The Purpose of this Blog

This blog is a meme-dispersion apparatus. It is called "counter-snippets" because it features snippets of counter-feminist philosophy -- sometimes one or two sentences, but typically a short paragraph. Each snippet is designed to be memorable and to stick in the reader's mind. Having done so, it may take root and grow like a seed

The targeted mind may embrace the material or reject it. That doesn't matter. The goal is to spread memes and to infuse a certain intellectual flavor into the cultural ideosphere. And we propose to accomplish this, as metaphorically suggested, by scattering seeds upon the wind.

Onside persons are invited to participate in the work by propagating these snippets in the ideosphere through such media as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, e-mail, hyperlinks, and physical paper in the offline world.

Observe that I have "pinned" this post by future-dating it.. The post will always be at the top of the stack, so if you want to see the latest entry, look to the item immediately below it. 

To become a Twitter follower, look up @fidelbogen

Note the Share buttons that are conveniently placed at the bottom of each post. Use them. 

The Ecological Nature of the Difficulty

There is a male social ecology. Likewise, there is a female social ecology. But prior to both there is a social ecology plain and simple, a big round one that embraces men and women equally and flows back and forth between them. Face it: men and women live on the same planet, their physiologies are overwhelmingly the same, they drink the same water and breathe the same air, they are indispensable to each other as a species, and their well-being is interwoven in a multitude of ways that we needn't ever hope to unravel .

And yes, feminists love to trumpet the idea that women are the "ecological" sex, the ones who incarnate the virtues of relatedness, interdependence, intuition, holistic feeling and the like. I'll omit "women" from the discussion here, but I cannot miss the monumental irony that there is nothing ecological about feminism, which in its holistic praxis has been female-solipsistic right through, to say nothing of supremacist. For all of its green rhetoric, the women's movement has persistently acted oblivious to the sexually interdependent nature of human well-being.

For you see, women's well-being is not some 4X monster truck which you can drive anywhere you please, flattening the fences and flowerbeds and running over men's well-being as if no such thing existed. No, you cannot wreck half of a social ecology without repercussions upon the other half. Forgive me for belaboring the obvious, but you cannot poison just half of a well. The poison will spread quickly to the other half, and when it does, you cannot blame that half for the consequences.  If you threw the poison in the well, then YOU are the one to blame.

Without Radical Feminism, There Would be no Feminism at All

When you expose radical feminism to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze, then at least in theory you kill it. And you kill the rest of feminism too. For the moderate feminisms owe their existence to the existence of  radical feminism. Radical feminism is the driving element which keeps ALL of feminism dynamic. Subtract radical feminism and the rest of feminism would grow anemic and devoid of purpose, and eventually fade away.

This throws an instructive light on the cliché that "not all feminists are like that". You see, it is not even necessary for all feminists to be "like that", provided only that some feminists are. That is all it takes. Feminism as a whole plows its destructive furrow through the world by the combined work of all feminists -- even the moderate ones. But the radicals are the real powerhouse, willing to drive the venture toward unthinkable frontiers. The moderates, whether they admit it or not, serve mainly for camouflage because no matter how far the radicals push the envelope, they will always seem comparatively reasonable -- the "good cops" in that timeless game.

Understand, the moderate feminists are not much about pushing the envelope. That is what the radicals do. But when the envelope indeed gets pushed, the moderates can always be counted on to fill up the space which the pushy radicals have opened for them. The mainstream is always migrating in a more radical direction, and so the future of liberal feminism is always radical.

Death to Feminist Buzzwords!

Nearly all the jargon of feminism ought to go in the cliché can. Individual words such as “misogyny”, “patriarchy” and “equality” are used in a mystificationary way, with creative latitude. I find that people who bandy these expressions are either mentally unclear about what they are saying, or attempting for underhanded reasons to conflate something with something else.

The word “misogyny” will serve as a prime example. It is almost never honestly used any more, and is typically a way of smearing or silencing whoever is deemed to have wrong opinions on certain topics. More often than otherwise, the speaker will use this word as something to hide behind.

As an exercise in semantic hygiene and intellectual probity, people ought to rethink their use of this word and even do a bit of soul-searching if that proves necessary. Every time they feel the urge to slip “misogyny” or “misogynist” into their communication, they should stop and think carefully about what they are actually trying to communicate. Then they should pick from the smorgasbord of possible meanings the one item which maps precisely to their actual thought, and use either an exact term or a short descriptive phrase to convey this. Such exercise might force people to think outside the box, but at least it will keep them on the straight and narrow.
 
