Friday, June 29, 2012

We Owe Them No Answers

The burden of proof lies upon the feminist to show that "feminism" is not what I have concluded. No burden of investigation lies upon me to ferret out what feminism "really" is according feminist X, feminist Y, or feminist Z. So if feminists X, Y, or Z do not fit the profile of "feminism" as I have outlined it, then the burden lies upon them to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

New Video -- Turning the Tables Against Feminism

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Well Worth Reading

When you get there, you will discover links to other material that will keep you busy for hours.

Feminism in Action

It is deadly illegal, in many jurisdictions around the world, to have certain pixel arrangements stored on your computer. If you have these prohibited pixel arrangements on your computer, you can be arrested and fined, or sent to prison, or get your name pilloried in the public record by being placed on a certain list.

I am referring, of course, to child pornography -- meaning, graphic depictions of people below the legal age of sexual consent engaged in sexual activities. And perhaps, pruriently naked. I'm not sure exactly how the law is written. But again, you will be in big trouble if you are caught with such pixel arrangements -- as GIF, JPEG or other -- stored on your computer, or on detachable media, or elsewise in your possession.

The idea is, that if you possess such pixel arrangements, you are an accomplice to the exploitation of children, and furthermore, that you are likely to be something called a "pedophile". Now, a pedophile is technically one who either uses people below the age of consent for sexual gratification, or at least feels a desire to do so.

Bear in mind that the mere presence of compromising pixel arrangements on your computer is enough to get you in trouble. It doesn't matter how they got there. The previous owner of your computer might have placed the material in some obscure folder, and you none the wiser. But that makes nary a shred of difference. If the legal authorities find it, your ass is toast, mister!

And if the the model looks "mature" but is below the correct age, then congratulations pal! It's kiddie porn whether you know it or not!

But wait, here's a new wrinkle. It seems you don't even need to stash the stuff on your computer at all. Have a look at the following:

As you see, it takes only some criminal hacker halfway around the world to order kiddy porn with your (stolen) credit card number, and the legal authorities will have all the proof they need to lock you up and put your name on the pervert list. Oh, and here's more fun -- your friends and family will shun you like a leper!

All right. This is feminism in action. Seriously now, do you see any feminists getting up in arms about stuff like this? What, maybe a grand total of twelve? No, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of self-identitified feminists, male OR female, don't give a goddamned cold pile of spit that such things are happening. And why? Because they reckon such things are happening to MEN, and they either don't give a pile of spit about men, or they actively wish to harm men. In either case, they have no reason to raise any moral clamor when things like this happen. . do they?

Certainly, they do not. How would it increase the power of women, to care about innocent men getting their lives destroyed? If I were a feminist, and I wanted to increase the power of women any way I could, then I would be happy to destroy as many men as possible, wouldn't I? You bet your ass I would.

The very last thing I'd want to do, is make a fuss about men who had been victimized.  Why, that would collapse the feminist narrative, wouldn't it? I mean, everybody knows that women are the victims, right? So we can't have men horning in on that action now, can we?

Besides, the whole point of feminism is that men are collectively guilty. Any or every man is guilty for any or every bad thing that any or every man has ever done. Under the feminist regime, men do not exist as individuals. Rather, they exist as a demographic bloc, and the feminist way is to chop away at that rotten block a little bit here, a little bit there -- and it doesn't matter where the axe blade falls, provided only "the patriarchy" gets carved down to size and female power increases.

Time and again, on every issue imaginable, you see that same pattern. Feminists are callously indifferent, at best, when rotten things are done to men under color of law, public policy, or institutional authority.

Yes. That is how any or every feminist thinks, because so far as I'm concerned, feminists are collectively guilty. That's right feminists, you're the ones who started the collective guilt business, and now your very own karma bites you on the ass! Your very own petard hoists you skyward! So don't whine to me that "not all feminists are like that", because I frankly don't give a cold pile of spit about what you are saying. You dished it out in the beginning, and now you can take it. So far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one feminist, you've seen 'em all.

Remember: the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. And feminism is the aggressor. 

And now, feminism is getting what feminism has been dishing out for YEARS.

Notice that I didn't say "women".  I said feminism.  And not only are not all women feminists, but not all feminists are women. I don't like to overstrain the obvious, but it's a routine feminist trick to gloss over that little point every chance they get.  So let's nip it in the bud, I say.

What's your problem, you don't like my attitude? Well, I'll tell you what. I'll cut you a deal. You stand up in front of the world, and announce loudly and clearly that you are NOT A FEMINIST, and then do something positive to live up to this, and guess what? I'll let you off the hook.

You know what? I think that's mighty generous. I mean, it is inoperable for me to say that I am NOT MALE. But it's as easy as pie for you to say that you are NOT A FEMINIST. Right?

And you know what else? I'll sweeten the deal even more. Yes, I will stand up in front of the world and declare that I AM NOT AN "MRA". 

So go on and tell us now that you are NOT A FEMINIST.

Give it a go. Give it a whirl.

Otherwise, I'll assume that you are indeed a feminist. And so far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one feminist, you've seen 'em all.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

A Thought for the Moment

There are certain people who hate and fear, as a reflex, anything which is "new".

There are certain others who hate and fear, as a reflex, anything which is "old".

We must shun both sides equally.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Watch Both of these to get the Full Benefit

First, here is the feminist lawyer Gloria Allred informing you that if you are not a feminist, then you are a bigot:


 Next, a pretty clear demonstration of why so many people have chosen to be "bigots":


Finally, the specific form and content of the present blog post contains irrefutable proof that Fidelbogen is something called a "misogynist". Well at any rate, I'm pretty sure it does. But I would like a feminist reader to step right up and explain this to me. So, log into Comments right NOW! Don't be bashful. Explain to me, oh wise feminist one, why the present blog post proves that I am a "misogynist". I'm sure you'll offer up something very interesting and creative.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

The Wacky Domino Redux

Girls, do you want to take over the world?? Well boy-oh-boy, do I ever have the Facebook Group for YOU!

Basically, what we've got here is humans of the "female" type who fancy that the universal pain and calamity of existence is a "women's issue". Which of course it is, but only by half.

But as they see it, the said pain and calamity becomes an "issue" when and if it affects females -- meaning, precisely by virtue of doing so. And not otherwise. Hence, a "women's" issue.  Do you follow me?

All right. If you are an olden-days reader of this blog, from the murky dawn of time circa 2006, you just might recollect the Wacky Domino:

It does somewhat resemble a domino, and yet it looks wacky, does it not? Well it holds the key to the mystery of life, my friend! So step into the wayback machine for a trip waaaaay back to 2006, and learn all about it!

