The Counter-Feminist: Rhetorical Disciplining

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Rhetorical Disciplining

The following comment has appeared on the post immediately prior to this:

"Women of today are actually easy to deal understand - if her mouth is open for more than pleasuring a man, she's lying. Just accept that she will lie, cheat, and everything else - so your job is to out-smart her. It isn't difficult she's a female and lacks your reason, and ability.

"Use your advantage. And never make the mistake of thinking of a woman as more than someone who will lie, cheat, steal, and murder to get what she wants because she has been taught that she is OWED what she wants...

"Your job is to not give it to her, and use her for your pleasure - they can be trained, but will turn on you if they ever sense fear..."

And I responded to that comment in the following terms:

Your rhetorical style is not politically efficient, and your declaration of sentiments is not in line with the policy of this blog. Nevertheless, you are quite welcome to your opinion, and I will not censor you.

However, I would refer you to the four points of rhetorical discipline, which are:

1. Discreet utterance
2. Tonal mastery
3. Narrative frame
4. Message Discipline

One needs to be firing on all four of these cylinders. You lack fire altogether on cylinder no. 1, and partly on cylinders 3 and 4.

The complete manual of rhetorical discipline is available at the following link, and I recommend that you study it:

The Practice of Rhetorical Discipline

I might also wonder if you are a feminist provocateur, engaging in false flag tactics. We get a lot of that nowadays, now that the conflict is heating up and entering a new phase. They will do anything they can to prove that non-feminist people are 'violent misogynists', and they love nothing better than to point to words such as yours, in proof of "why the world needs feminism".

But the truth is exactly the reverse. Words such as yours should be cited in proof of why the world does NOT need feminism. "More feminism" will only spawn more of the very same attitude which you are expressing here. And that is is precisely what the feminists wish to see happening, because it will validate them and pave the way for...that's right, more feminism!

The very last thing they want to see, is less of the attitude you are expressing here. They love it when people talk that way, and they can't get enough of it.

11 Comments:

ScareCrow said...: Just curious.

Have you ever written an essay - describing what exactly feminism is to you?

I equate it with male-hatred.

What do you equate it with?; 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: You are trying to use logic in your response. Using logic with anything to do with women or feminism is a waste of time. Women are at war with men. Logic is useless in war.

All women are feminists - its just a matter of degree. They must be treated as the enemy, which they are, as feminists have proved.

If you don't think all women are feminists, when was the last time you saw a woman who said something like, "Feminists have gone to far" actually go out and do something to stop feminists bullshit? Women will say anti-feminist words, but the won't march in rallies.

Women started the war. Men will finish it.; 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Appreciate the link Fidelbogen. Printed that out actually.

The more I look at the comment in question though, the phonier it looks - too oddly smooth for such anger, doesn't ring true. But then perhaps that's merely my "man's way of knowing" heh heh. I notice no surly rebuttals either. The angry dudes usually get defensive when called, her schtick isn't up to it. I don't blame her for wanting to hang around here though, the blogging is so much more lucid and insightful than her usual haunts, less rambling vague and emotional, probably gets a lot more out of it than she initially intended.; 2:06 PM
The Gay Masochist said...: OOOH FIDELBOGEN: you wicked little monkey you...

You had me at discipline!; 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: @345 - proof this blog isn't heavily moderated.; 5:53 PM
Eric said...: Anon141:
'All women are feminists, it is just a matter of degree'.

That's completely false. The Scarecrow is closer to the truth when he connects it to a 'hatred of men.' It's not a normal or natural condition for women to hate men. Why it exists therefore is a product of culture and education.

'When was the last time you heard women say feminism has gone too far &c?'

I hear it regularly from Europeans, Latina, and Asian women: evidence again that feminism is socially engineered.; 9:10 PM
Eric said...: Fidelbogen:
On the subject of undisciplined rhetoric: I read now that just one week since he called the actions of the Vancouver Femistasi a 'tempest in a teapot', Futrelle is up to FOUR posts about Vancouver on his blog. All in one week, mind you!

As much of a buffoon as he is, one advantage Futrelle does have is access to certain channels of information among the media &c. Could it really be that Vancouver has the feminist establishment a little more nervous than they're letting on?; 11:20 PM
Fidelbogen said...: @Eric: We'll soon find a way to make them even more nervous than THAT...eh? ;); 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't agree that "all women are feminists", but I do think that feminism appeals to weaknesses (which in some ways are not always weaknesses) that are likely in women, due both to nature and nurture, so that it could appear so, especially when you're feeling you've really had a snootful of feminism. I know several women, and have known many, who would disavow any interest or even validity in feminism, but in they're lower states, engage in the same types of false argumentation, magical thinking, manipulation, victim status, nagging, etc., that is cultivated by feminism. But that doesn't make them feminists. Just their bad side showing. A feminist attempts to live her life justifying and cultivating those things, and constantly attempting to falsely elevate herself via elevation of her special interest group. It's her religion, not just a set of ill tendencies.; 11:52 AM
Fidelbogen said...: @Anon1152:

The problem, as I have discussed elsewhere, is that feminism has fuzzy borders. So, the underlying phenomenology of the the Femplex operates independently of "feminism" as a word or intellectual category.

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2007/03/there-is-more-to-feminism-than-feminism.html; 1:17 PM
Eric said...: Anon1152:
There are lot of writers in the Mens Movement who conflate innate biological and psychological feminine tendencies with feminism. This is an especially bad inclination among the Game/PUA crowd.

Some of the characteristics men see in women as negative, would be negative in a man; but necessary for women (and vice-versa). The real danger comes from the sexual nihilism and androgeny that's part and parcel of feminist thinking. I think it was Angela Dworkin who said that feminism couldn't achieve its ultimate ends until gender polarity was destroyed. (Again a prime example of feminism as a revolutionary paradigm).

In other words, don't fall for the idea that certain female traits make all women bad. In a normal, civilized social state these negatives you mentioned wouldn't appear even remotely serious; but in a dysfunctional and morally vastated culture they are magnified out of porportion.; 11:43 PM