Thursday, February 4, 2016

Free because it's yours: the Liberty of the Non-feminist Sector

If you are a non-feminist man or woman, feminism has stolen plenty of things from you. Among these are non-feminist life, non-feminist liberty, and the non-feminist pursuit of non-feminist happiness. Why, they will even steal your non-feminist soul if you let them get away with it!

Please understand that you owe feminism no answers. That is a deep concept, probably deeper than you realize. It is your inalienable right under any condition to say "I am not a feminist", then turn around and walk away. And it is their eternal responsibility to say "OK", and leave you the hell alone to Go Your Own Way in peace. Eternally.

All right, so you are a non-feminist man, or a non-feminist woman. However, you are something more important than that: you are an INDIVIDUAL. Yes, a non-feminist individual, but an individual all the same, an individual first and foremost, a unique and precious snowflake unlike any other. Yes, I said it.

My friend, if you are not a feminist, then so far as feminism is concerned you ARE a special snowflake! They had better get that in their head. They had better get with the program and accept that reality with a good grace.

The liberty of the non-feminist sector is FREE. And why? Because it's YOURS.

One more time: the liberty of the non-feminist sector is free because it's yours. It's stolen property, and you have only to claim it. You have only to stand up and declare "I am not a feminist". Say this loudly if you wish, but if loud is not your style that's okay, say it quietly. The important thing is to say it. Just say it. Say it in a number of ways, explicitly or implicitly, as your style dictates. And don't just say it to yourself: say it so that others can hear it, or see it, or know it. If they too are not feminist, it will make them know that they are not alone.

And if they are feminist? Well all right, they too, in a different way, will know that they are not alone. They will know that WE are with them always, everywhere, and that they needn't ever languish for want of our fine company. They will know that they are surrounded - and what a comfortable, supportive feeling this will be for them. . . yes?

It will inspire them to their best behavior, will it not?  As for us, it will instruct us in the wise maxim to keep our friends close and other people closer.

When they know that they are surrounded, when they know that they are not the only game in town and not the only sentient life form on the planet, it will make them think twice about pulling any funny business with you or your friends. They will slowly back off, and as they do, you and your friends will expand, and stretch, and breathe - occupying social space more freely, and more freely voicing what is in your non-feminist minds.

More and more, you will do this, and the feminist people will give you no grief for it. Not if they are wise.

The post-feminist world will be a kind of post-colonial world, once the colonizing aggressor (feminism) has been expelled. The revolution will progress by stages, as more and more people awaken to the enormity of what feminism has done, and start getting frank about it.

When you claim the liberty of the non-feminist sector (your stolen property!), you repudiate ANY form of feminist governance over your life - moral, spiritual, psychological, existential, intellectual, you name it!

By claiming your non-feminist liberty, you claim your non-feminist identity. Those claims are indistinguishable, and by those claims you make known to the world that feminism does not define you. Granted, feminists can and will attempt to define you, but unfortunately for them they lack the moral legitimacy to do this. Feminism's moral license to govern or define anything at all (let alone YOU) has been revoked - or more accurately, declared to have been invalid all along.

Feminism's purported legitimacy was never put to a plesbiscite. Feminism arrived in our world and lodged itself into place with never so much as a "by-your-leave". It was and is built upon sheer presumption. Nothing better than presumption - followed by a never-ending river of lies which (like any river) grows bigger the further downstream it travels.

The worst of all feminist presumptions, is that feminist theorization about the world trumps every other analysis. Feminist theorization - regarding patriarchy, rape culture, male privilege, male violence, gender roles and the human condition in general - has become the default, controlling paradigm of the greater cultural discourse, with institutional support and legal backing.

Feminism has usurped, by presumption, the power to morally adjudicate nearly every aspect of the the human situation. Yet never at any point did feminism and its ideologues recieve any Divine mandate for this. They simply took it. It wasn't theirs to take, but that didn't stop them. They screamed, they bullied, they slandered, they spread lies. Then they came back and did it again. They have done this for years and believe me, they will never stop. Ever. Not unless a non-feminist force intervenes to make them stop.

So, to morally adjudicate the human situation means to subject ALL moral phenomena to the critical apparatus of a particular ideology. In this case, we are talking about the critical apparatus of feminist ideology in particular.

The feminists seem to think that we non-feminist men and women are morally incompetent to adjudicate matters for ourselves, in a non-feminist way. They  want to be moral dictators, in charge of everybody's rights and wrongs, and they act like it. Unceasingly. It's just another way to make their power hegemonic, and place themselves in control of the greater cultural discourse.

We must intervene and put a stop to that. The feminists are free to view the world through their own ideological lens - after all, it's their brain, their choice. But if they want to put the power of the state behind this and make their view the foundation of law and public policy, then we will rudely tell them to where to get off. In fact, that is what we are doing already. Let's build the momentum, okay?