Taking this to a still higher level, why not place a moratorium on ALL use of “misogyny” or its derivatives. Ditto for nearly every keyword in the feminist lexicon. After all, these are clichés, so why not give them a rest?

What is to be Done About Female Supremacism?

Feminism, as we know, means the same thing as female supremacism: these terms are interchangeable in a way that might as well be algebraic. And female supremacism may be defined as the idea that female supremacy ought to be instituted in practice. However, I would warn one and all that any effort to establish female supremacy as a living reality will eventually backfire -- not only upon feminism and feminists, but upon women generally. And the consequences are bound to be ugly: "girl power" will not be as fun for girls as some might wish to believe. Instead, it will give rise to a stressful, mean-spirited and dangerously unfriendly world -- a ratty world, a loveless world, a world of moral desolation as far as the eye can see.

And many women, whom I will term "women of conscience", are painfully aware that this is what the future holds unless steps are taken, and right soon, to turn things around. It is to such women in particular that I address the momentously important question: "What do you mean to do about it?"

Trust Issues and Feminist Plans

Men can no longer reasonably trust women: that is a fact of overshadowing importance nowadays, and I blame feminism for bringing this about. It is not a healthy situation as I am sure you will agree, but given the arrangement of the current legal system, every woman is a potential betrayer to every man, and no man with any self-respect or any mind to his own safety can afford to overlook this.

Simply put, men are now second-class citizens, so it is not quite reasonable to demand a first-class attitude from them, is it? It is not quite reasonable to demand that they care, is it? The feminists love to bang the gong about "misogyny", but I would hold feminism responsible above all other forces for creating misogyny, for having fostered the conditions which guarantee the natural growth of it.

Men can no longer reasonably trust women, while at the same time too many women have been corrupted by the "empowerment" which feminism has secured in their name. It takes no brains at all to understand that this will never foster a loving attitude, by men, toward women. On the contrary, it can only fuel a downward spiral of animosity on both sides. But the feminists wish to see this very thing happening. For them it holds a vital importance because it keeps their cult alive.

The Growth of Ill-Feeling Between the Sexes

Feminism has no reason to encourage the growth of moral intelligence among women at large, but every reason to encourage the opposite -- and to blame men for the social dysfunctionality which follows.

And feminism's void of edifying discourse melds seamlessly with the human proclivity to be lazy and venal. This proclivity is common to both men and women, but here the tendency is one-sidedly encouraged among the female population: women are led to believe they can do no wrong, while men may suffer an adverse construction of any word or deed.

All things considered, it is small wonder that a lot of men look at women in the aggregate and see complicit sheep at best and feministically-minded man-haters at worst. It is a combination of factors which can only breed misogyny. Yes: under certain conditions mildew will grow. Likewise, under certain conditions misogyny will grow. Given the necessary conditions, we can predict either outcome.

The "Good" is Separable From Feminism

The respectable or noble parts of feminism do not compose feminism's soul because they do not quintessentially belong to feminism. Rather, they belong to the world at large, to the realm of liberal humanist homily, to the body of traditional opinion about fair play, common decency and the like. And if these were broken loose from feminism they could just as well sail under their own flag. Certainly, they do not require a new-fangled monikker like "feminism". And yet they obscure the vital presence of that OTHER feminism, the not-nice kind which operates only to boost the female-supremacist agenda.

Already, I can hear a howl of protest. "No! That's NOT what feminism really is!"

And I would reply: "Bad luck! You've had YEARS to tell the world what feminism really is. Now the world tells feminism what feminism really is!"

Feminists and Traditionalists are Natural Bedfellows

The dark side of female nature is routinely swept under the carpet, or excused, or "prettied up" in a number of ways. Such rationalizing behavior (often loosely termed "chivalry") has deep roots in the culture at large. Clearly then, it long predates the radical 1960s when the current feminist regime got started.

And that feminist regime itself is as much an offshoot of historically existing culture as anything else is. It did not pop into the universe out of nowhere; it grew from what existed. And so the feminist principle that women can do no wrong taps into the same chivalrous "patriarchal" order from which it arose. It draws upon the deep-structural gynocentrism of the "sugar and spice" tradition, and perpetuates that tradition in a disguised form.

