The feminists have a peculiar idea that they are the world. They must be disabused of this notion -- slowly, pitilessly, painstakingly. For there is another world, a world beyond feminism, a world with a sovereign life of its own. However, the feminists don't want to think about this, and that is why we say that feminism thinks it is the world.
But again, there is a world beyond feminism -- and we are that world.
The project of feminism, as we all know, is to
increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit and no clearly
stated plan to cease operations at any discernible time. In pursuit of
this project, feminism has for many years conducted a campaign against men
and all things male, on all fronts large and small. Men as a class have been
targeted for hostile actions meant both to deprive them of the tangible
and intangible goods of life, and to redistribute those goods to women.
So in practice, the effect of
feminism is to promote the ascendency of women, and make the ruling
power in most areas of life, both large and small, a female power. We don't enjoy sounding melodramatic; we are just telling it like it is. The feminist
project has taken great strides, and further progress is clearly
projected. For that reason we conclude that feminism is a female supremacist project, and for all purposes indistinguishable from female supremacism.
Understand, that we do not say feminism is similar to female supremacism, or contains an element of female supremacism, or has a female supremacist aspect.
No, we say that feminism and female supremacism are one and the same
object; that the terms may be freely interchanged. And frankly, if you could expel all of the female supremacism from feminism,
then "feminism" would become a paltry, vanilla sort of thing that would
melt back into the terrain of liberal humanism and cease to be salient.
Our decision, to make feminism and female supremacism interchangeable terms, is a linguistic fiat. We,
by our good sovereign pleasure (and backed by long, hard study of reality) have ordained it so. We have made our linguistic choice well knowing that we
ride roughshod over the linguistic choices which others have made.
Still, nothing prevents those others from speaking in their customary
way within their own speech communities.
We understand that not every self-identified feminist
identifies subjectively as a female supremacist. Nevertheless, we
recognize feminism in toto to
be a female supremacist project on an organic level -- and that every
human participant in the feminist project is a contributor to this; a
supporter of this; an enabler of this.
The project of feminism, again, is to increase the
power of women with no proposed upper limit. The effect of this will be
to drive a wedge between men and women by generating a disequilibrium of
power. So it is accurate to say that the purpose of
feminism (read: female supremacism) is to make men and women "unequal".
Now, the project of counter-feminism is, to isolate
feminism in order to make it available as a target of social and
political operations. The first stage in this project is the rough cut. To isolate feminism is to recognize it as recognizable, and we make it at least roughly
so when we recognize that feminism is one thing, while the rest of the
world is something else. At any rate, we have taken the critical first
step in so doing, and further steps may follow by way of refinement.
rough cut establishes the sector system, meaning the division of the world into a feminist sector, and a non-feminist sector.
This foundational binary composes the bedrock for an entire way of
working and thinking. Little wonder then, that we call it the bedrock binary.
So, the non-feminist sector is a sovereign zone of
existence, inhabited by a range of entities, communities, and forces.
What all of these have in common is that they do not partake of
feminism. The sector is not merely "not feminist" in a
statistical-demographic way, but in a primordial way; it represents
everything in the universe which lies beyond the explanatory competence
of feminist theory -- in sum, all the forces and principles of that
realm. Viewed in this context, feminism is very small and non-feminism
is very large. Indeed, feminism is like a transient pattern of ripples
upon a timeless river.
Female supremacism is nothing if not a war against
men. However, in waging war against men, one engages a bigger
chunk of the universe than just maleness. I mean, that politically
organized anti-male aggression has a collateral effect upon the world at
large because it generates fallout; because it transmits ripples from
one end to the other of the social ecology. This is consequential for
men and women both. And a lot of women will not want those consequences,
because you might say that feminism hurts women too. Such women will know very well how to maximize their advantage when the time comes.
So it works out that the feminist war against men
generates consequences for more than just men. This means that feminist
anti-male aggression is, in the long run, aggression against the
non-feminist world as a whole -- meaning anybody or anything which
might, directly or indirectly, pose an obstacle to feminist plans.
Feminism then, is pernicious to the rest of the world. So again, our master strategy is to ISOLATE FEMINISM.
And having once done this, to commence operations that will dismember
its effective power on earth. Our establishment of the sector system
sets the process in motion. For it is a gesture of
surpassing importance, to affirm that feminism is a definite thing, and
that WE are a sovereign thing apart from it and in no way subservient to it. This, at least, begins to isolate feminism.
And the question "what is non-feminism?" will
naturally arise. This will trigger the question "what is feminism?".
In other words, it will establish the necessary frame. For we know that
not every self-declared non-feminist would give the same answer. No -- not every non-feminist would agree on what feminism is!
Or at any rate, not yet.
But as non-feminist, we may concur that feminism is
not the best plan. That is why we are not feminist. And so whatever we
severally understand feminism to be, we can at least agree that the word
feminism itself cannot mean anything good.
So we can agree that the word itself is contaminated, and that we ought
to place a social stigma upon it. And we can agree that to be not a feminist is a thing of decisive consequence, and that whosoever repudiates feminism must do so with adamantine resolution.