Here's a final thought which I don't want to omit. Feminism, in common with the authoritarian Left, makes heavy use of collective guilt (or "guilt by association") as a moral bullying instrument. Well here's the good news: when you claim the liberty of the non-feminist sector, you liberate yourself, by implication, from guilt by association.

Any time a feminist postulates a group or category, and tries to shove you into it in order to implicate you in a pattern of collective guilt, said feminist has committed an act of FEMINIST AGGRESSION. As a non-feminist man or woman you are an individual, and can only be judged as an individual -- according to a non-feminist system of moral adjudication.

Think for a minute: "Lack of feminism" is not a group, not a movement, not an ideology. In principle, lack of feminism is nothing more than "the world minus feminism",and among other things that means the world minus all forms of feminist moral adjudication.

Again: the world minus all forms of feminist moral adjudication.

Let that sink in.

The non-feminist sector is nothing less that a cross-section of human nature. It is a full moral spectrum. A "non-feminist" can be almost any kind of person imaginable. Some non-feminists are wonderful people, other non-feminists are terrible people. What matters is that they are individuals.

Or more to the point, non-feminist individuals.

And whatever transgressions non-feminist men or women might commit, they commit them as individuals. Their crimes will be adjudicated individually, in a non-feminist way, independently of feminist moral authority, feminist oversight, or feminist theorization of any kind.

The non-feminist sector, as a cultural space, must become self-aware and must assert the power to TALK BACK to feminism on non-feminist terms. Under this system, all feminist claims and theories, starting with the definition of feminism itself, are radically open to question. ALL of them - bar none.

Non-feminist alterity and non-feminist autonomy shall become the order of the day in every domain , with feminism thrown permanently on the defensive. Non-feminist analysis shall be a guiding force, along with a non-feminist culture of critique and a non-feminist intellectual audit of every last thing pertaining to feminism, leading toward an ultimate deconstruction of the entire feminist worldview.

Friends, claim the liberty of the non-feminist sector. Do it now. Do it today. What are you waiting for?

Claim the liberty of the non-feminist sector. Take back your stolen property.

It's free. . because it's yours.

-----------

Addendum: The Counter-Feminist Cyclopedia (a compendium of liberatory vocabulary), is available here:

http://counterfem2.blogspot.com/p/the-counter-feminist-cyclopedia.html


Thursday, January 21, 2016

Feminist Triumphalism and Feminist Subjectivism

Feminist Triumphalism and Feminist Subjectivism
---------------------


T
oday, let's talk about two very important things that you need to understand about feminism, if you want to take feminism down. These two things are called feminist triumphalism, and feminist subjectivism. They are closely related mental operations, and together they form a set of brackets, or bookends, which hold the entire feminist psychology together.

Feminist triumphalism, and feminist subjectivism.

Feminist triumphalism is the idea that feminism is absolutely, categorically and objectively "right", beyond all further discussion, for all time. Hence feminism is triumphant, and trumps any alternative standpoint.  Feminist triumphalism is the moral bedrock for all feminist thinking, because the feminists are adamant that feminism has achieved an objective moral victory absolved from all further discussion. They will suggest that if you oppose feminism in any way, you are on the wrong side of history. Feminist triumphalism is their dogma, their fixed idea, and the pivot point which their moral universe revolves around.

In their mind, you are morally bound to agree that feminism is RIGHT! It just IS. Feminism is right because it's right because its right . . and that settles it.  And because feminism is right, you must support it, for if you don't,  you are WRONG. You just ARE! And not just intellectually wrong, but morally and metaphysically wrong through every last fibre of your being. In other words, you are a wrong person altogether, on every imaginable level - and I don't think wrongness gets any wronger than that!

So what's the trick, anyway? How do they get to this state of mind, and more to the point, how do they stay there? Why is it virtually impossible to dislodge them from their way of thinking?

The trick is, that feminism controls the language - and this control starts by controlling the word "feminism" itself. Just the word. In other words, feminism is what they say it is because the WORD feminism means what THEY say it means, and not what YOU say it means. At least, according to them.

That brings us to our next topic: feminist subjectivism.

Feminist subjectivism is the feminist notion that non-feminist people don't know what feminism really is. Feminist subjectivism assumes that feminism has one correct universal definition, that feminists have an exclusive right to formulate that definition, and that a feminist frame of reference is assumed within any conversational setting. In the end, feminist subjectivism fails to consider that non-feminist reasons for rejecting feminism might compose some portion of the truth about feminism.

That bears repeating: feminist subjectivism fails to consider that non-feminist reasons for rejecting feminism might compose some portion of the truth about feminism.

We've all seen feminist subjectivism in action. Every time a feminist quotes the dictionary definition of feminism for your benefit. . . there it is!

Beyond that, feminist subjectivism is the default state of mind for any feminist at any time. For a feminist, all people, ideas and situations are processed and evaluated through the lens of feminist understanding - and this understanding grows from the unquestioned assumption that the word "feminism" has a meaning which only a feminist may authoritatively pronouce.

