Lecture No. 3
“Have you ever actually looked up the word feminist in a dictionary? It means equality between the sexes. It is not about hating men. This is very simple and you would know if you actually looked it up” – Diva
Following on from last week’s overview of Gynocentrism then and now, I propose that there is a common thread of female-worship running through, and linking, traditional conceptions of masculinity – historically expressed in what we might call ‘patriarchy’ – and feminism, which has taken over state and supranational institutions, and is poised to unleash the explicit persecution of men.
It may well take many more of these lectures before this is fully elucidated, but I mention it here for two purposes. The first is a reminder that reference to this common thread runs through all these musings: that Gynocentrism has been with us for a long, long time, and has only changed its form, not its content. This is the crux of Gynocentrism Theory, and it is the narrow focus which I am taking over a broad range of subjects.
Secondly, to shift the discussion towards feminism. There is the danger of reading into Gynocentrism Theory a minimization of feminism’s effects, considering that it is only the most modern version of a phenomenon which is centuries old. On the other hand, though, it is the most active form of Gynocentrism that we must presently deal with; it is the enemy, and as the all-singing, all-dancing tremendous final act in this regard, it is a phenomenon worthy of study in its own regard.
Better the devil you know! It is said that it is better to know thine enemy, but feminists are highly effective at obscuring their own intentions, actions, history, and penchant for the use of eristic. Amidst the smoke and mirrors, a chorus of shrill voices from all directions can be heard to proclaim, “it’s not our job to educate you about feminism!”
Fine – then we shall have to cast around for ourselves, burrow for gems of knowledge, and procure our own judgments on what feminism is. And since feminists themselves have disavowed their role as our educators, the conclusions which we reach shall require no sanction from them. If it is not their job to educate us about feminism, then it could hardly be anybody else’s but our own, could it? And yet, strangely enough, when we do seek out knowledge for ourselves, they object most vociferously to our findings, as though they do in fact covet the role of educator after all. It has been repeatedly suggested that we might like to check the dictionary.
This is a spurious request, not least because there is no ‘the dictionary’. Rather, there are dictionaries (plural). The Appeal to Dictionary is one which is made by people who, to put it bluntly, are not very bright. Such people apparently believe that language is a finite array of words, each carrying a single objective definition, the final arbiter of which is The Dictionary.
In the real world, language is ever fluctuating and it is corruptible. It is a collection of meanings, designated by terms – but quite how these are configured is determined by the vagaries of time and place! And very often, people disagree about how terms are, or should be, designated to meanings – and how meanings are, or should be, designated to terms!
The very existence of contested terminology, then, seems to refute the Appeal to Dictionary. Where disputes arise over the definition or use of a term, this is an indication that we have several meanings (or ideas, or concepts, if you prefer) huddled together under the same word-umbrella. To put it another way: there are several things, but they are all designated by the same word. A given configuration of terms to meanings may benefit certain people, and be of detriment to certain others!
Let’s take an example – sometimes, the claim that feminism supports women in making false rape allegations has been refuted by a reference to feminism’s stated support for sexual equality. “Feminism,” a feminist would say, “is about sexual equality, and nothing more.”
And yet false rape allegations still exist – as does feminist complicity in the making of them. This issue has only been deprived of recognition in language. The feminist has expertly obscured the complicity of feminism in the making of false rape allegations, by whitewashing the ideology as being “about sexual equality, and nothing more.” If we accept her argument that feminism only refers to support for sexual equality, then we no longer have any terms with which to discuss or understand false rape allegations, beyond viewing them as a series of unrelated incidents. Certainly, we wouldn’t be able to consider false rape allegations in their proper context, which is as part of a system of control and persecution. The phenomenon of a false rape allegation is surely not explicable by what we understand when we say “sexual equality,” and since feminism is about nothing more than that, we are left with no linguistic resources with which to meaningfully speak about it; we have been struck dumb. In short, we have an existing thing, but it is no longer designated by any words. How then could we draw attention to it, criticize it, oppose it?
Let’s take another example. A feminist may well create a false partition in the problem of Father’s Rights by defining it in such a way that feminist culpability is overlooked. She could, for instance, say that “patriarchy is to blame for the unequal treatment of fathers.” Once again, she has controlled the language – meanings are split between terms, or they are compressed into one, and the intended outcome is that the guilty party avoids being taken to task!
Now, you might think – “why does this matter? A feminist might say this or that, but I don’t believe her; my own experiences tell me that it’s not true, and I’m unlikely to be fooled by what she says.”
That’s all well and good. But there are a lot of people out there who will be fooled by what she says – including those who possess the very real physical power to imprison you, destroy you, or alienate you from your loved ones. Feminists aren’t just saying this to people like you and I – their nonsense gushes forth in all directions, like crude oil from a burst pipe, flowing towards anybody who will listen, and especially those who can “do something about it.” Their message comes through, louder than a rushing waterfall, whether you want to hear it or not – and their whole project depends upon the relentless repetition of a dozen or so mantras, and the sinking of their sentiments into the collective subconscious. This is why they endlessly prattle on, typically parroting stock phrases like loyal cells in a hive mind! They do it because it works – at least, until somebody stands up and points out that the Emperor’s not wearing any clothes.
And then, all hell breaks loose!