Feminism aims not to terminate the so-called patriarchy but to turn it into something controlled, firstly, by feminist men and women, and secondly, by "white knight" gynocentrists from the ranks of traditionalists. In the end, the group in the crossfire will be men who, by whatever combination of methods, minimize female control over their lives. Feminists and traditionalists would both harbor a natural antagonism toward that group.

Worth-Based Entitlement

At present, female citizens enjoy disproportionate power to compromise the well-being of male citizens. That power, being vested in laws and institutions, becomes a political power and makes women a political class. This tilts the political board against me, and in light of that fact I have no political obligation to go to bat for women as a class. Under the circumstances, why the hell should I?

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 women 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 female person 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. And upon that base alone, I will decide what, if anything, I "owe" them.

The Non-Feminist Invasion of Feminist Mindspace

At the heart of the non-feminist revolution, lies the project to take away 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 dump an entirely different conceptual reality upon them with no prior explanation or preparation of any kind. 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. Now it is their turn to shut up and experience life on the receiving end.

The treatment that we would dish out, differs in no essential point from how they have treated the rest of the world for nearly half a century. From henceforth, every settled notion of theirs will be jostled in the common marketplace of ideas like it was just any old thing. No more epistemic privilege of any kind, and no more pampering of their aesthetic sensibilities or lexical conventions. Thuswise they will fare. And they will lick it up, and they will like it.

To Control or to be Controlled

The meaning of the verb "to control" varies to suit what the feminist agenda requires at a given moment. For example, the feminists like to say that "men must control themselves", but they only say this in a certain context. In a different context, a man who indeed controls himself might be condemned by them as a "control freak" or the like. However, they want no man to control himself in such a way that women cannot regulate his existence. In other words, they want every man to govern himself under the feminist occupation -- or to "work with feminism" as they term it. But make no mistake, they don't look kindly upon any man who is spiritually autonomous and self-respecting.

What Feminism Can't Argue With

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.

You see, "non-feminism" 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.

So what's to argue with?

You might go for the rest of your life and never call yourself anything but a non-feminist. You mightn't ever need or care to use any other political tag than that. I would like to impress upon you that you need not voice your opposition in terms of a movement, manifesto, mission statement or anything positively assertive. For to declare yourself non-feminist does no more than locate you within the universe exclusive of feminism -- and that is all you need.  It is a brisk little maneuver, but it carries enormous political weight.

What is the Non-Feminist Revolution?

The non-feminist revolution is not a "movement", but a largely unconscious demographic upwelling of resistance to feminism and its consequences.  It is an objectively historical process, of a spontaneous, organic and amoral character. We did not instigate this "revolution". We merely recognized it and gave it a name.

In the end, the non-feminist revolution is not an identifiable human target group. Rather, it operates as a cloud of forces manifesting through human actions which can sometimes be politically linked to each other, but other times not. And ever since recognizing the objective reality of the non-feminist revolution, our concern has been to harness the energy of it so as to make it politically efficient. 

To make the non-feminist revolution politically efficient means both to minimize the transit time from a feminist world to a post-feminist world, and to minimize whatever chaos and human misery might attend that process.

Left-Feminism is a Blood Sucker

Gynocentrism is what binds feminism together across the political spectrum from left to right. The left differs from the right because it adds leftist ideology to the gynocentric mix. This "empowers" women to do a lot of things which traditionalism would not permit. You might say that the 'left' gives women a whole new set of power tools.

And yet, please observe that there is no general feminist outcry for women to give up traditional gynocentric advantages from the the right (i.e. chivalry). That makes perfect sense because if women actually did give up those traditional advantages, it would make the left version of feminism collapse and expire. 

In the end, the feminist left gets the bulk of its blood supply from the feminist right.  And that blood supply is nothing less than old-school gynocentrism.

The Femplex -- Feminism's Cultural Supply Chain

Feminism may be defined as "the project to increase the power of women". Once we get that axiom firmly anchored in enough people's brains, things can begin to move forward.

In other words, feminism is FEMALE SUPREMACISM. And whatever supports or boosts the female supremacist project is a part of feminism's cultural supply chain -- otherwise known as the Feministical Operations Complex (or "femplex" for short).

