Saturday, November 21, 2015

Toward a Deeper Understanding of What Feminism Is

In an earlier article, we spoke of something called non-feminist target consensus, and why we should move toward such consensus if we would effectively move against feminism in massed  formation:

In that article, we posted a numbered list called the "Seven Points of Understanding". The list was meant to suggest a working agreement on what "feminism" really is. It was composed loosely because it was meant to channel our thoughts in a loosely calculated direction, as the first stage in a deeper convergence of understanding.

Granted, many people will never get to that deeper convergence. They will only skim through the seven points, nod their general agreement, and give no further thought to it.

So be it. We can live with that. (Have we got any choice?)

But for those who mean to go further, we offer the following as a kind of second-degree initiation. Does that sound like a plan? All right, let's converge upon it.

For a start, let's mothball the conspiracy theories. Powerful interest groups may have given feminism a leg up, but they never invented it. Most seemingly conspiratorial patterns are better explained by what I call moral confluence - the tendency for like-minded humans to form spontaneous systems of cooperation. "Birds of a feather flock together", as folk wisdom informs us, and we need no conspiracy theory to account for this. In principle, it is nothing more mysterious than two people walking side by side on the same road and falling into step with each other.

Mind you, we don't rule out bonafide conspiratorial projects in the general mix - of varying sizes, with varying actors, changing through time. But we don't saddle ourselves with over-arching conspiracy narratives, nor do we bother with smaller ones unless easy evidence makes them "too good to ignore."

Next, we should agree that feminism was never extruded into the world from start to finish as a seamless connection of ideas - it was, and is, a patchwork rife with contradictions. It did not grow from a point source, but from a range of sources: organically, holistically, morphogenetically. After that, moral confluence took over.

Feminism is more than just ideology. It is a set of practices in the objective world, and the ramifications of those practices. Effectively, feminism is a moral confluence manifested as a social superorganism. It has fuzzy boundaries, but you can map it by the light of two cardinal principles, and in order to see how feminism operates you must bear those principles in mind. Once you've got that sorted out, everything settles into place.

Firstly: feminism is the project to increase the power of women both individually and collectively, and this project is a zero sum, infinite game with no clearly stated upper limit or endpoint.

Secondly: feminism is held together and boosted along its trajectory by a bottomless disaffection toward all things male. Despite what the average feminist will tell you, feminism is very much indeed "about hating men".

These two principles illuminate each other. Furthermore, they cycle in and out of each other in a chicken-and-egg dynamic: it is not clear which comes first, so it is hard to know where to start explaining.

However, let's start with the first principle because it's easier that way. After all, nearly any feminist will give you a hairy argument if you insist that feminism is about hating men, but I doubt you'll find a feminist anywhere who would argue that feminism is not about empowering women.

So to increase the power of women, as to increase the power of anything, demands a rationale. Feminism rationalizes its project by suggesting that women need more power because they haven't got enough in the first place.

That being said, the question becomes "how much power for women is enough?" How must we quantify this? How must we configure this? If feminism can furnish no answer here, we must suppose that none can be had, and that the feminist project is to empower women infinitely.

We have seen no official statement which says "accomplish the following, and feminism will disband itself." Furthermore, if there is any such document on earth, we insist that we have no duty to hunt for it. On the contrary, we insist that feminism's supporters bear the onus to make this information clear to non-feminist men and women, in a manner that is widely known and unmistakeable. We await that day.

Very well. Feminism is literally nothing if not the project to increase the power of women. It must be this if it is anything at all, and whatever you might add to this it remains this at the very least. That is a consensus nearly all would share, a crossroad of understanding that puts everybody on the same map.

Now, to increase the power of women could only mean to grow it by comparison to some other power. After all, we can hardly quantify this if we fail to establish a baseline measurement.

So let us think further: would not the feminist project be meaningless if female power didn't grow specifically by comparison to MALE power? For if both men’s and women’s power grew by comparison to some third power, it would be undifferentiated HUMAN power which had augmented itself, yes? But in that case, the limiting term “women” would be inappropriate and misleading. Nor would the term “feminism” be applicable.

So we conclude that the core of the feminist project is to grow female power by comparison to male power in particular, and for want of contrary evidence we also conclude that this project has no proposed endpoint.

Such being given, it follows that women’s power would sooner or later surpass men’s, issuing in a state of female supremacy. Only a non-feminist intervention could block that outcome.

We may define female supremacy as a condition where the governing power in most areas of life is either directly or indirectly a female power. We are entitled to wonder if that would be a good thing, or a bad thing.

Our answer rides upon the question of moral constraint. Absolute power would be arbitrary power, and being absolute, would corrupt absolutely – meaning that no morality would constrain it. True female supremacy could be nothing short of absolute power unconstrained by morality. Anything less would only be a stage along the road to supremacy, but not quite supremacy itself.

In the final tally, any limit to the growth of female power would limit women's power to treat men arbitrarily. This in turn would be a moral constraint because arbitrary power is nothing if not the power to disregard morality. So the feminist project would stall out if it were bound by the requirement to treat men morally, and this would set a limit on how far the project could extend itself.

If one were determined to push the feminist project forward at all cost one would need either to abandon all pretense of morality, or to make oneself the master of such pretense.

In passing, we should note that feminists love to rattle on about something called "equality", yet their notion of equality, for some reason, does not involve abrogating any historical perquisites that women have enjoyed. So, putting it simply, the feminist campaign for so-called equality is a drive to maximize female advantage. This comes to the same thing as increasing female power with no limit. 