It was necessary to speak at length on this point, because we must realize that political language is never neutral, and implications are always hidden in the configuration of ideas and terms. The role of Men’s Rights Advocates is to critically assess the feminist use of language, and to determine where we would be well-served to separate out several ideas which are referred to by one term, or to compress several terms into one. We should never respond to a feminist argument without first looking critically at the terms through which it is being conducted. To put it in Gamespeak, we must “control the frame!”
The Appeal to Dictionary can be summarily dismissed. Official dictionaries represent establishment positions. Feminism, as it is in vogue, is officially defined in the way that its adherents would like the world to see feminism; it is not defined in a way that describes, or accounts for, the totality of the project. That which happened, or still happens, but does not reflect the establishment view, is simply ignored. To define feminism as
the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men
is to brush aside much of its unpleasant history – and to deprive skeptics of the resources for an unofficial linguistic and historical analysis of the term. This old revision of the Wikipedia page ‘Feminism and Equality’ contains plenty of material which disputes the black-and-white dictionary definition, although the page itself has fallen prey to the very same forces which seek to delimit the linguistic opportunities of their critics. Thankfully, Wikipedia archives old versions of its articles, so the efforts of one Nick Levinson in exposing the explicitly anti-male tenor of several famous feminist works has not gone to waste. Let’s get cracking!
Jill Johnston, in Lesbian Nation, called for men to eliminate the qualities they hold as men. “Man is completely out of phase with nature. Nature is woman. Man is the intruder. The man who re-attunes himself with nature is the man who de-mans himself or eliminates himself as man [...] A small but significant number of angry and historically minded women comprehend the women’s revolution in the visionary sense of an end to the catastrophic brotherhood and a return to the former glory and wise equanimity of the matriarchies.”
Mary Daly, in Gyn/Ecology, wrote in favor of reversing power between the genders [...] “As a creative crystallizing of the movement beyond the state of Patriarchal Paralysis, this book is an act of Dis-possession; and hence, in a sense beyond the limitations of the label anti-male, it is absolutely Anti-androcrat, A-mazingly Anti-male, Furiously and Finally Female.”
“Do women need land and an army . . .; or a feminist government in exile . . .? Or is it simpler: the bed belongs to the woman; the house belongs to the woman; any land belongs to the woman; if a male intimate is violent he is removed from the place where she has the superior and inviolate claim, arrested, denied parole, and prosecuted. . . . . Could women ‘set a high price on our blood’?” – Andrea Dworkin
Phyllis Chesler, in Women and Madness, drew on matriarchal history, Amazon mythology, and psychology and, with some ambivalence about relying on biology alone as a justification, argued that a war between the genders has always been underway and that women would benefit from using their full powers to be the exclusive wielders of political power to produce an unequal society in which men live but are relatively powerless, even if such a society is no more just than a patriarchy, and called for feminist women to dominate public institutions in their self-interest. “Amazon society, as mythology, history, and universal male nightmare, represents a culture in which women reign culturally supreme because of their gender [...] In Amazon society, only men, when they were allowed to remain, were, in widely differing degrees, powerless and oppressed [...] If women take their bodies seriously—and ideally we should—then its full expression, in terms of pleasure, maternity, and physical strength, seems to fare better when women control the means of production and reproduction. From this point of view, it is simply not in women’s interest to support patriarchy or even a fabled ‘equality’ with men.”
One organization that was named The Feminists was interested in matriarchy. Two members wanted “‘the restoration of female rule’”.
Unless the aforementioned organization and books did not really exist, we are forced to conclude that feminism cannot only have been about the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of equality with men. At the very least, what we must say is that some feminists may have supported equality, while other feminists have overlooked equality and have outright supported female superiority. And neither can the latter group be reduced to a handful of fringe lunatics. As Nick Levinson points out (much to the chagrin of feminist moderators), two and a half million copies of Phyllis Chesler’s Women and Madness were sold.
That’s a whole lot of hate.
And a whole lot of energy is spent actively sweeping this kind of thing under the rug, by those who have since realized how damaging honesty can be to one’s case. Modern feminists are far more rhetorically disciplined than their forthright foremothers, and have concluded that unpopular plans are not helped into motion by being discussed openly. Rhetorical discipline adds a whole new layer of subterfuge to all that has been said regarding the designation of terms to ideas. It will not suffice only to look at what they say; we must watch carefully what they do. And haven’t some of the above recommendations come true, per the actions of feminists? Is it not now the case that male intimates accused of violence are removed from their homes in which the woman has the superior and inviolate claim, as Andrea Dworkin hoped for? Have feminist women not dominated public institutions in their own interest, as Phyllis Chesler advocated? As Gynocentrism Theory tells us, women already had a “high price on their blood” – much higher than that of men, at almost any time in history. This simple fact is the reason why it was possible for the prescriptions of radical feminists to be achieved in the first place – and for dissidents to have been so effortlessly marginalized.
Still, times change. Establishments are overturned, and words are officially redefined. If the new definition of a word proves more accurate, then it must have existed for some time, unofficially, before the word’s revision. Sometimes, establishments must change before terms catch up. The dictionary lags behind definition, because the establishment is stuck in the mud. I predict that, as we reach a critical mass opposed to feminism, and shortly before its collapse, we may well see some concessions in the form of alternative definitions of the term becoming accepted.
Adam Kostakis has been carefully reading Men’s Rights websites for the past couple of years, and has finally decided to contribute something himself. His blog is named Gynocentrism Theory and can be found here.