A feminist will set the value of the word "feminism" at X, with X being something irreproachable, something unimpeachable, something that will brook no moral opposition.  In other words, something morally triumphant.

And that brings us back to feminist triumphalism again.

In the end, the whole charade runs like this: feminism is X, X is irreproachable, therefore feminism is irreproachable, therefore feminism is eternally right, therefore feminism is triumphant, therefore you are eternally wrong if you oppose feminism, and if you don't believe that, return to "feminism is X" and start the game over.

Feminist triumphalism and feminist subjectivism are like chicken and egg, and it is pointless to wonder which comes first.

Feminist triumphalism. . . and feminist subjectivism.

Feminist subjectivism is the mental filter through which feminist triumphalism controls the language and reconstructs reality. In the end, feminism operates as the self-appointed gatekeeper of moral truth.

However, what nearly every feminist fails to understand, is that non-feminist people view feminism in a very different light than feminist people do. Non-feminist people either do not agree that "feminism is X", or else insist on deconstructing the entire formulation as such, because they find something radically problematic about it.

There you have it. By taking control of what the word "feminism" means, we can drive a wedge between feminist triumphalism and feminist subjectivism. Hence, we can regain control of the language, ownership of our thoughts and feelings, and ultimately, mastery of our lives. We can also commence disestablishing the feminist worldview, and dismantling the entire power structure built upon that worldview. One step at a time.

Finally, we establish non-feminist as a broad political identity, through our revolutionary act of reclaiming the language. Controlling the definition of "feminism" is our necessary first move in reclaiming the language, with thousands of moves to follow. In this manner, we build non-feminist identity step by step.

Feminism IS what we say it is.

We say it, and we will make it stick. Let no feminist tell us that we "can't do that", since we have clearly done it already.  Furthermore, we are curious to know how they intend to stop us.

Feminist triumphalism and feminist subjectivism. You will find these words useful, and you would do well to make them a part of your lexicon.

Friday, January 1, 2016

Can Feminists and Non-feminists co-exist?

Episode 78 of the Vanguard Report will be an episode unlike any that we’ve had before. Today, non-feminists Fidelbogen and Kevin Wayne will be hosting not one, but two self-declared feminists: Russian Deadpool and Poison Ivy, of the Skeptic Feminists YouTube Channel. This duo recently appeared on the Honey Badgers, and we are glad to have them here as well.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/the-vanguard-report-episode-78-feminists-and-non-feminists-can-they-coexist/

Let’s face it, we are in a growing culture war between two sectors of humanity – the feminist sector, and the non-feminist sector. A lot depends on these two groups getting along on the same planet without stepping on each other’s toes. Today’s episode will be a kind of diplomatic meeting under the white flag of truce. It is important to understand that this is NOT an argument or debate of any kind – it is a conversation for mutual clarification, and that rule will be enforced.

We hope that you can join us for this historic occasion. Pass the word along, and we will see you on Sunday, January 4, 2016.

Cue1: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5ih…
Cue2: http://counterfem2.blogspot.com/p/the…
Cue3: http://counterfem2.blogspot.com/p/saf…
Cue4: https://archive.is/3ix4O

Thursday, December 24, 2015

The Counter-feminist Express

I have created a new blog, where I will be posting shorter material on a more frequent basis. The present blog will be a repository for longer, weightier material.

My new blog, called The Counter-feminist Express, is here:

http://cf-express.blogspot.com

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Worth-based Entitlement

I find no good reason to believe that women are uniquely downtrodden, or that their sufferings in life transcend the common lot of humanity. Moreover, I can see a strong case that men have it worse in many ways.

However, feminist theory maintains that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group, and specifically names women as a "political sex class". Feminist preaching for many years has openly incited women to view themselves in such terms. The last half-century has witnessed a mushrooming growth of women's advocacy groups, lobbying groups, government bureaux, and all manner of special services for women both public and private.

But it doesn't end with blind favoritism toward women. The state of matters takes a malignant turn when you consider that female citizens presently hold a disproportionate power to compromise the well-being of male citizens. As simply as we can put it, women have the power to lie about men with impunity, in a way that seriously harms them. And that power, being vested in laws and institutions, becomes a political power and makes women a political class.

To put this another way, it is not women, but MEN who are "oppressed". Oppression, as feminist theory informs us, is structural. It is rooted not in the power of individuals, but in the power of institutions made disproportionately available to some groups and not others. When the disfavored group feels the institutionally-based power of the favored group like a boot on its neck, only then may we correctly say that "oppression" is taking place. Men (not women) may be considered the oppressed group in today's world because the power of women to harm men is embodied in laws and institutions -- in other words, structurally. If we are to hold the feminists to the letter of their own law, we must insist that they acknowledge this.