Now let us consider the second cardinal principle. The project to increase women’s power does not positively require disaffection toward men in order to get started, but without it, the project would face a practical limit. However, if you sweep that limit aside, you can pave the road of depredation as far as any lack of scruples might carry you. This is where disaffection toward men comes in handy, and the project to increase female power hits no glass ceiling of any kind.

We conclude that "feminism" minus anti-male feeling would be self-limiting, would lack vitality, and would eventually fizzle out.

Let us reiterate the two cardinal principles: that feminism is a drive to increase female power with no clearly stated endpoint, and that feminism is impelled by a bottomless disaffection toward all things male. Taken together, these principles compose a revelatory lens, and one may pan that lens across the range of conditions. You can put this to work in your own analysis.

Nowadays there is a great controversy in the activated non-feminist sector - on the one side, the strict anti-feminists who wish to engage feminism narrowly and politically, and on the other, those who say "never mind feminism, attack gynocentric traditionalism!"

However, we find it generally pointless to differentiate feminism from so-called traditionalism because we see those things on a continuum. We prefer to take a unified field approach in our quest for understanding.

Yes, we recognize that "gynocentrism" was a feature of traditional (or so-called "patriarchal") culture long before modern feminism came along. But we also see that feminism and traditional culture are like Siamese twins, with gynocentrism as a connective tissue binding them together.

Gynocentrism advantages women over men, and for that reason is fundamentally anti-male. Feminism did not invent gynocentrism, but capitalized on it as it does upon any established anti-male tendency. Anything hateful of maleness, or harmful to it, or merely tilted against it in some way, finds a place in the feminist project.

We have a saying: "Every anti-male stream feeds the feminist river." Even as the Mississippi pulls its waters from across the continent, so too feminism draws from a far-flung cultural watershed. One way or another, all of it supplements the feministical operations complex (for short, the FEMPLEX).

This metaphor of the watershed hints at the workings of feminism as a social superorganism, and puts us in a shared space of heuristic understanding. The full reach of feminism spreads well beyond any conventional understanding of the term. For that reason, the ongoing anti-male evolution in society, over time, is the signature pattern which gives away the feminist game. Plenty of social indicators are trending in an anti-male direction, and that is how we know "where it's at".

It should be clear, to all who are politically awake, that the world is becoming a more poisonous place in which to be male. We say this not in the spirit of "men's rights", but rather to spotlight a dangerous condition which ought to concern everybody. After all, injustice toward half the human race is bound to have negative consequences right way across the social ecology. 

We should add, that a lot of feminists show a pattern of moral confluence in creating, sustaining, or rationalizing these anti-male tendencies. When you point this out, a typical response is the infamous NAFALT: "Not All Feminists Are Like That."

There are many variations on the NAFALT response, yet it is unclear why any of it should be deemed a compelling argument, or what it even pretends to argue in the first place. The sentiment itself is vacuous and trite, for you may pick any kind of feminist you please and it will generally be true that "not all feminists are like that." So why do they use this line of talk so commonly?

The answer is, that they want to get feminism off the hook by changing the subject. They are deflecting attention away from the feminists who are indeed "like that"-- and the fact that such feminists really do exist, and really do play a powerful role in shaping the world.

Yes, the anti-male factor is feminism's most potent driver because it gives the feminist project a wide open frontier of development. The proverbial man-hating feminists represent feminism's core truth because, frankly, they are what makes feminism exist in the first place. They are not a bug; they are a feature. Lacking their restless energy and continual innovation, feminism would sputter and roll to a stop like a car running out of gas.

The only way to rationalize the endless growth of female power, is to gin up never-ending excuses to take away male power - and if you hate men in the first place, your innovation along that line will be morally unencumbered. Accordingly, those who raise questions about the ethical treatment of men, or about women's moral accountability in general, are death to the feminist project because they sabotage the one force which can fuel that project's growth into the indefinite future.

The NAFALT excuse ultimately fails not only because it is intellectually vacuous, but because it misses the point. For in the end, the question is not whether all feminists are a certain way, but whether all feminism is a certain way.

More precisely, all feminists - irrespective of individual difference - are implicated in the feminist project. That is what makes them feminist in the first place. Verily, all feminists are "like that" as regards their participation in feminism. This is the point which ought to command our interest.

The less repellent feminists have the option to put those discreditable ones under siege, and isolate them, and starve them of moral support. Yes, they could choose to do this, but instead they choose the opposite tack: they urge you to IGNORE such feminists, and if possible, forget about their existence altogether.

Thus, the feminist who puts you off with NAFALT rhetoric is squatting on your mental real estate by imposing a trivial distraction - and by that I mean a distraction from what is significant, essential, or urgent. This feminist would have you occupy your thoughts with matters that can only throw you off the scent. In this way, the core truths and defining operations of the feminist project will escape detection. 

In conclusion: it can be laborious to parse out the finer filaments of understanding, but the reward can be worth it. The burden, be it known, falls as much upon the writer as upon the reader. That said, I trust that any reader who has gotten to the end of this article, in the same plodding footsteps which the writer took first, has been sufficiently compensated for the journey.    

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Taylor Pittman of the Huffington Post slanders people who are not Feminist

NOTE: The following is a reader comment which I left on the Huffington Post in response to the linked article. I am sharing this here because it makes a point which sorely needs making.

Here is the link to the article in question:

And here is my reader comment:
Does Taylor Pittmann offer any evidence that the group in question is "MRAs"? I see none. I also looked at the Facebook page, and I cannot find the place where the group applies that label to itself.

