It is axiomatic that feminism is irredeemable. Few things could interest us less than “bickering” with feminists in the hope that they will eventually see the light. If we want to engage them we will, but for the most part we won’t. We take the post-argumental approach, which means that we simply “tell it like it is” in the full power of our non-feminist authority.
We are concerned with three key questions, each of which opens the door to a realm of secondary and tertiary questions. You might say that SAF discourse is a continual meditation upon these questions, since nearly all of our talk embraces one or more of them:
1.) What is feminism?
2.) Where do non-feminist people stand?
3.) What is to be done?
Under the legacy discourse, nearly all anti-feminist politics has been branded by an androcentric (male-identitarian) voice — the “men speaking as men” voice. For better or worse, this voice has represented the non-feminist revolution in the public mind.
Under the SAF mandate, anti-feminist politics assumes the ecumenical standpoint of non-feminist people at large, and this establishes that the non-feminist revolution has a range of voices — not all male, and not all male-identitarian. That is a paradigm-shift whose implications will become clear as time goes on.
The meaning of “strict” anti-feminism is, that opposing feminism should be differentiated from promoting male interest in a subjectively male way. Furthermore, this differentiation should be understood clearly by the general public and not merely by the practitioners.
Take note of that last point: we are talking about a political division of labor reflected in both popular and private language. It is not “inside baseball”.
This is not to suggest that politics “in a male voice” will disappear. Such politics will perk along as always, and most of it will have the customary anti-feminist flavor. Our point is that anti-feminism must also be harnessed solo, as a task force under specialized discipline free of male-identitarian baggage.
After all, this is is 2017 — the current year no less! We are growing a different tree in a more complicated political landscape shaped by Toronto, Gamergate, Women Against Feminism, developments in England, and yes . . . Donald Trump.
SAF operates on the conceptual model of “feminism’s wrongs” rather than the longstanding “men’s rights”. In this new model, the statement “look what feminism has done to the world” has a top-category position. Further down the chart will be found feminism’s specific wrongs against men — which are numerous and grave. However, “men’s rights” remains a secondary narrative under the universal construct of feminism’s wrongs.
It is rich and satisfying, no doubt, to speak de profundis from an existential place of maleness. There is nothing morally wrong with such . . . catharsis. However, that does not make it politically efficient to center your message upon male pathos. The masses don’t respond well to such a tone. They don’t rally to it.
We focus narrowly upon the feminist problem because this simplifies and streamlines our work. It makes things spiffy and tidy. Furthermore, we don’t want anybody (feminists especially) to change the subject. We want to laser-point the energy of our endeavor, we want to situate the talk in a useful way, and we don’t want mission drift to creep in.
Quite understandably, there is nothing the feminists dread more than anti-feminism. They will do whatever it takes to prevent that force from advancing in society, and for them prevention starts in the microcosm of everyday conversation.
Accordingly, since feminism per se is a gateway topic to the feminist problem at large, they will steer clear of this topic. Such talk, after all, might pull feminism itself within range of critical scrutiny.
You might think that feminists do nothing but talk about feminism, but you would be mistaken. Feminist talk is informed by feminism, suffused by feminism, dripping with feminism — yet not properly about feminism. What they actually talk about is feminist theories, feminist issues, feminist talking points, feminist narratives, feminist historiographies, feminist conceits, and so on — everything but feminism itself.
So you could say that all of their talk is a deflection from feminism’s problematic core truth: they don’t talk about feminism because they talk around it.
In the end, only a non-feminist mind is fit to explain feminism. That is where activated non-feminist people, as a task force, step into the picture. We are fit to explain feminism because we exist outside of feminism, so that even if the view is not lovely, we are able to see feminism for what it is. Furthermore (which ought to be obvious) we have no vested interest in feminism’s preservation.
Above all, we are willing to ask hardball philosophical questions, over and over again, even at the risk of looking geeky. We will not permit those questions to be overshadowed or shoved aside.