At the heart of the non-feminist revolution lies the project to take
back control of the cultural narrative from feminism. We call this
project the battle for feminism’s soul.
To take control of the narrative means, among other things, to shove a
completely new conceptual reality into the feminist mindspace with no
prior explanation or preparation. For them, it would be like walking
into a movie halfway through — although that comparison hardly does
justice to the radical nature of what we are proposing.
The point is, that they have had more than enough time to tell the
rest of the world what “reality” is. The time has come for them to shut
up and experience life on the receiving end. It is now their turn to
wonder what in heaven’s name is going on, and be impolitely told to “get
with the program.”
The treatment that we would dish out differs little from how they
have treated the rest of the world for half a century. Henceforth, every
settled notion of theirs will be jostled in the common marketplace of
ideas like it was just any old thing. They will be critiqued,
problematized, made light of, or best of all ignored when they try to
express themselves. No more epistemic
privilege of any kind, and no more pampering of their aesthetic
sensibilities or lexical conventions. Thuswise they shall fare. They
will lick it up, and they will like it.
We advocate this as a policy, consistent with the doctrine of
post-argumentalism. Post-argumentalism proposes that argument or debate
has no primacy among the methods we might use to move our project
forward. Post-argumentalism further proposes that argument or debate,
although useful in combination with other methods, is by no means
imperative to the realization of our ends.
For in the end, we are not obligated to argue with a bully, a tyrant,
or a lunatic. We do not delude ourselves that if we craft our words
well enough the bully, tyrant or lunatic will suddenly understand us,
admit that we are right, and begin to act differently. That realization
is a truth which sets us free. So we are free to block their power
unceremoniously, by walking away from argument altogether and moving
ahead with our plans.
Those who specialize in argument, debate or explanation are certainly
free to set up shop doing what they do best, according to their several
areas of expertise. It is not good to waste any natural talent you
might possess. But we have understood that argument or debate are not
the main engine that will press matters forward. Recruitment, networking
and mobilization will do that, independently of whether our enemy is
persuaded or unpersuaded.
Very well. We have drawn our conclusions, and we claim the right to
state them freely and to assume that others are up to speed about what
we are saying. We cannot be bothered to attach a full explanatory essay
to every word or concept, every time we use it, in our spoken or written
communication. So in true post-argumental fashion, we do not argue the merit of our discourse by explaining it. We have explained it for years already, but to deaf ears, so it is time to move ahead.
We must assume that our foundational ideas have already been sufficiently
established by an accumulated history of explanation, and that
adversaries will make some effort to learn the basics before they
converse with us. We must assume that the laborious work of establishing
our ground of meaning has been concluded, and that we may now discourse
with that agreeable speed which is properly the life of conversation.
So any feminist on earth must either sink or swim in the ocean of
ideas that we will generate. If we graciously stop to explain, it is
more than our duty requires, and gratitude is in order. But we won’t
slow down for them, and we will unleash a torrent of new jargons, new
concepts and new frames of reference that will leave them mentally
adrift and bewildered, as if the ground had been ripped from under them and they were bobbing in zero gravity
with no idea of up or down any more.
No doubt they will find this disturbing, and will experience
something like culture shock when they realize that their reactions are
not automatically shared, and that people not only don’t know what the
hell they are talking about, but are rudely telling them so!
Such is the non-feminist invasion of feminist mindspace.
Feminist ideology has been broken to the ranks, and must share the
stage with everybody else. Nothing about the customary feminist
discourse will be shown any deference, any leniency or any right of way
through any discussion whatsoever. Feminism does not “own the
conversation,” and does not set the rules for any
conversation where non-feminist participants are present.
Granted, where none but feminists are present it may be said that
they are “in the feminist clubhouse,” and may order the conversation as
they see fit. But in the forum of humanity, it behooves them to embrace a
more cosmopolitan outlook and “do as the Romans do.”
More and more, feminism’s realm of thought and discourse will
implode, and it will be as if the floodwaters were breaking through the
barriers from every direction, sweeping away every vestige of narrative
privilege they have ever enjoyed and placing them on a footing of
conversational “equality” with any male rights agitator, or any
non-feminist Joe and Sally, they happen to encounter.
They can barricade themselves in the towers of academia for a while,
but in the end the towers too will crumble and be swept away, and they
will have no choice but walk through the world to the beat of a timeless
drummer whom they can no longer ignore. Either that, or go crazy and do
So . . I would prepare for that day, if I were them.
I really would do that. . . . if I were them.
(Note: This article is also available in Romanian.)