By : In the beginning was the world. Then, feminism emerged from the womb of history. What matters is the order of appearance: we were here first, and feminism showed up later. That is a fact of key importance, and one should bear it in mind continually.
Among other things, feminism is an ideology – meaning, a body of ideas which embrace a self-conception and a self-description. But it is more than ideology because it is more than self-conception or self-description.
Feminism is situated both within its own understanding and within the understanding of the world at large. This makes feminism a subject for itself, and an object for the world, which means that two separate dimensions of understanding must be considered: the feminist-subjective and the feminist objective.
To say that feminism is on trial means it is under the evaluative gaze of an “other,” an outside intelligence which is expressly not feminist and views feminism in highly objective terms. We contend that feminism lacks a complete understanding of itself and that only non-feminist alterity can supply the needed information to remedy this lack.
We further contend that such understanding, if it should arrive, would spell the end of feminism altogether because the lack of self-awareness is a critical feminist feature. Therefore, it is not in the feminist interest to gain such understanding – because this would render feminism non-viable.
To sum up, feminism is not fit to judge itself because it will always rule in its own interest – and feminism’s interest is to remain viable by preserving its own myth. For that reason, feminism must receive corrective input from beyond itself – the kind of input that would problematize feminism’s mythically-based self-conception and give rise to a more inclusive and holistic state of knowledge.
Again, feminism is more than ideology. Yes, ideas are a part of it, but ideas exist only in the human imagination. What concerns us is the power of ideas to shape human conduct in the objective world – the extensional reality of ideas, to give it a name. This reality has objective consequences which chain-react into further consequences, and the ensemble of it is fraught with moral ramifications. So when we speak of feminism per se, and of feminism being on trial, we speak of all that.
Feminism’s consequences are integral to feminism’s being. Feminism is under discussion as malfeasant, and feminist malfeasance cannot be isolated from any idealistic notion of feminism’s essence. No moral quarantining of what feminism is “supposed to be”, from what it DOES, is feasible or worth considering.
In our summation of feminist phenomenology, we take both ideas and consequences into account. At the same time, we expose every aspect of feminism to an intellectual audit, with all feminist claims or theories (from the greatest to the smallest) being open to question. That is the plan from here on out, growing and spreading over the years.
Every time a feminist speaks, it should occur to us to wonder if that person is lying, or at least self-deceived. So even if a feminist says “the sky is blue,” we are entitled, on principle, to greet that claim with skepticism.
It is hard to overstate just how radical and fundamental this counter-feminist culture of critique, from all quarters, has got to be. The awareness that lying is a foundational feminist behavior has got to be an instinctive, bedrock realization for everybody. It should be second nature, instilled in our marrow and etched into our neurons. “Lie like a feminist” should become a commonplace expression, taught to children at a young age.
So in the end, feminism is under both moral scrutiny for its transgressions and intellectual scrutiny for its ideas. The trial process aims to shine a light on every possible facet of the feminist problem, and non-feminist men and women of all classes are encouraged to participate in this project.
At its fullest reach, feminism is a densely connected cultural web that includes both ideas and objective circumstances. It is an extended social organism whose character is invasive. It occupies both public and private realms, and we who don’t partake of it experience this as a hostile intrusion into the fabric of our lives. We were here first, and an uninvited guest barged in, and we naturally have a few things to say about that.
It is unseemly for any guest to abuse a host, but when an uninvited guest does this, it adds injury to insult. Feminists, as a rule, have comported themselves in exactly such a way: they abuse us, they treat us cavalierly, they twist our words, they misrepresent us, they invent stories about us, they exploit our good nature, and on it goes.
The worst of it is that they parade themselves under a banner of moral supremacy, acting like they own the world or like they ARE the world. We have a name for such behavior: feminist triumphalism, the attitude that feminism is right because it’s right because it’s right, that the case is settled for all time, and no further discussion should be tolerated.
Non-feminist men and women should no longer tolerate feminist triumphalism. The feminists must be put on notice and told to get off their high horse.