Tags: Adam Kostakis, Culture, Feminism, Men, Men's Issues
13 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
Jared White:
4thtroika:
Rad:
Roderick1268:
db917:
As someone who competed nationally in debate, the “Appeal to Dictionary” is not done by people who are “not very bright.” At the end of the day, if you are going to be debating someone, you have to agree on definitions for terms, otherwise you’re not talking about the same thing. If a feminist wants to assert that the definition of feminism is some kind of gender equality movement, and the only evidence she has for that is a spurious definition in an online dictionary, then it’s not a very strong argument. If you’re arguing it’s a hate movement based on numerous examples of transgressions, that’s a stronger argument.
Some terms need defining. Try asking a feminist to define “patriarchy,” for example. They’re likely to REJECT the plain old dictionary definition, since the dictionary definition doesn’t play into their arguments.
“As someone who competed nationally in debate, the “Appeal to Dictionary” is not done by people who are “not very bright.””
As an arcane doctor of epistemetaphysiology, I believe it is.
“At the end of the day, if you are going to be debating someone, you have to agree on definitions for terms, otherwise you’re not talking about the same thing.”
Interesting that you should say this – a sentence which is nearly identical, word for word, appears in the next piece, which follows on from this.
Indeed, I was not refuting that this is the case. Of course a consensus of meaning about words needs to exist for communication to be possible.
My refutation is of the notion that establishment lexicons provide objective definitions.
Given your own work on language ideologies, I would think you would be sympathetic to my view here.
And sometimes – in fact, much of the time when it comes to feminists – definition is actively avoided, because pinning a term down precludes the use of fuzzy borders, through which feminism extends concepts indefinitely to further its aims.
As a matter of fact, I think that debates between feminists and counter-feminists take place with only some proportion of shared meaning of terms.
E.g. what a feminist understands by ‘patriarchy’ when she says “down with patriarchy,” is probably the systematized rape and brutalization of women by men.
Whereas, when I say “up with patriarchy,” what I understand by it is male autonomy and male power, neither of which actually infringe on women’s own freedom from violence.
So why ‘reclaim’ the word ‘patriarchy’ at all? Because, while feminists use the above definition of patriarchy (systematized rape and brutalization) in rhetoric, the ‘patriarchy’ that they conquer in practice has a greater similarity with my own definition (e.g. feminist legal innovation strips men of civil rights).
But the only way that feminists have successfully stripped men of their civil rights, is by appealing against a ‘patriarchy’ that they equate to the systematic rape and brutalization of women.
So, if we get people to start using their own boogeymen phrases in more positive terms, we effectively pull out the rug (i.e. uncritical public support) from beneath them.
But nowhere in this debate do we need to possess a precisely shared definition for ‘patriarchy’; only a somewhat shared definition.
Even the somewhat shared definition of patriarchy you can easily pull up in any (gasp) dictionary should suffice:
–noun, plural -ies.
1.
a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.
2.
a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
A blanket statement like ‘an Appeal to Dictionary is always wrong’ is what I’m nitpicking here. Language ideologies suck, sure, but also without dictionaries and commonly agreed upon definitions, languages would lose their utility. It’s a tricky business. I *suspect* that Plato’s unwritten doctrine was unwritten because he realized the dangers of orthographies and how corruptible they are.
I was once told by a crazy feminut that I was “stupid” for looking at the dictionary definition of patriarchy after she continually refused to define it. She used many of the same arguments you bring up in the article (“patriarchy” is a political term so you can’t trust regular dictionaries and so on) yet she failed to provide a counter definition and she failed to provide rationale as to why we should reject the definition more commonly found in dictionaries.
What I’m getting at is that regardless of where or how you choose to define your terms, make sure you have solid reasons as to why that definition applies and how it provides a better context for debating the issue at hand. Rarely will you ever get into a debate on the internet where this kind of formality will matter, but the old competitive debater in me dies hard…
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Feminism is nothing more than a female supremacy hate group. No better than the KKK or the SkinHeads.
Appeal to Dictionary is just a variant on Appeal to Authority. Unfortunately, saying “fuck the dictionary, and fuck you too” doesn’t accomplish anything.
Well, for stylistic reasons I don’t like to say “fuck ____(anything)” … I’ll leave that to feminists who seem to think that juvenility impresses.
Speaking of which: recently, on a comment on a feminist blog, one feminist mentioned that “fuck you” would always remain at the forefront of her feminism. It is times like those, when our opponents openly declare that their politics are based largely on the principle of “fuck you,” that I tend to feel optimistic…
However! If you are suggesting that refutation does not accomplish anything, I beg you to take another look at the progress of the Men’s Rights Movement in recent years. That progress is essentially a series of refutations of feminist orthodoxy.
Feminists like to say that we should “stop whining” – by which they mean, stop making complaints – because they know (from experience) how well it works.
The just talking / taking action dichotomy is, in my personal opinion, a false one – as Paul has addressed on this blog in recent memory.
Dictionary definitions can provide a good staarting point for determining the meaning of a term. However, they are frequently outdated and incomplete. The origin of the word is in the feminine and therefore its focus must be upon the feminine. This is the opposite of equality.
From its beginning feminism focused upon women’s rights and the only equality it was interested in was in those areas where women were viewed as having inferior rights and privileges to men. It has never concerned itself with those areas where men have inferior rights to women except to redefine or reframe those situations to make it appear that women and men are equal or that men have superioity in that area as well.