What we have related here tilts the political board against men as a group. In light of this, we feel no hesitation in stating that men, as a group, have no political obligation to go to bat for women as a group. Under the circumstances, why should they? Rationally speaking, men would do best to look out for themselves as individuals and to form contracts of mutual assistance in order to multiply the benefit. No consideration, either moral or utilitarian, can inspire me with any sense of duty toward women as a group. This would be true even in the best of times, but is doubly true at present, when men are an oppressed class.

Therefore any individual woman I meet will get special consideration from me only as an individual, and only if she proves herself worthy. And clearly, some will prove themselves worthier than others. This way of thinking entails no "misogyny" because it entails no opinion, either good or ill, about women as a group.

Now, misogyny means disaffection toward women irrespectively. Hence, even if you were to form a bad opinion about every female person on earth, it would not entail misogyny if you had weighed each case on its merits. You would merely harbor a bad opinion about this woman, that woman, and the next woman -- but not about women.

I am far from having evaluated every woman on earth, and I know my life is too short to do that. So I am content to say that I harbor no opinion either good or ill about the huge majority of women, but that as I make their acquaintances I will evaluate them one at a time. Then, according to the case, I will form a social contract binding myself to specific behaviors. Upon that base alone, I will decide what, if anything, I "owe" to the individual in question. In this, I do just as I would do with any man -- I am entirely even-handed.

Yes. Characterization by merit is a first principle, and it frames my conduct toward everyone I meet. Nobody, man or woman, is "entitled" to anything save what I, by my good pleasure, bountifully proffer -- and calculation of merit weighs considerably in that dispensation. In short, I study the manifested qualities of other people in living form, and work from there.

But prudential considerations are always uppermost in my thinking, with an eye to rational self-preservation grounded in a prescience of natural consequences. My policy, then, entails a strategizing sense of  the Kantian hypothetical imperative: "If you want the world to be X, you must do Y and Z." The reason is, that if you fail to do Y and Z, then by natural consequence the world will not be X.

So in the end, although my conduct is governed purely by a moral law within myself, that moral law is framed by the considerations which I have sketched above. I should add that it never hurts to get on my good side. Deal squarely and rightly with me, and I shall be the truest friend you could ask for. Otherwise, things might get sticky.

Feminism views women as an entitled class, and fails to hold them accountable as individuals. I find this both pernicious and unworkable, and for that reason (among many others) I reject feminism as a movement and as an ideology. I disavow it. I disclaim ownership in it.  I repudiate the cultural narrative which it imposes and I wash my hands of any project predicated on any aspect of  that narrative.

Briefly then, I am not a feminist and no power in the universe will force me to become one.

Finally, no woman I shall ever meet may exercise any claim upon me in the name of feminism, or under color of feminism in any form. She is entitled to nothing unless she proves to me that she is worth something.

Such is worth-based entitlement.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Notes: Toward An Efficient Political World-View


This article article was first published on April 12, 2008. It was been edited for clarity and style, and reissued.
-----------------------------------------------------

The will to oppose feminism and its damaging consequences operates, in a fragmentary way, all across the social landscape. This so-called "movement" lacks cohesion. In terms of ideology, strategy and practical organization, it looks like a disjointed rabble of separate mobs armed with torches, pitchforks,and poorly articulated anger. Briefly, a peasant rebellion.

Hence it is no movement at all, but a plurality of "motions" that amount to a sloshing chaos. That some of these angry mobs are as angry with each other as with feminism, thickens the plot.

Putting it simply, our so-called "movement" is a broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population. To call it a movement is a linguistic shorthand, and we must muddle along with this until the language grows to accommodate new thinking.

All the same, our enemies wish to proclaim this thing of ours as a movement according to their orthodox understanding. This helps them, for it simplifies matters and puts their side in a stronger attack posture. If our side looks amenable to customary formulae, they find it easier to forgo the diligence of investigation and chuck us off glibly.

This thing of ours is paradoxical because it both is and is not monolithic. True, it embraces the full moral spectrum of human nature, but that spectrum is hardly monolithic apart from being monolithically human. We are at present little more than a fermentation of disaffected feeling across a range of people. What makes this monolithic for us, is that it conjoins in a shared opposition to feminism and feminism's consequences. This opposition is sometimes articulated, other times not, but at all events it unites us – at least up to a point.

So a certain unity is already ours, because opposition to feminism combines our energy at the root of our endeavor. This does not quite make us a "movement", but it does make us a community of shared intention. That is a foundation not to be neglected, since for want of it nothing further could be built.

Such being said, our task is to see if we can build it further.

Again, the opposition to feminism embraces the full moral spectrum of human nature. Disliking feminism does not make you a good person or a bad person. It simply makes you a person who dislikes feminism – and there are reasons to dislike feminism which cannot be tarnished merely because unlikeable people happen to concur with them.

Yes, human behavior is sometimes commendable and other times otherwise. Yet the fact remains that nobody, commendable or otherwise, enjoys being trodden on — and the more so when they have committed no certifiable offense that would justify such treatment.