Feminism is not the world but only a part of it. For one thing, self-declared feminist people are a minority of the human race. For another, feminist theorizations don’t stretch far enough to cover all of the world’s complexities. Not only that, but these theorizations often fail consequentially – for as stated earlier, ideas have consequences. Non-feminist men and women (the rest of the world, mind you!) are forced to live with those feminist consequences, and for that reason alone they are entitled to speak their minds.
It bears repeating that ALL feminist claims and theories are open to question, starting with the most fundamental question of all: “What is feminism?” Any feminist definition of feminism constitutes a claim or theory open to question. Hence, from the standpoint of non-feminist alterity, we may define feminism in the light of our own observation and study.
The dictionary does not accurately reflect what many people mean by the word “feminism,” so the dictionary must be revised. However, a lot of us aren’t waiting for the lexicographers to get with it. Within our non-feminist speech communities, the word feminism will continue to mean what we say it means, despite what any feminist (or dictionary) might say to the contrary.
We take control of the language by an act of political will. Non-feminist reclamation of language is a revolutionary act, and feminists who don’t understand this must educate themselves about the reality of the situation.
We have spoken of feminist triumphalism, but we should also mention feminist subjectivism, a mindset closely entangled with it. Feminist subjectivism (which resembles solipsism) may be summed up as the idea that no correct understanding of feminism can originate outside the realm of feminist discourse. In other words, that feminism can be nothing other than what a feminist says it is. Feminist subjectivism occurs not only when they insist upon the dictionary meaning of feminism, but when they impose feminist terms and categories upon the living reality of the non-feminist sector.
Putting it simply, the feminists theorize about the rest of the world on no authority but their own, and with sweeping generalizations. Hence, in the spirit of “turnabout is fair play”, we are licensed to generalize feminism and feminists as sweepingly as it was done to us. In fact, we have been using that license for some time and will continue doing so. They started this, and if they want to stop the music, the onus is on them to make the first move. The aggressor owes the world a “mea culpa”.
For them, the lesson is straightforward: don’t start a cultural street fight if you can’t finish it. And don’t complain if people who are goaded beyond endurance finally turn your own tactics against you. What did you think a street fight was, anyway? Fair?
Right now, somebody might be saying “you have called this a trial, and you have called this a street fight. Which is it?”
Very simply, it is both, because it contains aspects of both. That feminism is on trial is not strictly “fair” since the trial is convened by a process which, on its face, does not look strictly fair either. Ironically, that process turns out to be “fair” after all when you consider that it plays by the very same unfair terms of engagement which feminism (the predominant aggressor) established in the first place.
What goes around comes around. The aggressor feminism has redefined “fair”, and we’re just playing along because the conventions of fairness, or any notion of “Queensberry rules”, went out the window when feminism made the opening moves. Those were unfair moves, aggressor moves – and the maxim is, that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. It follows that the aggressor must lie in the bed which the aggressor has made. We, non-feminist men and women, are punching “up” while feminism is punching “down”. Accordingly, we do what we must, to equalize the game.
Strictly considered, we don’t need feminism whatsoever. That has been our conclusion for quite a while. If feminism went away, only two things could take its place: A.) more feminism or B.) nothing. You should bear this is mind the next time some feminist asks what you plan to “replace” feminism with. You should understand that this person is loading the talk with a feminist assumption: that feminism’s departure would leave humanity, somehow, in the lurch. But to ask what would replace feminism is pointless. The answer is that the waters of life would instantly close up to fill the space, as when a rock is lifted from a pool.
Whatever is good about feminism is not original, whatever is original is not good, and if we flung away the not-good parts it would leave us nothing that wasn’t ours originally. Feminism offers no special wisdom or guidance that regular people couldn’t light upon by their own lights, and if every form of feminism were to vanish in a puff of smoke, the general quality of life would take no dramatic nosedive – not for women, not for men, not for anybody.
As non-feminists, we are offended that feminists would deprecate our moral competence or suggest that we are incomplete for want of feminist indoctrination. Plenty of non-feminist men and women have got the relationship thing figured out just fine, thank you very much. They know how to treat each other right, and always have. Non-feminist men and women don’t want sanctimonious liars and busybodies mucking around and poisoning their world, so if the feminists won’t back off politely, these people can offer some rude encouragement.