Domestic violence is a prime example of the latter. Despite multiple studies that show men and women commit almost equal amounts of DV, feminists explain away female on male violence as “self-defence” or “battered woman syndrome” or find multiple ways to make it the man’s fault. Education is another area. despite the plethora of statistics that show that girls are performing equal to or above the levle of boys in nearly every category, at every level, in every social class and ethnic group, feminists continue to deny that a problem exists, blame it on “slacker boys,” video games, toxic masculinity, or socioeconomic class. Another example is the workforce. Feminists focus upon the lack of women in STEM fields and claim that it is absolutely essential that more women enter these areas of study while at the same time denying any importance or necessity of getting men into teaching, especcially in primary education. Official documents such as the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report go so far as to define female superiority as “equality” when reporting on “gender gaps” in various measures of life in countries around the world. Only areas of male superiority are defined as “inequality.” by the authors’ definition a society wherein men are slaves to women would be defined as “unequal” and discriminatory towards women if there were even one area where men are considered to hold an advantage and “equal” if no such area existed. (Refer to my commentary on this: http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=239 ). “Appeal to the Dictionary” is only a starting point, a place to gather a frame of reference, and it isn’t always accurate.
TDOM
“Feminism means equality stupid “.
If I had a nickel for every time somebody has said that to me – I’d have – well – about 25 cents or so.
Why?
I avoid idiots – that’s why.
But sometimes, they creep into my life.
Actions always speak louder than words while words are all to often used to conceal the real intent of a wannabe tyrant’s actions who seeks to confuse the the simple minded.
Great article Adam.
My dad would constantly be telling me as a kid:
“Whoever controls the language, controls society.”
At the time I didn’t pay much attention to him. It sounded more like a nut job conspiracy theory to me.
I came to realize he was correct. Whoever controls the framing of an argument will ultimately win that argument.
-Simon
The word Nazi originally meant nationalist-socialist. But nowadays it means so much more…
The mind is the last refuge of we MRAs and that is why we are so passionate. It is bad enough that our bodies are used for meaningless jobs, under crushing national debt that renders any progress pretty much minimal. So the mind is where we have our freedom. In the workplace, schools etc we men have been constantly and subtly assaulted with various ideologies that chip away at this inner foundation.
Enter the Mens Rights Movement. Growing strong primarily because it provides a buffer to this slow encroachment of thought control, and actually allows us to fight back and restructure debate in our favor.
The mind is where creativity begins, and the strong-willed will be the ones who resist falling prey to animalistic urges. So, to feminists I say, give us our space, respect our opinions and we will all advance towards a better society.
For your reading pleasure, I humbly submit an alternative definition of feminism from The Encyclopedia Dramatica. Tell the gender feminists like Diva to read this one instead: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Feminism .
Bill Maher vs Feminism
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaNH56Vpg-A]
oops…
Bill Maher vs Feminism (the right link this time):
“Fascism is defined as a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.”
If that’s the case we’re all doomed!
My own concise definition:
feminism: the belief in the paradigm that men and women comprise distinct social classes.
Now I don’t believe in that myself, but I think every form of feminism can be distilled down into this one little nugget.
Adam, an interesting problem, I written a few thoughts below.
Like Matthew said, the appeal to dictionary is really the appeal to authority. Of course if you want to refute them, then you would call it the rhetorical appeal to authority, this exposes their argument as rhetoric. Argument by citation is another example of the rhetorical appeal to authority. Most of the time with argument by citation the actual works cited do not support their arguments.
By having a semantic argument, that is an argument about the meaning of words, you are fighting the feminists in their terrain. Logical argument is what women do best, men in contrast, are better at empirical arguments. That is to say that women play with words and men play in the real world.
David Hume was a philosopher who studied empiricism, the idea that knowledge comes from experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
Hume’s Fork for is a technique for analysing whether a statement is true by definition, true by experience or just plain non-sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume's_fork
How do you refute the rhetorical appeal to dictionary?
1/ Provide an alternative definition, not to say that yours is definitive, just to prove there is no consensus.
2/ What the word “feminism” means is of no moment , so don’t dwell on that (what feminists do is important). Of course any word starting with ‘femin’ must relate to women. Where is the word that relates to men?
3/ Drill down to the meaning of the words used to define feminism. What does “equality” mean? TDOM gave a good example of current usage in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report, where equality of gender was defined as equal or better than men
4/ Find and attack their assumptions.
5/ Now you have countered their use of words, change the point of attack to empirical arguments. Don’t confuse empirical arguments with empirical studies. For example, ask how feminism advocates for men’s rights. Stick to the real world as much as possible. We know all the stats and examples of how men suffer.
6/ Don’t accept logical (circular) answers. For example, my uncle ran a one man business and once complained to his wife that his biggest bottle neck was estimating. Her reply was to suggest that he get an estimator. This is a logical answer and may sound wise but in reality there could be, and in his case were, practical problems. Most tautologies do sound wise if you don’t think about them. My sister did an auto maintenance course at high school. In her exam she was asked what a carburettor did, she said it carburetts! True story, this is how women think and argue.
7/ Accuse them of being abstract then return to the real world. Always return to the real world. For example, why did this “patriarchy” give women the vote? Why women and children first? Why only men in the draft? etc.
Logic and tautology (and I’m not talking high level logic here) is the domain of women. Don’t fight them there, engage them there by all means, but more the action into the empirical world where facts can be proven or dis-proven.