The femplex extends throughout the entire culture --- all of it, not merely the 'left' or the 'right' of it.

The word "feminism" generates confusion because it is applied to some parts of the femplex, but not others. In consequence, whoever would mobilize against what feminism has wrought lacks an efficient way of thinking and talking about the situation. Clearly, an holistic understanding must be imparted to such people.

Feminism's Essence is Visible to Outsiders from Where They Stand

If feminists were honest, they would call themselves what they are: female supremacists. But they can't afford to be honest because they are playing a game of stealth and they need to be surreptitious. So they call themselves "feminists" because it is easier to sell that name to the general public.

The complete phenomenology of female supremacism outdistances what any given feminist would openly acknowledge to be feminism, and the word feminism itself operates as a misdirection of attention. So if we marshall our understanding according to feminist categories, we will never stop looking where the feminist finger is pointing, and that finger will never point us toward victory or truth. Indeed, it will never point us toward anything but a continually evolving female supremacist future.

And that is why we should brush aside quite brusquely what feminists say about feminism. We non-feminists in general, and men in particular, are on the receiving end of feminist innovation. The impact is on US, so we have a perfect right to say what feminism is or isn't from our own end of the transaction. Our input upon that point is as valid as any. We know best of all where the shoe pinches our foot.

Taking Control of the Definition and the Discourse

In the end, we aim to establish two things: firstly, what feminism IS. . . and secondly, whether it is DESIRABLE. Up until now, the feminists have held a monopoly of discourse in this realm, thought-policing the avenues of conversation leading into it or out of it and transforming the world of respectable mainstream opinion into an echo chamber where only feminist questions are permitted to be raised, and only feminist answers permitted to be formulated.

Not surprisingly therefore, the feminists have concluded that feminism is both desirable and honorable. However, they have consistently shrouded in fog the plain and simple definition of feminism, making available so many so-called "answers", and such inadequate ones, that there is effectively no answer at all. And that, I submit, is the weak point where we as counter-feminist seekers of truth must begin our drilling operations.

Feminism Has Reason to be Fearful

Supporters of the feminist regime are getting scared. I have a keen nose, and I can smell their fear in the wind. Well they should be fearful. If I were them, I too would be brimming over with fear and guilt, and I would be pulling back into my shell with all deliberate speed, doing as much damage control as possible along my line of retreat. Then I would stay out of sight for a good long while, quietly licking my wounds and pulling my thoughts together. Yes, that is what I would be doing if I were them. I speak from a place of empathy. Get it?

Very well. When all of this is over, when the smoke has cleared and the dust has settled, post-feminist society will differ profoundly from both feminist society and pre-feminist society. The lessons of history will need to be instilled -- and I mean pedagogically instilled! -- and the culture will need to be transformed in such a way that this kind of thing never, never, ever happens again.

You Can't Dismantle Feminism With Feminist Tools

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 that worldview -- a worldview we do not share! As non-feminist philosophers, 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.

The radical feminist Audre Lorde once famously remarked that "you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools." As non-feminist philosophers, we understand feminism on independent terms, and we have not formulated our conclusion through any feminist chain of reasoning. So our strategy is to reframe the entire discussion, forcing them to engage our issues on our terms while roadblocking their customary avenues of evasion.

Simple Message to the General Female Population

Feminism has driven you fifty miles out into the country and left you there to fend for yourselves. Yes, it is unwise to take rides from strangers. Now you've got some walking to do, but hopefully the exercise will prove beneficial. I am the messenger.

To Be Not-Feminist, is a Serious Decision

As non-feminists, we may concur that feminism is not the best plan. That is why we are not feminists. And so whatever we severally understand feminism to be, we can at least agree that the word feminism itself cannot mean anything good. We can agree that the word is contaminated, and that we should brand it with a social stigma. 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. It is no light matter to say you are not a feminist. It is a weighty decision, and not some passing fancy that you will toss away tomorrow like a will-o-the-wisp, only to snatch it back two days later so you can toss it away again.

So again, we have concurred that the word feminism signifies something not-good. And having done this, 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 operations.

