The Femplex is Feminism's Cultural Supply Chain

Feminism may be defined as "the project to increase the power of women".

Once we get THAT axiom firmly anchored in enough people's brains, things can begin to move forward.

In other words, feminism is FEMALE SUPREMACISM. And whatever supports or boosts the female supremacist project is a part of feminism's cultural supply chain -- otherwise known as the Complex of Feministical Operations (or "femplex" for short).

The femplex extends throughout the entire culture --- ALL of it, not merely the 'left' or the 'right' of it.

The word "feminism" generates confusion because it is applied to some parts of the femplex, but not others. In consequence, those who would mobilize against what feminism has wrought upon this earth lack an efficient way of thinking and talking about the situation. Clearly,  an holistic understanding must be imparted to them. 

Feminism and "Patriarchy" Grow From the Same Root

In point of fact, feminism and patriarchy are virtually the same thing, as becomes apparent when you analyze the gynocentric cultural deep-structure which sustains them both. Give the following a careful read:

"Men owe women chivalry; the ethic that men should provide for and protect women.  Creating a secure environment for women comes first.  Men have to signal their trustworthiness before women can be expected to give men trust.  Granting to women the rights of the Traditional Woman is the primary way that men signal to women that they are trustworthy.  Only after men signal their trustworthiness will women trust men and only after there is mutual trust between men and women can a healthy and stable foundation for family life be established.  Men must be the first ones to take the risk of abuse and harm in order to establish trust between the sexes." 

As you see, this is indistinguishable from feminism. Yet the author of these words is ostensibly no feminist at all, but a male "Traditional Women's Rights Activist" (or TWRA), by the name of Jesse Powell. Mr. Powell was once heard to remark (on the Thinking Housewife blog) that women must be protected from rape even at the cost of falsely imprisoning innocent men. Yes, you heard that correctly. Jesse Powell figures it is okay if YOU get wrongly convicted of rape, sent up the river for hard time, and quite possibly raped yourself. According to him, this is acceptable damage if we are to give the fair damsels a "secure environment."

In Jesse Powell's projected future, women will go back into the kitchen or back into the nursery. Apart from that, his projected future is feminist straight to the core. But it differs from the left-wing edition of feminism in being merely gynocentric as opposed to gynonormative. So in Jesse's world men would at least not be manginas but rather, one would imagine, iron of jaw, square of shoulder and willing to go to prison even though innocent.

In the end, I would aver that Jesse Powell is every bit as rank an enemy as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnnon or the radical feminists whom Agent Orange brought to our attention.

I reject both the right and the left wings of feminism, and will strive for a future along the lines of a synthesis which balances freedom and responsibility in a variety of configuarations.

Go now, and read Jesse Powell's article at the Feminine Mystique blog:

http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/why-i-am-a-twra/

Thinking About the Post-Feminist Future

My reply (click to enlarge):

The Parable of the Mongoose and the Cobra

  
If you think this is a metaphor, you are correct.

All right, the genius of the mongoose is that it always dances just out of reach. And you too, my friend, can be a mongoose if you would only learn to do likewise.

It pains me to behold the great number of you who cannot emulate the way of the mongoose.

Gynocentrism and Gynonormativism

I quote the Wikipedia definition of gynocentrism, as follows: 

Gynocentrism (Greek, gyno-, "woman, female") is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing female human beings or the feminine point of view at the center of one's world view. The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this system, where the female view is the reference point or lens through which matters are analysed. Ideologically, gynocentrism prioritizes females hierarchically, as the overriding focus, and at the exclusion of all else. Observed in practice, the preeminence of women is seen as absolute: interpersonally, culturally, historically, politically, or in broader contexts socially (i.e. popular entertainment). It is the reverse of androcentrism where the male view is the central reference point.

I would differ from this.

Gynocentrism is the practice of placing women's safety, comfort and general well-being at the center of social or political concern, and structuring life in the objective service of such interests. It extends no further than that, and would NOT include placing the feminine point of view at the center of one's worldview. That is to say, gynocentrism does not violate the boundary of inner space by requiring a person (male in particular) to think and feel a certain way. In sum, gynocentrism is not totalitarian.
 
Gynonormativism goes the extra step. Using gynocentrism as a platform, gynonormativism prioritizes the feminine point of view hierarchically within the culture, on both a political and interpersonal level, and pressures males in particular to adopt a supposed feminine system of values as a component of one's authentic personality.  In this manner gynonormativism is totalitarian. We would understand feminism as a gynonormative project, while acknowledging that it could not have come into operation without a preexisting base of gynocentrism in the traditional culture.