So Taylor Pittman owes her readers an explanation, and a justification for her choice of nomenclature. Either that, or she should publish a self-critical retraction of her usage.

But more significantly, just what IS an "MRA", anyway? That's a question worth pondering, and I think we can extract an object lesson from this.

Taylor PIttman fails to disclose her political standpoint in this article. Is she feminist, or not? As a journalist, she ought to be forthcoming about that so as not to deceive, or presume upon, her readers.

Since Taylor Pittmann fails to do her duty here, I will take the matter in hand and declare that yes, Taylor Pittmann is a feminist. And if she doen't want to be labelled without permission, she ought to extend that courtesy to others in the future.

We all know by now that the word "MRA", in the feminist lexicon, is stuck indiscriminately to non-feminist people whom the speaker or writer wishes to stigmatize. It is a semantic-linguistic gimmick, and little more.

Yes, the term "MRA" is effectively meaningless because it is laid on with a broad tar brush, with sloppy imprecision. All the same, it is worth discussing how this word gets used, and why it gets used, and the political function which that usage serves.

The label has acquired odious connotations because it has been applied to odious things in the past. However, the label has also been applied to things which aren't necessarily odious. Feminists like Taylor Pittmann know this, and they know that if they stick the word "MRA" to anything at all, that thing (good, bad or indifferent) will bear a stigma by association.

That is the effect which Taylor Pittmann is trying to achieve in this trashy piece of gutter journalism. It lowers the author to the same level as a tabloid writer.

As I suggested earlier, a retraction of this article, and an apology to the reading public, would be a nice gesture on the part of Taylor Pittmann.

I would be happy to contribute an article or two to the Huffington Post, from a non-feminist perspective. The editors may contact me via Twitter. My account is @fidelbogen.

I may also be reached at the following e-mail:
Taylor Pittman , in an afternote to her article, mentions that the targeted group might actually be a trolling project. But be that as it may, Pittman did originally write her article on the assumption that the thing was for real. Hence, it was an accurate snapshot of her normative state of mind.

The main reason Taylor Pittman composed this article is because she's a feminist. That is her normative state of mind. Her game is to slander non-feminist people by linking the word "MRA" to a group of odious weirdos, insinuating that whoever is critical of feminism (or supportive of male human rights) is in the same league with the "creepy" people she's writing about. The only reason Taylor Pittman took ANY notice of those "hymen/diamond" people whatsoever, was because she was avid to stick the word "MRA" to them. That was her sole motivation. If not for that, she'd have had zero interest in writing about those people.

Monday, September 21, 2015

The Accumulated Wisdom

The activated non-feminist community has spent years discussing feminism from many angles, sketching theories to explain its operation, debating the merits of those theories, refining the conclusions of those debates, and stockpiling evidence.

Over the years a rough consensus has emerged. The process is ongoing, and knowledge is far from complete, but thanks to so much hard work by so many dedicated thinkers our fund of understanding has a solid core we can rely on.

We call this fund of understanding the accumulated wisdom of the activated non-feminist community, or simply the accumulated wisdom. It is a repository of empirical evidence, combining both lived experience and a study of world events. This repository makes a sufficient base of prior knowledge which may grow to accommodate new data.

Our accumulated wisdom stands opposed to the inbred ignorance of the feminist worldview, which cannot transcend itself without undoing itself. We find, among these people, a fixed purpose to sidestep critical realization - and we draw this conclusion from direct study. We have put our case with logic, lucidity and nuance, we have piled example upon example, and yet we find our effort unavailing.

I mean that if you are standing in a rainstorm that fact ought to be directly evident. It should be needless to point out raindrop after raindrop until you persuade the other chap that it's raining. Yet the perverse will to sidestep critical realization is invincible, and if he doesn't want to "see" the rainstorm he won't!

We however, being able both to see the raindrops one by one and to reckon shrewdly what they add up to, may trust in the veracity of our understanding. We needn't wait upon those who are less endowed with mother wit.

Our interactive experience with feminists forms a key part of our accumulated wisdom. In particular, we find their political behavior to be an extension of their flawed human nature - their dark side, if you will. In that regard you might say the political emerges from the personal. Such feminist behavior works as a shielding system – both to insulate the individual feminist from self-knowledge, and to ensure that the feminist message never comes up for critical examination.

In private discussions, this behavior nearly always emerges as a form of deflection. It is the same in the larger "conversation" of public rhetoric and propaganda. In nearly all of our public back-and-forth with feminists we have gotten a never-ending loop of  ducking, dodging, and dissimulating - and over time they have grafted this apparatus onto the culture many layers deep and bamboozled most people. This amounts to a system of holistically embedded falsehood.

To access the truth we must scalp the duff down to the bedrock. So the question becomes, whose bedrock? Theirs or ours? We say ours, because we find no compelling reason to say otherwise.

The accumulated wisdom of the activated non-feminist community forms our bedrock. We trust this bedrock because it is made of probative and indubitable things, but we also trust it because we trust ourselves.

The feminists have had years to process the non-feminist message and have shown themselves unwilling to do so. Hence, we are turning away from all that and working toward the intellectual crystallization of our own community. Our accumulated wisdom forms the intellectual base of that community.

We already understand feminism as “pattern XYZ” – an existing set of conditions in the world, independent of any claim that a self-confessed feminist would make about it. Our present task is to marshall this understanding into a schematic unity, so as to generate target consensus and coherent strategizing.