When a targeted population — in this case a birth group equal to half the human race — is subjected to such treatment arbitrarily, on a systemic skew, it should come as no surprise that this group will show its displeasure in many ways, and that when it does, some of the action, some of the time, will be blameworthy. Call it the law of averages.

Truly, we confront the full spectrum of human nature here: there is no doubt the world contains all manner of men, and you mustn't expect all of them to react morally when they are immorally treated —although quite a few of them might struggle heroically to do so.

So the unity of our cause lies in our shared opposition to feminism and its damaging consequences. Such is the bedrock we stand upon. That alone—no more, but certainly no less. For it comes to this, that our shared opposition draws us all into a shared perimeter of operations or, if you will, a sector. And please note that a sector is not a movement, but rather a charted space that renders movement intelligible in terms of its progressions.

Given that the prefix anti is understood to mean opposition, to say that I am "opposed to feminism" means that I am anti-feminist. However, prior to opposition (and a necessary precondition to it) is simple negation. Hence, to declare that I am non-feminist is to assert a thing of greater latitude, greater profundity and, as it may prove, greater utility.

The term non-feminist etches a line through the middle of reality, and by so doing draws into the light of discourse a region of existential space which is not feminism. This act is decisively consequential, as hope to show. It is of course a political line in the sand—that much verges on the self-evident.

Yet the thing is not merely political, but in addition metaphysical. The category of non-feminism, as we understand it and would have it understood, poses a counter-claim against feminism's usurpative self-investiture of hegemonic privilege. This counter-claim operates elegantly, by directing attention to a
quintessentially constitutive fact about feminism iself: that it both claims universality and aggressively aspires to it.

We consider feminism's claim to be grandiose, and we believe that it crosses into the territory of hubris. We consider feminism's aggressive pursuit of its claim to be pernicious.

But to say that feminism "claims universality"—what meaning has this?

It means that the partisans of feminist doctrine assert that a certain body of theory—of which they are the custodians—holds a legitimate sovereign right to subsume all of human life within the purview of its explanatory
discourse.

And to say that feminism "aggressively aspires" to universality—what meaning has this?

It means that the partisans of feminist doctrine seek by all possible contrivance of law, pedagogy and propaganda to advance feminism's claim into the realm of WORLDLY FACT—both within the fabric of cultural and institutional life, and within the private lives of as many private citizens as might be drawn into the moral gravity-well of feminist theory.

Non-feminism both bears witness to these facts about feminism, and stands as a roadblock against them. The minute you say "non-feminist", you are (so to speak) advertising a competing product and demanding a rightful share of the market for that product. Feminism, you see, not only claims a monopoly upon truth, but likewise claims a mandate to exercise unhindered political muscle on behalf of that monopoly. But the claim is spurious; the claim is a bubble. A way is needed to pop this bubble—and the simple notion of non-feminism is just the pin for the job!

When the term "non-feminism" presents itself without explanation and yet apparently demanding respect, how can a feminist argue against it? The answer is: uphill, and with difficulty.

"Non-feminist" says both a lot, and not much at all. It says a lot because it surveys a lot of territory, but it says not much because we are not told much about what that territory contains. We are told only that it does not contain feminism.

But to a feminist, such negative presentation offers a slippery wall with no grappling points— there is nothing positive to be asserted against non-feminism because the term itself asserts nothing positive in the first place. It bespeaks nothing judgmental - either good or ill—as regards feminism. It bespeaks only ALTERITY.

Non-feminism signifies nothing about itself other than to assert its otherness by its mere presence. It signifies to the feminist, "you are feminism, and I am not." That is ALL it signifies.

Yet this deceptively simple message sets a burden of proof upon the feminist, IN PERPETUITY, to establish feminism as inherently more desirable than a lack of feminism, or inherently more entitled cultural sovereignty.

Simply stated, the non-feminist sets feminism permanently on the defensive, by default, and does this masterfully, without assuming any aggressive posture.

Mere lack of feminism is not a person, not an organization, not an ideology, not a doctrine, and above all not a movement. It is simply the universe exclusive of feminism—and that is a portion of the cosmos greater than 99%. Therefore, non-feminism need not and cannot answer for itself.

How can 99% of the universe "answer for" itself? What in heaven's name could such action possibly entail? No, only persons, organizations, ideologies, doctrines and so-called political movements need to "answer for themselves", because only entities such as those are constricted enough to embody the
possibility of transgression.

Those who speak on behalf of feminism cannot hope to gain the initiative against non-feminism without FIRST making it clear why the rest of the universe ought to be filled with feminism, or interpreted by feminism, or overshadowed by feminism, or by whatever means brought under the sceptre of feminism's imperium.

Tersely stated, feminism must first explain itself. And regrettably, self-explanation constitutes a position of weakness because it differs by merely a shade from self-justification—and self-justification is a defensive posture.

Thus, to be under obligation of explaining yourself is ipso facto to be on the defensive. It is the thief who must explain himself; the magistrate need not. It is the courtier who must explain himself; the king need not.

