Two Feminist Fallacies

This concerns two common errors of thinking which most feminists stumble into while they are scrambling to decipher what is happening to their world, why things are slipping out of their control, and how they might regain that control. I call these two errors the crosshairs fallacy, and the moral perfection fallacy. 

When I call them fallacies, I do not mean they are strictly logical fallacies in the academic way. That is, I do not pretend to add them to the likes of ad hominem, circular argument, strawman, and so on. No, for my purpose, these new items are fallacious simply because they are mistaken; because they initialize thinking upon a foundation of error and trigger downstream error in conjoined regions of understanding. I am keen to call attention to them because they so strongly mark the behavior of feminists in particular — especially those who are describing or attacking the non-feminist revolution. So my motivation to write is political.

I will speak first of the crosshairs fallacy.

Feminists fall into this mistaken thoughtway owing to their confusion and consequent desire to simplify. In a word, they oversimplify. Beset by hostile forces which they cannot fathom, they try to align a narrow target, as it were, in the crosshairs of a sniper scope. Their deluded hope is, that the sum and substance of what threatens them lies within that constricted radius, and that if only they neutralize the target area, their troubles will go away andperpetual revolution will resume its course unhindered.

Among feminists, the crosshairs target of choice is the cyberspace group known as “MRAs”, or Male Renaissance Agitators. Feminists are obsessed with MRAs as a kind of “red menace.” They sense, quite rightly, that larger social forces are mobilizing against feminism and what feminism has inflicted on the world, and with utmost naïveté they have undertaken a shorthand analysis that would make these things mentally easier to cope with.

Things are never “bad” for independent local reasons, but for reasons which feminism arrogates sole authority to enunciate.
The crosshairs fallacy springs from a childish belief that the vital force of the non-feminist revolution concentrates in a point source — for example, a certain community of websites — and that if you neutralize this particular “head”, then the “snake” will expire. But that is a gross misunderstanding — akin to attacking a prominent mushroom in complete ignorance of the underlying mycelium which spreads for miles. For even if you kill, imprison, or pinklist every suspected “MRA” on the planet, you will not have made a dent in the cultural forces which generated MRAs in the first place. Furthermore, you will have overlooked a host of otherthreats to feminism from other directions.

Accordingly, it will not do to sit around in feminist echo chambers mocking the bizarrities of presumptive MRAs who have posted comments on the internet. For such words are not spoken in a vacuum, nor do they enter the universe through a side door from nowhere. It should go without saying that such unsavoriness is the consequence of something — even a feminist could agree on that much. But what a feminist cannot hope to fathom without ceasing to be a feminist, is that these things originate from a source in the objective world which the feminist narrative is not competent to explain.

So the feminists have arrived at a false simplicity. The problem is not that the facts of the case are unduly difficult to comprehend, but that they are difficult for a specifically feminist mindset to process without a prerequisite self-knowledge and the sense of guilt this knowledge would instill. It is to avoid guilty self-knowledge, then, that the feminists project their anxieties onto an abstracted and quasi-mythical group of people — as onto a lightning rod.

To be sure, MRAs do exist in various forms. But “the MRA” as anarchetypal construct, is largely a figment of the feminist imagination. And MRAs, whether concretely or archetypally, are only one piece of a much larger jigsaw puzzle. The more advanced non-feminist philosophers, by the way, do not make the equivalent error in their thinking about feminism or feminists. Rather, they have evolved a sophisticated conceptual model of feminism as a sociopolitical organism — a subject which I have treated elsewhere.

I will speak next of the moral perfection fallacy.

The feminists wish to discredit their enemies as simply as possible, and so they look for anything that is morally amiss about their enemies in order to expedite that project. This is fallacious mainly because it is shallow. For there is no way that any sizeable demographic sector can be a vessel of moral purity straight through, and the non-feminist sector is no exception. You will find the complete moral spectrum of human nature among those who oppose feminism, because we are talking about humanity en masse — and when did humanity en masse ever include less than a complete moral spectrum?Furthermore, you should understand that feminism is a utopian worldview. It upholds the abstract ideal of “progress” and holds the rest of the world accountable to a certain programme which it dictates in the service of this ideal.

