Tuesday, July 31, 2012

A Report from the Real World

A reader left a very absorbing and compelling statement on a recent Counter-Feminist post. First, you'll want to read that post in order to get the context:


Now here is the reader comment in question:
"My x husband was abused by his new wife for 11 yrs. Domestic charges were filed against him 2x which were dropped by her. These rages his wife had were always over my son & me. I could never figure that one out. Needless to say my x was framed by his wife (and her new boyfriend). He went to trial & did not get to testify in his own behalf (lawyers advice). He is now serving 13-18 months in prison for a crime he did not commit. An appeal has been filed, he shares the cell with a convicted murderer. Where has our justice system gone? Our families are in pain & most of all my son. This women made 6 years of his childhood a pure hell. I cried many a night wondering if she was going to hurt him when his father wasn't around. I never was afraid of my x. So please say a prayer for our family. There are many bad people in this world and women aren't exempt".

"Advice welcome."

Bear in mind that the narrative given above contradicts the feminist narrative, and so it is in the interest of feminism to suppress stories of this nature. And indeed, based on years of observation, we have found this to be the normative pattern of feminist behavior. Whatever puts men in the worst possible light gets exhibited front-and-center, and whatever puts women in a such a light gets tidied away into the shadows.


Feminists: Are you willing to negotiate peaceful coexistence?


Anonymous Anonymous said...


I do have to wonder why Chris is so concerned with this guy NOW, when apparently she was married to him before.

This whole passage is so typical of American women's attitudes, it's the best advertisement for avoiding them like the plague.

7:13 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

The attitude of "American women", the need to avoid them, etc... is not the point at issue here.

In fact, it is a discourse which I avoid like the plague. It is not politically efficient. (Per Rhetorical Discipline, Point 1, Point 2, and Point 4.)

8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fair enough point about political inefficiency. However, against the backdrop of this statement:

'...we have found this to be the normative pattern of feminist behavior. Whatever puts men in the worst possible light gets exhibited front-and-center, and whatever puts women in such a light gets tidied away into the shadows.'

How can the 'attitude' (instilled by feminist education and feminist media disinformation) be separated from 'behavior' (the consequences of acting on that education)?

8:54 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Well, there is a difference between public rhetoric (put out for the world to see), and our private opinions about things. If you're gonna do politics (i.e. be politically efficient), then this should be borne in mind.

The connection which you have noted (between "attitude" and "behavior"), must be shown to exist in a given case, and to that end, further clarification is needed as to which attitude and which behavior is being talked about. I mean, that the discussion remains a bit abstract in the present case.

I would reiterate my earlier point, that the entire discourse in question is politically inefficient (again as per rhetorical discipline).

In everyday, common lingo: "We don't need to go there."

Now, I don't personally wish to brand myself as a so-called "woman-basher" -- that would be politically inefficient.

On the other hand, I must allow that the objective truth about the female of the species just MIGHT (I stress the abstract possibility here!) turn out to be something "politically incorrect", i.e. rhetorically unsuitable, hence politically inefficient.

So my intellectual policy is to be a complete agnostic upon these matters, and at the same time, not admit them into public rhetoric as points of discussion.

Meanwhile, my practical policy is to encourage the growth of systems (within the pro-male community) that will naturally filter out damaging behaviors by women.

So in the end, whether women are or aren't inherently mercenary, they will never arrive at a position to take advantage in the first place. They will be vetted and they will obtains "levels of clearance". And the ones who have been cleared will be incentivized to maximize their advantage productively in whatever position they occupy.

As individuals, they will be "characterized by merit" (per First Principles), and be rewarded accordingly.

I sum it all up as follows:

"Every woman is free to prove that she is what she is."

(That saying says more than it appears to say.)

Well, hopefully, a few gleams of lucidity are shining through all of this. . .

12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for the clarification. I'm new to this site and really appreciate the intelligent dialogue.

Yes, admittedly I was writing in generalities. I fully agree that 'Every woman is free to prove that she is what she is.' The point I was making about avoiding American women is that women who are immersed in feminist ideology have a far greater probability of displaying those negative attitudes and behaviors; hence they should be presumed to be toxic to men unless they prove themselves otherwise. (When I meet or interact with non-American women, I presume them non-toxic unless they prove themselves otherwise).

I don't personally subscribe to the 'AWALT' position held by many in the MRM. I believe that most women our culture have been systematically disinformed about men by feminism; the same as people living under Communism were disinformed about other socio/political systems. Hence, when meeting a woman from a feminist culture, men need to exercise the same caution as a westerner would meeting someone from a communist country would.

12:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home