So, if you simply declare yourself "not feminist", others have no warrant to interrogate you in quest of further particulars. Your non-participation in feminism, your non-alignment in the polarity of its discourse, your cavalier refusal to take its issues as points of decisive personal or spiritual significance,
are simply not open for discussion unless you—in your own good time and at your own sovereign pleasure—feel so disposed.

Still, you may anticipate occasional opposition to this scheme of politesse. A customary knee-jerk response by the typical feminist foot-soldier is to rattle off a list of talking-points pertaining to women's issues. In the mind of the speaker, such a list passes for a "definition" of feminism, and the speaker wishes to drive you into a corner by suggesting that your aloofness toward feminism means that you approve of glass ceilings or the like.

The talking-point trick is simply a way for the speaker to talk past you, and duck the genuine point at issue. I don't mean the speaker consciously goes about to do this, but the net effect comes to the same thing. The speaker presents what he or she personally believes to be feminism, and uses this purely subjective understanding as a yardstick to measure the objective world—in this case, you!

Such is the character of feminist subjectivism. Feminism is an enterprise composed of many people who have only a skewed, sketchy, or compartmentalized knowledge of what they are involved in. It is also an enterprise which privileges theory over reality, and fails signally to factor the real-world result of its theories into its self-definition, preferring rather to lay blame upon the world when things go awry.

For such reasons among others, we are ill-advised to go to the feminists themselves for an account of what feminism essentially IS. The feminists will only explain what feminism is supposed to be, and even those reports will vary markedly. Hence, our quest for an objective accounting must step beyond feminist subjectivism and self-description, and take stock of feminism from the outside, as a phenomenon embedded in a web of ecological relations with things other than itself.

Feminist subjectivism presumes that feminist ideology holds the power to explain all things, and that all things must therefore yield a right-of-way to feminist ideology. The trick works because the majority of feminists are profoundly ignorant of how feminism actually operates. This ignorance is owing to incomplete information about feminism—in other words, partial knowledge.

Partial knowledge begets partiality, toward a personal version of feminism—whatever the feminist speaker believes feminism to be, or wishes it to be. But this personal version, being founded upon incomplete (partial) information about feminism, cannot gather the full scope of what feminism in total does to the non-feminist world.

All the same, this partial knowledge deems itself to possess a complete understanding. Accordingly, if the non-feminist world does not defer to such "understanding", then that very fact must (by the feminist reckoning) be due to intransigence on the part of the non-feminist world — and must therefore count as inculpatory evidence against that world.

Now consider that this mental proceeding is duplicated, with degrees of variation, in millions of feminist or feminist-influenced brains, and it becomes clear that feminist understanding is built upon a subjective platform. Signals from the non-feminist world—which speak of feminism's effects upon that world—would be critically informative in this connection. But such signals are not objectively processed.

In sum, if you wish to know what "real feminism" is, you could as well ask a non-feminist as a feminist. To ask a feminist about feminism is useful if you wish to put feminism on the defensive by forcing it to explain itself. But if you seek pragmatically useful knowledge about feminism as a phenomenon, you should commence your investigation in the border region of feminism's impact upon
the larger world, and only much later convene your court of inquiry with the individual feminist.

So once more, it is feminism's responsibility to justify itself to the non-feminist world—continually and repeatedly if need be, and even until hell freezes over! Feminism is not equivalent to a natural law (such as, for example, gravity) which operates with supra-human compulsion. One cannot "argue" with a natural law or expect a natural law to justify itself.

But as concerns feminism, the case stands rather differently. Feminism is very much a human artifice. It is contrived by humans and imposed by human methods upon other humans—who in theory might not take such imposition kindly and therefore ought first to be consulted.

In the future, we may expect to block feminist subjectivism by an arsenal of methods whose ingenuity will grow in proportion to our research and development efforts. This is to suggest where our study energy should be directed.

In the end, to position yourself as “non-feminist”, is to position yourself as one possessing a moral awareness of the harms which feminism has inflicted.

Yes. Feminism, which presumes to interpret all things, must hereinafter be made to answer searching questions about itself as requital for its presumption. That is quite proper when you consider the metaphysical nature of the case. Did feminism give birth to the rest of the universe, or did the rest of the universe give birth to feminism? If you are like me, you will see straightway that the rest of the
universe knocks feminism behind the eight-ball every time.

Simply put, the rest of the universe supplies the foundation and formative principle which permits feminism to exist in the first place—and that makes feminism itself no better than a ripple on the river.

There is an enormous world beyond feminism, a world enormously more ancient and deeply-rooted than feminism, and feminism is enormously conceited if it presumes to explain everything about that world, or presumes to make its explanations morally binding upon that world.

In the expanded view of things, feminism is precious little and non-feminism is quite a bit. So if you are not a feminist, you have ample territory in which to wander without feeling constrained or in peril of being taken for somebody you are not.