Under the feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly
conditions will obtain. Call this situation F. Under the non-feminist
system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will likewise obtain.
Call this situation N. As non-feminist partisans, we claim that
situation N is preferable to situation F, because it will generate less
human misery in the long term. Our view is not utopian; we aspire not to
a perfect world, but to a less imperfect one.
Having concurred that the word feminism signifies
something not-good, we may likewise concur that feminism itself must be
targeted for corrective operations. But in order for that
to happen, we must concur upon a target -- which brings back the
problem that we have not concurred upon a definition. So it looks like
we must, eventually, somehow, concur upon a definition of feminism. And
having done so, we may at last reach target consensus, so as to know precisely where we should direct our combined operations.
Target consensus, accordingly, reminds us that feminism equals female supremacism.
Counter-feminist analysis concludes this, and we assert that no other
analysis will generate effective political traction. You may agree, or
not, that feminism equals female supremacism -- yet female supremacism as a datum
is not to be doubted. It is out there. It is real. And if you are
serious in opposing feminism you cannot avoid asking how feminism
relates to female supremacism.
How would the absence of one affect the
other, and what is their manner of co-existence? Are those
two things at odds with each other? Are they symbiotic with each other?
Are they part-and-parcel of each other? Or do they run on separate
rails oblivious to each other? If you oppose feminism, and yet believe
that female supremacism is a separate object all by itself, then how
precisely does female supremacism factor into your political
calculations? Do you even think about this at all? How can you not entertain such questions?
I have met certain people who avow that they are not
feminist, yet voice no objection to feminism as such. In fact, some of
their friends are feminists -- wouldn't you know it?
These gentry are practicing, as it seems to me, a misguided liberality
or open-mindedness -- as if they are merely Quakers and the feminists
are merely Amish, and naught of greater import hangs in the balance. I
cannot, by any trial of intellectual pressure, make them agree that
feminism and female supremacism are the same thing. And when I enquire
to know what they think feminism is, they respond with platitudes.
Yes. There is a sizeable centrist party, a tribe of fence-sitters who harbor the illusion of middle ground between pro and anti.
These folk are nearly always stuffed with clichés and marked by the
shallowness of their political understanding, and their understanding is
often saturated by the conventions of feminist discourse. They can't see that their middle ground is only a transitory condition, that
the growth of polarization will finally shrink that ground to nothing.
In the end they will be forced off their fence and compelled to take a
stand -- either to the side of female supremacism, or to the side
So target consensus is the goal of shared
understanding to which we, as non-feminist partisans, direct our endeavor. And the process of reaching this goal is called clarificatory discourse.
In pratice, clarificatory discourse amounts to intellectual
crystallization through broadening circles of discussion. This generates
social mass, or if you will, "gravity" -- which, in the end,
establishes non-feminism as a factor in the equations of power.
Target consensus makes female supremacism the point of
conjunction for all non-feminist understanding of what feminism is.
This permits us to differ at least somewhat, and to benefit from the creative flexibility such difference affords, while sharing a foundational understanding upon points where misunderstanding would compromise our work.
So once again, our master strategy is to isolate feminism.
And to do that, we must clarify the basis of a distinction
between feminist and non-feminist -- both in order to know what feminism
is, and to know what we ourselves are by knowing what we are not.
Having reached that point, we are finally in a position to go forward
with any project of a political nature that might occur to us.
Feminism thrives on fuzzy categories. It is a fuzzy
category itself, and embraces many fuzzy categories, and fuzzy ideas,
within itself. To put that another way, feminism has fuzzy borders
because it merges so gradually with the non-feminist world that it is
not clear where feminism ends and non-feminism begins. This state of
things has arrived by a series of steps, and shall be reversed by a
series of steps. So our first order of business is to make the fuzziness
into something solid, or as we say, to collapse feminism's fuzzy borders.
That is what it means, in practice, to isolate feminism. By creating a
clear border, you create a clear target that you can operate upon.
We have already spoken of the rough cut, which
establishes feminism and non-feminism as the bedrock binary from which
our subsequent understanding grows.
Next, we reject any method of studying feminism which
commences by adopting the feminist worldview, recognizing that any
feminist definition of feminism can only be a product of the feminist
worldview -- a worldview we do not share! As non-feminist, we
understand that you cannot begin within
feminism and then argue your way out of it by using feminist vocabulary
and discourse to pave your road. No. You must declare yourself alien to
feminism as a necessary first step;
you must occupy the Archimedian standpoint, and proceed from there. As
the feminist Audre Lorde famously remarked, "you cannot dismantle the
master's house with the master's tools."
As non-feminist people, we understand
feminism on independent terms, and we do not reach our conclusion through
any feminist chain of reasoning. So our strategy is to reframe the
entire discussion, forcing them to engage the issues on our terms while
roadblocking their customary avenues of evasion.
You don't need to read every feminist book ever
written and refute it line by line. You have NO legal, moral or
intellectual duty to do any such thing. They'll just write more books
anyway, and then what will you do?