Our empirical evidence, though abundant, seems to lack an organizing framework. We mean to remedy that lack, so that the accumulated wisdom will settle efficiently into place. Accordingly, we turn again to our first precept, that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. We will take this precept, and the accumulated wisdom, and meld the two of them into something which synergistically transcends both.

The accumulated wisdom is our raw material for the construction which lies ahead. This project has no exact blueprint, but it has a logic which governs how the material gets combined. That is what matters. What finally gets built depends on the unpredictable requirements arising from the work. However, the certainty of the this accumulated wisdom, along with the certainty of the first precept, makes a double certainty which is hard to beat.

In all of this, we do not precisely abandon the so-called “men's rights movement”, but rather burst the shackles of it, decenter it, and ultimately swallow it into a different political configuration.

As for feminism: at best it is a power whose legitimacy we may dispute. At worst it is an alien force that has barged into our lives and unleashed calamity.  In no case has the universe bestowed infallibility on this sect or its followers. Nor should we. We are free to question, critique, quibble with or even rudely challenge feminism as we see fit. The only force blocking us is the  superstitious anger of feminism's guardians, whose behavior we call offended idol worship.

We must understand that feminism is not the only game in town. It holds no moral patent upon us, and we are more radically free of it than we might realize. Our present and future business is to explore this.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Radical Feminism is not the Fringe

Radical feminism is feminism's rotten core and the source of feminism's life. Without radical feminism, feminism at large would amount to little and scatter to the four winds.

That is the whole truth and nothing other. However, it is a truth that plenty of people won't square up to. It is quite fashionable nowadays, especially in the wake of the Agent Orange scandal, to brush aside radical feminism as outdated and popularly disregarded. When people do this, they are trying to change the subject and reassert control of the conversation so as to remove the feminist project, at large, from the critical spotlight.

Radical feminism - by which I mean chiefly the man-hating kind - is a standard which sets the measure for feminism as a whole. All brands of feminism are either more or less relevant depending on how closely they approximate radical feminism.

Radical feminism is 100 proof, and a radical feminist takes her feminism neat. Others take theirs watered down - but it's all the same drink.

People love to tell you that the radfems are "just fringe extremists" - as if we were standing in a field and the radfems were some tight little cluster, cut off in their own world on the perimeter. What the speaker fails to consider is that all feminism is on a continuum whose unifying principle is disaffection toward men and things male. That's all it is, and if you study feminism objectively you can form no other conclusion.

There is no break, no gap, no discontinuity, between radical feminism and the rest of feminism. It is a moral plenum, fully packed. For every foul man-hater, there is a slightly less foul man-hater, then a slightly less foul one than that . . . and down the line it goes, shade by shade. For example, Amanda Marcotte is only half as bad as Mary Daly - but comparatively speaking, that's still pretty damned bad! So is Mary Daly unacceptable while Amanda gets a pass? Where should we set the cutoff?

If we were to address the radical man-hating gangrene as a serious issue, we would morally amputate the phenomenon.  But in order for THAT to happen, we would need to establish a moral threshhold, to effectively quantify how much systemic man-hating we can theoretically "live with". 

Anything above the cutoff might be denounced and ostracized, but there would still be a boundary of acceptability - and that is just the problem. The stench of misandry wouldn't be quite so overpowering any more, but it would still be present, and permanent, and tolerated. And it would still taint feminism as a whole.

Eventually, we might feel obligated to repeat the whole process; to hack off more of the rotten end and set the cap a little lower. If we were moved to do this time and again, there would soon be precious little of feminism remaining.

That ought to teach us that the apologists and deflectionists are right: we oughtn't be so fixated on the extremists. The rot extends clear through the feminist organism to some degree, and examples closer to home (of casual misandry or mere perverse ignorance) are never lacking. Every chance we get, we should point out the pervasive anti-male bias - be this subtle or brazen.

Anti-male bias - whether in the form of hating men, or looking the other way when evidence of man-hating crops up, or simply the prevalence of double standards which favor women - is recognizable as the core principle which makes feminism feminism.  This principle, more than anything, binds the feminist project together, moves it forward, and explains the complex reality of its evolvement through time.

The feminist project seeks to expand the power of women with no limit, and anything like ethical regard for men and maleness would impose a formidable barrier to such expansion. Remove that ethical regard, and the frontier is wide open. Hence, so far as the feminist project is concerned, ethical regard for men and maleness has got to go - and what better why to shuck off ethical regard for anything, than to HATE it?

Since the world always contains X number of women who hate men. . .and even MEN who hate men, feminism's inner cadre always has a sufficient recruitment pool. Hate is a tremendous motivator, and we can hardly account for feminism's vitality on the theory that the real movers-and-shakers are only mildly annoyed with men.

In the end, if feminism did not harbor a kind of moral black hole of infinite disaffection toward men and maleness, it would quickly reach the limit of its possible development. . . . and begin to dissipate.

So once again, radical feminism - to wit, the man-hating kind - is the CORE of feminism. By contrast, it is the liberals, the moderates, the humanists, and the "fun" feminists who make up the fluffy fringe on feminism's perimeter. They are the useful idiots who serve mainly as camouflage and as ideological pack mules.

Those who say that radical feminism is marginal to feminism at large, are lying - either to you, or to themselves.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

From Target Confusion to Target Consensus

To non-feminist men and women everywhere, greetings.

Feminism, the face with a thousand masks, has walked around in so many disguises that even people who oppose it cannot always agree on WHAT they are opposing. This lack of non-feminist agreement about what feminism really is, may be termed "target confusion". It spawns indecision, floundering and flailing, and gives rise to the infamous "circular firing squad". All this makes opposition to feminism difficult and inefficient.