Gynonormativization is integral to the establishment of female supremacy. 

From India: Woman Tells False Story of Gang Rape

This recently in from the Hindustan Times of India:

"A Moga woman’s story of her kidnapping from Chandigarh and dumping here after gang rape in a moving car has turned out to false. She posed as victim to frame her boyfriend’s wife who had got her into prison on the accusation of attempted murder by poking with HIV-infected needles.
"She was out on bail when she made up the story."

The timeliness of this should be clear to anybody who has witnessed the viral promotion of a recent story, also from India, of death by gang rape on a bus. The latter has triggered a vicious anti-male feeding frenzy by feminists everywhere on Earth. Yes, it is classic feminist behavior and we've seen it all before. It is true to form. Feminists love it when such things happen, they live for such moments, and they would like to see more of it. And why?  Because it lets them foment moral hysteria, to prove yet again that "feminism is necessary". ("Feminism", of course, means anti-male politics in general.) For you see, if such things didn't actually happen, the feminists would need to fall back on half-truth, confabulation, or outright fabrication. But here, read the full article:

www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Bathinda/Bathinda-gangrape-story-turns-out-to-be-a-hoax/SP-Article1-997813.aspx

I would wager some smart money that if you tallied up the evil which men do in this world, and the evil which women do, the two would perfectly balance each other on the scales of karma. I have yet to see anybody make a plausible case otherwise. But friend, you and I know how the world works. Male wrongdoing is deemed inherently more newsworthy, and treated accordingly. When a man does something spectacularly BAD, it is naturally a spectacle and the chattering classes will chatter on and on about it. When a woman  does something spectacularly bad, or worse, does something unspectacular but more significantly bad, the story will get a brief notice -- very much like a rock tossed into the ocean which makes a quickly-forgotten splash before it sinks out of sight forever.

So why should it be that this woman -- who frames an innocent man with a fabricated gang rape story and deliberately infects people with the HIV virus -- does not  immediately gain wild international celebrity? That is a very important philosophical question.

Men's Rights are Human Rights. Isn't that Right, Asshole??

Well, it looks like the "men's rights are human rights" meme is global gold. This version is in use by the Men's Rights Association of India. It's a great slogan, isn't it? I don't know how anybody can argue against the idea that men's rights are human rights without looking like a moral imbecile. I can at least comprehend how they might quarrel with the label "MRA" -- it's because they are idiotically confounding  principles with persons, or messages with messengers.  That does not excuse their idiocy of course, but it does provide an explanation of sorts. However, the present slogan offers no such cop-out because it is pure principle and pure message, and nothing other. If the slogan triggers your hostility, this indicates that you do not like the idea of male human rights but are unable to mystify the issue by cloaking it under Pavlovian bigotry toward an imagined class of people. Bear in mind that the latter behavior constitutes feminist aggression, and that the (feminist) aggressor sets the terms of engagement. This means that our people are are entitled to use similar aggression against you, but are themselves incapable of Pavlovian bigotry if they choose to do so.

The Precondition to a Paradigm Shift

The only way to tell people what they don't want to hear, is to tell it in way that offers no choice. I will speak of one such way. First, bear in mind that most humans are herd animals. Above all things, they crave a stable sense of belonging, in the company of others who likewise crave such belonging and have agreed upon a general plan to make it happen.

So, if you are the bearer of news which challenges the herd and its stable plan, you must know that the herd's considerable resources will be mobilized against you in order to nullify your message. It is not, in the end, a question of "truth", but rather a collective will-to-believe backed by the power of unfailing repetition and communal reinforcement within an echo chamber.

Your message will take root and grow only if you make the herd disintegrate. Do that, and their power to dismiss your message will disintegrate likewise. And when people get to this point, they will instinctively cast about in search of a new herd they can join. You know how joiners are. So it is a good idea to prepare something they can cling to, that they will be more readily persuaded to make the jump.

Another Convo at the Crossroad

I am not so active on the blog lately, and I am certainly not writing fat, juicy articles like I did back in the day. But things have grown and developed quite dramatically just in the last year -- although what you can see "front stage" is only the tip of the iceberg. At any rate, of late, I've been doing nothing so much as talking to people. ALL KINDS of people, through a variety of channels, sometimes online and sometimes otherwise. The following is a conversation I had quite recently:

Wolfmeyer: What is really holding people back from having the courage to stand up to what is going on? Is it the number of drones opposing us, the suffocating aspect of trying to get counter propaganda in the overwhelming lies being spread, lack of courage, or simply apathy... what? Is there still hope for us after all? Are we unified?

