Yes! Not All Women are like That

Here is something that arrived in the CF inbox this morning:

----- Original Message -----  From: __________  Sent: 05/16/12 05:27 AM  To: fidelbogen@earthling.net  Subject: I hope you don't believe all woman are like that 
Hello,
I hope you don't think all females are feminist.  I am not.  and the whole feminist movement has made it very difficult to be able to take good care of my son.  I think nothing has been more counterproductive to females and family than the feminist movement.  It is true that some things weren't very correct in society like the victorian age of breaking ribs etc into 16 inch waist but the feminist movement isn't good either.  What that movement means to me is that I am not allowed to be a woman and that is a very sad state of affairs indeed. 

And I immediately dispatched the following reply:

Thank you for your message. I understand very well that not all women are feminists, so you are preaching to the choir here! ;) 

So. . . we need to mobilize the women who are Not Feminists, and build a coalition against feminism, among all groups in society that can be recruited for that purpose. 

And in order to do THAT. . we need to reach a general agreement about what feminism *IS*. (Target consensus, as I call it.) That way, we know exactly what we are working on, so we will not waste our efforts at cross purposes or get into "friendly fire" situations. 

Then we can go to work on feminism from many sides, and chew it down into nothing. Like an army of termites! 

The non-feminist revolution. It's a big job, but what an adventure it will be! 

Cheers,

~Fidelbogen~

All right. As to the thorny question of NAWALT, I will say this. I am a practicing agnostic upon that subject. And I am also a "practical politician".

Okay?

If it is indeed true that all women are "like that", then there is no sense getting riled up about it, is there? I mean, IF they are like that, then they are like that. . . and that's that!  Right? So there's no sense getting agitated or going on and on about it. Is there?

And there is no need to theorize it explicitly. Just factor it into your plans and calculations so as to render it inert or moot, or even turn it to your advantage.

Once again, I am agnostic about this. So I believe the best plan is allow for the possibility that some women are indeed not like that, and permit them ample scope to so demonstrate. Yet at the same time, stay out of range in case they do finally turn out to be "like that".

The feminists have recently been floating a meme which says "trust women".  Have you noticed that one? Well feminists are vile hypocrites, given that feminism itself has been the chief agent in sowing distrust between men and women, and poisoning the water between them. They have generated conditions in the social ecology which make trust or mutual esteem between the sexes increasingly unlikely, and now they have the nerve to instruct the male population to "trust women". Well this is nothing new; we have always known that feminists are vile hypocrites.

All right. In the final tally, I am confident of one thing: women will maximize their advantage. I mean, that's just human nature, right? We all do that, right? I know I do. And in the objective historical situation that is now coming into focus, I am confident that more and more women (a critical mass, we may surmise) will see very clearly that it would not maximize their advantage to be "like that". And so, they will not be "like that".

All that I have outlined here is practical thinking. It is pragmatism. And I am nothing if not a practical thinker, and a pragmatist, and finally, a planner.