To remedy such headaches, we should make feminism's core nature evident to a broad spectrum of non-feminist people. If these people can discourse about the same things in the same language rather than talking past each other, they can work in concert to bring about feminism's demise. They might still disagree on certain points, but at least their disagreements will be on the same page.

The sought-for common understanding of feminism is called "target consensus". It is called that because it provides an understood target of operations toward which all may direct their efforts. We of the activated non-feminist sector must make the transition from target confusion to target consensus, and bring the middle mass gradually up to speed.

Let's move toward target consensus, right now.

First, we propose the following short statement, titled "Universal Non-feminist Credo", as a preamble to any non-feminist target consensus whatsoever. This credo is a brief summation of ideas to serve as a foundation for non-feminist identity, and we feel confident that nearly any self-declared abstainer from feminism would co-sign to it:

    Universal Non-Feminist Credo:

    We have examined feminism from the ground up. We have pondered its implications in the context of human history.

    Having done so, we have concluded that feminism is not a preferred choice. We have chosen not to identify with feminism and not to be bound by its theorizations, or by any extension of those theorizations.

    As non-feminist, we occupy a critical standpoint independent of feminist understanding. We exercise authority to define feminism on our own terms by the light of independent study. In principle, feminism IS what we say it is, and the power to define feminism is not a sole feminist privilege. 

    We shall uphold non-feminist autonomy and secure non-feminist existence against feminist imposition, in whatever form this may arise.

Having laid down the precepts of non-feminist identity, we must undertake the quest for target consensus from a set of core ideas we can roughly agree on. Our rough agreement is a target consensus already, and what comes after it is a larger journey of discovery where we flesh out the details. In the end, we reach the correct understanding of feminism - and there is only one. Until then, we balance the long game with the pragmatic needs of the political moment.

So to begin, we must agree that feminism is not merely a definition and not merely a set of ideas developed from a definition. It is a set of patterns and practices manifested in the objective world, independently of any feminist's imagination. We must concur upon this much, even if we concur upon nothing else.

That said, we now offer a rough description which itemizes the key truth points our study has yielded. We call this the "seven points of understanding", and it is meant to reveal more specifically what we have in mind when we pronounce the word "feminism". Remember that a rough understanding is all we need at the present stage, and such understanding is what the following list provides. We can't spend thirty years quibbling and sorting things out. We need to get things rolling.

Seven Points of Understanding

1. Feminism is a complex social system with interacting parts. The complexity of this system camouflages the core nature of it.

2. Feminism is an aggressor force that cannot co-exist with the world at large.

3. Feminism, at its core, is anti-male. Lacking such a core, it would effectively cease to exist.

4. Feminism's driving purpose is to increase female power with no stipulated endpoint.

5. Lying and prevarication are prevalent feminist behaviors.

6. Feminism will never stop until a non-feminist force intervenes to make it stop.

7. As non-feminist people, we agree that the word "feminism" signifies nothing virtuous or laudable.

So these two documents - the Credo, and the Seven Points  - may compose the foundation for a tacit understanding amongst activated non-feminists everywhere. When such ones meet, they can discourse meaningfully, and if they need to coordinate their operations, they can do so with a shared reality map in view.

As abstainers from feminism, the force binding us together against feminism ought to outweigh any ideological or cultural differences that might drive us apart. It is imperative that we set aside such misunderstandings and form a loose but resilient coalition against a common adversary. I say loose coalition, because you couldn't properly call it an organization or a movement. Mere abstention from feminism does not equate to a politically accountable demographic. We are only as tightly woven as we need to be, but no tighter. A wink or a nod, in most cases, will suffice.

Those who wish to form properly chartered groups or clubs within this broader web are free to do so, and to speak for themselves in whatever collective voice they deem suitable. However, I would urge all such groups to post a COMMITMENT TO NON-VIOLENCE near the top of their various bulkhead statements. Make clear that you disavow those who use violence, or make threats of violence. Put this in such bold terms that nobody - friend, foe, or indifferent member of the public - could pretend to miss it.

Feminism should be non-violently blocked, defied, snubbed, thwarted, taunted, stood up to, and made to lose face in the public square. This will take feminism down a peg. . . and then another peg. There's nothing like being publicly shamed or shown up in front of the world, then trying to be your good old cocky self in front of that same world the next day. It's not easy. So we need to target feminism with such action, and we need to make the effect of this pervasive throughout the culture - signal-boosted where appropriate.

In every non-violent way imaginable, we should make feminism feel the heat of our stern displeasure, and the pressure of our collective, accumulated NO - a veritable "wall of no." The effect should percolate through every dimension of the cultural mindspace, condensing as a mist from the sky and seeping from the cracks in the earth. It should be pervasive and subtle, as dark matter, yet flaring up visibly upon occasion.

Target consensus will make clear to us what we are working on, so that our separate task forces can vector in upon the task from their many directions, with optimal effect. Let us strive for target consensus.


The Map of Reality, also known as the Feminist/Non-feminist Cooperation Spiral:

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Feminism Defined as Feminist Aggression

Kindly propagate this by any means at your disposal. Save it, share it, post it online, etc.  Incorporate it into graphic design work.

Or. . .you could even retweet it:

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Feminist or Non-Feminist? No Middle Ground

We all need to make up our minds. Every last one of us. We are, all of us, either one thing or the other: feminist, or not feminist. There is no middle ground. There are no shades of gray. There are no blurred lines. There is no fence to sit upon.