So when the rest of the world is slow to measure up, it counts as proof (in the feminist mind) that the rest of the world is morally invalid and, thus invalidated, without warrant to challenge feminist claims. This mode of thinking is entirely circular and self-referential.In practice, all feminist assessment of human fallibility is made according to a feminist yardstick, meaning that no case of moral dysfunction is permitted to operate within its own frame of reference. Things are never “bad” for independent local reasons, but for reasons which feminism arrogates sole authority to enunciate. And in the feminist utopian worldview, all things are either progressing toward a projected feminist future, or rebelling against that future in some way. No alterity is admitted, and by default, any possible theory of “sin” or “transgression” can only be a feminist theory, imposed by feminists and for feminists, upon the rest of the world.

And so the feminists cannot see the world as it exists in itself, but only as it appears through the lens of feminist theory. In consequence, feminist dealings with the non-feminist sector amount to a coercive falsification of reality injuriously imposed on others. For it ought to be obvious that all manner of folk may be aggrieved at feminism for all manner of reasons. It is not a bit obvious, however, that ALL of these reasons are invalid merely because SOME of them are proffered on questionable grounds by questionable people. Coercive falsification is therefore a cardinal sin upon feminism’s doorstep; it is first imposed, reacted against by an aggrieved world, and imposed once more in rejoinder to that aggrieved reaction — which to the feminist mind is deemed a transgression. But with each round the falsification grows — always at the expense of any feminist claim to moral authority. This claim — or rather pretention — crumbles relentlessly.

In sum, feminism has a toxic moral agency within the social ecology. And so the moral perfection fallacy should inspire us to quote the Gospel verse which advises plucking the beam out of thine own eye before thou pluckest the mote out of thy neighbor’s eye!

A concluding word: The crosshairs fallacy and the moral perfection fallacy are interrelated; they intertwine; they have territory in common; they illuminate each other. But I will leave it to the reader to work this out for himself or herself.

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!

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Zorro

    Very well said!

  • Atlas Reloaded

    I am NOT a Men’s Rights Activist any longer…I am indeed a MALE RENAISSANCE AGITATOR! Indubitably!!!

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Aw hell I’m both.

      Btw, I saw a bumper sticker that fits Fidelbogen’s excellent assesment of feminist theory:

      “Am I solipsistic, or is it just me?”

      • TDOM

        Your condemnation of my solipcism matters not, for to me, you do not exist.


        • Paul Elam

          I hate you, therefore you exist, in a marginal sort of way. :)

          • TDOM

            You hate me, therefore I exist. Vos contemno mihi proinde EGO futurus. Unfortunately for you this only proves my existence, not yours. 😉


  • .ProleScum.

    Fidelbogen strikes again. Awesome.

  • Dr. F

    Great article, thank you.

    You said it just as beautifully recently in a post to me when you said and I quote this:

    “Whoever claims to be a feminist is either a crook or a jackass.”

  • Robert Full Of Rage

    “In sum, feminism has a toxic moral agency within the social ecology.”

    The feminist culture has created a lot of women who have the “get rich quick” mentality. A lot of women embrace affirmative action, although most will never admit it.

    Most want to be placed at the front of the line in every aspect of society that improves their social status.

    • Atlas Reloaded

      An imaginary front-line of course…with invisible men in front of them to protect their asses.

  • Stu

    Hey are Fidelbogan and Keith related by any chance LOL

    • Perseus

      LMAO Stu, you killed me with that one………..

      And I love the hell out of both of them.

      This piece is fertilizer for my brain, mental exercise, stimulation and expansion that is uniquely rich.

  • Tim Legere

    I have re-read each paragraph five times and here is what I think I learned.

