These partisans, from their perch of superior insight, have pierced the smog of semantic hanky-panky. They have latched onto something very basic and profound: that the word "feminism" is merely that, a word. Nothing but a word. And so these partisans have learned to brush aside mere words and to see, clearly and directly, the objective underlying state of the world itself.

The left-right paradigm is a thing of the superstructure, as is the word feminism -- mind you, just the word. I mean that these things merely float upon the surface, and like the superstructure in general, they tell an incomplete story. So you must plug the gaps with material from the deep structure. In this case, we must reason from the premise that not only is gynocentrism the chief hallmark of feminism, but that the entire social world arranges itself in the service of women and revolves around their needs. Deep-structurally considered, it is clear that gynocentrism stretches across the political spectrum from "left", to "right".

To begin: both men and women can be gynocentric, and that is politically significant.

To speak of gynocentric men: social-conservative white knights and left-wing profeminist collaborationists both descend from the "woman-firsters" who long pre-date feminism as we presently know it. The more things change the more they stay the same, and such men are a perennial fixture of the social landscape. Such men have one very important thing in common. Both groups are willing to throw other men under the bus in the interest of protecting and serving women -- although their justifications for this are elaborate, circumspect, and varied. The bedrock stratum of gynocentrism unites them on a horizontal axis; deep-structurally, they are as one.

But in superstructural terms, they differ quite a bit. The "left" gynocentrists have signed on to a programme which includes the destruction of marriage and family, the deconstruction of male identity, and various shadings of Marxism or crypto-Marxism. Also, these gynocentrists are willing to embrace "feminist" as a self-appellative, that is, they have chosen to collaborate with feminism intellectually. For this reason, we prefer to call such men "collaborationists" rather than "white knights" -- although in a certain sense all gynocentric men are white knights.

However, the "right" gynocentrists are more fittingly called "white knights" because that term reeks of chivalry and traditionalism. These fellows are gallant bucks avid to defend the ladies for old-school reasons, even at the expense of men. As such, they are easily gulled into serving forces that originate politically to the leftward. They certainly don't want to break up marriages and families, and they are keen to denounce feminism as they understand it. The trouble is, they don't understand it. Their understanding is trite and muddled. And so they are serving feminism every bit as much as their gynocentric brothers on the "left". They are fools.

To speak of gynocentric women: socially conservative females are often misandric to some degree, just like their man-hating sisters on the "left". However, they refuse to co-sign with any left-wing agenda. They don't wish to be in the same corner with hairy-legged radical lesbians, pagans, atheists, commies and the like. Also, and most importantly, they will have no truck with the left-wing attack on marriage and family, because marriage and family are the foundation of their power base. They don't want to overthrow "patriarchal" institutions, they want to be a controlling force within those institutions!

Such women will hypocritically harvest the rewards of feminist innovation if it suits their purpose, savoring the fruit while hating the tree -- and possibly hating men as well. Occasionally, they will even declare themselves "feminist" by name -- with no profound grasp of what the hell they are talking about. Their shallowness of understanding, however, in no way disqualifies them as feminist, since nobody has a patent on that word. A case in point would be Sara Palin. Left-wing feminists hate her, and one cannot dispute that she is a bimbo, a bird-brain, an empty-headed twit -- all of which qualify her as quintessentially feminist in my opinion. She is also, in her way, a "strong, powerful woman." So if Sara calls herself a feminist, who am I to say otherwise? But the point of note is that Sara Palin has zero grasp of the issues, and if she gains a high seat of power then mark my words, she will bolster the Republican version of gynocentrism. I have no compelling reason to predict otherwise. So it is a case of "pick your poison."

In the end, socially conservative gynocentrists and left-wing feminists, both male and female, differ from each other only in a superstructural way -- by virtue of an ideological decision or want of such decision. If one were pressed to name the principal ingredient of feminism, lacking which it would be pointless to speak of feminism whatsoever, that ingredient would need to be gynocentrism. And gynocentrism, as we have pointed out, runs wall-to-wall. Many have noted that "feminism equals female supremacism", and while that is undoubtedly the case, it is quite arguable as well that female supremacism breaks apart into elements. And female supremacism is nothing if not gynocentric.