The trial of feminism will go on for many years until feminism as a whole comes to a proper humility and a posture of atonement. The culture of critique and the intellectual audit will involve people from all walks of life exposing feminism to every imaginable deconstruction. Little by little, the upholders of feminism’s worldview will find their avenues of evasion sealed off and unavailable for further use.
The world will never be converted to feminism for the same reason that reality will never be converted to unreality. The feminists must eventually face up to this, and make terms accordingly. When that day arrives, it will usher in a radical transformation to their way of life. Feminism will confront the cultural limit of its expansion, and this will be an existential crisis on a par with confronting its own mortality.
If feminism wants to keep existing, it must keep up a continual development and expansion called “perpetual revolution.” That is how feminism rolls. If perpetual revolution fails, feminism fails and begins to die. That is why we can predict that feminism must die eventually because it simply cannot expand forever. Sooner or later, the rest of the world will either actively push back or passively refuse to budge. The implications are the same in either case: feminism confronts a terminus.
The vital and significant question is, “can feminism coexist?” The answer is no, feminism cannot coexist. To “co” exist means to accommodate the existence of an Other. For feminism to coexist, it would need to dwell eternally alongside something specifically not feminist – and the operative term is “eternally” since there would be no question of that non-feminist Other ever fading away.
This would raise existential questions that would strike at the root of feminist identity and feminist reality. It would proffer the spectacle of something self-sufficient which had no need of feminism whatsoever, and such a spectacle would knock the wind out of feminist triumphalism while putting feminist subjectivism on shaky ground.
Little wonder, therefore, that implacable hatred of the non-feminist sector simmers just below the surface of all feminist manifestations. The fact that non-feminist men and women simply exist, and that they PERSIST, confronts the feminist power like a kind of kryptonite. They hate us because they fear us – because they know that they can never assimilate us.
Granted, the feminists will tolerate our existence on condition that we act like we don’t exist at all, but sooner or later the plain fact that we DO exist (silently or otherwise) will need to be reckoned with. It’s a reckoning that cannot be put off forever.
So let us consider that feminism has effectively become the cultural default position which can impose a burden of proof on its challengers. It has obtained this status by presumption, imposition, and a “long march through the institutions”. Oh, and a certain proclivity of the masses to bow to any fait accompli and believe any narrative that gets sufficiently signal-boosted.
The upshot of all this is that feminism, no matter what you think of it, has become The Establishment – and feminists themselves strut around with the cocky self-assurance that this is so.
However, there is a big difference between admitting that a bully has power, and believing that the bully is entitled to that power. The bully’s power, you would say, is not legitimate – and so it is with our present bully, feminism. Feminism is the establishment only because it has established itself by usurpation, and its title is only as secure as it can gall people into believing. We who are not gullible are free to assess the value of feminism’s title and make plans for feminism’s future. That is why we say that feminism is on trial.
There is an edifice of moral and intellectual privilege now slated to collapse in a heap. This loss of feminist privilege will bear down hard upon the feminist psyche everywhere. We do believe that it will signal the end, not of feminists as individuals, but of feminism as a hegemonic cultural power.
In spite of all this, we do extend an olive branch, of sorts, to the feminists. Yes, when we say that “feminism cannot coexist,” we are prepared to be wrong. Naturally, the burden of proof lies with the feminists. After all, they are so keen to negate the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system that it is only fair they should now get a taste of it on their own account. Turnabout is fair play. The aggressor sets the terms of engagement. They made their bed, and now they lie in it.
But we do extend that olive branch. We do proffer a benefit of the doubt, which feminism can coexist with the world despite our theory to the contrary. However, the onus is on them to show this to our satisfaction – to approach us with downcast eyes, to address us in respectful tones, and to answer, with no hint of guile or deceit, such queries as we put to them.
And further, we hope to see a moral and intellectual perestroika of the entire feminist project, actively undertaken, along lines that non-feminist men and women will suggest. Surely, if coexistence is to be realized, something of this character is warranted.
Can feminism co-exist with the rest of the world? Non-feminist men and women are waiting for an answer.
