The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.
Fight For Gender Equality is the title of a blog in far-away, exotic India. It is operated by a woman named Uma Challa. I have leafed through Uma's blog (which goes clear back to 2006), and I have found nothing to not like about her politics.
"The inseparability of the male and female entities in the Universe was recognized by Indians as early as the Vedic times. This beautiful sentiment is manifested through the representation of Goddess Parvathi (Uma) and Lord Siva (Maheswara), known as “the parents of the Universe”, as UmaMaheswara or Ardhanareeswara(half-man, half-woman). This representation indicates that while both the female and male forms have their own individual identities and strengths, they are still interdependent. They complement each other and, it is only by combining their individual strengths that they are able to create and nurture life in the Universe. This divine couple is considered by Indians as an example to be emulated by all human beings.
"Import of Western thought on individualism over the last few centuries has led to the erosion of many wonderful Indian values, including the one of male-female unity. Equating individualism with independence has caused many cracks in the much-envied Indian family structure. Radical feminist ideas, which are based on anti-male, anti-family ideologies, have resulted in a gender war. Consequently, divorce rates, numbers of fatherless children, violence against men and numbers of men committing suicides are all on the rise. The time has come to remind ourselves of our pride-worthy Indian values and to restore stability in the society by promoting harmony between men and women."
fragments of a concert,excerpts of Valerie Solanas SCUM manifest,EMT,electronic music theater:Oliver Augst & Marcel Daemgen & guests: Camilla Milena Fehér & Sylvi Kretzschmar, 2008, Sweden; thanx to Riddarhyttan
Oh how I wish I could be there myself, to walk around the campus and tweak the noses (figuratively) of various people. There is an art to this, mind you.Let’s see now. . .If somebody handed me a white ribbon and asked me to take the pledge, I would rattle off a quick list of other things that I might pledge not to do, and would demand to know why they didn’t want me to take THOSE pledges.E.G. I pledge not to commit arson. . . . I pledge not to drive while drunk . . I pledge not to rob convenience stores. . . I pledge not to be a pickpocket who snatches watches. . . I pledge not to be a peeping Tom who . . eh . . . watches…. um….yes…. Okay! I pledge not to be a crooked stockbroker . . . I pledge not to superglue car door locks. . . I pledge not to kick fluffy kittens . . . I pledge not to eat food at the supermarket without paying for it . . . I pledge not to shoot heroin. . . I pledge…..I pledge. . . I pledge. . .!I would make clear how grossly offensive it would be, to ask a random stranger to take any such “pledges” as these — especially when you had no reason to assume that he would ever even commit any of the listed actions.And then I would demand to know why in hell the pledge they were presently asking me to take should be considered in any light other than what I had just described.Finally, I would grab that ribbon, thoroughly chew it up, and suavely offer it back to them laden with saliva -- "I don't care for the flavor; you keep it!" I would nonchalantly toss it on the ground if they didn’t take it, and then I would walk away.The possible variations of ad lib and nuance would be nearly infinite, but the key to this scenario would be timing, delivery, and aplomb.If you had a partner doing a video capture, that would be sheer perfection, and a gift to the movement that would keep on giving.Hey, you could EVEN post this little essay on a blog, and circulate the URL around campus.
I like what you are doing here. A lot. And I think you need to do lots and lots of this. Like, metric tons worth. What you are doing here could hit feminism like salt hitting a garden slug.
I'm serious. Keep up the good work! :)
Hello Fidelbogen!Such was the e-mail that I recieved. I responded with the following message -- again, slightly modified from the rough original:
Quite some time ago I talked about handing out leaflets printed with website addresses. I finally got these printed, and meant to give some out today to the guys who do our lawn. But I couldn't because I found I had a moral dilemma, and I bring this to your attention hoping you might be able to shed some light.
Here's the problem. Ignorance is bliss for some men, especially younger men, because this culture is all they know. They function within this culture, some of them experience the shitty end of the stick down the road, others will go their whole lives with a vague sense of disgruntlement, but they will have their family. Even taking into account the high divorce rates, is it justifiable to be the means by which a family could be broken apart? Granted that whatever information I provide would only sooner draw the problems to the surface -- assuming there are any -- giving such information, rather than letting them find it on their own, I might play a part in breaking apart another family. That's my problem.
