Sunday, August 26, 2012

Stolen Treasure

I'd like to share something from the "Nice Guy -- MGTOW" forum, which I just now visited, briefly, for the first time in about 2 years. First, the commenter quotes a passage from a feminist book:
"One of the great insights of second wave feminisms was the recognition that "the personal is political" – a phrase first coined by Carol Hanisch in 1971. We meant by this that all our small, personal, day-to-day activities had political meaning, whether intended or not. Aspects of our lives that had previously been seen as purely "personal" -- housework, sex, relationships with sons and fathers, mothers, sisters and lovers – were shaped by, and influential upon, their broader social context. "The slogan…meant, for example, that when a woman is forced to have sex with her husband it is a political act because it reflects the power dynamics in the relationship: wives are property to which husbands have full access" (Rowland: 1984, p. 5). A feminist understanding of "politics" meant challenging the male definition of the political as something external (to do with governments, laws, banner-waving, and protest marches) towards an understanding of politics as central to our very beings, affecting our thoughts, emotions, and the apparently trivial everyday choices we make about how we live. Feminism meant treating what had been perceived as merely "personal" issues as political concerns."
Then he follows up with some thoughts of his own:
"It's clear to me that ... aside from Communism ... feminist theory is influenced heavily by cooking techniques; like improvising your own recipe for tuna casserole. Their argumentation is fraught with lasagna-like mixtures of ideas and concepts that permit them to play bait-and-switch whenever they debate you. Like a salad bar, they can pick and add anything they want to their desired taste, You go personal ("You're full of shit!"); they go global ("That's misogynyistic!). You go global ("That's an obvious canard."); they go personal ("My but someone is threatened about his masculinity!"). ..

"Every debate with them is like playing three-card monty with the guys on the street corner or trying to discern under which walnut shell the pea is. .Maybe this is the reason for it - they can switch between personal and political without considering themselves to be making any kind of change at all.

"If "the personal is political", how does that jibe with paying your bills on time or maintaining good personal hygiene, fixing a flat tire or grabbing a quick burger after class? Feminist thinking isn't intellectual at all. That's part of their overall pretense. Deep-down, they are anti-intellectual. So why are so many of them college professors?"
That is great stuff. Really great stuff. I'll should check out that forum in the future and see what other treasures I can find. But for all you neophytes who are still learning what feminism is, how it works, and why it is bad, the material I've shared here is pure gold. It affords valuable insight, and you can put that insight to work right away as a set of eyeglasses that will bring feminist (and feminist-influenced) behavior into sharper focus.

This war are in may indeed be a "war of ideas" on some level, but that is not how we play it. You may be aware that I have pretty much given up argument or debate, and learned to view this whole thing as a kind of street fight in which "winner takes all". After all, that is exactly how THEY play it, and will continue to play it, despite all pretensions to the contrary. And we'd be babes-in-the-woods to play it otherwise.

I call my strategy "post-argumentalism". Post-argumentalism does not eschew debate or argument, but simply acknowledges that such methods are not the mainstay of our operations, not the primary manner in which victory will be gained.

Here is a link to the original material on the Mancoat forum:

http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53439

6 Comments:

Blogger Paul M said...

Re: post-argumentalism.

The way argument works (when it works right) is tht the parties bring facts to the table, then argue over what those facts mean. It has it's limits, but as a method it works fine … so long as both parties are honest about what the facts are.

Argument, as a method of finding out useful things, does not work at all when any party is dishonest, when they tell lies about the facts.

And that's why it's pointless arguing with feminists, creationists, antivaxxers and denialists in general. You can't even get started. The method just cannot work.

Oh, another point to note: argument is pointless when the matter is a question of fact. Argument cannot discover new things, it can only work on the level of "Hey! I didn't think of that!". If the two parties disagree over a question of fact, then you just have to stop arguing and use some other method.

6:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fidelbogen:
I admit to having mixed thoughts about this. I agree with you that feminism doesn't rely on rational debate and fights the war (where gender supremacy is the goal) like a street-fight between thugs rather than a war between organized armies.

The question is: is it good strategy to fight the enemy on the enemy's own terms?