You are either a feminist, or you are not a feminist. Isn't that simple?

So, what does it mean in practice, to say that you are either a feminist or not a feminist? In practice, it means that you should take one second, at the very most, to make your decision. If I were to inquire, "are you a feminist?", you would respond either yes or no . . . . in a flash!

You ought not to vacillate. If you need to pause and think about it, then you might as well just call yourself a feminist until you finally get your head straight. The force which pulls you instinctively away from feminism ought to be so powerful that it operates instantaneously. It ought to be second nature.

Naturally, we'd rather you were not a feminist at all, but the important thing is to make your mind up. It is not nearly so bad to be a feminist, as to be a fence-sitter.  To be a fence-sitter is to be woefully uninformed about the political situation. Your "middle ground" between feminist and non-feminist is a melting iceberg, a transitory condition that will not last.  It is an illusion, a state of existential dithering, and to occupy such a position is to be a morally two-headed creature with no stable identity -- or if you will, no GPS coordinates on the political map.

The middle ground illusion emerges from the notion that there is a "good" feminism and a "bad" feminism which can be teased apart from each other. That notion is erroneous. The truth is that if you did separate the (ideologically) good from the (ideologically) bad in feminism, you would effectively dismantle feminism altogether and it would no longer operate.

You cannot effectively discard the bad stuff in feminism, and save aside the good stuff in its own heap, and still call that heap feminism. Any so-called feminism extracted by this method would be redundant and superfluous because it would already be covered in a separately existing category -- such as, for example, "egalitarianism" or "liberal humanism." The word feminism would serve no purpose any longer.

The "good" part of feminism is not feminism's defining core. It is the insulation but not the wire. It is a fig leaf or cover story, while "bad feminism" is the real juice, the real nitty-gritty. Any effort to direct attention away from the dark side of feminism amounts to passing the buck.

I would wrap it up tersely, thuswise: Whatever is is good about feminism is not original, and whatever is original is not good.

If you resort to the standard cop-out that "not all feminists are like that" (NAFALT), then you are practicing a slight variant of the same evasionary maneuver we have already talked about.  You are trying to separate the "good" feminists from the "bad" feminists, but this fails for the same reason that we have sketched above. The good feminists are the "good cop", and the bad feminists are the "bad cop" -- but they are both on the same team.

Furthermore you are dodging the question "what is feminism?" because you are actually addressing the question "who are feminists?" Hence, the argument is a deflection. In the end, you see, the real question is not "are all feminists like that?", but rather "is all FEMINISM like that?" This is not a trivial distinction.

So the illusion of middle ground between feminist and non-feminist, springs from an obfuscational distinction between "good" feminism (or feminists), and "bad" feminism (or feminists). The trajectory of counter-feminist analysis will make this obfuscation increasingly evident to the world at large, and the one correct understanding of feminism will emerge slowly into the light of public awarenness. As correct understanding emerges, the illusion of middle ground will  become unsustainable and melt away, and many an existential crisis will be had.

In the meantime, I would like to pose a series of rhetorical questions that will situate the conversation and clarify the nature of feminism in general:

Do you think it is a good idea to drive a wedge down the middle of the human race and alienate men and women from each other?

Do you think it is a good idea, to insinuate that most of the world's problems flow from a male source?

Do you think it is a good idea to treat "woman-hating" as a moral felony, but treat "man-hating" as a social misdemeanor?

Do you think it is a good idea to encourage the growth of fatherless families?

Do you think it is a good idea to prop up your political agenda with false statistics?

Do you think it is a good idea to corrupt the criminal justice system with anti-male ideological bias?

Do you think it is a good idea to "empower" women with no clear limits and no stipulations about using that power responsibly?

Do you think it is a good idea to insult and slander women of conscience who disown feminism or say stiff things about it?

Finally, do you think it is a good idea to pretend that feminism bears no relation to any of the creepy things we have listed here?

All right. If your first impulse is to say "that's not what feminism really is!", then you had best declare yourself a feminist, and withdraw to the private enjoyment of your private understanding.  

As you can see, the decision to call yourself feminist, or not call yourself feminist, is fraught with some very heavy moral underpinnings. It's a decision of serious consequence in either direction -  one that accomodates no dithering, dilly-dallying, or shilly-shallying.

Come now, be a good gal, or a good gent, and hop down off that fence!

Are you feminist, or are you non-feminist? Please make your mind up, and please declare your standpoint frequently, in conversation, when disclosure is the appropriate thing to do.

As non-feminist men and women, the resolute nature of our opposition to feminism is the force-field which binds us together. Regrettably, we don't YET fully agree on what feminism IS. We have not YET reached target consensus. I repeat, not YET. But despite our differences, we are in FULL agreement that a show of solidarity will impress the gravitas of the occasion upon the other side. It will make them sit up a little bit straighter, and it will cause them to moderate their tone when they speak to us. 

Yes. A popular front non-feminist coalition - that's the ticket!

So, are you a feminist? Or are you a non-feminist? That bedrock question is where it all begins.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Can Feminism Co-exist with the World?

The great line in the sand that we now must draw, is the line which separates feminist from non-feminist. It should be self-evident that not everybody on Earth shares the feminist way of understanding the human condition, and that is how we mark the boundary between these two sets of people.

In the last year or two, we have seen a dramatic surge in mainstream anti-feminism. Quite frankly, these new people are just as fed up with feminism as the old-timers have been for years. They feel that feminism has "jumped the shark", and they are getting more and more outspoken about their disenchantment.