Source
Among other things, feminism is an ideology – meaning, a body of ideas which embrace a self-conception and a self-description. But it is more than ideology because it is more than self-conception or self-description.Feminism is situated both within its own understanding and within the understanding of the world at large. This makes feminism a subject for itself, and an object for the world, which means that two separate dimensions of understanding must be considered: the feminist-subjective and the feminist objective.
To say that feminism is on trial means it is under the evaluative gaze of an “other,” an outside intelligence which is expressly not feminist and views feminism in highly objective terms. We contend that feminism lacks a complete understanding of itself and that only non-feminist alterity can supply the needed information to remedy this lack.
We further contend that such understanding, if it should arrive, would spell the end of feminism altogether because the lack of self-awareness is a critical feminist feature. Therefore, it is not in the feminist interest to gain such understanding – because this would render feminism non-viable.
To sum up, feminism is not fit to judge itself because it will always rule in its own interest – and feminism’s interest is to remain viable by preserving its own myth. For that reason, feminism must receive corrective input from beyond itself – the kind of input that would problematize feminism’s mythically-based self-conception and give rise to a more inclusive and holistic state of knowledge.
Again, feminism is more than ideology. Yes, ideas are a part of it, but ideas exist only in the human imagination. What concerns us is the power of ideas to shape human conduct in the objective world – the extensional reality of ideas, to give it a name. This reality has objective consequences which chain-react into further consequences, and the ensemble of it is fraught with moral ramifications. So when we speak of feminism per se, and of feminism being on trial, we speak of all that.
Feminism’s consequences are integral to feminism’s being. Feminism is under discussion as malfeasant, and feminist malfeasance cannot be isolated from any idealistic notion of feminism’s essence. No moral quarantining of what feminism is “supposed to be”, from what it DOES, is feasible or worth considering.
In our summation of feminist phenomenology, we take both ideas and consequences into account. At the same time, we expose every aspect of feminism to an intellectual audit, with all feminist claims or theories (from the greatest to the smallest) being open to question. That is the plan from here on out, growing and spreading over the years.
Every time a feminist speaks, it should occur to us to wonder if that person is lying, or at least self-deceived. So even if a feminist says “the sky is blue,” we are entitled, on principle, to greet that claim with skepticism.
It is hard to overstate just how radical and fundamental this counter-feminist culture of critique, from all quarters, has got to be. The awareness that lying is a foundational feminist behavior has got to be an instinctive, bedrock realization for everybody. It should be second nature, instilled in our marrow and etched into our neurons. “Lie like a feminist” should become a commonplace expression, taught to children at a young age.
So in the end, feminism is under both moral scrutiny for its transgressions and intellectual scrutiny for its ideas. The trial process aims to shine a light on every possible facet of the feminist problem, and non-feminist men and women of all classes are encouraged to participate in this project.
At its fullest reach, feminism is a densely connected cultural web that includes both ideas and objective circumstances. It is an extended social organism whose character is invasive. It occupies both public and private realms, and we who don’t partake of it experience this as a hostile intrusion into the fabric of our lives. We were here first, and an uninvited guest barged in, and we naturally have a few things to say about that.
It is unseemly for any guest to abuse a host, but when an uninvited guest does this, it adds injury to insult. Feminists, as a rule, have comported themselves in exactly such a way: they abuse us, they treat us cavalierly, they twist our words, they misrepresent us, they invent stories about us, they exploit our good nature, and on it goes.
The worst of it is that they parade themselves under a banner of moral supremacy, acting like they own the world or like they ARE the world. We have a name for such behavior: feminist triumphalism, the attitude that feminism is right because it’s right because it’s right, that the case is settled for all time, and no further discussion should be tolerated.
Non-feminist men and women should no longer tolerate feminist triumphalism. The feminists must be put on notice and told to get off their high horse.
Feminism is not the world but only a part of it. For one thing, self-declared feminist people are a minority of the human race. For another, feminist theorizations don’t stretch far enough to cover all of the world’s complexities. Not only that, but these theorizations often fail consequentially – for as stated earlier, ideas have consequences. Non-feminist men and women (the rest of the world, mind you!) are forced to live with those feminist consequences, and for that reason alone they are entitled to speak their minds.