BTW, for a brilliant book on debating I highly recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Introduction-Critical-Recognize/dp/0879754249
Points 1-7 are essentially my argument. This particular article is only one aspect of that. The argument continues over the next couple of weeks and beyond.
Although I have presented the dictionary as the lexicon of the establishment – which it is – I would not equate the Appeal to Dictionary with the Appeal to Authority. The problem is not with authority per se but with the presumption that dictionaries offer up universal and objective definitions.
Tied into this is the social change of which we are a part in the Men’s Rights Movement; linguistic change and social change go hand in hand. The one brings the other along with it. Social movements are by their nature organic, and begin in isolated pockets, reframing, redefining terms to more accurately reflect their own experiences. This seems to be the business we are engaged in.
Establishment lexicons will not reflect the myriad interpretations of contested terms. This is not a complaint against dictionaries, as if to say that they necessarily should. The article is essentially a statement that established (i.e. traditional) definitions cannot convey the complexity and diversity of meanings attached to the key terms in use by marginal or anti-establishment social movements.
“By having a semantic argument, that is an argument about the meaning of words, you are fighting the feminists in their terrain.”
Well, I could not disagree more. For one thing, I didn’t set out to fight feminists with this piece – I’m addressing counter-feminists. If I wanted feminists to read it, I would post it at Feministing (and be quickly banned). There are a couple of themes in this article on which I will build in the coming weeks.
By not engaging in semantic warfare, we have already lost. Semantic warfare is precisely how feminists have made such gains – by redefining terms in the popular consciousness to more accurately reflect a vision of the world that they wanted people to have. This is not their terrain, it is THE terrain. There are hidden implications in almost all political language, and to ignore this is to stick our heads in the sand. No, to refuse to consider the meanings of words is to accept their meanings – and in that case, we really are fighting on their terrain, because we would have to accept definitions of assault, rape, patriarchy, et cetera, which stretch far beyond any reasonable account of those terms. E.g. defining assault as “not giving the victim what she wants”; defining rape as “all heterosexual intercourse”; defining patriarchy as any male space whatsoever.
If we can’t refute the feminist (mis)use of emotive terms, then we accept all their kooky arguments, and we’re already lining up for the gallows.
Semantic argument is, in fact, the MRA Weapon of Mass Destruction. Feminist semantic argument consists of only one strategy: expansion. Broaden the terms as far as you possibly can and make it law, the real world effect being that a greater number of men are imprisoned.
Our own semantic (counter-)arguments are nothing of the sort; we refute feminist semantic expansion by demanding clear definition, by demanding that a solid border is drawn around their emotive terms. Feminism relies on fuzzy borders – a.k.a. grey areas – for expansion. If we fail to obstruct them, then the inevitable future is persecution. Feminism has no internal brakes. It is up to external agents (counter-feminists) to build the brick walls around them, blocking them in.
Much of what you have said is due to come up in future lectures. Think of this one as the first part. A few people here have pre-empted upcoming themes. I guess that means we’re on the same page, more so than is implied by this article alone.
However, we do need to understand that ‘just talking’ and ‘taking action’ are not exclusive goals. Arguing with words and arguing in the real world are not separate matters. Feminism’s real world successes are down to its arguments over words.
Adam, thank you for going to the trouble of replying to my comment. My intention was not to attack you or refute your lecture. Rather, I see that many MRAs fall into the traps of believing that logic wins arguments and that men are superior to women in every respect. I just want to add something to the debate.
Logic does not win many arguments, rhetoric does. Sure, logic will bolster your case, but rhetoric will win the day. Ask yourself, do advertisers rely on logic or rhetoric to sell? When logic is used in ads, it usually is there to make the buyer think she has made a logical decision. Still don’t believe me? Review political campaigns. Logic or rhetoric? Try some news reports, do they generally use cold logic or do they go for a personal (rhetorical) angle?
The trouble with semantics is it can all seem like so much nit-picking. MRAs need to address semantics, but not become obsessed by it. Feminists need for nit-picking semantics is a sign of their narrow minded focus. Also, if we discredit the use of one word or phrase, they only need replace it with another: Women’s Lib anyone?
I believe that feminists us of the personal is political is what won the battle for them. By making the personal political the got sympathy for the problems that women faced and this resonated in society. Unfortunately for men this was a one sided discourse, the personal for men was of no consequence. The suffering of men through history was considered, noble, heroic or justified. Adam, you have covered the last part brilliantly.
Feminist doesn’t really mean anything or if you like it means anything you want it to. The lovelly Fuchia added this comment to the Fidelbogen post you linked to.
My emphasis .
Note that she considers herself a person of good will, who supports equality and is a feminist. By attacking feminists as a class do we inevitably attack people of good will who would otherwise support us? Do we have feminism, radical feminism and toxic feminism to name a few? Maybe NAWALT? Or NAWALT all the time.
The part I highlighted is a tautology, that is, it is true by definition. The word generalize means “to assume that all…” This is a technique where you can sound wise by writing a truth; the trouble is that the truth is trivial. She may as well cut and paste from a dictionary.
Are women smarter than men at something? I think so. Girls are now doing better than boys at school and there are now 3 females for every 2 males at university. Women are definitely not better, on average, than men at science, engineering, math or computers. I think they may be better at language and human interactions.
I like the thesis that Patriarchy, is men controlling the world, while, Gynocentrism is women controlling men, so in essence women control the world through men. Women don’t only use sex, they set the agenda and they know how to manipulate language.
