Feminism is open to question. Never forget that.
Let’s get one thing straight: Feminism is not mandatory. You have zero obligation to think like a feminist, talk like a feminist, act like a feminist, live like a feminist, or support feminism in any way.
Feminism is but one of many ideological systems operating on planet Earth. It was concocted by human agency and its license to exist may be revoked by human agency at any time. Feminism is not a privileged snowflake. It carries no special mandate or divine right. There is nothing “woo-woo” about feminism, and no particular reverence is owed to it.
We should add that feminism is not a race — or more to the point, not a biological birth group. That’s right: nobody is born a feminist. Feminism is an elective state of being; you must choose it. That means you are free to reject it, or free to kick it out of your brain again if you made a prior choice to accept it.
Not only are feminists not a race, they are not an ethnic group. They seem to think they are, but that is because they are mimicking the behavior of groups who claim protected status against so-called “hate speech”. The feminists want to get some of that action too, if possible. If you say stiff things about feminism, they would like very much to swing the apparatus of law against you. (Name-calling and character assassination are not enough, it seems. They want to use the official power of state violence, under color of legality.)
Above all, feminism is not a sex. There is a male sex and a female sex, but there is no feminist sex. I repeat: there is no feminist sex. That may be perfectly self-evident to some of us, but a lot of people seem absolutely oblivious to this bedrock truth.
The trouble is, that feminism is politically and institutionally hegemonic. It is a ruling force in human affairs, and that is simply an objective fact of life. This happened because certain humans worked hard to make it happen, while certain others stood by and lifted no finger to stop them. In consequence, feminism got deeply entrenched.
The crux of the difficulty is that feminism holds the power of a fetish, or sacred idol, in the public square. Some have even called feminism an unofficial state religion. Many people hate this so-called sacred object, and wish to break its power, yet they fear to speak a word against it because they dread the social consequences that might follow. Furthermore, they aren’t sure where to get started because, frankly, the terms of the problem are not entirely clear to them.
If we wish to overthrow the power of the feminist idol and release the stranglehold which it exercises upon the public mind, we must visibly and dramatically challenge it, until people feel emboldened to join in the fun. Imagine, if you will, a dauntless iconclast who walks up to that idol with a sledgehammer, in full view of the world, and shatters the head into rubble with a defiant flourish and a harsh laugh.
Clearly this would send a message. It would spread some shock waves, wouldn’t it? It would trigger a gasp of collective dismay, am I right?
Many, standing in the public square, would be emboldened to join in the fun. They would look each other in the eye and catch the glint of revolution. It would be instantly clear to them that they were not alone, that they had nothing to fear but fear itself.
The core principle is this: that when you publicly defy or desecrate a sacred object, you break the spell. You dismantle the mojo. You turn that sacred thing into a common thing once more, prone to the same treatment as any other common thing — the callous handling, the common touch, and so on.
I shall await somebody bold enough to swing a very public metaphorical hammer against the feminist idol. I expect that person will be a celebrity of some kind, ideally a woman, who stands up and thunders: “I’ve had enough and I will take no more! To HELL with feminism, and damn the torpedoes! Come and get me, feminists!”
Naturally, it helps to be a celebrity rather than an obscure nobody. An obscure nobody who wants to make his message heard, must capture the limelight by a signal-boosting stratagem or “setup” — in common vernacular, a publicity stunt. But a celebrity can access the limelight any time. When a celebrity talks, the world listens, and the message travels.
So if you’re a celebrity, and if you want to become a bigger celebrity, give us a hand with this. Okay? Or if you know a celebrity, bring this talk to their attention and maybe it will inspire them to do something along the lines we are suggesting.
There are, of course, less flamboyant but equally valuable ways to attack the feminist idol and compromise its power. These methods are already being carried out by many people in many places — the war of attrition, the death by a thousand cuts, the innumerable chisel strokes. It’s all good, it’s all taking a toll, and it’s all preparing the ground for those more dramatic non-feminist breakouts which will occur in the fullness of time.
So what is the bottomline here? What is the takeaway point? It is, that the feminist problem must be challenged. Called out. Stood up to. Stared down. Made accessible to the forces that would correct it.
You can do this in many ways, but by far the most effective is to say, simply and unequivocally, “I am not a feminist, and there is nothing you can do about that.”
This brings the feminist dialectic to a standstill, because it introduces the element of alien will into feminism’s self-contained moral universe. Feminism has been given something indigestible and irreducible to its purposes, which it ultimately cannot ignore. That something is called “non-feminist alterity”. The implications are existential. Metaphysical, Primordial. Heavy.
Above all idol-breaking.
In a word: iconoclastic.
“I am not a feminist, and there is nothing you can do about that.”