The point is to stop arguing with
them on their own terms. Instead, locate their intellectual weak spots
and drill, drill, drill! Pick your battles wisely; many are not worth
fighting. And don't fight your way out of quicksand in which you are not
standing! Stand clear, and force them to come out and engage you on
ground which you have chosen. We don't owe them any answers, but they owe us plenty.
We "study" feminism only as one might study a machine
or a complex system with the intention of wrecking it. The classic
advice to "know your enemy" means knowing him the better to wreck him.
You might think that the best way to learn what
feminism is, is to ask a feminist, right? WRONG. That is one of the
worst ways imaginable, and if you follow that road you it will lead you
hopelessly astray. In fact, feminism is a system of obfuscatory
rhetoric, intended to camouflage the advancement of female supremacism.
There is a perennial tension between what we are told that feminism is,
and what we can SEE that it is. So we map the term "feminism" to a
certain objective pattern of things that we see in the world. That is
our path of knowledge. And we are aware that it overwrites much of the
Clearly, feminism for them is a journey,
and most of their talk is about the smaller points of scenery and
navigation upon that journey. By inviting us to partake in their
talk, or expecting us to do so, they imply that we have consented to
take the same journey ourselves. They have hauled us aboard their train,
and permitted us to wander up and down the train as it hustles us along. And
so, for example, if we agree to explore the merits of one brand of
feminism against another, we are only exploring different locations
aboard the train, possibly in search of the first-class car so we can
travel more comfortably to a place where we never wanted to go. So, if we
truly don't want to go where the train is taking us, we have two
choices: either jump off, or take control of the locomotive.
Yes, whenever a new philosophy or belief system gains
ascendency in a society, it will fragment into a variety of sub-systems
which are more-or-less at odds with each other. Accordingly, those who
originally opposed the new system as a whole are obliged, willy-nilly,
to "pick the lesser of two evils" by taking sides in the conversation
that follows -- and this validates the conversation as a whole. So,
regardless which side prevails, the broader frame of the new system
Very well: for nearly half a century, the feminist
strategy has been to draw the rest of the world into a feminist
conversation. We must now undertake slowly and patiently to reverse
that, and undo that. We must sabotage the entire conversation, and do
this radically. We must inaugurate a counter-narrative that will
confront the feminist narrative along a broad front -- in its entirety! -- and systematically dissolve that narrative like an acid.
Non-feminism is not a ideology or a movement, but merely the rest of the world
-- the part that wants to live unmolested by feminism. It is no duty of
yours, as non-feminist, to defend your lack of feminism. It is the
duty of any feminist, however, to LEAVE YOU ALONE, and to leave the rest
of the world alone. Failure by any feminist or feminist group to do so,
will be considered an act of aggression -- as likewise the entire
history of feminism, especially since the 1960s, has been a cumulative
and sustained war of aggression.
Non-feminism has existed for the entire history of the
human race. Feminism is very, very recent -- even if the elements of it
were always present in undeveloped form. Most recent of all, however,
is the political coterie known as "MRAs" or men's rights advocates. They are a colorful lot, and
they certainly have their share of foibles. Some of them are
transcendental geniuses while others, it pains me to say it, are flat-out
idiots. In fact, they represent the full gamut of human nature in all of
its lights and shadows -- they are nothing if not human!
In that respect, they mirror what the world contains.
But unlike the feminists, they
do not pretend to "be" the world. Nor do they even pretend to "be" the
non-feminist world, for indeed they are not. In fact, they are just one
among a variety of working parts in a developing global organism called
the non-feminist revolution. And yes, they play a catalytic role.
But the men's rights cohort of the non-feminist revolution has
been hyped to a degree that is politically
counter-productive. Furthermore, the feminist-versus-men's rights script is an inefficient dichotomy which serves poorly as a foundational construct. Feminist-versus-non-feminist is a more robust platform. You can build up from it, adding layers as needed.
And there is no "MRA movement". That "movement" exists only in
the feminist imagination: they invented it as a trick to ghettoize
anybody who speaks against feminism. For the rest of us, it is merely a figure of speech,
a shorthand for talking about something too large and complex for
words. After all, we can hardly escape the necessity of talking. Let it
be so, and let the other side chase shadows.
We understand "non-feminist" to mean "against female
supremacism", and we set the burden upon any self-declared feminist to
show that he or she is not a female supremacist. At the same time, we
make clear to them that they can shrug off that burden by simply
discarding "feminist" as a self-appellative. Yes, we make it easy for
them. We do not ask them to give up their personal beliefs about
anything at all. We ask only that they stop sticking the word
"feminist" to themselves. And if they will not agree to this, we classify them as doubtful or suspect people.
We of the non-feminist sector claim the status of an autonomous power with regard to the feminist power on earth, and we
demand the full measure of diplomatic courtesy due to such a position. A
number of behaviors, by any feminist or feminist group,
will be considered discourtesy or outright aggression -- and the
codification of such behaviors will be an ongoing project in the
course of clarificatory discourse. For the good of the entire world, we
advise the feminists to seek non-feminist counsel upon all matters
concerning law, culture, public policy, and the common welfare.
Under the feminist regime, the non-feminist sector has been nothing. Henceforth, the sector must assume its rightful place in the sun and become something.
This concludes the present treatise upon the sector system.