I would arguee that feminisms real world succceses are down to “the personal is the political” aided by the use of language.
Just my opinion, but worthy of some consideration. I’m looking forward to you next lectures.
Thank you for your solid work here. I was wondering where you came to the conclusion that logic and tautology is the domain of women. I had always thought that feeling and ‘bodying’ were the primary domains of women. Please shed some more light on this question for me/us.
Definition of feminism? Very simple.
Feminism = Female Supremacism
The rest is details. And Adam K. will be providing a LOT more of those in upcoming lectures. Stay tuned!
An interesting read that culminates in a woman who identifies herself as a feminist not actually knowing what that means
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/30/theantichristforfeminists
“Semantic argument is, in fact, the MRA Weapon of Mass Destruction.”
Good example, how we redefine the feminism word itself.
Adam BRILLIANT!!
I lean more toward asking for examples that would characterize inequality,
since equality is subjective it illudes definition.
In areas of social experience, employment, voting, representation, law, education. There must be a contention of suffering.
From there I suggest that the application of liberation for the unoppressed is a struggle for privilege that oppresses and villifies an unsubstantiated oppressor.
If feminism supports equality where is the median? Is it possible for political feminism to go far enough that it promotes inequality? How will we know? What will be the social expression that represents equality lost or out of control.
Can we support feminism when it achieves inequality and thereby oppresses?
How would we redirect a corrective initiative that has succeeded and also oppresses?
My take ….let them use whatever words they want. Truth resides in the archetypal understanding of the collective and it is there that the outcome must be weighed.
“I lean more toward asking for examples that would characterize inequality,
since equality is subjective it illudes definition.”
Very true… equality is an essentially contested concept – in other words, it is one of those ideas most open to abuse.
Note how all keywords in the feminist lexicon are essentially contested concepts… because they are open to feminist abuse (i.e. semantic expansion).
Having won all their battles, feminists need to expand their purview in order to remain relevant. Hence they come up with all sorts of new oppressions, new inequalities, etc.
And this is an indefinite process, as feminism has no brakes. The end result can only be, as you rightly point out -
“I suggest that the application of liberation for the unoppressed is a struggle for privilege that oppresses and villifies an unsubstantiated oppressor.”
From privilege and vilification, the next stage is persecution.
Thus, this will only be prevented if we build a brick wall in feminism’s path. They cannot be relied on to stop before violent supremacy is realized. (All feminist self-reflection and self-criticism leads to further radicalization.)
Also, on the part of your post I have quoted… this is by and large the judgment I am due to express in a couple of week’s time.
Privilege is the inevitable result for the ‘oppressed’ group which successfully pushes its ‘victim ideology’ onto society.
Note how this is done, though.
At first, the ‘victim’ group claim that they are seeking equality with the ‘enemy’ group. This seems a fair and reasonable claim.
However, once equality is approached, or passed, the claim transforms: they are suddenly seeking autonomy, and equality with the ‘enemy’ group becomes irrelevant. They seek their own ‘victim identity,’ which is unaccountable to the ‘enemy’ group.
Germaine Greer (inadvertently) puts it best:
“When the name ‘Libbers’ was dropped for ‘Feminists’ we were all relieved. What none of us noticed was that the ideal of liberation was fading out with the word. We were settling for equality. Liberation struggles are not about assimilation but about asserting difference, endowing that difference with dignity and prestige, and insisting on it as a condition of self-definition and self-determination. … the visionary feminists of the late sixties and early seventies knew that women could never find freedom by agreeing to live the lives of unfree men.”
“My take ….let them use whatever words they want. Truth resides in the archetypal understanding of the collective”
Right – but it’s possible to argue that this collective understanding is an effect of the words used (i.e. how reality is defined), rather than words and their meanings flowing from a pre-existing collective understanding.
My own analysis of feminism suggests that the former is more likely to be the case.
Agree times 10 and I believe you are spot on. It would be a curious conversation to here how one defines rape.
Jaclyn Friedman says that unless sex is engaged enthusiastically it is rape. That might float in the feminine intelligensia but it won’t float with the general public.
We definitely do need to begin to define feminism clearly. I liked what Dan Moore wrote in his Jan. 15 article:
“Feminism as an ideology does not allow for dissent, and since it’s built upon a stack of bald-faced lies, any questioning of basic feminist principles is harshly rebuked, rather than welcomed. This is the surest sign of a totalitarian regime based on injustice.”
Maybe the definition could go something like this:
“Gender-feminism is an overarching ideology built on a stack of bald-faced lies. As the primary reverse-sexist superstition of Post Modern age, it forms the foundation for female sexual supremacy in the name of ‘gender’ equality. Like other half-baked Utopian fantasies, it is totalitarian to the core. It is formed from a witch’s brew of recycled but dis-credited ideological relics from the trash heap of history…relics like Marxism, Romanticism and Classism. It’s proponents proudly destroy well-established standards of scholarship to force others to take the ideology seriously. It’s adherents have spread like carcinogenic pathogens in authoritarian institutions…that is wherever power is perverted for political reasons. It’s philosophy is nonsensical, circular, and self-serving. As the primary moral foundation for the mainstream hate groups which operate in the name of Women’s Rights worldwide, gender-feminism is a dangerous dogma and one that has no place in civil discourse.”
Agreed. My own (loose) definition is coming up next week.