This deceptively simple statement lies at the heart of the methodology we are preaching. The rest is details, and among these is the fact that feminism is on trial because all feminist claims and theories are open to question.
From the ground up, every imaginable thing about feminism is subject to a universal critique and an intellectual audit. You might say that we are calling feminism into the office for a little talk.
In closing, I repeat my call to anti-feminist celebrities: step out of the closet and swing a hammer at the feminist idol! Be bold. Be brave. Be defiant. Be a cheeky bastard and stand your ground. You have supporters everywhere.
If you are not a celebrity, do what you can to see that celebrities read this. Thank you.
What is Feminism?
Feminism is an ideology that seeks to elevate women with the avowed purpose of gaining what it calls “equal rights”. This happens under the pretext that men throughout history have benefited from keeping women in a limited role. Feminist activism takes the form of a class struggle, and this struggle provides a rationale for feminists who wish to ignore the male side of the equality issue — the “patriarchal” side, as they like to call it.
Feminists have great political power, having reformulated laws and policies through the lens of patriarchy theory. For example, the Duluth model of domestic violence, which names men as a perpetrator class and women as a victim class, is based upon such theory. This model fails to address the root causes of abuse and completely neglects male victims but is used in hundreds of cities nonetheless. See Hannah Wallen’s video to learn more about how this operates. Furthermore, feminist lobbying groups such as NOW have fought against equal custody laws for many years. Again, I am linking to Hannah Wallen’s research – see The Feminist Crusade Against Fatherhood.
Feminism can easily be compared to a religion — Alison Tieman’s “Church of Women-Worsting”, for example, maps this theme elegantly. Even though self-identified feminists are greatly outnumbered by the non-feminist majority, a number of people roughly share certain ideas attributed to feminism such as that of a wage gap, a rape culture, a glass ceiling, and the notion that domestic violence and rape are perpetrated mainly by men against women. Overall, most people judge cultures on how well they treat their women, even if these people do not label themselves as feminist. Feminists know this. They are able to tap into this and garner politically naive support for the feminist project from people who fail to understand that project in full.
This “woman-firsting” (or gynocentrism) fogs a society’s ability to properly judge equality (if that is the goal), but moreover, feminists have captured a monopoly as the arbiters of truth where such judgements are concerned. Most people harbor a sentimental (emotionally-based) belief that men and women should have equal opportunities and be held to equal account under the law. However, if you experiment independently to learn how men and women differ (legally or otherwise) you will be expected to work within a feminist-dominated academic framework with its chosen instruments already calibrated to verify the feminist narrative and worldview. This binds you to the intellectual gravity field of that narrative and worldview, so that the end product of your studies will always be. . . more feminism.
Where do non-feminist people stand, and what is to be done?
Politically awakened non-feminist people would like to open new laboratories, (i.e. schools of thought) to resolve the conundrums of “equality”, or perhaps go back to the drawing board altogether and devise new ways of judging societies based on some other metric than how they treat their female members.
With this analogy in mind, one of the first solutions I’d argue for is a rejection of feminism’s monopoly on how we measure “equality” in the first place. That is, we must reject the misinformation that feminism propagates, along with the idea that man-woman relations may only be examined through a feminist lens. That is not to say that the feminist perspective should be snuffed out, but that we’d be better served by conducting non-feminist research and exploring these matters in a non-feminist light. With that comes the need to protect free speech and open debate, along with more non-feminists willing to challenge the intellectual status-quo in a variety of outspoken ways.
Victory, as I see it, would involve a retraction of feminist perspective in law and policy (including domestic and sexual violence, family court, the gender disparity in criminal court and affirmative action and quotas) along with more, public and vocal, schools of thought on man-woman dynamics. It may be evolutionary psychology based studies or meritocracy based platforms or something no one has though of yet. I don’t wish to destroy feminism, but I do want feminist ideas to “take their lumps” like any other ideology in the marketplace of ideas. By virtue of such critique, I am confident that feminism will be exposed as an ideology of narrow-minded assumptions.
As the paradigm shift moves into full swing, I hope that fewer people will self-censor and that they will boldly exercise the freedom to be questioners.
In my opinion, this universal critique of feminism should become a permanent part of the culture; once started, there is no turning back. Both academics and the general public should be involved, and each group may bring its own special skill sets to bear upon the work. The three foundational questions that I have addressed here are only the beginning, since they are meant to spawn further questions, and further discussions based upon those questions, all in a non-feminist vein.
The accumulated wisdom of the activated non-feminist sector finds feminism to be, on balance, pernicious. The reasons for that verdict are many, and have been widely talked about. For a start, know this: we mean to draw a line against the encroachment of feminist power into the non-feminist world. Since we find that power pernicious, we naturally find ourselves at odds with almost every aspect of it. This naturally raises the question of what is to be done, which brings us to the topic of the moment: post-argumentalism.
