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.