Now consider, that "girls taking over the world" can logically mean one thing only -- that girls would end up with all sweet and no bitter! You know what? I can totally see how this might not inherently involve "hating men". No, really!

Or at least not consciously in every case!

Major University Scraps "Social Work" Degree Programs

The University of Southampton, in England, will no longer be turning out future CPS workers and the like:
"Every single day hundreds of additional documents, affidavits, reports, news articles, videos, social media postings along with comments are added to the internet's archive. These uploads seem to continually expose social services, child protection services (CPS), social workers incompetence and testify to much evidence of abuse perpetually practiced against children, their families and individuals targeted for profit, through questionable means."
I need hardly remind the savvy readers of this blog that feminism is implicated, up to its earlobes, in the monkey business described above. The social service sector in most Western countries is stuffed with ideological parasites of the feminist variety who love nothing better than breaking up families. And you know, the way I figure things, it is not the best idea to break up families. The impact on the social ecology is likely to  be adverse.

Here is a link to the full article. You will find more links when you get there:

Saturday, June 23, 2012

The Non-Feminist Way of Knowledge

The dictionary definition of feminism, as a quest for so-called "equality", is so amorphous and problematic as to be virtually useless. Thus, we reject the oft-heard 'appeal to dictionary' as an intellectual cop-out or evasion.

We have concluded that feminism can only be understood as an existing set of manifestations in the world, and not as an abstract idea printed on a book page, or as the same issuing from the mouth of a self-identified feminist individual. This means, in practice, that we must  parse feminism in terms of its earthly consequences if we would arrive at a satisfactory definition. No other method will suffice.

So we, as outsiders to feminism, have made bold to tackle feminism phenomenologically, from the outside-in.

Now, there are many ways to parse feminism in terms of its earthly consequences. But foundationally to all else, we must understand feminism as the project to increase the power of women. And from this super-project, as we may call it, feminism breaks down into a theoretically unlimited number of sub-projects.

But let us never sacrifice our critical awareness within the microcosm of sub-projects. The Ariadne's thread that will conduct us through that maze and always show the way out of it,  is our realization that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. Feminism is sometimes more than this, but never anything less. Hold that thought.

Woman Makes False Allegation. Again.

A woman in Florida claimed that she was "sexually assaulted", but detective work revealed that the timeline of her story was implausible. So, her lying skills were not up to snuff.

Here is the best thing in the whole story:
"[Jennifer] Riechert purposely misidentified a man she described as homeless as her attacker."
I say, isn't that precious? But here is a link to the news article:

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The War Against Men is Worldwide

"Ustedes han construido la igualdad contra los hombres!"
(You have constructed equality against men!)

Yes, the war against men is worldwide. And unlike that tired old "war against women" trope which the feminists pull out of their ass every few years, the war against men is very, very REAL. Here we see a skirmish in this war being played out in the Spanish Parliament. This male politician is giving those Socialist feminists a right ear full, all right! Now, if you're like me, you can at least READ Spanish. So turn on the captions (CC) and you can decipher, at your leisure, what he is saying.

Isn't it remarkable how men all over the world are delivering the same basic message about feminism? Why do you suppose that is happening? Do you reckon it's because men are a pack of worthless, whining little shits?

Or do you reckon there just might be something REAL going on here?

Seriously now, what do YOU think?

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Thought for the Moment

A paradigm shift does not arrive by means of linear argument. In fact, the transformation involves an array of operations, and within this array, linear argument appears as simply one method among many.

The reason is, that a paradigm shift involves discontinuity, and discontinuity precludes linearity because linearity requires continuity. And so in the business of paradigm-shifting, linear argument is a tool which brings the work of transformation to a threshhold beyond which lies a gap. But that gap can only be crossed by means of something discontinuous. Something abrupt.

This element of discontinuity or abruptness translates into an act of pure will, or more precisely, will-to-power.

A Bombshell of a Book has Just Been Published

I thank my overseas brother-in-arms, who has brought this to my attention. You know who you are.

A new book has been published, titled Exposing Feminism - The Thirty Years War Against Men.  The author is one Swayne O'Pie. This book was originally released in England under a different title, but international demand for it has bulked large, with orders pouring in from the usual suspects -- USA, Canada, Australia and the like. I expect they'll be wanting it India, too.

Here is a sample from the first chapter:
"Feminism has become a huge confidence trick, a 21st  century deceit and fraud. We have become  slaves to received opinions. Feminism is the modern political equivalent of the Emperor’s  New Clothes, it is devoid of any rational credibility, it is morally and rationally naked and we  are all being conned. Feminism is the reason why the developed world hates men.  
"Feminism has been presented, and has been widely received by our conventional wisdom,  as a liberating force, a view of the relations between the sexes that emphasizes openness,   ‘gender equality’, freedom from oppression, discriminations, inequalities, sexism and  stereotyping. This presentation is a masquerade. The burden of this book is to show in  a broad theoretical perspective and in practical detail that our conventional wisdom and  State have been wrong to embrace this malign and dangerous Ideological Movement."
I would mildly object to the book's title. The war against men has been going on for a sight more than thirty years -- although I do appreciate how this phrase chimes with the 'Thirty Years War' of the 17th century. But here is a link where you will find a link to a PDF file containing free samples from the book.

By the way, the above is the blog of UK writer Mike Buchanan, whose acquaintance I recently made via e-mail. Mr. Buchanan also wrote the introduction to the new book, as you will see.

The book introduces the concept of "forever feminism", and I am pleased to note that this is the same "critter" which I have talked about under the name of perpetual revolution.

I hope you enjoy the free samples, and I further hope that these will inspire you to order the full book. Do spread the word.

Monday, June 18, 2012

The Notorious 'M' Word: Mangina!

The Mill of the Manosphere has recently churned up, from its its deep, dark bowels, the provocative web graphic which you see to the right.

I understand this to be a cartoon likeness of David Futrelle, and would note that he is depicted sans shirt. Well I'm bound to say it makes quite the contrast to my own long, lean, split-rail physique!

At any rate, the word "mangina" is one that I almost never use, and when I do, I nearly always couch it in hypothetical or rhetorical terms. I avoid this word because, frankly, it is piss-poor rhetorical discipline to fling it around too freely. It makes you sound like a potty-mouthed little kid in a schoolyard.

I have similar scruples, though not as strong, in connection with "feminazi". (Others are welcome to this word, but I find it stylistically weak to say it ad nauseam.)