Rationality and logic are male strengths. Why give up a strategic advantage? For example, take the statement: 'The personal is political.' It makes a nice sound-bite, but is a self-contradictory statement. By debate alone, it can be proven false.

Feminism's main strength is the grasp it has on media and academia. Their success rests on their ability to spread disinformation. For example, the statement: 'when a woman is forced to have sex with her husband it is a political act because it reflects the power dynamics in a relationship,' is fraught with implied reasoning (disinformation) because it accepts as a fundamental premise that sex is an act forced upon women and that relationships are simply power-struggles (the Marxist overtones here are clear).

The way feminism can be best defeated, is by exposing it as a complete lie and counterproductive to society.

8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, by observing other examples of argumentation in society, for example politics, advertising, news pundits, courtroom debate, etc. etc., argumentation as something which has legitimate rules (love that word legitimate), a logical, rational attempt by more than one party to either convince, or get at a truth, is thoroughly obfuscated. Hardly anyone argues "fair", this makes it easy for feminists to just act like their bratty irresponsible style of "debate" is just normal and proves their point. I don't really know what can be done about that, but just noting. I hardly ever argue with anybody about anything, I just state my truths when pertinent and it doesn't seem like a waste of time. I am actually busy with my life. Feminists would like you to stop your life and pay attention to them. Work against them yes, but it's easy to get discouraged arguing with anyone who doesn't "argue fair", especially attention whores who will be fed by any manner of debate that causes people to look at them.
One thing that has been difficult for me regarding this is the fact that - call it learning the hard way, navigating your life, the people you develop associations with, etc., you have to watch for the rocks ahead, navigate around when possible, don't waste time when there's a better route. Just as a random example, I've wondered sometimes if there is, or ought to be, a list of educational institutions where the influence of feminism, their ridiculous departments and all that, are at their least level of influence, or in atmospheres not entirely comfortable with all that, so men wanting to pursue a degree could simply steer away from the nonsense, not investing years in an institution that may pay them back with any number of marginalizing or worse.

Incidentally I do not mean to pose as some sort of adviser or learned one here. I lay out my thoughts also for my own edification as well.

1:26 PM  
Anonymous TDOM said...

"The personal is political" is a statement that permits governmental intrusion into every aspect of everyone's life. Once the personal is made political, there is no more personal. Government can then dictate everything. This is what feminism has brought us: the totalitarian state.

But of course feminists like to pick and chose when the personal becomes political. Take the case of abortion. the slogan there is "our body, our choice." This statement implies "personal" posession and "personal" choice; the right to self-determination. Only if the personal is political, there is no personal possession or personal choice. The government has the right to dictate its choice to the woman. The government may choose to outlaw abortion, to make it a crime, and to imprison women and their doctors who chose and provide abortion. This is fully in line with the feminist idea of "the personal is political."

3:09 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Anon8:06:

"The question is: is it good strategy to fight the enemy on the enemy's own terms?"

The way I see it, when you are reasoning or debating with the enemy, you are wasting your effort for at least two reasons.

1. Because they are your Enemy in the first place, and the reason they are so is that it was impossible to reason or debate with them in the first place. Otherwise, they wouldn't be your enemy.

2. What are you hoping to accomplish by reasoning or debating with them? I mean, if you "win", do you expect their behavior to somehow change? Do you expect them to DO something that they aren't going to do otherwise?


So in the case of male human rights, so you reckon the feminists are just gonna say "hey, you're absolutely correct. What was I thinking, anyway? Here, help yourself to your male human rights."?

Arguing or debating with them is effectively like asking their permission in some way. As if you are going to "convince" them of something, and then they are finally going to "permit" you to do or have something.

But this is War, and that is not the appropriate mindset for the situation.

In the end, I don't suggest fighting the enemy on the enemy's own terms, but fighting the enemy on YOUR terms, but using some of their methods.

4:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fidelbogen:
In answer to both questions 1&2:

Part of the purpose of warfare is to gain ground and win strategic points as a point of further attack. The purpose of debate and argument with feminists (and mangina men) is to destroy them logically. At the same, those who listen or read the arguments are won over---those are the ones I'm talking about reaching by debate.

The only strength they actually possess is the strength to impose their will by force. As the moral and logical underpinnings of their movement are eroded, so goes their ability to project their ideology by force.

5:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home