tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3367243831429506992024-02-19T14:32:03.839-08:00CounterSnippetsFidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-59467326895873186632013-12-11T11:14:00.000-08:002012-12-21T17:04:46.336-08:00The Purpose of this BlogThis 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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
To become a Twitter follower, look up @fidelbogen<br />
<br />
Note the Share buttons that are conveniently placed at the bottom of each post. Use them. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-32882007088742529522013-02-14T16:37:00.003-08:002013-02-14T16:49:49.339-08:00The Ecological Nature of the DifficultyThere 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 .<br />
<br />
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 <i>feminism</i>, which in its holistic praxis has been <i>female-solipsistic</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>half</i> 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.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-66396206751639328572013-02-13T13:57:00.001-08:002013-02-14T22:20:22.195-08:00Without Radical Feminism, There Would be no Feminism at AllWhen 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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>comparatively</i> reasonable -- the "good cops" in that timeless game.<br />
<br />
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. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-48341364990938938642013-02-13T12:48:00.001-08:002014-01-04T10:07:13.510-08:00Death 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>think outside the box</i>, but at least it will keep them <i>on the straight and narrow.</i><br />
<i> </i> <br />
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?Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-32553648771195331992013-02-12T15:09:00.000-08:002013-02-12T15:09:18.329-08:00What is to be Done About Female Supremacism?<i>Feminism,</i> as we know, means the same thing as <i>female supremacism:</i> 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.<br /> <br /> 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: <i>"What do you mean to do about it?"</i> Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-63509734731873190782013-02-12T13:22:00.000-08:002013-02-12T14:41:10.349-08:00Trust Issues and Feminist PlansMen 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>the feminists wish to see this very thing happening.</i> For them it holds a vital importance because it keeps their cult alive.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-71195363585407572482013-02-11T06:30:00.001-08:002013-02-11T18:28:28.337-08:00The Growth of Ill-Feeling Between the SexesFeminism 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-51440239119865227492013-02-07T22:52:00.000-08:002013-02-11T17:31:21.848-08:00The "Good" is Separable From FeminismThe respectable or noble parts of feminism do not compose feminism's soul because
they do not <i>quintessentially</i> 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.<br />
<br />
Already, I can hear a howl of protest. "No! That's NOT what feminism really is!"<br />
<br />
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!"Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-31772621225267694192013-02-07T15:25:00.000-08:002013-02-10T22:38:41.205-08:00Feminists and Traditionalists are Natural Bedfellows<span style="font-size: small;">T</span>he
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>women can do no wrong </i>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. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://countersnippets.blogspot.com/2013/02/to-control-or-to-be-controlled.html"><span style="color: #0b5394;"><u>female control</u> </span></a>over their lives. Feminists and traditionalists would both harbor a natural antagonism toward that group.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-86017245316306107612013-02-06T14:27:00.001-08:002013-02-08T02:08:21.050-08:00Worth-Based EntitlementAt 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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Now, misogyny means disaffection toward women <i>irrespectively.</i> 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 <i>women.</i><br />
<br />
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. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-86131420652717903222013-02-05T15:50:00.000-08:002013-02-06T17:02:37.921-08:00The Non-Feminist Invasion of Feminist MindspaceAt 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.
Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-42396319925165071112013-02-04T21:14:00.001-08:002013-02-08T05:53:31.310-08:00To Control or to be ControlledThe 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 <i>govern himself under the feminist occupation -- </i>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.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-16203540949779920042013-02-03T21:28:00.000-08:002013-02-03T21:39:05.385-08:00What Feminism Can't Argue WithWhen 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
So what's to argue with? <br />
<br />
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.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-21931920477683225982013-02-02T18:45:00.001-08:002013-02-06T21:21:28.933-08:00What 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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-60973525796682349622013-01-30T16:34:00.001-08:002013-02-04T21:20:32.456-08:00Left-Feminism is a Blood Sucker<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]">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.</span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]"></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]">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. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]">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. </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]"></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[1].[1][2][1]{comment10151685185529126_10151691146449126}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]"><span class="emoticon emoticon_wink"></span></span></span></span>Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-92167070188384944632013-01-30T14:23:00.001-08:002013-02-04T21:25:21.224-08:00The Femplex -- Feminism's Cultural Supply ChainFeminism 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. <br />
<br />
In other words, feminism is <a href="http://countersnippets.blogspot.com/2013/01/can-feminism-and-female-supremacism-be.html"><span style="color: #0b5394;"><u>FEMALE SUPREMACISM</u></span></a>. 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).<br />
<br />
The femplex extends throughout the entire culture --- all of it, not merely the 'left' or the 'right' of it. <br />
<br />
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. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-23008909273059937742013-01-29T11:52:00.000-08:002013-01-30T15:40:37.598-08:00Feminism's Essence is Visible to Outsiders from Where They StandIf 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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 <i>from our own end of the transaction.</i> Our input upon that point is as valid as any. We know best of all where the shoe pinches our foot.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-65061576599881033892013-01-24T21:47:00.000-08:002013-01-25T00:42:20.250-08:00Taking Control of the Definition and the DiscourseIn 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.<br />
<br />
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 <span style="font-style: italic;">definition</span>
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.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-40612345847530267882013-01-24T14:27:00.002-08:002013-01-24T14:27:39.536-08:00Feminism Has Reason to be FearfulSupporters of the feminist regime are getting scared. I have a keen nose, and I can smell their fear in the wind. Well they <i>should</i>
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 <i>empathy. </i>Get it?<br />
<br />
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 <i>pedagogically</i> instilled! --
and the culture will need to be transformed in such a way that this kind
of thing never, never, ever happens again.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-61116165923419869142013-01-24T00:59:00.002-08:002013-01-24T01:01:11.091-08:00You Can't Dismantle Feminism With Feminist ToolsWe reject any method of studying feminism which commences by adopting the feminist worldview, recognizing that any <i>feminist</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.
Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-44999414283243072752013-01-23T16:16:00.000-08:002013-01-24T01:29:14.293-08:00Simple Message to the General Female PopulationFeminism 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. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-73675144524257444252013-01-23T14:04:00.000-08:002013-01-24T03:09:34.980-08:00To Be Not-Feminist, is a Serious DecisionAs 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 <i>not a feminist</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://countersnippets.blogspot.com/2012/12/feminism-is-what-we-say-it-is_23.html"><span style="color: #0b5394;"><u><b>target consensus</b></u></span></a>, so as to know precisely where we should direct our operations.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-65459671960787117362013-01-23T01:38:00.003-08:002013-01-23T02:51:42.120-08:00Gynocentrism and Gynonormativism<span style="font-size: large;"><b></b></span><b>Gynocentrism</b> 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<i> think and feel</i> a certain way. In sum, gynocentrism is <i>not totalitarian.</i> <br />
<br />
<b>Gynonormativism</b> goes the extra step. Using <i>gynocentrism</i> 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 <i>totalitarian.</i> We would understand feminism as a <i>gynonormative</i> <i>project</i>, while acknowledging that it could not have come into operation without a preexisting base of <i>gynocentricity</i> in the traditional culture.<br />
<br />
<i>Gynonormativization</i> is integral to the establishment of female supremacy. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-77531844726188566022013-01-22T21:48:00.000-08:002013-01-22T22:00:00.961-08:00Middle Ground is an IllusionThere 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.Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336724383142950699.post-34581581367359261262013-01-22T18:41:00.000-08:002013-01-22T18:49:07.700-08:00Female Wrongdoing is Quickly ForgottenI 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 <i>unspectacular but more significantly bad,</i> 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. Fidelbogenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11727779008823649682noreply@blogger.com2