All right. I like our illustration because it captures (in a more erudite way) what "mangina" actually means in the lexicon of the community. This infamous word is clearly designed as an insult, however, it carries a political sense before all else. Broadly, it signifies TRAITOR. More precisely, it signifies one who, by some combination of self-loathing and servility toward women, betrays men or maleness generally.

Note well that "mangina" does NOT signify effeminacy. It is does not mean the male in question is a wimp, sissy, mama's boy, or anything of that nature -- although some manginas as individuals might additionally be those things.

So yes, mangina is chiefly a political word. Therefore I should add that the male in question will be politically to the leftward, and furthermore, an intellectual supporter of feminism.

"Mangina" is not to be confused with "white knight", although the venn diagrams do overlap. What these terms signify in common is gynocentrism. But whereas the mangina is very much a "lefty", generally of the statist tribe known as "progressive", the white knight will be either centrist or leaning to the right.

U.S. Vice-president Joseph Biden, a center-left Democrat and female violence victim, is an intermediary type who straddles the fence between white knight and mangina. But Pasadena City College professor Hugo Schwyzer, despite professing a form of Christianity which he styles "Anabaptist-Episcopalian", falls within the mangina category by any other marker. President Barack Obama may be safely classed as a mangina also, but Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah (a VAWA sponsor) is beyond doubt a white knight, as is (it would seem) presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. David Futrelle, needless to say, is a full-blooded mangina in cahoots with all but the most extreme forms of radical feminism.

Again, the mangina and the white knight have gynocentrism (or "woman first-ism") in common, but the mangina goes the further step of being gyno-normative.The white knight is a traditionalist "manly man" with a mission to protect the ladies, and an animus toward what he understands as feminism. The mangina, by contrast, feels guilty about his maleness -- hence the gynonormativity and overall lack of self-respect. Both white knight and mangina harbor similar ideas about male disposability, but the mangina cravenly hopes that males other than himself (e.g. "MRAs") will be disposed of, and he will favor proxy violence (by the state) to achieve this.

I hope that I have clarified some points here. As I stated in the beginning, I hardly ever use the word "mangina", and I would advise one and all to whittle down their use of this word as well. I believe it will be more  politically efficient to adopt such a policy. In place of  mangina, I would recommend the term collaborationist, in honor of the Vichy cohort of World War Two.

Father's Day in India

This photo is from a Father's Day street protest in Hyderabad, India. It is remarkable that such similar things are happening all over the world . . . isn't it? But happening they are! Why, you would almost say that there is an organically related underlying pattern to such things . . . wouldn't you? But in India, they've taken it to the next level. Pro-male activism is gathering recruits at an accelerating rate, and the movement has gone to a level of professionalism that would impress you. It is very much "brick-and-mortar", and very much in your face! For example, men are rudely interrupting feminists on national television (feminist tactics there!), and even getting themselves thrown in jail deliberately a la Thoreau or Gandhi! Good stuff! And as you can see from the picture, women are involved. (That makes the movement harder for the feminists to dismiss.)

Right now, some earnest Liberal feminist is plaintively bleating "but. . but. . what' s this got to do with feminism?"

All right, I will explain for the fourteen-hundredth time. Feminists (hence feminism) have since years back been at the forefront of everything involving the destruction of marriages and families. And that includes, at its core,  everything that involves pushing men (and fathers) out of women's and children's lives except for exploitation purposes. Feminism is, at its core, an anti-male hate movement that seeks to damage men in every way possible, and to suck them dry for the benefit of women. All you must do is open your eyes and you will see the same anti-male patterns repeating themselves in many sectors of operation, clear across the board.

Note also, that whenever feminism digs its claws into the politics and government of a country, family-wrecking and father-bashing initiatives are very apt to follow. Yes, yes, I know, I know: correlation is not causation. But correlation and causation surely do drink in the same pub quite a bit . . . don't they?

So that is what this has got to do with feminism. I will allow that not everybody involved in the marriage and family wrecking industry is necessarily a "feminist" per se, but I will aver that bonafide, certifiable feminist individuals suffuse that industry throughout its length and breadth, and occupy key positions in it. Additionally, I would point out that feminists of all shades are the first people to raise a big political stink when somebody floats a proposal that would advance shared parenting, or rectify the injustices against men in the realm of family law or divorce law. Or at the very least, they are the LAST people to exhibit any kind of moral urgency about any of this -- especially when they say "what's this got to do with feminism"?

All right, this is late for Father's Day, but happy Father's Day. And remember that Barack Obama has always told fathers (and men in general) that they are a bunch of shits. So that's a damned good reason to kick him out of office. . .isn't it?

Saturday, June 16, 2012


Oh yes. This kicks ass!

Some Things Never Get Old

There ain't nothing like reviewing the basics. Everybody can benefit from that -- and me most of all!

If you prefer reading to listening, you will find a text version of this talk at The Damned Olde Man's website:

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Once Again: Slamming Down the Code of Law Upon the Table

I posted the following somewhere on the internet, in response to some vapid bromide by a person who wanted to be the God of Wishy-Washy Moderation. This reflects the strategy we need to follow -- to hammer terms and categories into place by unrelenting iteration, until said terms and categories become fixtures of the discourse.
The value of the term 'feminism' may be set equal to 'female supremacism'. 
As for a definition, we may define 'feminism' as "the project to increase the power of women." 
Under the sector system, feminism categorically IS what we (non-feminists) say it is. 
By linguistic fiat. 
The burden is upon the self-declared feminist to demonstrate that he/she does not fit the profile. 
Much confusion can be cleared away if we understand that feminism is a social organism, whose parts (either "good" or "bad") work together toward a common purpose. 
Any self-declared feminist who does not like what is being said about feminism here, has the option of disowning the word "feminist" as a self-appellative. 
We make it easy for them. We do not (metaphorically) trap them in a burning house with no escape route. 
Any feminist is free to renounce feminism BY NAME, simply by saying "I am not a feminist". 
This individual may then retain the full content of his/her belief system, but "repackaged" under some other name.

Some time later another person (not the original addressee) posted the following in response to my remarks cited above:
"you are redefining feminism to suit your own purpose. Very few, if any, feminists actually believe thats what feminism is"

And I answered that person as follows:
No. I am not re-defining feminism. I am defining it. 
It doesn't make a spit of difference what any feminist "believes" feminism is. The authority to define feminism is not limited to a particular set of people who might happen to say  "I am a feminist". 
If you declare yourself a NON-feminist, then you are, by implication, defining feminism. 
And you have full authority to do this.