Though, nearly all counter-feminist definitions can be reduced to the following shorthand:
“Feminism equals female supremacism.”
The longer definitions are useful for establishing exactly what it is that we oppose. The shorthand is useful because it sticks in the mind. It is a rallying point, a memorable phrase, mud that will be difficult to scrub off – all that, while still retaining the essential truth about feminism.
honestly I am loathe to use aggressive language in a debate, I will in an exchange, but not in the presentation of a debate. With the upcoming radio show, I’m really hoping we lean in the direction of intelligent non aggressive communication. I am confident that Paul will approach with his deadly cunning but I do worry about others.
I avoid terms like “bald face lie” I have always felt it better to let it ring in the head than on the lips.
Keith, I agree with your comment. Ad hominem attacks are only effective when you are clearly winning a debate. Is the objective of the MRM to offend as many people as possible, or is it to gain support for our just cause?
John A, we cannot win this debate it must always be a win for the spectator. Think of the roman mob. The mob wants ad hominem attacks if you don’t use them, the mob will first in their own minds and then when you give them a voice.
“it must always be a win for the spectator.”
I think this is the crucial point. If we break society down into feminists, counter-feminists and non-feminists, it is the non-feminists we have to appeal to.
There is no need appealing to counter-feminists; they are already on our side. There is no point trying to appeal to feminists, because they are trapped in a closed system of thought and are thus impervious to dissenting reason.
It is the non-feminists – who are the majority of people – that we need to appeal to. This must always be remembered. You don’t ‘defeat the feminist’ in argument, e.g. by having the cleverest-sounding insults. No, you appeal to the non-feminist.
To me, this suggests that, when a feminist uses ad hominem attacks, it is best to not respond in kind, but to openly dismiss the tactic. Spectating feminists will appreciate the ad hominem, non-feminists will see it for what it is – they will also see that you refused to lower yourself to that level.
Shaming tactics are used because they get under the skin and make men lose their temper. Simply knowing how this works can be enough to avoid that.
I agree with your analysis. We need to inform counter feminists and appeal to non-feminists. True feminists can rot in hell.
I’m not suggesting we use aggressive language willy nilly. What we do need to do is to define lies as lies, hate as hate, aggression as aggression and ugliness as ugliness or we will always be the Chamberlains against the Hitlers. I am aware that the reverse-sexist double bind that we are held hostage in as males trying to confront hate filled females makes this game very very dangerous. However, we have to find ways to go on offense against feminist hate, scorn, and ridicule effectively or we will keep babbling about our ‘rights’ forever as those very rights are repeatedly raped with perfect impunity.
We cannot, forever, hide behind the skirts of women like Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, or even Camille Paglia who are willing use aggressive language to contain aggression. Women no longer need to hide behind White Knights for protection from male rapists largely because THEY have done a highly effective job of slandering ALL men as rapists. WE can and should be much more discriminating toward female predators of the political kind but we need to call a spade a spade somehow and do that proudly and un-apologetically.
“All men are rapists” is not a palatable meme for general consumption. It implies a form of segregation that would have to be introduced at birth, which further implies that a child is a dangerous offender.
Yes the meme is insulting but only to the intelligence of the general public. It is an absurdity that lurks in the dark.
“All men are rapists” means all women are victims
“All men are rapists” means women are sexually inferior to men
“All men are rapists” means rape is not evil
Feminists sell this – they should go out of business
Looking forward to it.
That said, I think we have to go beyond ‘counter’ to ‘anti’ though. Some sort of distinct definition of feminism would anchor genuine anti-feminism as well. The problem is that gender-feminists have very cleverly defined feminism as ‘equality’ so that even feminists can be pejoratively labeled as ‘anti-feminist’ for challenging female supremacist feminisms. Somehow we have to cut through the crap so that feminists cannot so easily play word games with words they resolutely refuse to define. I mean how much sense does it make to call a counter-Nazi an ‘anti-Nazi Nazi’ but that’s what gender feminists do with impunity every day to ‘anti-feminists’ like say Christina Hoff Sommers.
Entitled ‘female supremacism’ that is half of the term to me. The other half is enforced male inferiorism. Feminists are more than female supremacists. They intend to utterly destroy males as males. In their ideal world, we wouldn’t even exist or we would be castrated eunuchs or homosexual flunkies. Somehow our definition has to incorporate the destruction of males as males by women who believe they are better ‘men’ than we are.
Anyway, I totally agree about stickiness. Short, succinct and to the point is essential. Their masterstroke was ‘rights’, and ‘equality’. Ours could be ‘respect’ and ‘equity’. Men’s ‘rights’ will probably never catch on because we are already, falsely, presumed to have more rights, because women have co-opted the term ‘rights’ to ridicule us and because we have always been the disposable sex for whom rights have never really mattered as compared to those of women and children. We need some words that have potent punch, that speak to us as males and that distinguish us from the Women’s or human rights/equality crowd.
Nuff said.
Let’s see what you come up with.
my spin is not to engage feminism but to engage the experience let the dogma lie for now and counter the contentions with contradictory experiences. Let the labels and rhetoric find their own resting place within the experience. It will cause a needed dissonance that will afford posing long overdue questions. I would tie it too disreputable anti social legislation. Surrounded by the impact on the fatherless child.
It is also my belief that you guys, you insightful brains need to tear this apart and make strategic contributions with descriptive formats of progression. (behind the scenes where exchanges like this are not viewed by ghosts)
Adam, John A, Primal, Tom, Fidelbogen, Denis, any and all.
