Saturday, August 18, 2012


Great stuff, don't ya think? I would remind you that we don't (in theory) need overwhelming support from the female population -- or anything close to it!  A mere fifty or so "broad"cast towers like GWW could transmit shockwaves around the world, exploding feminist brains with a collective splat that would reverberate even in the darkest corners of the Canadian arctic.

But seriously, GWW's shitty adventure should remind us who we are dealing with. We are dealing with irrational fanatics and even malignant narcissists, similar to those who made Erin Pizzey's life hell. Their proclivity for criminal violence predictably surfaces when they are cornered. You see, cornered feminists, like cornered rats, will use their teeth. And their milder supporters aren't much better.

This puts me in mind of the recent minor kerfuffle on Davey Futrelle's blog. Some of his undisciplined supporters wished that pro-male YouTubers were more "visible" -- which, I could add, might tend to make them more personally traceable or "doxx-able". (The "demand for visibility" is a recurring theme among many feminists, including Jessica Valenti.) Well Davey distanced himself like a madman from all of that, entering the enemy camp (this blog right here!) to announce that he did not endorse what his undisciplined supporters were saying. 

The lightning-swift touchiness of Futrelle's reaction was interesting. And his motives, in terms of strategy, are clear enough -- at least to me. For quite some time, the mainstay of Futrelle's game has been to smear the non-feminist community using guilt-by-association. He has repeatedly tried to fabricate a linkage between the pro-male project and violent individuals such as Anders Breivik -- typically through a combination of quote-mining and  ignoring the political context. Herein, he walks in step with anti-male policy overall, but he's definitely a point man.

At any rate, Futrelle wants to fight clear of anything at all, on the feminist side, which might suggest that the feminist side is capable of thuggish behavior. For that is precisely what is hinted at, when various feminists demand that politically outspoken non-feminists go public with their names and faces. After all, when you are public, you are publicly available for people to take a poke at you -- or worse.

Manifestly then, Davey fears that some taint of imputable thuggery will attach to feminism, rather than to non-feminist people as he would prefer. And although he can't control what the more undisciplined feminists do or say in this big wide world, he can at least keep his own plump little fingers clean, to some extent, by taking the stand he has taken in the present case. Evidently, it means a great deal to him.


Blogger David Futrelle said...

Dude, I honestly have no fucking idea what you're talking about here. Which of my "undisciplined supporters" were allegedly planning to doxx "pro-male You Tubers?"

Can you provide a link to this alleged "kerfuffle" on my blog?

2:13 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

"Piece of shit religious feminists and other crazies".

There it is - unless she is talking about the "non-patriarcal" religions - but I strongly doubt it.

It is clever - taking a hateful movement like feminism (that wanted to abolish the "patriarchal religions", and blaming it all - not on militant atheist vegan lesbians - but "religious" people.

I said it before - I do not like that woman.

Most of the people I encounter in the man-o-sphere would not what feminism was if it crawled up their ass and died.

Oh yeah - I love the essays blaming everything on the right wing of politics too - when most of the pernicious feminists from the 60's and 70's were all left wing.

This whole thing is a joke.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Okay, so you don't like that woman. But the enemy doesn't like that woman either, and that's what counts for me. Dig? ;)

No, she is not "blaming feminism on religion". She is just using the word "religious" in a loose way, to describe feminism itself. She is comparing feminism to religious fundamentalism.

I agree that a lot of people wouldn't know what feminism is if it crawled up their ass, etc. It's like the "Blind Men and the Elephant". They can't even see the part they're groping at, let alone the entire elephant.

That said, I must add that feminism is as much a product of the Right as of the Left.

That is, feminism gets its supply from the full cultural spectrum. So nobody is blaming "everything" on the right wing of politics. Just half of everything.

(Did Orrin Hatch co-sponsor VAWA. . . . or did he not?)

The left-wing part of feminism is the above-ground part of the plant. The root system is far bigger, and spreads everywhere. (Yes, I do mean everywhere.)

Questions? :)

4:17 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I take it you do not wish to expose politically outspoken non-feminist people to potential feminist harrassment?