Where Feminists Park their Heads -- Up Their Ass!

My directly previous post was linked from the r/Feminism subreddit. I refer you to the comment thread which follows. It is short, but very, very revealing. What it reveals is that feminists have their heads up their ass. Nary a one of those people had a single frigging clue what the article was talking about.

Not. A. Single. Frigging. Clue.

The tenor of their remarks had virtually no bearing whatsoever on the matter under discussion.

It sounds like they skipped over the entire portion of the article beginning with "enough about the bad stuff."

Cue the repeated whizzing sound of point after point after point flying past their heads and receding into the distance.

Briefly, they are blocking. They are filtering. They are practicing selective awareness. It is a psychological maneuver which a professional psychologist might explain better than I could. But you get the idea.

Yes, they live in a mind bubble all their own. They will not allow the reality of the world outside that bubble. Did they miss the part about "feminism is not the world"? We must assume that they did. Their narcissism is  stunning. They truly believe that it's "all about feminism", and they truly believe that the rest of the world thinks according to the feminist narrative.

They truly believe this.

Clearly, they didn't get the memo yet.

So they are missing something absolutely crucial.  All right, this behavior of theirs is irritating as hell, but we must consider it a weakness on their part, and find ways of using it to destroy them.

So, ponder this, and store it in your mental archive of "feminist behavior case studies".

All right, here is the link to the subreddit:

The Necessary Metamorphosis of the MRM

I will share some more thoughts inspired by the debut video, of Eincrou, which I posted in the previous entry.

There is a school of thought, in pro-male cyberspace, which lives by the maxim of "keep it apolitical". I confess that I'm part of that faction myself, and that I helped to create it. It is all a question of message discipline, which is a department of rhetorical discipline. Such things are vitally important if you would craft a so-called "movement" which draws upon topical issues as a rallying point.

There is also a school of thoughtlessness, in pro-male cyberspace, which flaps its gums about all manner of things only loosely related (if at all) to feminism, men's rights, and the like. That is for starters. Additionally, the fact that they will sometimes voice indiscreet, impolitic opinions, serves to compound the original difficulty.

Again, if you aim to create a politically efficient "movement" with a snowball's chance of gaining followers and  traction, you must stick to a limited set of issues and govern your tongue when you speak of those things.

I would submit that the so-called men's "movement" is nothing of the kind. Rather, it amounts to a group of  people, largely male, who are talking loudly about a number of things. But the sum of all this is much like an orchestra with no conductor, where the musicians are out of tune with each other and playing different tunes anyway.

The general public, walking outside the orchestra hall, hears only a frightful racket from within. The bigoted bassoonist, the anti-semitic saxophonist, the conservative clarinetist, the anti-feminist flugelhorn player, the PUA piccolo player, and so on. It all runs together into a dreadful audio slurry.

And so the general public draws its varied conclusions about that sum total of weird noise, and those conclusions are often unfavorable. The general public, you see, generally doesn't know what the hell is going on. Some of them may enter the building, and wander around, and talk to the musicians separately, and begin to form a more educated understanding of things. Yes, many of them do this to varying degrees. But many others never investigate further than the sidewalk and what they can hear from there.

Very well. The "men's movement" is no movement at all, but simply a lot of random motion. And such words as "MRA" and "MRM" are only ad hoc terminology. Figures of speech. Convenience words.  People persist in using those words because they are, well . .  convenient! They simplify discussion, and even make discussion possible in the first place.

But these words also falsify the state of reality. And our enemies, the feminists, capitalize on this. All they must do, is fan the flames of doubt and distaste in the public mind. This, precisely, has been the feminist strategy. A smear job. Moral ghettoization. Guilt by proximity.

Anybody who simply talks against feminism will be called an "MRA", or a member of the "MRM".

Now, there is nothing wrong with talking against feminism. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, talking against feminism is one of the finest things a person can do. It is a noble thing to do. Feminism is a social cancer, and talking against it is part of the necessary process that will lead toward the eventual destruction of it. So by all means, yes, talk against feminism!

By the way, when you merely "criticize" feminism from within feminism, that is not talking against feminism. Talking against feminism means talking AGAINST it, from an alien standpoint completely outside of its borders.

All hail anti-feminism!

But the trouble is, that the person who simply talks against feminism will be shoved into the same box, willy-nilly, with. . . oh. .  . PUAs, ex-patriate pussy-hunters, conspiracy theorists, racists, anti-government radicals, tea-partiers, bonafide misogynists, and a whole lot of other people. I mean, people whose philosophical venn diagrams might overlap yours by a narrow slice at most. Admittedly, the inherent goodness or badness of those things will vary -- it is not my point to discuss their inherent goodness or badness. The point is that, like it or not, the words "MRA" and "MRM" have been jammed into the same jar with the motley crew listed above, even if there is no inherent reason why they should be. And so if you identify as an "MRA", or even just get identified as one, then you will go there too.

Once more, to get identified as an "MRA" or an "MRM person", all you must do is to talk against feminism. That's it. After that, public ignorance, combined with feminist propaganda, will do the rest.  And presto-chango, you are now a PUA or a Tea Party member even if you never remotely signed up for the likes of those.

Again, let's be clear that talking against feminism is a good thing. The point is, that you can do this either well or poorly in terms of political strategies -- and some people do it very poorly indeed.

But enough for the bad stuff. Now let's talk about sunbeams and silver linings.

I mentioned that the "MRM" is not a movement. That is the silver lining.

So what, then, is the so-called men's rights "movement", if not a movement? Get ready.

It is a microcosm of the human race. In other words, it is THE WORLD.

And so, it is not accountable for itself, any more than the world is accountable for itself. The world is simply the ecumenical human condition, with all of its lights and shadows, in toto. And the ecumenical human condition simply is what it is. We are all part of that ecumenical human condition, but as individuals our liability is limited.

Feminism, on the other hand, may be usefully defined as a movement, and for that reason can be held accountable as a movement. It is a part of the world, but it is not the world -- even though it pretends to be.

But no, feminism is merely an interpretation of what the world is, forced upon the world in defiance of what the world in fact is. Alternately stated, feminism is a violation of the natural order and the laws which compose that order.

Therefore every natural law or principle which feminist theory violates becomes our enlisted ally against the feminist regime itself.  And so the character of our revolution is not just demographic or political. It is radically primordial. 

Yes, that is us. We are the world, nay, the universe! And we are radically primordial.

In retrospect, we can see that this had to happen. It was predictable. There was a point beyond which feminist innovation could not push without the universe pushing back. And let me tell you, pushback from the universe can be a bitch!

