The following is one possible definition of feminism:
A special advocacy movement for women which incorporates hatred of the male sex as an occult driving force.
characterization begs justification—a task (one of several) which I
have set for myself. I am aware that many self-described feminists see
themselves as people of good will and would feel aggrieved by my clear
description of feminism as a hate movement. I understand their position
and get no fun from trampling on their susceptibilities, but a higher
imperative operates here: the truth must be told even if it stings.
present description of feminism, as I hope to show, comports very well
with the pragmatic truth of our world. Feminism deploys estimable
principle as a kind of window dressing or rhetorical skin. To peel back
this skin and probe the concealed workings of the underlying organism
shall be our present endeavor.
To begin: feminist ideology is incoherent.
It has meant so many things in the mouths of so many women's advocates
that it appears to mean everything and therefore nothing. But not quite
nothing; women's advocacy is a constant, even if a colloidal suspension
of mutually exclusive things are advocated. Feminists themselves have
admitted that there are "many different feminisms" and I shall not
dispute them. I believe they speak accurately.
feminists themselves I have only heard one declaration that comes near
to a coherent description of their movement, namely that it seeks
"equality" between men and women. This desired outcome of sexual
equality appears to be the sole wire connecting the many beads of
women's advocacy. Otherwise the women's movement appears to be a
free-for-all, a scattered constellation of clutter with no particular
center and no especial perimeter. I say appears, and my choice of words is considered.
The principle that feminism seeks sexual equality should theoretically
instill coherence into the movement. Yet given that equality is an
essentially contested concept, lacking coherence outside the realm of
mathematics, it offers nothing better than mud beneath the mud.
"Equality" emerges as a fuzzy, shifting object—one that can never be
entirely nailed down because men and women can never be fully "equal" in
every possible situation or every
conceivable nuance of meaning which the word might be understood to
convey. Consequently, the feminist ideologues can go on churning out new
demands for "equality" until hell freezes over—a bottomless bag of
So much for coherence. Our examination leaves only the aforementioned rhetorical skin, a mere surface
coherence which upon closer inspection proves disingenuous. We end with
a nagging suspicion that feminism preaches "equality" only for public
relations' sake while covertly meaning something altogether different.
altogether different "something" is what presently holds our interest. I
shall contend that, despite appearances, feminism does in very deed
embody a deep organic consistency. However, the plan of this consistency
cannot be clearly exhibited until we brush aside (rather brusquely)
what feminists say about themselves and see the facts flat-on, with
vision unencumbered by doctrinaire models of political discourse. From
such scrutiny a picture emerges. Not a pretty picture to be sure, but
one that explains the world in a way that is usefully frank, and frankly
Feminism hides (occults) its nature by what we shall term cognitive fragmentation.
fragmentation means that feminism pretends to be many different things
so that the controlling core of the movement appears to be just “one
kind” of feminism among many. This follows from our earlier statement
that feminism lacks coherence.
Feminism embraces many jostling
particles which by logic ought to exclude each other. Yet certain
binding forces prevent the mass from flying altogether apart. These
binding forces keep feminism compact enough to operate as a political
entity on the field of power.
By means of cognitive
fragmentation, feminism turns what might seem a drawback into a distinct
advantage. Cognitive fragmentation means that feminism appears to be
this and this, and that and that, and that other thing over there too!
No end in sight! Consequently the movement can work on a hundred
different projects from a hundred different directions, with each module
enjoying immunity from most of the others. Thereby the movement as a
whole gains deniability. The right hand "knoweth not what the left hand
doeth" or else pretendeth not to know.
feminism harbors many schools of thought and shades of opinion, many
sects and coteries. Often these appear harmless; when their adherents
are challenged regarding the occult nature of feminism as a whole they
can easily pass the buck by declaring, “oh no, I’m not that kind of
feminist!”—a perpetual round-robin of “they went thataways!” The radical
feminist “bad guys”, so it appears, are always just over the hill. Then
they're over the next hill, and the next . . .