Now, since we are talking to the feminists themselves (along with everybody else), we ought to pose a very basic question for their consideration:

"Feminist, what do you intend to DO about this?"

Seriously: what do you feminists intend to do about the present situation? People are getting fed up with you and they are mobilizing, with reinforcements arriving daily. Will you treat these developments with the seriousness they deserve? Or will you schluff it off, act like nothing is happening, and carry on with business as usual?

The present situation is new and different. We're not talking about the so-called "men's rights movement" any more -- it goes far beyond that now. We're talking about a fundamental shift of perspective, and a whole new way of thinking to go along with it.

Let's be clear on one thing for starters: we're not a bit happy about the pernicious effect which feminist innovation has had upon men and boys. Let this be well understood. We know that men and boys are ground zero in feminist plans. That reality is never far from our thoughts.

But our thoughts go further, for we cannot ignore that men and women live in the same social ecosystem. Hence, the effect of feminist innovation does not stop with men. The web of cause and effect spreads in all directions, and if bad things happen to men, surely nothing good will follow for women. So by the end of the day, we are worried about the effect which feminism has upon EVERYBODY. Yes, the entire human community.

You feminists must understand that we outnumber you. That is why we call ourselves the non-feminist majority - because we've got the numbers! Furthermore, you are gravely mistaken if you think we are naught but empty space and empty minds, fit only to be filled with feminism. In fact we are a complex tapestry of life, ripe with meaning and mystery. Get that in your head, okay?

We have eyes -- our OWN eyes, not yours! This means that we are SEEING you, in ways that you feminists cannot hope to see yourselves, and we've got some highly original opinions about what we see. We are everywhere, we are gazing into feminism's soul, and we are discussing what we are seeing there -- whether you like it or not. That's right, the abyss is gazing into you now. How does that feel?

Don't tell us to "look in the dictionary" in order learn what feminism is. You can't put us off with that stale old stuff any more! We can see, plain as day, what feminism is -- after all, we've had half a century to do this! The truth about feminism is not written on a book page but painted on the canvas of this world, in tall red letters impossible to miss. And no, we have not missed a bit of it.

So feminists, we put it to you one more time: What do you plan to do about this?

You are in trouble for a REASON. Your actions and policies, for many years, have brought you to this point, and more of the same will only dig you in deeper. Is that what you want?

We are not feminist, and we will never be feminist. Nothing can make that happen, and if you try to force feminism upon other people you will only make things worse for yourself.

Are you looking for advice? Well here it is, ready or not. Feminism must gaze into a mirror, long and hard, and learn to SEE itself -- for the very first time ever!

Here, let us help. We've got the mirror, and if you just sit still, we shall be happy to hold it in front of your face. In fact, we've been doing that very thing for many years, but you feminists never knew this because you never wanted to know it.

Be aware that the mirror we hold in front of you does not reflect the face that worldly vanity and self-conceit might imagine. No, this is a magical mirror which blows that face away and exposes the naked soul behind it. Feminist, are you ready for such a thing? Are you ready to gaze upon your own naked soul?

We non-feminist men and women understand feminism better than feminism understands itself. You might say, that this is our secret weapon. And yet, ironically, it is no secret at all. Certainly, we have never tried to conceal it. We are happy to share what we know, and we shall propagate this knowledge ever and always.

So if there is any element of secrecy here, it is that feminism keeps this knowledge secret from itself, by a continual and strenuous exertion. Call it willful ignorance. You cannot know what you WILL not know -- for if the will is lacking, the way cannot be found.

Feminists, you might wonder why we address you in this manner. We have suggested, quite simply, that you've lost your way because you fail to know yourselves. Other people can see right through you, yet you persist in not knowing yourselves. For some reason, you prefer to fob that work off on other people.

That's a hazardous condition, don't you think so? It means that other people have got the edge over you, and will steadily advance upon you in the course of time, and gain the upper hand.

Feminists, let me put you straight with some real talk. If you want to stem the rising tide of anti-feminism, there is only one trick that will work. You must alter your behavior in such a way that you don't turn people against you. In other words, you must stop creating anti-feminists in the first place! Now, it is true that everybody is either a feminist or a non-feminist. But while an anti-feminist is still a non-feminist, the anti-feminist has a little something extra. Certain modifications, if you will.

And it's on you, the feminist, to see that those modifications never happen. Only YOU can prevent anti-feminism -- it's your job, not theirs.

You want the tl;dr version? Fine, I'll let you have it in three words:

Listen and believe.

When non-feminist people try to tell you what feminism is doing wrong, you must listen to them, and believe them. You might think that these people "don't know what feminism really is", but I can assure you that they do. In fact they know better than you, what feminism really is. They know this because they know what you refuse to know.

So, sending non-feminist people to the dictionary for the fourteen billionth time won't work. (As if they've never heard that before!).

Calling non-feminist people terrible names like "sexist" or "misogynist" or "rape apologist" won't work -- especially if those accusations are unfounded, which they typically are. It will only work if you are trying to create more anti-feminists -- and for that purpose, it will work like a charm!

Propagating debunked or dubious ideas - such as "rape culture", or  "male privilege", or "patriarchal  terrorism", or the misleadingly-named "wage gap", won't work. Too many people don't believe that stuff any more, so you will turn those people against feminism because you are "repping" for feminism in a very shabby way.

Telling non-feminist women that they are stupid, ungrateful, internalized misogynists won't work. I guarantee that if you don't lay off those women, they will learn to curse you like a pack of bloody pirates. And the last thing feminism needs, is women cursing it like a pack of bloody pirates.