So the "MRM" is not a movement as that word is generally understood, but a primordial pushback against feminism. And it involves a chaotic array of forces that can never be reduced to conventional categories of understanding. New categories are necessary.

Rather than calling the "MRM" a "movement" -- singular -- we should call it a complex of movements -- plural! -- which are now in process of formation. But as a whole, it lacks the structural unity that would subject it to accountability. As I have stated, it is a microcosm of the world, and is no more accountable for itself than the world is accountable for itself.

The feminist smear tricks are not working because our numbers, worldwide, continue to swell. Every slander campaign against us only helps us by giving us publicity. People drop by for a closer look, and plenty of them stick around. And then they pass the word along to their friends.

So the microcosm is growing, and merging with the macrocosm. The so-called "MRM", you see, merely represents that portion of the non-feminist sector which has become politically aware of itself.  And the size of the self-aware portion increases on a snowballing growth curve.

In light of all this, what does it mean -- and what could it mean -- to keep things "apolitical"? Well for starters, I would call that entire realm of conversation a misunderstanding. For in fact this thing of ours has never been apolitical in the first place. Seriously, what do we understand by "political"? Does politics mean the struggle for power, influence, and self-determination? All right, then how has our project ever been anything other than political? It has been, I submit, political indeed, for it has always focused on power and the accumulation of it by one device or another. Yes, that is what I call politics.

When people talk about keeping the so-called MRM "apolitical", they're voicing a fear lest it be caught up in established categories of power struggle, eventually being co-opted and rendered worthless for its original purpose. This is more commonly expressed, as I myself have done, by saying that the movement will pick up counterproductive baggage and sink beneath the weight of it. 

Well in a strange way the good news becomes the bad news, and then the bad news immediately becomes the good again. The original good news is, that our numbers keep growing. Then the bad news is, that we are taking undisciplined people and their counterproductive baggage on board. Yet directly from this bad news the original good news grows once more, namely, that in spite of such inconveniences -- and indeed because of them -- our numbers continue to swell. So the good and bad news feed upon each other like yin and yang.

The lesson we draw from this, is that ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO BE LIBERATED FROM FEMINISM. Some of these are good people, some of these are bad people, some of these are indifferent people. But they want to be liberated from feminism, and they are worthy of getting what they want. 

Every god-damned blessed one of them.

They needn't do one single precious thing in all the world to earn this or deserve this.

ALL people deserve to be liberated from feminism. Even the worst misogynist or rapist who ever lived deserves to be liberated from feminism.

 The whole wide world deserves to be liberated from feminism.

All people should, ideally, get the justice they deserve for their misdeeds. But they should NOT get that justice under color of feminism.

They should get the justice they deserve under color of something else -- some other system of  law or morality.

But NOT under color of feminism.

One more time: the whole wide world deserves to be liberated from feminism.

And you know what? The whole wide world will wake up to this, and demand it.

So it is silly to fuss about the ideological purity of any so-called "men's movement", because the whole wide world is coming on board and there is simply no way that the whole wide world can be ideologically pure. Therefore, if some feminist wants to slander the so-called men's movement, you have only to demand "WHICH men's movement??".

And then, demand to be left in peace.

Because there is no such thing as this "men's movement". In its own right, it does not exist. So it is up to you to create it for yourself. There are ten, twenty, forty, a hundred different "men's movements", and when you start your own, that will bring the total to a-hundred-and-one.

What's that, you don't like the baggage that certain people are lugging on board? Fine. Pack your own bags onto your own wagon, and go your own road. With the growth of our numbers, we need no longer cling for dear life to any possible shipmate. We can afford to be choosy.

Understand that every philosophy or life-system which expands beyond a certain point will fractionate into schisms, and those schisms into schisms. The reason is simple. It is because the system naturally pulls in more and more of the world's variety as it grows in number. It cannot possibly do otherwise, because the world is never monolithic.

But this is a good thing. It is a source of strength and a cause for celebration. To us, it means that our enemy can no longer smear us, because you can't smear something which is spread all over the landscape in the first place, can you? With our growing numbers and our variety of schisms, we are out of the box and we are everywhere, like a wraparound environment. It is impossible to shake a stick at us any more because you can't shake a stick in all directions. So by reason of our ambient character we are, or soon will be, in a position to define the cultural ambience and even control the discourse.

The pro-male project as we have known it, is the germinating bud of something larger called the non-feminist revolution. Feminism's war against the world started with the war against men, but that war quickly spread  because it was impossible to contain it. So the non-feminist revolution has developed in the same sequence as feminist aggression itself -- first with men, who understand best of all what is happening, and then spreading to larger circles and pulling in growing numbers of women.

The recent growth of anti-feminist feeling on the political Left signals a tectonic change in the political landscape. It signals that feminism's intellectual reign of terror is weakening among that cohort -- and the implications of such a development are perilous for feminism's power base! But this development, like so much else, was a predictable thing that had to happen and, in the context of primordial pushback, couldn't possibly not have happened.

Very well. Disciplined work lies ahead, but I can see that the field of opportunity is wide open.


Note the following:

Monday, June 11, 2012

New YouTube Channel by Eincrou

I like what I'm hearing here, and I look forward to more from Eincrou in the weeks and months ahead.

As he rightly points out, MRAs, MGTOWs and their ilk spend a lot of time talking about women.  But to frame the matter more precisely, I'd say they spend a lot of time talking about women qua women. Specifically, they dwell upon relationships. More specifically, they complain.

That is where I, myself, differ from a lot of the politically outspoken pro-male chaps you'll encounter in the world nowadays. So far as I'm concerned, women are not the topic at all. Women are nothing more than a factor -- one among many -- in the definition of the situation. They are objective features in the landscape, like trees, rocks or fence posts, all of which are important in their way and need to be allowed for, but oughtn't dominate your thinking.

That is to say, you ought not to take women personally, but politically only. You will understand right away what I am driving at here. I am warning all concerned not to fall into the feminist trap of mixing the personal with the political. As a counter-feminist policy wonk, that is how I conduct my own thinking, and this is a policy I recommend to all who might consider themselves disciples.

This policy has the added advantage that it tends to innoculate against so-called "misogyny" -- and I advise against misogyny for the simple reason that I consider it bad policy. It does not politically empower you, but very much the contrary.