Post-argumentalism is the stage “beyond argument”, the stage you embark upon after you deplete the possibilities of debate or persuasion in a given setting. It is a kind of existential standoff in the face of an intractable other: the other may find your stance unacceptable but you find his equally so – and there you stand!
Since argument has not settled the issue and apparently never will, you are excused from such activity and may henceforth either agree to disagree with the other, or enter a state of “war” with the other.
None of this holds any great mystery. If you have ever dealt with a fanatical cultist or an incorrigibly pigheaded person of any kind, you will perfectly understand the base dynamic. And what is true of a solitary individual can as well be true of an entire group or subculture.
The intractable other that now confronts us is the subculture called feminism. As said, we find feminism pernicious – and that implies that we have already settled the debate to our own satisfaction.
We see no reason to keep arguing in hope of persuading this intractable other – we’ve long since persuaded ourselves, and that should suffice. We know whose opinion we value, and whose judgment we trust. In all cases we cherish our own conclusion because we deem it best, and if we deemed otherwise we’d have concluded otherwise.
Argument is useless if it never ends, and worse than useless if it puts a freeze on necessary plans and actions. To tolerate such a freeze would seem to imply that we cannot act without a go-ahead from the intractable other. Yet a moment’s thought might reveal that the other is likewise constrained by us – and there we stand! How to break free of this impasse? Apparently not by further persuasion efforts.
What are we waiting for? Will another three, five or twelve years of argument finally clear the road so we can set plans and actions afoot? What force – legal, moral, physical or otherwise – prevents us from turning our back and going our way immediately?
Feminism has been a dynamic force in the world, and never shy about setting plans and actions afoot. Nor has it been dutiful about consulting others and securing their agreement to such plans and actions. The point is that feminism itself is post-argumental. Feminism has trodden upon the alterity of the non-feminist sector, and the non-feminist sector may now, by rights, serve feminism likewise. That is where non-feminist people stand.
We should add that feminism is an entrenched system extending through the social and political fabric. It is a major power structure, individual feminists are stakeholders in it, and we delude ourselves if we think the stakeholders in a major power structure will be talked out of their advantage by sweet reason alone.
The two sides do not gather in a clean, well-lighted debating chamber and air their views in turn until one side says to the other: “Yes, you have convinced me of the truth of your position, and from henceforth I will adopt your position as my own and rearrange my life according to what it requires of me.”
No, that is not how the world works.
Such being said, our project is not to reprogram the deep ideological conviction of every purported feminist. Rather, it is to make such people modify their outward behavior so that the pernicious implications of their ideology will no longer translate into real-world consequences. They can believe any pernicious thing they want to believe, but they must cease acting upon such belief.
In so stating, we exercise a mandate. Such is the power of post-argumentalism – it nullifies the presumptive moral authority of feminism and commandeers authority on its own account. In this way, post-argumentalism is a revolutionary procedure, the starting point for anything at all that you could rightly call a revolution.
To nullify authority is a rightful deed when authority is intractable due to fraud or villainy. Post-argumentalism makes no fuss about this. It does the job brusquely, unceremoniously, unapologetically. To make omlettes, you break eggs.
Both war and revolution have this in common, that they spring to life when reason and negotiatory discourse prove unavailing. The difference is that war is a contest between parties purportedly equal at the outset, whereas revolution is a contention where an upstart knocks authority off a pedestal.
In the end, both war and revolution are a fight, and both involve the element of violation. The rules of war dictate that the parties violate each other until one side gives up, while the rules of revolution dictate that one system of rules gets violated so another system can replace it.
The non-feminist revolution is both a revolution and a war, and is not undertaken for light and transient causes.
As non-feminist men and women we must ask ourselves: what did we originally hope to accomplish by arguing with feminism? Supposing we could have persuaded this intractable other, what did we hope to gain? What did we hope to obtain that we couldn’t have gotten elsewise, in due course? What prevented us from simply taking it?
If something belongs to us, we must simply overpower the intractable other in order to secure what is rightfully ours. Correct? In that case, what is the good of persuasion – to talk the other into giving us what is rightfully ours? To talk the thief into handing back our stolen property?
We know that this intractable other, feminism, is a taker who never quits taking and gives nothing back at the behest of mere persuasion. We ought to craft our politics in the light of that understanding. In other words, we ought to craft our politics post-argumentally.
We do not argue with feminism, we simply tell it things – and if it will not listen or modify its course, we hold it accountable.
Posted by: Fidelbogen, a.k.a The Counter-Feminist
Editor at antifeministpraxis.com
Twitter account: @fidelbogen