It bears repeating that ALL feminist claims and theories are open to question, starting with the most fundamental question of all: “What is feminism?” Any feminist definition of feminism constitutes a claim or theory open to question. Hence, from the standpoint of non-feminist alterity, we may define feminism in the light of our own observation and study.
The dictionary does not accurately reflect what many people mean by the word “feminism,” so the dictionary must be revised. However, a lot of us aren’t waiting for the lexicographers to get with it. Within our non-feminist speech communities, the word feminism will continue to mean what we say it means, despite what any feminist (or dictionary) might say to the contrary.
We take control of the language by an act of political will. Non-feminist reclamation of language is a revolutionary act, and feminists who don’t understand this must educate themselves about the reality of the situation.
We have spoken of feminist triumphalism, but we should also mention feminist subjectivism, a mindset closely entangled with it. Feminist subjectivism (which resembles solipsism) may be summed up as the idea that no correct understanding of feminism can originate outside the realm of feminist discourse. In other words, that feminism can be nothing other than what a feminist says it is. Feminist subjectivism occurs not only when they insist upon the dictionary meaning of feminism, but when they impose feminist terms and categories upon the living reality of the non-feminist sector.
Putting it simply, the feminists theorize about the rest of the world on no authority but their own, and with sweeping generalizations. Hence, in the spirit of “turnabout is fair play”, we are licensed to generalize feminism and feminists as sweepingly as it was done to us. In fact, we have been using that license for some time and will continue doing so. They started this, and if they want to stop the music, the onus is on them to make the first move. The aggressor owes the world a “mea culpa”.
For them, the lesson is straightforward: don’t start a cultural street fight if you can’t finish it. And don’t complain if people who are goaded beyond endurance finally turn your own tactics against you. What did you think a street fight was, anyway? Fair?
Right now, somebody might be saying “you have called this a trial, and you have called this a street fight. Which is it?”
Very simply, it is both, because it contains aspects of both. That feminism is on trial is not strictly “fair” since the trial is convened by a process which, on its face, does not look strictly fair either. Ironically, that process turns out to be “fair” after all when you consider that it plays by the very same unfair terms of engagement which feminism (the predominant aggressor) established in the first place.
What goes around comes around. The aggressor feminism has redefined “fair”, and we’re just playing along because the conventions of fairness, or any notion of “Queensberry rules”, went out the window when feminism made the opening moves. Those were unfair moves, aggressor moves – and the maxim is, that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. It follows that the aggressor must lie in the bed which the aggressor has made. We, non-feminist men and women, are punching “up” while feminism is punching “down”. Accordingly, we do what we must, to equalize the game.
Strictly considered, we don’t need feminism whatsoever. That has been our conclusion for quite a while. If feminism went away, only two things could take its place: A.) more feminism or B.) nothing. You should bear this is mind the next time some feminist asks what you plan to “replace” feminism with. You should understand that this person is loading the talk with a feminist assumption: that feminism’s departure would leave humanity, somehow, in the lurch. But to ask what would replace feminism is pointless. The answer is that the waters of life would instantly close up to fill the space, as when a rock is lifted from a pool.
Whatever is good about feminism is not original, whatever is original is not good, and if we flung away the not-good parts it would leave us nothing that wasn’t ours originally. Feminism offers no special wisdom or guidance that regular people couldn’t light upon by their own lights, and if every form of feminism were to vanish in a puff of smoke, the general quality of life would take no dramatic nosedive – not for women, not for men, not for anybody.
As non-feminists, we are offended that feminists would deprecate our moral competence or suggest that we are incomplete for want of feminist indoctrination. Plenty of non-feminist men and women have got the relationship thing figured out just fine, thank you very much. They know how to treat each other right, and always have. Non-feminist men and women don’t want sanctimonious liars and busybodies mucking around and poisoning their world, so if the feminists won’t back off politely, these people can offer some rude encouragement.
The trial of feminism will go on for many years until feminism as a whole comes to a proper humility and a posture of atonement. The culture of critique and the intellectual audit will involve people from all walks of life exposing feminism to every imaginable deconstruction. Little by little, the upholders of feminism’s worldview will find their avenues of evasion sealed off and unavailable for further use.