Fidelbogen: Things are looking up for "us". I've been around this men's rights scene for nearly ten years, and the rising energy is quite evident to my informed eye. I see things happening now that would have been undreamed of even three years ago.

Wolfmeyer: But is it fast enough, and are we really doing enough to combat the infection?

Fidelbogen:  Three or five years ago people were saying that exact same thing. Three or five years from now, they will still be saying such things, even when matters have marched further yet. So...I don't bother  negativizing. I just look ahead and keep on truckin'!

Wolfmeyer: I don't like those people either. They can't add anything, so they just say, "you're losers, give up." What I meant was, are our tactics good enough, should we fight more directly, or is ideology a foe that can't be fought with simple brawn and brains alone?

Fidelbogen:  Well, if you're talking about improving our game, then hell yeah! Rock on dude! We are constantly improving our game. It comes with experience. Theory feeds practice, practice feeds theory, theory feeds practice again, and on and on it grows. Anyhow, if ideology can't be fought with brawn and brains alone, then I'm not sure what it CAN be fought with. . .So, I'll keep using my brains to the best of my ability. And my brawn too, if it comes to that.

Wolfmeyer: Like, some have called us cowards for not standing up (directly)... and we all know what happens if you stand up against them.

Fidelbogen: I'm not quite sure what standing up "directly" is even supposed to mean.

Wolfmeyer: They either mean something beyond the internet, going on the news, in the streets organizing anti-feminism. Is this possible? Too soon? Too hasty? Not hasty enough? How about getting in touch with people who can get rid of feminism?

Fidelbogen:  It all depends. I think we need to send a clear signal to the enemy that says "fuck you", but do it in such a way that they are helpless to retaliate without compromising themselves. Then, keep a chronicle of their embarrassment, and push the envelope gradually further and further. It's all part of the boiling frog game.

Wolfmeyer: Have we progressed far? How do we know? I am still very unsure since we are all online, I can't track the battle at all... only using the bullshit feminism I see in the world around me as a tell tale sign of how much feminist bullshit there is... like walking in the woods trying to tell how many miles, how far off.

Fidelbogen:  No..we aren't all just online any more. The conspiracy has spread into society as a whole. And it is growing. Quietly of course. But growing. Trust me.

Wolfmeyer: Yes, I hope the evil of feminism gets as well known as AIDS. That way, we can find better ways to treat it before it mutates again, and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Fidelbogen:  It will never entirely go away, but it can be boxed into a corner and pinned in a lockdown wrestler's hold.

Wolfmeyer: Damn, that is a scary thought. I underestimated the disease, it will always manifest where there are infantile women and pandering men, and "progressive" morons.

Fidelbogen: Yes. But so long as there are other kinds of women and men, we can keep the trouble at bay. When this monster finally gets dramatically overthrown, it will leave a huge mark on the collective memory. And that means the monster won't be coming back for a good little while. It will need to alter its shape and make a whole different plan, in order to do THAT.

Wolfmeyer:  I know of many people who have been infected, its scary. I'm immune, but that is not much comfort when the next generation of vulnerable minds is subverted with feminism even more, from the parents who were feminist, the people already in the institutions who are feminized, and the furthering of that.

Fidelbogen: Well, as I said earlier, just gotta keep on truckin'. And I am going to be optimistic even at the risk of being a fool. After all, what will I lose by being that kind of fool?

Wolfmeyer: But it does somehow manage to subvert and infect despite being well known and unchanging evil, that's the thing... there will always be women stupid enough to accept feminism now that society has been demoralized as it is now, the first step I think is to get good morals back to children so that they can rebuild after the fall, laying the groundwork for a society that is non-feminist, and against the plots of the left....

Fidelbogen: We need to recruit a conspiracy all across society, so that people of all walks, and all specializations, can work on the problem from their particular angles. And of course...form social networks. If the collective lesson has been sufficiently instilled into the culture after an interval of high drama, then the disease will not have the power to make a comeback. Or at least not for a good LONG time.

What Feminism Really IS, Damn You!

I, Fidelbogen, am the world's foremost living authority on what feminism objectively IS. The  power to define feminism is in my hands only. Feminism is what I say it is, and my word upon that point is the official gold standard for all of planet Earth and the rest of the universe to boot. 