Eincrou also mentions the term "non-feminist", and notes the lack of descriptive capacity. I acknowledge this weakness in the term, but would also note its peculiar virtue. Being how it is so bland, and has so little "bite", the term inherently defies stereotypification or branding. Furthermore, it encompasses so much of the universe (99.9% as Eincrou notes) that it postulates a transcendentally powerful constituency base -- if you follow my meaning. Finally, the term "non-feminism" designates a space of refuge not unlike a "city" where a "serf" may gain liberty -- hence we speak of the liberty of the (non-feminist) sector. 

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Pay Close Attention to THIS!

Here is an article at the NOW blog. When you read it, you will see it is a muddled, scrambled, incoherent trainwreck of a piece. It waffles. It dithers. It flip-flops. It tries to say something, but immediately says something different, then veers drunkenly back to the original thesis, only to retract this immediately while introducing a third thesis  which modifies the second one while obliterating the first one, only to bring the latter back again in the following paragraph. Do you follow me? No? Well I don't blame you. Honestly now, I have read this carefully, straight through, at least five times, and I still haven't got a clue what the hell Loretta A. Kane is trying to tell us. And you know what? I don't think SHE has a clue about that, either!

But wait, maybe I'm all wrong! I think Loretta finally spills her guts in the following short paragraph near the end of the article.
"We cannot blithely accept gender, gender studies or gender rights. We must determine whether gender rights will facilitate progress for women, or if gender rights is part of the backlash against women."
How typically feminist of her, to call a backlash against feminism a backlash against women! But that aside, what we've got here is extended evidence for long-developing trend.

All right, we know that the RadFems want to repel "transwomen" from their movement. That particular war has been apparent for quite some time, and the Conway Hall debacle further confirms it. But what intrigues me now, is that a supposedly mainstream feminist from the NOW lobbying group is averse to the "gender movement" as she calls it. Oh, she beats around the bush like a politician who doesn't want to alienate supporters, but there is no getting away from it -- she is not a bit happy about this gender movement. It puts her in a tight spot and makes her squirm.

Wait a minute -- "gender movement"? Why, that would need to include the transgender movement if I am not mistaken. Wouldn't you say so?

That's right, we are entitled to entertain some questions here.  Not to mince words, is anti-trannyism the sole province a few radical lesbians on the so-called fringe? Or does does that emotion run through ALL  feminism, from wall to wall, like a tectonic cleavage? Those are critically important matters indeed. And true to my customary method, I shall incline toward what I deem the greater probability.

Said probability being, that the entire feminist movement splits along a fault line dividing trans-phobics and trans-haters on the one side, from all other feminists on the other. I won't venture to guess the relative proportions of the two sectors, but I cannot doubt that such a division is present, for it would overstretch my power of belief to believe otherwise.

That said, there remains, to my mind at least, one significant question. How ought this tectonic division in the feminist world affect the policy of those who oppose feminism?

Should we openly seek alliances with the transgendered community?

Well. I admit the possibility of such a thing, but I don't consider it strictly necessary. Historical forces have squeezed the conflict to the surface of feminism already. So far, the fissure is comparatively small. But I think the pressure is growing, so give it time and the crack will grow too. No doubt it will be quite the spectacle -- especially when Agent Orange pulls the next rabbit out of his hat!

In the meantime, here is my video on essentialism and constructivism, which clears up plenty of smoke upon matters relevant to the present discussion:


Friday, June 08, 2012

New Video -- Misogyny is a Feminist Production - Part 3

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Something for your Bookmarks

If you have a passion for tracking the twists and turns of legislative politics in the USA, you may find the following website to be right up your alley. It is packed with constantly updated information from all fifty states:

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Only Men should go to Prison

An interesting article has appeared in the online BBC News today. Snippet follows:
Women's prisons should close, says justice taskforce
The report said community sentences instead of prison would help reduce reoffending among women. Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences, according to a new report by the Women's Justice Taskforce.
You know, it's odd. Rather than make me angry, this makes me fold my arms and feel validated. As if we didn't have enough evidence already that men are third-class citizens, the pile keeps growing. Now it seems, in one country at least, that men are the only ones worthy of being chucked into the slammer.

Of course, this is nothing new. Baroness Corston, waaay back in 2007, was preaching the same sermon:

I say this makes me feel validated. I mean that when I contemplate such things, I am less inclined to feel sad about any aches and pains that women might suffer in this life. Nor am I burdened by any sense of responsibility to DO something about it. Such "burden", if it ever truly existed, gets progressively lighter as stories like this come down the pike.

It's nothing personal. The average woman isn't responsible for this state of affairs - it's just the way things are right now. But oh, that patriarchal male privilege. Gotta love it! Why, it even gives women their very own justice taskforce, presumably "manned" by women unless somebody informs me otherwise.

Time for a stroll down memory lane. Do you remember this old favorite?

This meme is NOT the product any radical feminist womyn's art collective. In fact it was created by a schmuck named Todd Goldman, who featured this and similarly themed illustrations on such products as clothing (marketed to teen-aged girls), calendars (sold in places like Walmart) and cute little purse books (merchandised to the female market in respectable bookstores).

Such is the message being drummed into the heads of, for example, high-school girls. In three or four years, they will head off to college for their first Women's Studies class. So think of this as a head-start program! ;)

Todd Goldman is a mainstream graphic designer who happens to be male and knows how to make a buck. And he is savvy enough to tap into the mainstream demographic represented by Sharon Osbourne and crew, and by their female audience members who laughed hysterically about a man getting his penis cut off. Well at least nobody threw any rocks at the poor guy -- so I guess Todd Goldman has clean hands. . . . right?

But anyhow, Sharon Osbourne, her panelists, and her audience members, are not radical feminist womyn by a long chalk.  So at least they are not recommending male genocide, and that is good to know. Likewise,  I understand perfectly well that moderate mainstream feminists would never condone such things. How do I know this? Because I have chatted with enough of them to hear what they typically say. And yes, that is what they typically say.

I would grant that your average "radfem" of the Agent Orange variety would take no exception to throwing rocks at boys, or for that matter, males of any age. But your average mainstream feminist, who is humane and civilized, would quickly reassure us along the following lines:

1. Don't take it literally!
2. Lighten up! It's only a t-shirt!
3. It has nothing to do with feminism!
4. Oh quit whining!

And while a radical feminist man-hater might declare that men have the same designation as annoying rodents, a cutesy "sex columnist" like Anka Radakovich would draw the line well south of that. She would only compare men to dogs -- which sounds a lot better than calling them rodents, don't you think so? Oh. . and Anka is quick to assure us that even though men may be dogs, "we love them anyway."  Just like the good old family pooch, I reckon. Well that's a comfort!