Gynocentrism and Gynonormativism

Gynocentrism is the practice of placing women's safety, comfort and general well-being at the center of social or political concern, and structuring life in the objective service of such interests. It extends no further than that, and would NOT include placing the feminine point of view at the center of one's worldview. That is to say, gynocentrism does not violate the boundary of inner space by requiring a person (male in particular) to think and feel a certain way. In sum, gynocentrism is not totalitarian.

Gynonormativism goes the extra step. Using gynocentrism as a foundation, gynonormativism prioritizes the feminine point of view hierarchically within the culture, on both a political and interpersonal level, and pressures males in particular to adopt a feminine system of values as a component of one's authentic personality.  In this manner, gynonormativism is totalitarian. We would understand feminism as a gynonormative project, while acknowledging that it could not have come into operation without a preexisting base of gynocentricity in the traditional culture.

Gynonormativization is integral to the establishment of female supremacy.

Middle Ground is an Illusion

There is a sizeable centrist party, a tribe of fence-sitters who harbor the illusion of middle ground between pro-feminist and anti-feminist. These folk are nearly always stuffed with clichés, marked by the superficiality of their political understanding, and saturated by the conventions of feminist discourse. They fail to comprehend that their middle ground is a transitory condition and that the growth of polarization will finally shrink that ground to nothing. In the end they will be squeezed off their fence and forced to take a stand -- either to the side of female supremacism, or to the side opposing it.

Female Wrongdoing is Quickly Forgotten

I would wager some smart money that if you tallied up the evil which men do in this world, and the evil which women do, the two would perfectly balance each other on the scales of karma. I have yet to see anybody make a plausible case otherwise. But friend, you and I know how the world works. Male wrongdoing is deemed inherently more newsworthy, and treated accordingly. When a man does something spectacularly BAD, it is naturally a spectacle and the chattering classes will chatter on and on about it. When a woman  does something spectacularly bad, or worse, does something unspectacular but more significantly bad, the story will get a brief notice -- very much like a rock tossed into the ocean which makes a quickly-forgotten splash before it sinks out of sight forever.

Can Feminism and Female Supremacism be Packed into Separate Boxes?

Counter-feminist analysis concludes that feminism and female supremacism are interchangeable terms, 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. It is a part of the world. And if you are serious in opposing it you cannot avoid asking how it relates to feminism.

How would the absence of one affect the other, and what is their exact chemistry of co-existence? Are the two 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?

The Non-Feminist Sector is a Sovereign Entity

We of the non-feminist sector claim the status of an autonomous power with respect to the feminist power on earth, and we demand the full measure of diplomatic courtesy due to such a status. A number of behaviors, on the part of any feminist or feminist group, will be considered acts of 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.

Academic Feminism and Pop Feminism

Feminism divides broadly into two cultural cohorts: Academic feminism (more intellectual), and pop feminism (less intellectual). These make opposing ends of a polarity, with a continuum stretching between them.

Feminism as a whole needs both the academic and the pop cohorts. The academic cohort is needful so that feminism will have an intellectual vanguard -- so that the snake will have a head, in other words. 

The pop cohort is needful so that the vanguard ideology will be demographically incarnated in numbers -- so that the snake will have a body, in other words. 

Sophisticated ideas originate from the academic cohort, and trickle down to the pop cohort by the process of popularization.

Feminism and Justice

Remember that ALL feminism is packed into a system of interwoven karma. ALL feminism contributes to an evolutionary trajectory which points toward a radical feminist future. And ALL feminists are participants in that trajectory by the simple act of participating in feminism itself. So listen to what the radical feminists are saying, because they are endlessly discussing the kind of world they wish to create -- namely, the kind where "justice" has been obtained through a virtual elimination of males. That is the kind of world toward which ALL feminism, in its conjoined organic logic, is gradually conducting us. Even the feminists who don't talk about such things are contributory to this. Yes, I said ALL feminism -- and all feminists. Not just the radical kind. Feminism is monolithic, and if you've seen one feminist, you've seen them all.

The Precondition to a Paradigm Shift

The only way to tell people what they don't want to hear, is to tell it in way that offers no choice. I will speak of one such way. First, bear in mind that most humans are herd animals. Above all things, they crave a stable sense of belonging, in the company of others who likewise crave such belonging and have agreed upon a general plan to make it happen.

So, if you are the bearer of news which challenges the herd and its stable plan, you must know that the herd's considerable resources will be mobilized against you in order to nullify your message. It is not, in the end, a question of "truth", but rather a collective will-to-believe backed by the power of unfailing repetition and communal reinforcement within an echo chamber.