The world will never be converted to feminism for the same reason that reality will never be converted to unreality. The feminists must eventually face up to this, and make terms accordingly. When that day arrives, it will usher in a radical transformation to their way of life. Feminism will confront the cultural limit of its expansion, and this will be an existential crisis on a par with confronting its own mortality.
If feminism wants to keep existing, it must keep up a continual development and expansion called “perpetual revolution.” That is how feminism rolls. If perpetual revolution fails, feminism fails and begins to die. That is why we can predict that feminism must die eventually because it simply cannot expand forever. Sooner or later, the rest of the world will either actively push back or passively refuse to budge. The implications are the same in either case: feminism confronts a terminus.
The vital and significant question is, “can feminism coexist?” The answer is no, feminism cannot coexist. To “co” exist means to accommodate the existence of an Other. For feminism to coexist, it would need to dwell eternally alongside something specifically not feminist – and the operative term is “eternally” since there would be no question of that non-feminist Other ever fading away.
This would raise existential questions that would strike at the root of feminist identity and feminist reality. It would proffer the spectacle of something self-sufficient which had no need of feminism whatsoever, and such a spectacle would knock the wind out of feminist triumphalism while putting feminist subjectivism on shaky ground.
Little wonder, therefore, that implacable hatred of the non-feminist sector simmers just below the surface of all feminist manifestations. The fact that non-feminist men and women simply exist, and that they PERSIST, confronts the feminist power like a kind of kryptonite. They hate us because they fear us – because they know that they can never assimilate us.
Granted, the feminists will tolerate our existence on condition that we act like we don’t exist at all, but sooner or later the plain fact that we DO exist (silently or otherwise) will need to be reckoned with. It’s a reckoning that cannot be put off forever.
So let us consider that feminism has effectively become the cultural default position which can impose a burden of proof on its challengers. It has obtained this status by presumption, imposition, and a “long march through the institutions”. Oh, and a certain proclivity of the masses to bow to any fait accompli and believe any narrative that gets sufficiently signal-boosted.
The upshot of all this is that feminism, no matter what you think of it, has become The Establishment – and feminists themselves strut around with the cocky self-assurance that this is so.
However, there is a big difference between admitting that a bully has power, and believing that the bully is entitled to that power. The bully’s power, you would say, is not legitimate – and so it is with our present bully, feminism. Feminism is the establishment only because it has established itself by usurpation, and its title is only as secure as it can gall people into believing. We who are not gullible are free to assess the value of feminism’s title and make plans for feminism’s future. That is why we say that feminism is on trial.
There is an edifice of moral and intellectual privilege now slated to collapse in a heap. This loss of feminist privilege will bear down hard upon the feminist psyche everywhere. We do believe that it will signal the end, not of feminists as individuals, but of feminism as a hegemonic cultural power.
In spite of all this, we do extend an olive branch, of sorts, to the feminists. Yes, when we say that “feminism cannot coexist,” we are prepared to be wrong. Naturally, the burden of proof lies with the feminists. After all, they are so keen to negate the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system that it is only fair they should now get a taste of it on their own account. Turnabout is fair play. The aggressor sets the terms of engagement. They made their bed, and now they lie in it.
But we do extend that olive branch. We do proffer a benefit of the doubt, which feminism can coexist with the world despite our theory to the contrary. However, the onus is on them to show this to our satisfaction – to approach us with downcast eyes, to address us in respectful tones, and to answer, with no hint of guile or deceit, such queries as we put to them.
And further, we hope to see a moral and intellectual perestroika of the entire feminist project, actively undertaken, along lines that non-feminist men and women will suggest. Surely, if coexistence is to be realized, something of this character is warranted.
Can feminism co-exist with the rest of the world? Non-feminist men and women are waiting for an answer.
About Luigi Logan (aka Fidelbogen)
Fidelbogen is a writer, videographer and webmaster of The Counter Feminist. He is co-host of The Vanguard Report radio show. He is not a member of the men's rights movement, but he thinks that MRAs are the blood of god!Source
No comments:
Post a Comment