Good. Then you have taken the best stance on this particular point. That is commendable of you.

Now let's see you broaden your stance to encompass the entire field of co-existence.

4:31 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

I said, "blame EVERYTHING on the right" - not just half. And yes, there are essays out there like that.

The main reason I am not a member of any of this stuff.

People are taking the feminism label - and making it mean whatever they want...

Fat, dressing slutty, being a religious prude, being a traditionalist...

What I rarely hear about is "hey, let's f**k all that religious and political stuff, as well as fashion and women's health and focus on women who HATE men."

...which happens to be the majority of them IMO.

4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ditto on what he said, girl writes what didn't mean feminists who are religious, she means religion-like cult of feminism. fanatics. if you look at her recent video "me a feminist - no way", her videos are a little lengthy for me, but that's because she does a lot of research and presents a lot of information, and makes good points, anyway, you'll get a pretty good picture of her opinion, also, the clips from "elzers" or what ever she includes, where elzers "knows things" through her vagina, well, worth the price of admission right there. just an opinion, i think we're in for some heated stuff next few years, people are starting to react to this crap, they've go so many new ways to present unpolitically correct opinion, not approved by big mother that is, they're getting called more and more, and they're gonna have lots of public fits over it all. oh, don't forget to go to the link below her video, whole great article explaining about how the underlying reason women put on make up, shave, preen etc., is because men hate women's bodies, have to see to believe i guess, even now. doggone men just hate women sooo much. they should stop.

4:44 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


If it's any comfort to you, I don't blame "everything" on the right -- only half. In the end, I blame the entire culture, which harbors gynocentrism across its entire spectrum.

But to be honest, I don't like the left-right paradigm in general -- although I use it anyway because we haven't yet evolved the necessary language to map reality differently.

The development of the red pill demographic, on both the right AND the left, is gonna be a game changer I think.

On another note: you said something about "fuck ALL of that religious and political shit". Well I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds like you want to throw out the "political" and make the entire discourse "personal" (i.e. about women.)

Well I am just the opposite. I want to throw out the "personal" and make the whole thing very very political.

I am not interested in talking about women per se, except as a factor in the game, among all the other factors. To me, the game is the thing. It's all about the game.

Also, I do not permit myself to harbor a negative attitude about women. To me, that seems poor policy -- I don't want such emotions to cloud my judgment one way or the other.

I would prefer that my judgment remain unclouded.

I don't dislike women, nor do i LIKE them. How can I? There is no such thing as "women". There is only this woman, that woman, that other woman, etc etc....

One at a time, nome sayin'?

So, I treat any woman I meet in the same way that I would treat any man. That individual starts with a clean slate, and I wait for them to put their markings on it.


5:44 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


You're right, we're in for some heated stuff in the next few years. Get your heat shields ready.

Hopefully, society doesn't have a meltdown.

6:00 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

@Anon - you are full of crap. I heard what she said, "religious feminists" end of story.

Her and others are basically pulling the same sh*t people like them always have - once their policies are determined to be f**ked up, they start blame shifting.

So, now, feminism is something that religion started - and feminists are of course all religious fanatics.

You are being an apologist.

6:14 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I agree that GWW might have chosen her words more carefully in this case. But I am virtually certain that I know what she means by "religious feminists".

She means "feminists who are religiously fanatical about feminism".

6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fidelbogen & Scarecrow:
There's a very fine dynamic between religion and feminism that's at work here. The Anglosphere has a cultural heritage of 'religious movements' with Puritanical overtones and pedestalisation of women as integral components (unlike Christianity in other cultures). As a neo-Marxist movement, the radical feminism of the 1960s used that cultural anomoly as leverage to gain advantage in public acceptance.

IOW, religion isn't the cause of feminism, but feminism employs some of the outward characteristics and (highly modified) religious tenets to infiltrate a social paradigm. It doesn't succeed against cultures dominated by institutional patriarchal religions like Catholicism or Islam.

That being said, the Scarecrow is right that misandry (or, more accurately, gender supremacy) is what defines a feminist.