Nobody is entitled to any clarification of your standpoint beyond what the term non-feminist plainly intones. By that I mean, that if you encounter somebody who desires to "preach feminism" at you, you have only to say "I am not a feminist" and then walk away. Having no ground to guess your precise objection to feminism, or even that you have any objection at all, they may not rightfully harm you further.

Or if they assail you with the talking-point trick, stand quietly and let them say their say until their spring winds down. You may, at your discretion, ask them if they have anything to add. Then, deliver something like the following speech:

"None of your remarks have the least bearing upon my reason for objecting to feminism. Since I have not stated my reason, you have no ground on which to  Furthermore, I am bound by no legal or moral principle to discharge my mind upon that point. So, I bid you a good day!"

You might go for the rest of your life and never call yourself anything but a non-feminist. This might be the only such descriptor you will ever need or care to use. I would like to impress upon you that there is no requirement to voice your opposition in terms of a political movement, platform, ideology, organization, or anything at all of a positively assertive nature. To declare yourself not feminist does no more than locate you within the universe exclusive of feminism—which is in no way a "movement", but rather a container of movement, or of predispositions to movement. Yet this brisk little maneuver is a radical decision of enormous political weight.

As earlier stated, the non-feminist part of the universe is a region of existential space. A word previously used was sector, and that is a good terminological choice because it implies cutting or partitioning—which is very much the sense of matters we would like to impart. So from henceforth we shall refer to the universe exclusive of feminism as the non-feminist sector.

The non-feminist sector contains all that is not feminism—and that is a lot. But prior to anything else, and as the name would suggest, it embodies a primordial negation of feminism. Negation is the foundation. With respect to opposition of whatever form, negation is clearly the greater holon. If you declare yourself anti-feminist you must as a prerequisite declare yourself non-feminist. But the reverse is not the case. You can be non-feminist without being anti-feminist, even as you can be non-catholic without being anti-catholic, non-jewish without being antisemitic, or all manner of similar examples.

Again, the non-feminist sector contains all that is not feminism—and that takes in a wealth of scenery. It includes the ridiculous, the sublime, the base, the exalted, the ignoble, the noble—the sum of human nature and all which it encloses or encloses it! Please etch upon your memory that the non-feminist sector is in no way a moral generalization or moral collective.

These two sectors—the feminist and the non-feminist—are merely two opposed systems of human imperfection. One must prevail and the other must sink into irrelevance, because some imperfections are more desirable than others.

Feminism, as we have explained many times, is perpetual revolution — which means that its being is identical with its being-in-motion. And feminist motion can be of only two sorts: advancing or retreating. Thus, for feminism to prosper, it must overflow continually into the world beyond its perimeter, and in the process convert more and more of the non-feminist sector to a subaltern pattern of existence.

That is how feminism aggressively aspires to universality. It doesn't just sit quietly and pronounce an abstract "right" to be the ruling paradigm. It undertakes actively to conquer, and to assert the rights of conquest.
Feminism can do none other than this, for it cannot sit still. If it were not in motion, it would literally not exist at all. Therefore, if feminism is barricaded along its line of advance, it can do one thing only—retreat, and disintegrate within its own boundaries like an empire collapsing from internal decay. Such collapse too, is after all a form of motion.

Given that feminism aggressively aspires to universality, it cannot tolerate the continued existence of the non-feminist sector in any form, whether as opposition or as negation:. Let's consider these one at a time:

Firstly, feminism cannot tolerate the non-feminist sector in the form of opposition, and whenever it  non-feminist opposition, it will call this "reactionary" or "regressive" sooner than look into alternative explanatory models. Such is feminist subjectivism.

Equally, feminism cannot tolerate the non-feminist sector in the form of negation, for the quite simple reason that feminism does not wish to be negated. Any piece of the world which stubbornly persists in "going its own way" is an open affront to any system (such as feminism) which desires to "become the
world", or which claims an unassailable prerogative to do so.

Briefly then, any condition or thing which is distinctly not feminist is an irritation and a threat to feminism because it stands as a reminder that feminism is not the world. That in turn raises the politically loaded question whether anything which is not feminism should be permitted to exist at all.

The only plausibly feminist answer would be NO, but few feminists would care to tackle this head-on because honesty would be politically awkward and therefore not the best policy. Luckily for them, it is easy to sweep such conversations under the rug before they even get started.

So it comes to this, that the non-feminist sector commences with mere indifference to feminism, and rises by degrees through the many shades of active opposition, even to the point of unmitigated vitriol. And yet, to the feminist worldview there can be NO difference among those many shades, for in
the mind of a truly indoctrinated feminist it is all the same whether we merely negate feminism by living blithely as if no such thing existed, or whether we campaign actively with the fixed intention of destroying it. Either possibility pours equally consequential sand into the machinery.

In consequence, the universal and etherically all-pervading feminist undertone says: "Who is not for me is against me!"