But seriously, do you sense the pattern to all of this? Men are annoying rodents. Men are dogs. Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at boys. Don't send women to prison. Women are the primary victims of war.  Do you spot the anti-male attitude arc which runs through our entire culture like a gaudy red line?

I sure as hell do.

All right. Here is a link to the Agent Orange files:

Hey, on the Todd Goldman picture, do you notice how the flying rocks resemble sperm, and the boy's head looks like an ovum? Interesting. . .yes?

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Activism in Lower Manhattan

Date:  Friday, June 15th Time: 9 am  Location: Foley Square in Lower Manhattan
 Two civil rights groups have applied for permits behind a rally in support of equal rights for fathers in a case being heard on June 15, 2012 in New York City. The case, John Parent v State of New York, asks a federal appeals court to place limits upon support and custody abuses in our nation’s domestic relations courts. “John Parent” is a fictitious name allowed by court order to represent abused parents in this precedent seeking case. Finally, an opportunity has arrived for all abused parents and families to show unity and support. It may never come again. But you have to be there to make a difference, otherwise the abuses WILLcontinue! Don’t think that someone else is going to do it for you. YOU are that “someone else”.

Here is the blog page from which I lifted the foregoing passage:

And as I have previously stated, I am an AGITATOR. . . and not an "activist". However, I am always happy to do what I can to boost my cohorts in the activism section. Hence, I share this news today.

Yes, the non-feminist revolution is hydra-headed, and extends into many realms simultaneously.

So what's this got to do with feminism? Well, since this campaign is (among other things) battling to make life better for men, you can be damned sure that feminist voices will speak against it. Feminism is all about making life worse for men in any way possible, and so no true feminist can do other than hiss about such an effort, and spit about it, and denounce it,  and do anything feasible  to crush it.  Such is feminism.

And if my description of feminism does not seem to apply to you personally, then you would do wisely to not call yourself a feminist. If you don't want to be herded into the same corral and branded with the same iron as a bunch of man-hating assholes and gendercidalists, then please call yourself something other than a "feminist".  Okay?  

General Advice to Women

Here is some general advice to women on how to get along with men. Trust me, it is solid gold. I have boiled this down into three short precepts. Your best plan is to meditate upon these, and let them grow like seeds in your mind. You will soon comprehend their application in the realm of daily practice, throughout many dimensions of experience.
  1. Men want to get the work done. Do not hinder. 
  2. It is more blessed to think than to talk.
  3. It is not blessed to think out loud. 
Thank you. All the best.

Interesting Message from England

The following e-mail arrived recently, and I share it (with the author's permission) as an item of interest to my readers.
Good afternoon from a writer across the pond. A supporter of The Anti-Feminism League has alerted me to your blog Do let me know if you’d like extracts for your blog from any of my books including Feminism: the ugly truth. I’m helping fellow British writer Swayne O’Pie – ‘The Feminists’ Nemesis’ – promote his book, published last year under the title Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism. With the revised title Exposing Feminism: The Thirty Years’ War Against Men it’s just gone on sale outside the UK for the first time, and will shortly be available as an ebook for the very first time. 
Finally, may I have your permission to recommend your blog on my own blogs and
 Best wishes, 
 Mike Buchanan
The Anti-Feminism League. Hmmmm. In principle and by name, that sounds like something worth supporting. For to be "anti" something, means that you are opposed to it, yes? And although it is a rule in politics that a "pro" position is rhetorically stronger, still, how can I object when somebody is opposed to something evil? And it seems to me that an "anti-feminist" league, in being opposed to feminism, is opposed to something evil. Don't you think so?

So, logically speaking, by name and in principle, this sounds like something that a person ought to be supporting. Yes? And if Mr. Buchanan wants to recommend my blog on his own blogs, he is certainly welcome to do so, since it would drive web traffic to my blog. And I know for a fact that this would be a good thing, given that I, myself, am on the side of good, and that bringing more people to my blog would give me more opportunities to sway the world toward the side of good.

Thank you, and have a good day.

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Feminism Cannot Live Without Radical Feminism!

The following extract is an entire comment, posted on the very left-wing Democratic Underground forum by a feminist who signs as  "He loved Big Brother". And I know the savvy readers of this blog will straightway comprehend how politically revealing the statement is.

HLBB is quite keen to champion the RadFems who were recently "ousted" from Conway Hall, London. Yes --  she wants to defend those people!

Note the passages which I have highlighted. They are verrrry interesting, and very revealing -- don't you think so? Also note that HLBB talks about the "RadFems" in a distant tone, no doubt prompted by some fine inspiration of prudence to distance herself.

But in plain fact, HLBB is a radical feminist herself. She is not so ostensively radical as the people she is discussing, but radical she is indeed! Just listen to her babbling on about "patriarchy"! And, even though she doesn't mention it here, I've no doubt she would rattle on and on about "male privilege" just as readily.

By these and other tokens, HLBB shows herself a toxic feminist indeed, as almost any confirmed non-feminist man or woman would surely admit. Need we trouble ourselves, even a speck, about the parochial distinctions between her style of feminism, and the style of the "RadFems"? About the only difference I can discern, is that HLBB doesn't hate trannies (or masks such feelings), and doesn't spin eugenic theories about the XY chromosome

Would HLBB insist that 1 in 4 women get raped? Quite likely. Would she insist that "rape is not about sex, but about power?"  Quite likely.Would she opine that false allegation of rape is a myth?  Quite likely. Would she oppose shared parenting legislation? Quite likely. Would she insist that men commit 95% off all domestic violence in order to control women?  Quite likely. .Would she favor the continuation of VAWA in its ideological form?  Quite likely. Would she protest loudly at the introduction of "male studies" in the university curriculum?  Quite likely. Would she oppose the advent of a male contraceptive pill?  Quite likely. Would she scoff at the idea of  "men's rights?" Quite likely. Would she agree with abolishing presumption of innocence for men accused of rape. Quite likely. .

And on it goes. You get the idea.

No, the difference between the feminist commenter HLBB and any of those vile creatures in the Agent Orange material does not frankly impress me. In fact, it reminds me of what of Adam Kostakis has written:
"The intellectual distance between two feminists in disagreement might seem, to them, to be vast indeed; a philosophical Grand Canyon! But to non-feminists, who stand far away from them both, and observe feminism from a distance, the two bickering ideologues stand very close to each other. Yes, we can just about see them on the horizon - two small figures, shouting over a pothole!"
Finally, what most troubles HLBB is a gut feeling that once those transphobic RadFems get the axe,  the glare of public attention will progress down the scale to the slightly less bad feminists like herself. In other words, she is afraid that her turn will be next. 

