The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Amanda Marcotte: a Feminist. Not the Radical Kind
Know ye, then, this vile person?
This is Amanda Marcotte, a feminist.
Mind you, Amanda is not what most folks -- especially feminists -- would take for a radical feminist. No, you'll not likely find Amanda chewing the fat with Luckynkl and Bonobobabe down at the Radfem pub, plotting the Final Solution to the Male Question.
Because you see, Not All Feminists Are Like That! Indeed not. In point of fact, only some feminists are "like that". But the others? Well, the others are more like our good ol' Mandy here. Yup. Mandy's not such a bad lot, you know. I'm pretty near certain she'd draw the line well south of boiling male carcasses for glue, for example. No, Amanda Marcotte is a "mainstream" feminist -- whatever the hell that means.
Oh very well, I do know what mainstream means. It means more numerous. Relatively speaking.
Anyhow, I'd calculate that Amanda is only HALF as bad, for example, as those radical feminazis in the Swedish government. Which is like only drinking half a glass of poison instead of a full one, having filled the other half with orange juice so it'll it go down easier. That doesn't sound so hard to take, now, does it?
No seriously, Amanda Marcotte is not so bad. Really, she's not. Not so bad at all. Relatively speaking, I mean. Granted, she'd be just fine seeing you in prison on a false rape conviction, yet I'm sure that you'll never, ever but never hear Amanda talk about throwing little boys through windows or culling the male population down to ten-percent.
Nope, not our gal Mandy! She's a mainstream feminist, Mandy is, which means she is smack in the middle of the feminist norm. She is not some fringe extremist, okay? So when you drag a fishnet through the feminist population, she's the kind you'll pull up in numbers -- and not the radical kind who shelter under rocks and shoal in private forums at the bottom!
Oh hey. . if Amanda changed her hairstyle and got herself a five o'clock shadow, she'd make a right handsome bloke, wot?
But now, here is the bestest which I have saved for the lastest. Go now and read this abrasive blog post which sandpapers Amanda's ass good and proper. Seriously, read it. I mean it!
But seriously, in a culture of male disposability this doesn't surprise me at all. Not one little bit.
Now, think about Sharon Osbourne, her fellow panel members, and their largely female studio audience. Somehow, I know that all of the above-named would be a mite perturbed at the behavior of Swedish feminists who openly call for the hanging of men. They'd have found such behavior . . . oh, a bit distasteful and over-the-top. Wouldn't they have?
But when a man gets a penis amputation, and gets his detached member chucked in the garbage grinder, that is only the stuff of farce, you see. Do you see?
I mean hey, it's not as if Sharon Osbourne and Co. were actually calling for such a thing to be done. Whoa no, they were just yukking about it after the fact!
And really, that makes a big old truckload of difference, right? Doesn't it?
I blogged about this quite some time ago. This documentary was in several YouTube installments, and I posted a few of those, and posted links to the rest. Well guess what? Here is the entire program in one swoop -- about 2 hours long. So now you can sit and take it in without interruptions.
While you are watching the documentary, bear in mind that this is what happens when feminism gains the upper hand in a society. It happened in Sweden for various reasons -- partly because of a longstanding Socialist culture, but also because Sweden is a small country (about 9 million), and in such a setting it is much easier for a well-organized group of zealots to politic its way into a commanding position. That is, their long march through the institutions won't take so long because they haven't got so far to travel.
Now I am certain that somebody will look at the feminist system exposed here, and dutifully take occasion to remind me that Not All Feminists Are Like That.
Well that's baloney. They are indeed "all like that". They differ only in comparative strength of toxicity. Some are more watered-down than others. But the trend of all feminist innovation, when it takes hold in a society, is to concentrate feminism into a less and less diluted form. And so Sweden is a crystal ball which displays the future clearly for our benefit. If this is the kind of world you want to live in, then by all means do what you can to give feminist innovation a green light and a clear road.
What's that, you don't believe me? All right, so what'll it take? Eh? Think you'll believe me in three years? Five years? Ten years? Well I have a better idea: believe me now!
Once again, feminists are all like that. Some will be more like that, others less, but they are all like that. And feminism as a whole is perpetual revolution, always evolving toward a future state which is always . . . you guessed it . . . like that!
So if you personally are not like that, then you are not a feminist.And if you insist on calling yourself a feminist anyway, you will be rowing upstream against a right fierce river! Heaven help you.
Just today, Scarecrow left an interesting comment in response to my recent post titled "How I Like to do Business". First, he quotes the words of Diana Boston, a radical feminist:
"As a radical feminist, I say: Men, would you please stop and think with the right head?"
And then Scarecrow makes his pointed, insightful response:
"HA HA HA.
"Straight from both the MRM and FEMINISTS.
"What does that say?"
This set me to thinking, and I replied to Scarecrow in the following terms:
Yes, those are the same words on the surface. Yet how vastly different are the underlying messages which they transmit.
When the feminists say this, it is meant as a cheap Alinskyite insult. It is psychological warfare. And that's ALL it is.
But in reality, the worst thing the feminists should fear is that men in large numbers will INDEED stop thinking with their "little heads".
The feminists actually WANT men to think with their little heads. One of the main sources of feminism's power is that (too many) men think with their little heads.