6:48 PM  
Blogger David Futrelle said...

Dude, from you complete non-answer to my question I can only assume that you made the whole thing up. If I'm wrong, show me a link to what you said people on my blog were saying and what I said about it.

I don't support doxxing.

6:57 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

Same thing Fidelbogen - you are being an apologist for an atheist fanatic.

8:11 PM  
Anonymous forweg said...

Leaving aside strategic considerations, it does disturb me how women like GWW seem to obtain tremendous popularity and countless adoring fans for saying pretty much the same thing men have been saying for years.

One sees this time and time again in the so-called MRM, most recently evidenced at AVFM upon Quiet Riot Girl's introduction there. Most "MRAs" seem to be every bit the gynocentric white knights they constantly decry. Any woman who expresses even a slight disocciation with misandry is fawned over like a precious damsels.

Fools who cannot break free from their own genetic predispositions are... really annoying.

12:52 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Lousy reading comprehension. I mock it.

Yes. We get that you officially don't endorse doxxing. And nobody said you did.

We also get that nobody on your site openly called for doxxing. And nobody said they did.

We. Get. It.

But we also get why you are so keen to say "it's okay to be anonymous".

It's because you want to distance yourself from such feminists as, e.g., Jessica Valenti, who say just the opposite of that.

You very much don't want to be identified with such people.

We get that this is part of your moral high ground game strategy.

Yes. It is "creepy" to request that non-feminist people use their real names or faces in cyberspace, because the only plausible reason for this would be to make them publicly identifiable.

And we get that you don't want to be seen as endorsing such creepiness, because that would make it harder to paint non-feminist/pro-male people as creepy. (Which is your main project, after all.)

So I cannot fault your sense of strategy. If I were David Futrelle, I would do just the same.

But thank heavens I am not David Futrelle.

Now go to your June 8 entry, the one about "best case/worst case", and find the commenter who speaks of pro-male YouTubers that don't show their faces. This person voices the creepy attitude of many feminists.

But elsewhere, somebody takes that commenter to task for it. And quite rightly.

Hopefully, the relevant material remains unaltered.

As for yourself: You don't fool me. You're FINE with doxxing and suchlike. You don't personally have any scruples about that whatsoever; you only wish to SEEM like you do.

Like I said, moral high ground strategy.

Whatever. You play your game, and I'll play mine! ;)

1:01 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Strategic considerations aside, I understand exactly what you are saying. I have frequently had similar thoughts.

But bear in mind that the long term plan is to decolonize male space. This should provide the necessary balancing effect, to offset the problem you speak of.

Sorry if I'm not crystal clear right at the moment.

1:14 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


"That being said, the Scarecrow is right that misandry (or, more accurately, gender supremacy) is what defines a feminist."

Scarecrow is certainly not the only one who says that.

But to my mind, the central question is not what defines a feminist, but rather what defines feminism, in a pragmatic and phenomenological way.

1:19 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I'm curious; what is your problem with "atheist fanatics", or I should say, what problem do you think they would cause?

1:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think one reason why feminism, as an ideological construct, is hard to grasp is because it is mostly centered on an abstraction to begin with: female supremacy. That supremacy can manifest itself in many forms, but the premises remain the same.

For example, a Radfem may call abortion 'reproductive rights'; but a Socon who opposes abortion may still believe that women are the exclusive owners of sex and reproduction. Hence, they differ politically but accept the same basic principles. And there are quite a few points of agreement between Radfems and Socons, the depreciation of the male is the common vector-point.

3:03 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I think perhaps the common factor you speak of is gynocentrism rather than female supremacism? (Although one could argue that there is no substantive difference.)

But I find it constructive to understand feminism holistically, as a social organism with a differentiation of functions in the body-politic. (Not all of it goes under the name 'feminism', but gynocentrism is a recurring theme.)

That said, I should add that there is a red pill demographic which cuts across all major social cohorts -- including Socons, and increasingly of late, the political left.

I'm composing a substantial article on just that subject, to be posted (and cross-posted) in the near future.

6:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I'm a little late getting back to the conversation, but as the "other" anonymous, scarecrow, as your name implies, you're posturing. I am not "full of crap", I am hardly an apologist and if you knew me or anything about me you'd know how wrong you are there, and I daresay I have quite a bit more clarity on the phenomenon of feminism than you do, perhaps on most things, judging by your reactive posts.

I do see feminism as a cult that seems to take advantage of a way that most women just naturally think and behave, amongst others, the groupthink,the victim think, gender narcissism (vaginathink?), need (and hence entitlement to) for daily drama/gossip/theatrics, shallowness, and dare I say, intellectual laziness and shallowness. Good god I hope that doesn't describe all women, but if you accept the concepts of evolutionary psychology, and I certainly do, there are reasons for these specific weaknesses, or traits in the feminine character, and they make up for it in other traits, for example willingness to scrap to protect their young (something I see as eroded by feminism or any cult).

Personally I'm not that crazy about girl writes what for other reasons, but don't behave like a feminist, don't slam her just because she's a female, or because something to do with being female (like high subscribers count) makes her at fault, who's fault is that anyway? Besides, look at the amazing atheist's count. He's a he, bit of a rambler compared to her, but just plain a little more interesting personality, way that I see it.

At any rate, what does it do to throw around a bunch of names and accusations. I smell the stink of it everyday, feminology, I get my nose rubbed in it and I can't do anything about it, now. But I'll keep my cool about your fool "apologist" statement, if you and me were in person, I'd look you in the eye, we'd see just what your tone would be at that moment. A little politer I bet.

Incidentally, my favorite blogger on all this is Fidelbogen, his verbal style is like an eloquent cowboy, and I think he get's it best, and has great clarity, and I believe his statement that "feminism has got to go" sums it up best, screw all the politics and slants etc., focus. My second is Chapin's Inferno, although I think politically he's much more of an idealist than he realizes (aren't we all), and strategically, is dividing, which helps others to conquer, because if you're "leftist", pretty broad swath in his view, you're a feminist, he cuts a lot of people out of the group, he's a great talent just the same. Recently I've enjoyed how Integralmath takes apart the whole elevatorgate foofaraw, but he's kind of got the "I'll just get in front of a mic and start talking disease" so prevalent on youtube, but he does that better than most. Now of course I ramble but you can stop reading at any time you want, but final comment, the feminists thought they'd just waltz into the sphere of serious atheists, and lay down their religion, and it's getting rejected, oh boo hoo hoo, that about sums that whole thing up. I couldn't be more pleased and I grin every time I think about Rebecca Watson standing next to Richard Dawkins and chiding the entire group before the fact (before her quite possibly imaginary episode in an elevator) to behave. Everyone was still being polite to her, the speaker, but you know at that point Dawkins and most the people in the room were thinking, what, who is this ridiculous - as Chapin says, "itch"?

8:52 AM  
Blogger David Futrelle said...

Fidel: There was no "kerfuffle" on my blog. You've built your entire imaginary conspiracy theory around the fact that one commenter on my site, in a thread with more than a hundred comments, mentioned in passing that they're annoyed that what you call "pro male" Youtubers tend to be anonymous.

It wasn't "Some of [my]undisciplined supporters." It was one person. In passing.

You sloppily misrepresent this in your post, which is probably why you still refuse to provide links to what happened (or, rather, didn't) because you know you've misrepresented it.

And then you take me to task for saying I don't support doxxing, because somehow this is suspicious?

Dude, you're associated with a site that offers $1000 bounties on personal information of people you guys don't like.

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What sounds even more suspicious is your constant insistance on your innocence. Fidelbogen's already acknowledged that (at least publically) you don't support doxxing and such. Let it go at that---unless you're hiding something else...

2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just as as aside, why is it that some people are always calling someone "dude" over and over again, are Fidelbogen and David Futrelle buds?

6:11 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Anon: re: "dude".

I was noticing that myself.

You are observant.

9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks. Wouldn't it be better if he simply addressed everyone here as "Sir" in all his posts? (just joking)

9:45 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home