I do not claim to speak the "last word" on the subject; I claim to speak the FIRST word. The Alpha word as opposed to the Omega word. Got that? And all words that others wish to add will be gauged by their fidelity to the first word. So if the conception of feminism which you harbor in your brain is not identical to what I've got in my brain, or pretty damned close to it, or clearly derivative of it, then your input is rubbish. Plain and simple.

This ukase applies not only to feminists, but to any soi-disant "non-feminists" who might presume to hold forth upon these matters with any pretension to authority.

I am especially looking at you blue pill traditional conservative types who are full of quaint old-fashioned baloney that feminism means simply "promiscuity" or "women who don't act lady-like" or "not holding doors open", and so on. I've had quite enough of your shallow piddle-paddle, thank you very much. You people are politically more useless than teats on a boar, and you might as well just sign up with the feminists --  because you are more help to them anyway!

Oh, I hate to play the heavy, but if we are to make headway against these evil forces then we need to get on the same page in the matter of terminological usage, so that we aren't forever talking past each other. It's called target consensus, folks! So, if somebody has got to be the lexicon Nazi around here, I'm game for it.

Once more, to make this incredibly clear, I do not mean that I am the sole authority merely in my OWN mind. I mean that I am the sole authority in everybody else's mind as well! And if you don't define feminism the same way I do, with the same insightful configuration of shading and nuance, then you are very simply WRONG, my friend!

And what do I, Fidelbogen, say that feminism IS?

Feminism IS Female Supremacism.

And therefore, logically enough, anything which fosters male autonomy is kryptonite to feminism.


Thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of your day.

Regular Men and Pathological Men

All men are men. Therefore, the oft-heard discussion about who is or isn't a "real man", is idiotic. It is as much as to say that if you are not a "real" man then you are  just plain not a man, full stop. But again, all men are men. There is no man who is not a man.  Accordingly, every man is a "real" man and that's all there is to it.

The consequential enquiry is, to know who is a regular man and who is an abnormal or pathological man. And I believe the answer is simple. The abnormal or pathological man is the rogue, the bully, the swindler, the violent criminal, the rapist, and the man who supports feminism.

The regular man is every other kind of man.

The Mythical Persons "Men" and "Women" Do Not Exist

Somebody recently posted a long statement in cyberspace, from which the following is an extract. This person, you will note, agrees with me. Do I like it when that happens? You bet I do.

"When people ask "what do women want" or "what do Men want", Fidelbogen regularly and accurately points out that there is no person women and no Person Men. There are instead about at the moment, 3.5 billion persons called women and about 3.5 billion Persons called Men. These are rough numbers as there are an uncounted number of other sexes like intersexed persons and neuter persons and more. So we're not addressing that right now because the question tends to focus on what women or Men want.

"And Fidelbogen is right, the proper question to ask in this case is "what does the woman want" or "what does The Man want" as this points to a very specific person called woman or a very specific Person called Man. Then of course that individual can answer for herself or that Individual can answer for Himself.

"This same concept applies in all other cases. The mythical Person Men does not rape. The mythical person women does not rape. Rather some individuals rape. Specific individuals. Or murder or buy clothing or eat candy. And this applies in all cases."

Weeding Out Politically Unsuitable Women

More and more women are speaking out against feminism and a lot of men in the activated community are acting cynical about about the motives of such women. Such men are voicing fears of  "infiltration" by such women, and are sure that such women are up to no good. I understand what these men are saying and, up to a point, I share their concerns. It is undoubtedly true that an uncontrolled female presence in the wrong sectors will set things back -- and I say this in a spirit of  realism and pragmatism, trusting that others will weigh my sentiments accordingly. However, I cannot agree that openly anti-feminist rhetoric among women is a bad thing. Seriously, if women themselves are denouncing feminism it cannot bode well for feminism, can it?

But I would allow that SOME of these women are plotting to subvert male sovereignty, and hence, the non-feminist revolution as a whole. So I propose a simple method for detecting them and weeding them out. You must monitor every purportedly anti-feminist woman to ascertain that she is walking the pro-male walk, and not simply talking the anti-feminist talk. So question the candidate about the sanctity of male space. If for any reason at all, she bristles at the idea that men should have times and places where women are excluded, you should immediately toss her application onto the reject pile. By contrast, women who are fine with that idea will get a relatively high security clearance, and be groomed as leaders of other women.