Those who argue that feminism is entirely a thing of the "left" are arguing nothing better than semantics. They are saying that the word feminism may be stuck to only certain sectors of observable reality, on the strength of criteria which they, themselves, have proposed. But they are merely thinking superstructurally and ignoring the complete story. For I would maintain that we can never properly understand feminism as an object in the world -- and in particular the political world -- if we ignore those binding factors which, by their proximity, support the existence of feminism as a whole.

I put it to you: what would become of feminism (left-wing or otherwise) were it not for the presence of gynocentrism on the political "right"? And I will answer. If the roots of feminism extended no further than the narrow soil of the "left", then feminism would never draw the necessary strength to germinate at all, let alone grow to its present mighty proportions. So deep-structural gynocentrism, across the entire culture, is absolutely necessary and crucial to the efflorescence of superstructural feminism on the political "left". And how if this were not given? Well if nothing else, a monolithic non-feminist power-lock would form everywhere outside the "left". This would bottle up feminism so effectively that it would never advance two steps in any direction, and so it would wither and die.

On the other hand, feminism as we presently know it would never have emerged from deep-structural gynocentrism alone and unaided. We mustn't discount the power of the superstructure -- that power is mighty indeed. For it was imperative that the force of world-historic evolution, in the realm of particular, concrete ideas, be joined to the formless primordial power of the psychic sub-structure. It was only in this way that things could have happened the way they happened, and yielded the state of matters which now confronts us. To properly understand the femplex and its operations, we must examine both the vertical dimension of superstructure and sub-structure, and the horizontal dimension of culture and politics.

The present treatise does not pretend to deal exhaustively with the matter it proposes, but only to illuminate the pathway for further investigation. My purpose here has been to advance the project of holistic understanding, in the service of clarificatory discourse, with the goal of target consensus always in view. In conclusion, I would submit that those who represent feminism as an exclusively left-wing phenomenon, are harboring a sequestered motive to block the growth of holistic understanding. They wish to confine the narrative to a purely superstructural dimension in which they themselves control the frame.

Sunday, September 04, 2011

Anti-Misandry Website in Sweden

I thank Ulf Andersson for telling me about this new blog, called Misandri Patrol:

"MISANDRI in Sweden!"

"I had hoped that this blog would never be needed in a so equal society like Sweden. Unfortunately, the reality of Swedish men completely different. Let's hope for swift and significant changes for all Swedish men!"
Check it out, courtesy of Google translator:

PLEASE CLINK HERE

Friday, September 02, 2011

New Video -- What They Don't Want You To Know



By the by. . . I just came into a free copy of Maureen Dowd's book Are Men Necessary? A quick sample:
"Whether or not American feminism will be defeated by American conservatism, it is incontrovertibly true that American feminism was trumped by American narcissism."
Well. It is incontrovertibly true that American narcissism is part and parcel of American feminism, and that if narcissism trumped feminism, then feminism clearly trumped itself. Which doesn't quite make sense, does it? Or then again, it makes a perfect alien kind of sense.

It is also incontrovertibly true that American conservatism is joined at the hip to American feminism, and that no form of desperate surgery can separate these Siamese twins without fatal consequences to feminism -- although "conservatism" would survive just fine and dandy.

At any rate, add Maureen Dowd's name to the long list of annoying people who are due for a good, stiff slog at political re-education camp. . . eh? ;)

Thursday, September 01, 2011

A Much Better Version of an Earlier Video



Yes. The new version is hugely better. And to judge by the traffic I've gotten at YouTube -- 654 hits so far -- this particular vid (The Colonization of Male Space) hits the zeitgeist right where it counts. So, it really needed to shed the crappy skin of the original, and resurrect in the SHQ (super high quality audio) version that I have just posted.

I will delete the original in a few days.