Get some ICQ accounts or lets organize a weekly skype chat,
privately to disseminate a strategic format with direction. Even more than one group doing this, we can make hay with a concerted effort.
I think we all agree on the content of the problem, we need to make it palatable and marketable, for general consumption.
“Get some ICQ accounts or lets organize a weekly skype chat. .”
How about a private forum..?
That sounds a bit more laid-back.
absolutely X ten
Where? When? Agenda? Talking points?
I am working on setting up a forum right now, as a matter of fact. Gotta get the kinks out.
As for agenda, et al: start in “free association” mode, and the points will naturally emerge.
Click on my name to access my blog, and post a reader comment on the latest post if u want to discuss more.
Sounds good to me
Ditto.
No offense, but first we need to be sure we are on solid rock before we go for palatable and marketable. We face an utterly ugly gang of totalitarian goons similar to those who run any big bureaucracy or corporation. We need to be sure they cannot destroy our credibility by calling us ‘lurkers’ or “wack jobs” (see The Frisky on Male Studies, or by ridiculing the absurdity of OUR arguments as we destroy theirs. They stand on shifting sand so they will be easy to take down as long as we never step onto the sand with em.
I am fine with referring to ourselves as anti-feminists; in fact, that is probably the more popular term.
I use the two (anti-) and (counter-) interchangeably.
I am an anti-feminist!
We need to do ‘anti’ somehow but the feminists have cleverly locked us in by refusing to define feminism. I’m anti feminist too but I support women’s rights (that is where women have paid the full ‘price’ for those rights). The risk is that we will be labeled as anti-woman as antifeminists unless we are very careful to define/create distinctions between the feminisms we oppose and those which we support.
How about anti-gender-feminist or is that too bulky?
Feminists have not locked us in to anything. Why assume that only feminists may define feminism?
In my view, feminists define feminism incorrectly; that is, my experiences of feminism do not accord with the description of feminism provided by feminists.
Feminism may have the right to self-define, but it is not the only entity which may define feminism.
I am perfectly happy defining feminism, and I shall do so in a manner which is thoroughly objective, and for that reason, will appeal to people who also have experiences of feminism, but detect a certain discord between this and the definition of feminism provided by feminists.
Given that, I believe that I am more qualified to define feminism than the majority of feminists.
In fact, if feminists refuse to pin down what feminism is, then I feel that, not only am I more qualified than they, but that it is my moral duty to define it.
I think that there is the danger of being too careful.
I care not what others label me; the ‘misogynist’ tag, meaningless as it has now become, will inevitably be applied to anybody who refutes feminist orthodoxy.
Did you know, Primal, that you have already been labeled ‘rapist’? Yes, the ‘all men are rapists’ shtick has been going on for some time now…
‘All anti-feminists are anti-women’ is inevitable also.
Ignore it.
Keep preaching.
The danger for them is, that by making us so controversial, people will actually want to read us more. E.g. the great favor Charles McGrath recently paid Paul Elam.
And when people do come to a site like this, they shall find not knuckle-dragging woman-hatred, but cogent arguments which, yes, critique feminism and Gynocentrism.
And more crucially: many of those who arrive here will actually find themselves agreeing, because the view of the world espoused here more closely accords with their own than does any amount of feminist propaganda.
Yes, let them label me all they like!
There is really no use getting wound up about it. There’s no use worrying about it or even trying to oppose it. It’s going to happen whatever you do. The only way it’s not going to happen is if you shut up and toe the feminist line.
And THAT… is what’s NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Another thought.
If feminists refuse to define feminism, and you or I define it for ourselves – then how could they know what we mean by anti-feminism?
They don’t have the first clue about what we do or don’t oppose.
They might have an idea, in their heads, of what this term ‘feminism’ means. But having not made that public, they can hardly expect that we will interpret the term in the same way, can they?
So, the ‘feminism’ that I object to, is not necessarily the same ‘feminism’ that a feminist believes in.
So, when I am confronted by a juvenile who says to me, “so you’re anti-feminist? I guess that means you think women should be chained to the stove and not have the vote and just be raped all day? Just like the good old days, huh?”
I shall simply say: “none of what you just said has any bearing whatsoever on my opposition to feminism.”
And if she persists, I shall say the following: “I do not have any desire to see women chained to stoves, denied votes, nor raped; and yet still, I am an anti-feminist. Good day.”
When faced with the idea that the dictionary always reflects reality hit them with this definition from Websters…
Definition of COMMUNISM
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
And then ask them if that’s what they actually did in the USSR and China.
That’s a great comparison – and should be taken as a serious warning about where we’re headed.
Phenomenal talent here. Read this article carefully, it is highly and immediately USEFUL to us in myriad ways.
I like the term gynocentrism because it describes a societal phenomenon that is more than just the effects of feminism and patriarchy.
Feminist definitions are easy to refute by direct quotes from feminist leaders.
The following isn’t representing patriarcy or feminism, but is an excellent example of gynocentrism in modern pop culture:
“You know I’d catch a grenade for ya.
Throw my hand on a blade for ya
I’d Jump in front of a train for ya
You know I’d do anything for ya
I would go through all this pain,
Take a bullet straight through my brain.
Yes’ I would die for you ya baby;
But you won’t do the same”
Adam, thanks. I enjoyed reading another one of your pieces.