the world contains many kinds of feminism—some better, some worse. And
it contains many kinds of feminists: we could measure the feminist
population purely as a cross-section of human nature without even taking
ideologies into account. And a reasonable thinker might well expect to
find, somewhere in that woodpile, a veritably “bad” feminism along with a
number of correspondingly bad feminists
engaged in its practice. This does not broach the borders of the
fantastical. To suppose that such bad feminists veritably do exist,
neither violates the strictures of probability nor warps them by a
It is critical to understand that feminism
did not float down from heaven on a gold plate. Feminism is by every
measure a product of the human condition on planet earth, complete with
the trimmings you might expect. The dirt, the deceit, the sham, the
shadows, the smoke, the mirrors . . . and all the rest.
phrase "not that kind of feminist" has revelatory importance because
the speaker confirms the existence of "that kind of feminist" in the
first place. Even feminists themselves acknowledge "that kind of
feminist" as a real part of the world.
Feminism occults its operative core
by making that core appear as only one “kind" of feminism among many.
You are encouraged to ignore it, to overlook it, to lose track of it, to
think positive thoughts—while scanning the entire smorgasbord of
feminisms in a distracted manner . . . .
fragmentation literally fragments the knowledge of the observer, placing
the observer in a state of false consciousness as concerns
feminism—unable to cognize its occult unity. Think of this as a
variation on "divide and rule"—feminism divides itself in order to rule the target's mind by dividing his awareness.
Cognitive fragmentation operates also within the mind of the individual feminist, as a prophylaxis against cognitive dissonance.
is the modus operandi, as trenchantly as can be stated: any critique of
feminism will be met with either screaming histrionics, or a cool
assurance that the critique is invalid because the thing it criticizes
isn't really feminism. Feminism is adept at sliding out of its skin like
a snake and slithering away intact.
Granted that many
feminisms exist, it is remarkable how they all appear to converge toward
a realization of female supremacy, as if this were a one-point
perspective goal on the time horizon. One might suppose the feminists to
have agreed upon a division of labor. Whether this happened on purpose
or whether it “just happened” seems a point of secondary interest.
Either way it happened and keeps happening.
that seeks "more for women" can be harnessed to the wagon of female
supremacism. Even if the "more" in question seems innocuous and not the
least man-hating, it can theoretically put women in a stronger
position—which marks a step closer to the goal! Man-haters are fine with
that sort of thing.
It requires no particular audacity to see a conspiracy in all of this. Etymologically, to con-spire means to breathe together—although
a metaphorical kind of breathing is meant, suggesting a group of people
mutually attuned to the point of synchronous aspiration. If conspiracy
seems too strong a word maybe “connivance”, “collusion” or "complicity"
would be more to your liking. Whatever your preference, you will find it
illuminating to understand feminism as an affair of kindred minds working in concert across a range of vocations. To understand it otherwise would favor an imbalance of probability.
This range of vocations
gives the feminist machine its orchestrated character, its pervading
sense of holographic globality—which to the average male feels like
something condensing from the air and percolating from the cracks in the
earth. And it happened all at once. Plenty of ordinary men during the 1990s felt backstabbed or violently ambushed for no good reason. One day the average fellow woke up in the middle of a Kafka novel. Everyman as Joseph K.
an extreme, feminism's mission will be accomplished when any woman has
the power to lead any man around by the nose—anywhere, at any time, for
any reason. Which is to say that any third-rate female could lord it
over the finest man who ever lived. That is what they really want, and
all of their activisms, all of their insistences, all of their campaigns
both large and small, point incrementally toward the fulfillment of
this goal, however far in the future such fulfillment may lie. That this
goal will never in all likelihood be realized, matters not; they can
still dream of it and plunder aplenty along the way.
Yes, the world contains many different feminisms and they all belong to the same elephant. A blind man would overlook this.