And the day that men in critical numbers stop doing so will be a bad day for feminism.
When men stop viewing the world through a haze of sexual feelings, and commence to viewing it in cold, hard political terms, then feminism will be in deep shit.
And the feminists damn well know it.
By the way, that is the main reason that the feminists and the PUAs are actually on the same side -- even if both deny it!
You see, both feminists and PUAs have a vested interest in seeing men think with their little heads.
I have often advocated using the Redstockings Manifesto as a political litmus test -- a way to drive a wedge, and generate polarization, between feminist and not-feminist. I mean that we need to separate the sectors. We really, really do. It's a tangled skein of work, no doubt, but it needs to start somewhere. As opposed to starting nowhere.
Truly, the Redstockings Manifesto is the best compendium of feminism's core principles you will find anywhere. If you are confused by the welter of conflicting definitions, just spend time studying Redstockings and analyzing historical developments from the last half-century, and you will become aware of the striking patterns and paralells between what is written in this document, and what the various feminisms have hoisted upon the world.
All right. Imagine my surprise and delight today, when I found somebody picking up the ball and running with it. A blogger, Gingko by name, who writes at the Genderratic blog, composed the following under the inspiration of the 2007 Counter-Feminist post where I first laid out my idea: http://www.genderratic.com/?p=987#comment-1423
Yes indeed, my plan is "deliciously Maoist".
But I part company, just a mite, with Gingko. Consider the following paragraph from Gingko's post:
"Here’s a remedy for some of the generalized feminism-bashing and accusations that feminists as a hive-mind are misandrist. Feminists quite correctly insist that there are many feminisms. It’s a request for a little more attention to detail, and it’s more than reasonable. So let’s look at what is misandrist about radical feminism and see if that is foundational to any other kind of feminism, if other feminists use its terminology, formulations and theoretical assumptions."
You see, I must confess that I am not quite so "reasonable" as the feminists whom Gingko seems to have in mind. I am not, myself, so impressed by those "many feminisms" which feminists, correctly or otherwise, insist that there are. To me, these different feminisms seem little more than different hamburgers dolled up with different trimmings. Oh certainly, the possibilities are many -- sautéed mushrooms on this one, hold the onions on that one, extra tomatoes on the next one, extra mustard on the other one, and so on.
And yet they're all just ground beef on a bread roll!
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the moral distillate which Ginkgo so skillfully refines from the Redstockings Manifesto is not only the heart of radical feminism. It is the heart of ALL feminism, and for the simple reason that radical feminism itself is the heart of all feminism.
Subtract radical feminism from the feminist "burger", and the question becomes "where's the beef?" Yes, radical feminists always have a beef about something. . . don't they? And they will until hell freezes over. That is what makes them radical feminists.
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 non-radical feminisms owe their very existence to the existence of the radical kind. 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 then it would fade away.
That throws an instructive light on NAFALT, doesn't it? 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, the moderates 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 new space which the pushy radicals have opened up for them. The mainstream is always migrating in a more radical direction.
Feminism would not remain feminism if it did not remain in motion. It would simply vanish, as a whirlwind or other such weather would vanish if the air stopped moving. And the mainstream feminists would quickly be out of a job.
They could only go back to being liberal humanists.
So, I'm afraid that my "deliciously Maoist" mindgame could have fatal consequences to ALL of feminism -- not just the radical kind.
Here, for the full "Maoist" flavor, is my old video on the Redstockings plan. This one could use a remake for the sake of audio quality, and I'll get around to that whenever. But in the meantime, here it is:
Postscript: TDOM, my fellow blogger and partisan of the activated sector, has left a comment which I find insightful and germane -- and not just because he agrees with me, although that helps:
"I agree, the Redstocking Manifesto is quite an instructive document and a yardstick by which to measure feminism. I've published a copy on my site to use as a reference.
"I have not yet read Genko's article (I'll do that in a bit), but I will agree that there are several flavors of feminism. I do like your characterization of them as a hamburger and agree that radical feminism is the beef. Take that away and there's no meat left. But a few people will eat the veggie sandwich that remains. Those people are mostly innocuous.
"However, those vegetarian feminists benefit from the actions of the radicals and turn a blind eye to the destruction they cause. In this way they are complicit and every bit as guilty of promoting the hatred of the radicals. If there weren't any meat, the sandwich would never have been invented. Feminism thrives on the hatred of men."
Feminism Creates Misogyny Like the CIA Creates Global Conflict
And we all know it. Feminism stirs up trouble and poisons the water everywhere it goes.
I mean, it stands to reason that when you create misandry, misandry's counterpart energy will spring to life reactively. It ain't quantum physics, folks! When you drive a wedge between men and women, mutual alienation must follow as the night the day. One sees that is logical.
So I'm not a bit concerned about this phony-baloney, trumped up "misogyny" jive which the feminists love to bang on and on about. Said obsession indicates ulterior motives. After all, it is they who set the stage for it, they who never shut up about it, they who pretend to see it under every rock, and they who foster the conditions which guarantee that it will grow and spread.
What I mean is, they fuck things up, they leave a catastrophic mess -- and then they blame it on other people!
Well they had best take responsibility for that, and come clean about it, and clean it up. I'll not lift a finger.