Your message will take root and grow only if you make the herd disintegrate. Do that, and their power to dismiss your message will disintegrate in tandem. And when people get to this point, they will instinctively cast about in search of a new herd they can join. You know how joiners are. So it is a good idea to prepare something they can cling to, that they will be more readily persuaded to make the jump.

It is Easier to DESCRIBE Feminism Than to Define It

In order to make feminism answer for itself we must reduce it to a definite something -- a target of understanding -- that can be held answerable. And our quest for that definite target reveals a dynamic underlying process that pervades the world of events and conditions, a thing can better be described than defined. In short, we have learned to understand feminism as a social organism, and we have seen that this organism includes many things you wouldn't necessarily call feminism at all.

This can be very confusing, but the meta-logic of female supremacism binds it all together and makes it both intelligible and targetable. The apparent chaos of conflicting tendencies and rules will line up and make sense when you consider that feminism, in its entirety, is identical with female supremacism. Those two are the very same thing. So we may use "feminism" and "female supremacism" interchangeably, and we may gradually educate the public to do likewise

Liberal Feminism is Camouflage

Advocacy for women's interests, in whatever form, will increase female advantage and thereby increase female power. Yet the advocates involved in such work needn't feel any conscious hostility toward men. They need only carry on industriously, disavow anti-male sentiments, and draw attention away from high-disaffection feminists by such distractionary statements as "not all feminists are like that", or "I'm not that kind of feminist", or "those people are only fringe extremists." At times, they will deny that such feminists are even feminists at all. Still, the latter will continue to exist, and to do what they do, while their milder sisters look the other way. In this manner, liberal feminism operates as a cover story for radical feminism.

Anti-Male Emotion Defines Feminism

Feminism's binding principle and driving force is disaffection toward men and maleness. This is arrayed on a spectrum, with mild disenchantment to the lower end, and vitriolic animosity, bordering on psychopathic, to the upper. If disaffection toward men, as men, did not exist in the world generally, then feminism itself would not exist. Feminism is not driven by vehemence about mere issues and abstract principles. Its politics are rooted in personal feelings about men.  Feminism's political, you would say, is personal. And so personal emotion is the only thing that keeps feminism in motion. And this is true to an extent that might be termed metaphysical. In sum, feminism as a whole is metaphysically anti-male, or a priori anti-male.

For Them, a Taste of Their Own

As I have said many times, the time for argument is past. Feminists and their cohorts are ideologues, dogmatists and cultists, and you will never persuade them of anything they do not wish to believe. It is futile. Utterly futile. These people are takers and manipulators, and fair play is the last thing they care about. So we need to take a very different tack with them.

Feminism is the aggressor, and feminist tricks are a manifestation of feminist aggression. And since the aggressor sets the terms of engagement, we non-aggressors are permitted to mirror those terms proportionally. That is, we are morally entitled to answer feminist aggression by throwing their tricks back at them as much, or as little, as policy or prudence may dictate.

He who has an ear to hear, let him hear.

Weeding Out Politically Unsuitable Women

More and more women are speaking out against feminism and a lot of men in the activated community are acting cynical about the motives of such women. Such men are voicing fears of  "infiltration" by such women, and are sure that such women are up to no good. I understand what these men are saying and, up to a point, I share their concerns. It is undoubtedly true that an uncontrolled female presence in the wrong sectors will set things back -- and I say this in a spirit of  realism and pragmatism, trusting that others will weigh my sentiments accordingly.

However, I cannot agree that openly anti-feminist rhetoric among women is anything but a positive development. Seriously, if women themselves are denouncing feminism it cannot bode well for feminism, can it?

But I would allow that SOME of these women are plotting to subvert male autonomy, and hence, the non-feminist revolution as a whole. That said, I would propose a simple method for detecting them and weeding them out. You must monitor every purportedly anti-feminist woman to ascertain that she is walking the pro-male walk, and not simply talking the anti-feminist talk. So question the candidate about the sanctity of male space. If for any reason at all, she bristles at the idea that men should have times and places where women are excluded, you should immediately toss her application onto the reject pile. By contrast, women who are fine with that idea will get a relatively high security clearance, and be groomed as leaders of other women.