Let's talk about feminism's motivational sequiturs.
Sequiturs are things which follow or "hang together" as a chain of logical consequence: "if A then B, and if B then C". Motivational sequiturs do the same, but in a way that maps an underlying psychology of intention.
Feminism's motivational sequiturs lie buried under the apparent non-rationality and incoherence of feminism's visible manifestations. These sequiturs of motive, which operate at feminism's core, are informed by the following tacit presumptions:
A. Men as a class are collectively accountable for a host of violations against women as a class.If you grant these presumptions for the sake of argument, you will see that the items entail each other as a chain of logical consequence. The motivational sequiturs emerge when you realize that feminism implicitly seeks revenge. That is, revenge may be named as a feminist motivator. But revenge against whom? Revenge for what?
B. Given that men are collectively accountable in the manner described, the localized innocence of any individual male has reduced significance.
C. Given that women are collectively violated in the manner described, the localized guilt of any individual female has reduced significance.
Answer: Against "men", for something that "men" collectively have done to "women" collectively. Or so the narrative would have it.
In other words, feminism's revenge is the revenge of one Collective (women), against another Collective (men).
Understand, that under any collectivist scenario, customary models of assessment which assume individual identity and agency will suffer infringement. The extent of such infringement depends on how deeply collectivism has been instilled into the broader culture. In practical terms, it means that they will push things to a prudential limit - meaning what they can prudently get away, often with a barely restrained "champing at the bit" to push things even further.
At a THEORETICAL limit, if women are collectively the "victim", then by the terms of the alien logic in question no individual female can be held accountable for her behavior - for that would compromise the internal unity of the paradigm.
So in summary, the innocent female Collective cannot (if ostensive consistency were valued) be assembled from members who are either 1.) guilty, or 2.) morally accountable for themselves in any way.
Note that accountability entails the power to make any moral choice at all - meaning, to be a moral agent. The alternative to being a moral agent is to be a moral robot, an automaton, a toy of some mysterious "fate".
Accordingly, the Innocent Female Collective we are describing can only be a set of moral robots. Were it otherwise, it would be inconsistent with itself, thereby compromising the internal unity of its paradigm. Understand that we are not now interrogating the truth or falsehood of that paradigm. We are simply explaining its internal logic.
So the only way to sustain the paradigm is to abrogate the idea of individual moral accountability altogether. So by the terms of the Innocent Female Collective paradigm, every woman ipso facto becomes a moral robot. And, I might add, an innocent moral robot - even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence could enter into the composition of a moral robot. But remember, we are only laying out the internal logic (such as it is) of the paradigm. So bear with me.
Must individual accountability as applied to MEN remain in effect? Even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence enters the composition of a moral robot, is it the case that men too are moral robots? Note that a guilty Collective cannot by its nature encompass members who are even potentially innocent, since to allow even potential innocence defeats the purpose of collective guilt.
So it must perforce be the case that men are guilty...but if guilt implies choice, how can such a thing be? It doesn't appear to make sense, but this is emphatically not my own thinking which I describe, so I am not responsible for that. Thus, it would appear that men are somehow "guilty moral robots". Non-sensical as that may sound, the collectivist guilt paradigm requires it.
Feminism's paradigm deprives everybody - men and women alike - of moral agency. Is THAT the epistemic consequence feminism wants to live with? Even if it leads feminism into trouble? Even if, somewhere down the road, this idea becomes a political stumbling-block?
However, I pass that by....
Feminism's motivational sequiturs are continually working beneath the surface to actualize occult ends through a variety of conflicting means. We have spoken of this elsewhere, as the drive for female supremacy. We have touched upon it also in our discussion of "cognitive fragmentation".
Many things contribute to female supremacy in the long run, even if they are doctrinally conflicting. All that is needed is for each item to enhance the worldly advantage of women in some manner. When you strip away the contradictive bits, you find that the various items share a core agreement in that they all point toward the goal of "more for women". Anything that puts women more at ease in any way puts them at an advantage - which in turn makes them more powerful, both personally and politically. And empowerment of any sort cannot but boost women closer to a state of supremacy - or autocracy of the female will, if you will. As a German feminist , Renate Solbach, remarked, "whatever is of use to women is a good thing."
For nearly half a century, feminism has been walking a fine line of respectability. They cannot openly beat the drum for female supremacy - that wouldn't sound nice. Granted, a few feminists are honest enough to show their hand - but only a few. A greater number will say incredible things that seem to condemn men to the doghouse, but they have plenty of wafflebuggery and piddle-paddle to explain why they don't actually mean what seem to be saying, and that if YOU think they actually mean what they appear to mean, then the fault lies with YOU. Finally, the largest and least vocal number will act innocent and say "I'm not that kind of feminist; I don't hate men; we're not all alike; don't be judgmental!"
Little by little, feminist ideas have seeped into the culture at large - a mainstreaming effect. Alongside of such seepage has come substantive political victory and power gain. Those two things - the seepage and the political gain - are mutually reinforcing and mutually propellant.This has led to an emboldenment of the more radical spirits who, having once tasted the comfort of a growing power base, have made bold to speak more rashly in the belief that the culture at large is finally prepared to hear such things without raising any fuss about it. And to a degree, they are correct in this assumption - although they are courting trouble nonetheless.
Even so, when the radfems get ahead of the curve and become intemperately overconfident and frankly embarrassing - which they tend to do - the less radical ones will try to hustle them out of sight and put a more respectable face on the movement. In this way they hope dampen the suspicions of the world even while feminist machinations continue to creep in the night.
The point is that feminism's motivational sequiturs are always chugging away like an unfailing engine, and always deadly consistent in what they aim to accomplish even when they hide behind a smokescreen of incoherent tendencies and declarations of innocence.
Feminism's occult unity of purpose operates like a submarine, sometimes diving deep and other times surfacing for a spell. We need to recognize it when we see it, and educate the rest of the world to such powers of recognition also.
For example, during the Duke Lacrosse affair the submarine broke surface in its glory and ploughed the swells many a day in blazing sunlight for all the world to behold.
Other times, you'd scarcely know it. Perhaps it is only a bit of deck or a periscope that appears, and only for a moment in the murky light.
Finally, there are long spells where we can only rely on counter-feminist sonar - which, happily, is good and getting better! As the war escalates, we'll want to to drop our depth charges with greater and greater precision.
In summary: Feminism strives continually toward the goal of female supremacy, based upon a theory of collective guilt which is philosophically unsound and apt to trigger a paradigm meltdown at some future date. However, feminism manages its affairs rather effectively for the present by generating a cloud of confusion about its activities in order to cloak the advancement of its designs.
(Note: This article was first published in early 2007, at least 3 years before the word "hypoagency" popped up on everybody's linguistic radar screen.)