Let's suppose that a guy goes to those websites and he wants to see some changes in his life - he realizes that it's not okay to be taking crap, stuff he "blew off" before. He also knows that the divorce courts are biased towards women, that if they get a divorce there is a high chance that he will hardly ever see his children. So, yes, now he knows how wrong things are, but he is powerless to do anything about it, Essentially he would be happier not knowing, happier with the old status quo.
On the internet. I am a small-time evangelist against feminism; giving these slips of paper out would be considerably more pro-active in the sense that these men, to my knowledge, are not searching for answers, because they don't have the questions yet. If I take such an active part in raising the questions, is it possible that a family that would have made it together, at least through the youth of their children, would be broken apart? I know I wouldn't be the immediate cause of this, but I wouldn't be so remote either. And taking into account that as a patriarchalist I consider family, not the individual, to be the most important element in society, it is abhorrent to me. But is this information owed to them?
Anyway, this email is probably too long, but I hope somewhere in there you get the drift of my problem as I see it. Theorizing that you had a family, and children that you would die for in a heartbeat, given the choice of knowledge which might separate you from your children, and ignorance (and you might still eventually be separated from your children - I would think it's just a matter of immediacy), which would you choose? I tend to think that most men would prefer the ignorance, delaying what might be the inevitable.
Hello. Here is my quick and immediate answer, from the top of the dome.
It all comes down to averages.
Either road you follow, something bad COULD happen. The question is, which choice would likely cause the least damage overall.
Let's say that you hand the leaflet to some guy, and he absorbs the information, and gets 'politically awakened', and then decides to do something adversely 'preemptive' as you have
You COULD argue that you're a second-hand agent in making
All right, now let's say you DON'T give the leaflet to some other guy. And so, lacking that life-saving information, his wife nine-elevens him and his life is ruined. He might even commit suicide. Who knows?
Here too, you COULD argue that you're a second-hand
agent. The question is, which option would implicate you the least?
For all it would matter, couldn't you just toss a coin?
And if you simply gave up on the whole business, wouldn't it still work the same on average as if you had done either thing exclusively, or decided by a coin toss?
So, I would say the question becomes: "Averages considered, why should i NOT hand out leaflets?"
Maybe it is all a matter of Fate, and Faith. Have faith that fate (or "providence" if you prefer) will work according to its necessary, appointed program.
If feminism, and all that belongs or pertains to it, is simply ignored and left alone, what will happen? It will keep growing; I feel mighty sure of that.
Very well, make that factor your baseline. Your "constant". Your "given". If you simply ignore feminism and all that belongs or pertains to it, it will KEEP GROWING.
So it looks like the dutiful, responsible thing is to intervene in some way -- and that forebearing do so could not improve the state of matters. For, how else to hinder or reverse the growth of feminist innovation in all of its subtle and pernicious forms, if not by intervening?
And handing out leaflets is certainly an intervention, as opposed to NOT handing them out. If anything will thwart feminist innovation, informing people of the situation (EVEN at the risk of being an 'adverse agent' occasionally) is more likely to do so.
So I would say trust ( or have faith) in your agency on behalf of providence ( or. . .fate). But not BLIND faith, mind you, because here you will be acting according to REASON (as I have outlined it in the present case).
Doing NOTHING AT ALL to blockade the growth of feminism will surely issue in all the adverse consequences, and more, that you fear might arise in the course of your leafleting.
But more significantly, these consequences will increase, and in the fullness of time bulk large and assume erratic, uncontrolled, unpredictable forms. Or if you will, formlessness. Chaos. Entropy.
And form, I would say, is better than formlessness. Better than chaos. Better than entropy.
Your proposed action is: to spread information.
And what is information, if not that which gives form and counteracts chaos or entropy???
So finally, if you want my opinion, I would say: hand out those leaflets every chance you get, for your chance of being a providential, divinely guided agent would enjoy better odds that way. . than any other way.
You see, by sharing such information, you are shining light on the objective situation. You are dispelling mental darkness.
And I think it is far better to walk in the light than to stumble in mental darkness, damaging both yourself and everything you bump into along the way. It will generate the least damage overall, if non-feminist men and women have a clear light upon the objective historical condition of the world.