I could go on with these examples, but I'm sure you get the point. Let me repeat: When non-feminist people try to tell you what feminism is doing wrong, you must listen to them, and believe them. You might think that these people "don't know what feminism really is", but I can assure you that they do. In fact they know better than you, what feminism really is. They know this because they know what you refuse to know.  You feminists seem to have an information deficit, but non-feminist people can supply that lack if only you let them.

One more time: listen and believe.

As a feminist, you'll never learn anything new about feminism if you don't listen to what non-feminist people say, and BELIEVE what they say. What makes you so dead certain that they don't know the truth about feminism? Who gave you the authority to pontificate about that? Seriously now -- who gave you that authority?

All right, it's time to wrap this up. Feminism is not the world, okay? The WORLD is the world, and if feminism disappeared into a black hole tomorrow, the world would carry on with no regrets and be none the worse. Nor would life for women take any dramatic nosedive. It would stay pretty much the same, and any slight modification would in all probability be for the better.

So if you're a feminist and you want to keep your religion alive, you will need to make peace with the non-feminist sector. You can't afford to make enemies in that sector. You are not the only game in town any more, and it's time you modified your conduct accordingly.

So don't make enemies. In other words, don't make anti-feminists. If you plan to co-exist with the rest of us, learn to negotiate a balance of power, learn to respect our boundaries, and above all learn to respect our intelligence. When we try to tell you something, listen to what we are saying, and believe that we are serious in saying it. Believe that we mean it, because we surely do.

Listen and believe.

Accept, with a good grace, that the power to define feminism is no longer your monopoly. Accept, with a good grace, that non-feminist people possess the missing information in your understanding of feminism. Accept, with a good grace, that feminism's days of unbridled cultural colonization are over. Accept, with a good grace, that you will not sell feminism to people by harassing and insulting them. Accept, with a good grace, that some people will never embrace feminism, no matter how seductive your marketing plan might be.  Accept, with a good grace, that non-feminist lives matter, and that non-feminist people have an inner life of their own which is precious to them.

Accept all these things, and many more, with a good grace. Then settle down, keep your feminism to yourself, and learn to coexist with your non-feminist neighbors. Is that even possible for you to do?

I guess we'll find out.


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

The Non-feminist Revolution will never be Monolithic - and that's not a Bad Thing

The following was first published in July 2012. It is presented here with slight modifications, to reflect changes in the author's thinking.


There is a school of thought in male-friendly cyberspace which says "keep it apolitical". What this means is, that pro-male partisans should either stay away from established categories of political discourse (such as right-versus left), or stay away from extraneous issues which do not clearly pertain to feminism, men's issues and the like.

There is also a school of thoughtlessness in male-friendly cyberspace, which flaps its gums about all manner of things only marginally related (if at all) to feminism, men's issues and the like. That is for starters. What compounds the original difficulty, is that these same thoughtless ones voice all manner of indiscreet opinions -- which is politically unwise.

Clearly, these schools of thought are at odds with each other.

And they are quite right. You see,  the point at issue, for them is message discipline -- a department of rhetorical discipline. Message discipline is vital if you would craft a so-called "movement"  (political or otherwise) that draws upon topical issues as a rallying point. If you aim to gather followers and gain traction, you must stick to a pertaining set of issues and govern your tongue when you speak of those things.

That said, and speaking as an outsider, I would submit that the so-called men's "movement" is nothing of the kind. Rather, it is a group of people, largely male, who are talking loudly about a variety of things. But all of this loud talk is 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, deals in generalities and doesn't  generally know what the hell is going on. Some of them may enter the building, and walk around, and talk to the musicians separately, and begin to form a more educated understanding. 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.  Yet people persist in using these words because they are, well . .  convenient! They simplify discussion, and even render 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.

Briefly then, whoever simply talks against feminism will be called an "MRA", or a member of the "MRM".

Now, there is nothing wrong with talking against feminism. In fact, talking against feminism is one of the finest things a person can do. It is a noble thing. Feminism is a social cancer, and talking against it is part of the necessary process that will conduct toward the eventual liquidation of this cancer. 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 perimeter.
All hail anti-feminism!
But the trouble is, that whoever simply talks against feminism gets shoved into the same box, willy-nilly, with. . . oh. .  . PUAs, expatriate pussy-hunters, conspiracy theorists, racists, anti-government radicals, tea-partiers, bonafide misogynists, and a passel 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. My point is that, like it or not, the words "MRA" and "MRM" have been crammed into the same jar with the motley crew listed above, even if there is no inherent reason why they should be. 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 a 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 this 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.

Feminist smear tricks are not working because anti-feminist numbers, worldwide, continue to swell. Every feminist slander campaign only helps the cause by giving it 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 truly apolitical, and never will be. 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 in return for the numbers we are taking undisciplined people and their counterproductive baggage on board. Yet directly from this bad news the original good news springs to life 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.

Feminism is a worldview slated for extinction.
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 in the end,  there is no such thing as the "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 "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 travelling companion. "We" can afford to be choosy.

Understand that every philosophy or life-system which grows beyond a certain mass 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 numerically. 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 at once. 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 the social toxin it generated.
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.

I would suggest that some may wish to discard the rhetoric of "men's rights" in favor of a strict anti-feminism message:

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

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Ideas can Travel on their own Legs

It is possible for ideas to appear in the world, and spread, and yet remain untethered to any certifiable point source.