But here is HLBB's comment from Democratic Underground:
"I don't like infighting and celebrating something that Paul Elam of A Voice For Men is also celebrating.  
"RadFems have done a lot to further the goals of feminism and they're entitled to believe what the want about the XX chromosome. They are not the problem. They aren't always right, but they are necessary. Stop expecting everyone to be as educated and enlightened without flaws, because nobody is. All women deserve a safe space to define as they see fit. Cis women, WOC, trans women. We all have different goals and histories of oppression, and there is no hierarchy in the feminist groups. This will never resolve itself, and truthfully, I've read enough trans women who agree the pile-on to radfems is counter-productive and destroying a good ally against patriarchy.  
"Most radfems aren't transphobes. My local chapter focuses on socialism and intersectionality. But lesbians and anybody else have the right to say they prefer whomever as a sexual partner without it being labeled phobia. I can't stand this hateful infighting. Radfems aren't all the same. Some of them do hold fucked up beliefs. Trans women do as well. I am aghast at the highly offensive, vaguely rapey-connotations spouted as "cotton ceiling" baloney. That's a debacle and a half, but I am not expecting trans women and myself to part ways as feminists because we can't seem to agree with every single thing the other believes. Even though nobody has apologized for the cotton ceiling offense.  
"I will not dismiss radfems or trans people's right to identify their gender how they see fit, because I don't really have a problem seeing where all sides are coming from. I don't appreciate the insults from either side, but shutting down any feminist conference is just Orewellian and unproductive. I would expect that all women have the right to identify their place on the wheel of intersectionality, and define a safe space around it as they see fit. Feminists are allies of trans people, but not all cis women and trans women share the same dynamics within the patriarchy. Equality isn't about making sure no one gets their feelings hurt. 
"When RadFems are eliminated in a fiery rage of fourth-wave self-centeredness, I hope we can all realize that driving them away didn't do a thing to help fight against the real enemy, patriarchy, or help with securing solutions to our problems in that area, since apathy toward feminism is becoming so demoralizingly thick you need a breadknife to spread it. 
"Finally, I hope they can find another venue to meet, free of the pile-on. They're fringe, they're not the enemy, and most of all WOMEN DO NOT DESERVE TO BE SILENCED, PEOPLE. Why are we, as feminists, so butthurt about RadFems that we're doing the MRAsses dirty work FOR them? 
You can see this in its native environment here:

Also, in the interest of historical record-keeping, I have made a screen capture of HLBB's comment. I have shrunk this a lot, but click on it to make it legible. More importantly, save a copy for the archives. Yes, it is that important, and that revealing of where things now stand politically.


I just discovered THIS:
Make careful note of what you find there.

First: observe that the blog author has pasted the very same comment (from Democratic Underground) which I have pasted above.

Second: scroll down the page, and observe the interesting title statement of the next post, which reads "MRAs and Trans Activists: Two Sides, Same Coin".

That title statement is a link. Click on it!

Okay, finally, you should know that the blog author, "Bugbrennan", is one of those very same RadFems whom we have met in the Agent Orange files. She goes under a different screen name there, however. (I forget which.)

Anyhow, I gather that Bugbrennan is a lawyer who lives in the northeastern United States and moves in rather high circles.


Postscript: Cathy Brennan completely changed what was on her  blog, so that the material I originally linked to is no longer present. Just a note, in case anybody is puzzled.

Friday, June 01, 2012

Agent Orange Burns Them Again!!

The mysterious Agent Orange has been busy.

You may recall how Agent Orange infiltrated a radical feminist conclave in late 2011, and gathered tug-loads of very damning material. Well, it was a gift that keeps on giving.

You see, the very same radical feminists whom we met in the Radfem Hub forum had scheduled their 2012 convention at Conway Hall in London. It was slated to be quite the affair, too, with none other than Sheila Jeffreys herself as a guest speaker.

Well guess what? Now they can forget all about it.

The enterprising Agent Orange made sure that copies of the AO files got into the hands of the Conway Hall proprietors.  They (the proprietors) had a rather low opinion of what they saw, so they made it clear that the Radfems wouldn't be holding any conventions at their London auditorium in 2012.

No ma'am!

Conway Hall's stated reason for cancelling RadFem 2012 was, that it violated Britain's Equality Act of 2010, and also their own policy regarding "inclusivity".  I'll give it to you straight. The reason Conway Hall booted the Radfems is because they (the RadFems) made it clear that "transwomen" (that is, formerly male people who aspire to be female) were not to be welcomed. But the Agent Orange material, which reveals the nearly rabid hatred of radical feminists for "transfolk", was the clincher it seems.

Here is the official statement from Conway Hall:

And the following passage, from a blog called 'Transmeditations", sheds further light on the fiasco:

"As a trans-feminist, I am appalled at the way in which anti-trans venom is spreading throughout the “rad fem” global networks. It is important to me that they are using the term “rad fem.” As many trans folks and our allies have observed, “rad fem” (as OPPOSED to radical feminism) is increasingly a term that has been totally usurped by rabidly anti-trans, transphobic and trans-hating ideologues."
Here is a link to the Transmeditations blog:

And another snippet from the same blog:
"As a trans feminist activist, I am used to taking some hits. Sadly, there is a long history of hate, exclusion and discrimination in second wave feminism against transgender and transsexual people, especially trans women. The upcoming “Rad Fem 2012” Conference in July in London is utilizing a “womyn-born-womyn” policy a la Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival to exclude transgender women and girls from attending. "
And the following link will take you to the full article:

So you can see what is happening. The Agent Orange effect has been a wedge effect. Not only is it splitting off the radical feminists from the so-called liberal or moderate feminists, but it is introducing even smaller fractures between the transwoman faction and the rest of feminism.

Agent Orange also made sure that plenty of people in the transgender community received copies of the AO files.

The radical feminists (especially the "essentialist" ones) are now permanently marked or tainted by the AO revelations, and structural fissures have been introduced into feminism as a whole.

And if you know me, you know what I will say next. I will say, that radical feminism and so-called liberal feminism are interdependent parts of a contiguous social organism, and that if you separate them, the consequence would be not unlike separating a head from a body.

Next on the chopping block will be the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). That organization, as you may be aware, is taking money from the RadFem Hub people. So the plan is, to tarnish the SPLC by shining a spotlight upon this connection. One step at a time, steady as we go! :)

Look for additional publicity on all of this, from affiliated sources.

Finally, the post would be incomplete without a link to the Agent Orange files, wouldn't it?