This, I submit, is a fact of surpassing importance which ought to stand uppermost in our thoughts. You must realize that they will name you as an adversary if you merely fail to hoist their flag.

Yet it goes deeper, for you must also realize that by your mere existence — your simple presence in the world nothing more—you pose an objective threat to their existence, the very basis of their existence, their entire enterprise. Thus, whatever your posture within the non-feminist sector — be it opposition
or "merely" negation—they will rank you as an objective enemy within their ideological paradigm.

Hence: All opposition is negation, and all negation is opposition. Through the feminist eyeball, that is how the world appears. In their scheme of things, negation and opposition are the same animal, and whatever stands in the way of feminism's universal presumption – be it actively or passively—counts as opposition. It's all the same to them.

In the beginning, before feminism existed, everybody was a non-feminist, and there was only negation. Those were innocent times. Then feminism appeared, making certain claims and demands, some of which appeared reasonable. After a time, the world re-flowed somewhat in order to accomodate those claims and demands. Then feminism came back with new claims and demands, or more detailed editions of the old ones. This time, the claims and demands sounded a shade less reasonable, but still somewhat so. Again, the world re-flowed—and this time in a more detailed way, but a shade more slowly.

Over and over the cycle replayed itself — with such frequency and overlap that it more resembled an asynchronous transformational blur along many fronts. In time, the continually updated claims and demands became tedious in their proliferation of nuance, taking on a more boring and burdensome character, seeming to drain the vital blood of life from the non-feminist sector in a way that could no longer be tolerated.

In addition, the overt reasonableness of feminist claims and demands was declining steadily because the normative threshold of reasonableness itself was steadily declining—owing largely to those small initial concessions which had little-by-little debased the standards defining that threshold in the first place, thereby lowering the bar and admitting further debasement of standards, followed by still more lowering of the bar, and so on.

Such was the slow, steady encroachment of feminist politics into the non-feminist sector. And as the feminist power base grew, so likewise grew feminism's power to roll over anything in its path—culturally, socially, legally, academically, politically, propagandistically, or any other way.

However, as feminism's power multiplied, more and more of the non-feminist sector grew aware of that power, and that power's range of influence. In the course of so learning, the non-feminist sector grew ever more aware of itself as a thing not only apart from feminism, but actively opposed to it.

Feminism, as we have noted, does not distinguish negation from opposition. In the long run therefore, feminism can do none other than greet negation with the same hostility it would display toward opposition. I say in the long run, for there is plenty of non-feminist territory which feminist reconfiguration hasn't quite probed into yet—meaning that life within such territory may go on for quite some time in the naive enjoyment of its proper narrative. But eventually the feminist miasma will creep into such corners also, and when it does, predictable antagonisms will arise.

For sooner or later, the feminist question "what side are you on?" would demand imperiously to be answered. And some people, knowing a phony moral dilemma when they smell one, would flatly refuse to be lumbered with this. Above all other things—although likely in addition to such things—they
would take offense at receiving an ultimatum.

At such a critical moment, an anti-feminist is made.

Yes, when feminism aggresses against non-feminism, certain parts of the non-feminist sector will naturally rise up and take the field against feminism, and in so doing become anti-feminist—by choice, by definition and by practice.

Negation turns into opposition when feminism rudely steps on the wrong people's toes—and to its significant misfortune it does this quite a bit.

Feminism has from the very beginning waged a campaign of steady, escalating aggression against the non-feminist sector. It is only to be expected that the non-feminist sector would rise up against this. If such uprising is not yet evident in all locations clear across the board, it will become so when feminist innovation reaches such critical mass that none may any longer live in blissful ignorance of feminism's true nature.

On that day, it will be as if the feminist effort no longer had any room to exploit the unheroic, pacifistic nature of the average person. This will occur because mere shallow acquiescence in feminist ideas will no longer satisfy the feminist demand for affirmation. More precisely stated, feminist authority will no longer be humored or bought off by such acquiescence and will require some manner of decisive inner change testable for authenticity.

When matters come to such a stand, people in markedly greater numbers will put away their pacifism and wax heroic. When they are backed against that brick wall they will make their decision—be it yea or nay—and the hurly-burly will commence.

In the interim, the term 'non-feminist sector' solves the vexed problem of how to designate ourselves. We may, if we choose, call ourselves non-feminist and nothing more. Yet because the non-feminist sector is not a political movement but only a container of such movement, it can be made to contain whatever the superabundance of our creativity and the exigency of our future needs might eventually require – a rising sea floor destined to become a new Atlantis, but first showing only scattered islands which in time will grow and merge.

The non-feminist sector is everything. In the feminist order up to the present it has been nothing, but it must now assert itself and become SOMETHING.

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:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mega-featured/moving-against-feminism-means-moving-toward-target-consensus/

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-hymen-no-diamond-group-searches-for-beautiful-virgin-brides-wtf_560558e1e4b0dd85030730a9

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:

vanguardreport@usa.com
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.