    1. Feminists, when confronted, will seek to “take out” a perceived MRA leader with a verbal/written “sniper shot to the head” to effectively degrade and silence arguments (e.g. I recall Liz Kates attempting to do exactly this to Warren Farrell concerning his Penthouse Interview in 1977). I suspect that Feminists believe that once the “leader is dead” the remainder of the group will “fold”.

    2. Feminists believe that they hold the Moral “High Ground” and possess the one and only valid “Measuring Stick” on ANY topic. Any attempt to suggest otherwise indicates disagreement and proves that the “attackers” are not moral and that Feminists may justifiably dismiss them with any number of shaming tactics.

    How do we combat this? Perhaps history can help us.

    There was a famous battle during the First World War that occurred in France at Vimy Ridge. Canadian soldiers formulated a plan to take the German stronghold which involved EVERY participant knowing the entire battle plan and everyone’s responsibilities. If a Captain fell then a Lieutenant took his place, if the Lieutenant died then the Sergeant stepped forwarded, then Corporals and Privates. Up to that point this approach was never tried before … but it worked and the battle was won. D-Day was a similar venture composed of various Allies (from the United States, Britain Canada, Australia and others) and it was also successful.

    There’s no doubt that there are a number of MRA Leaders on this site and others (e.g. Paul, JTO, Angry Harry to name a few) but I believe we can all contribute towards a shared success resulting (hopefully) in a better life for our children and for both women and men.

  • scatmaster

    I have re-read each paragraph five times and here is what I think I learned.

    So that explains it I have only read it four times. LOL.

  • JinnBottle

    Fidelbogen lights his cigars with his PhDs. VERY elegantly said, Fidel – almost over my pointed head! I even learned a couple-three of vocabulary words reading this!

  • BeijaFlor

    “And so the feminists cannot see the world as it exists in itself, but only as it appears through the lens of feminist theory.”

    More to that than just feminism. Actually, we all see the world through the lens of our individual beliefs. If you believe in injustice, you will see evidence of injustice everywhere. If you believe in compassion, you will see people deserving of compassion everywhere. If you believe in God, you will see yourself surrounded in God’s handiwork …

    Now, consider what kind of beliefs are at the core of feminism. Then go wash the image out of your mind with some good whiskey – you may need it.

    • Stu

      And so belief is a bigger enemy of truth than lies.

  • Perseus

    Yes, yes and yes.

    The bitches really are that batshit crazy. This hyphae runs deep, it has to be rooted out, and we are digging.

    Thank you for this brilliant analysis and enlightenment, Fidelbogen.

  • Fidelbogen

    “The bitches really are that batshit crazy. “

    When Perseus says ‘the bitches’, he is talking about. . . the feminists, of course…

    • Paul Elam

      Agreed, and allow me to hijack this part of the thread for a moment for a point of order.

      I have been observing some comments lately (for clarity I am not referring to anything Perseus has just posted) and noted a point of concern that rises up from time to time, as would be expected on a site of this nature.

      I have a fine line to walk here and at times I wonder if I have the wisdom to walk it unerring. But the buck falls on me so I accept it.

      On the one hand, I want all AVfM users to speak openly and without undue reservation. On the other hand, if this site were to devolve into just another “all women are whores and bitches” cheering section, it will have defeated every intention I had for the site when I built it.

      I am a big proponent of dissecting and analysing the psyche of women as much as I am men, and I know that analysis is frequently unflattering. Again, this is to be expected. We are, by necessity, critics here, and such critique is our responsibility as well as our right.

      But reducing either half of the population to a handful of invectives is not critique. It is not even intellectually honest. It is the same, base, reductivist claptrap that most of us have come to loathe in feminists and blue pill zombies.

      From time to time I have to take issue, even with some of the men that I value and see as brothers in this struggle. I don’t see anything happening here that I need to chastise anyone for directly, but I will say the tone has been a bit over the top in places.

      I think we are better than to slide too far down that rail. So I offer this as a respectful request to all those who comment here. This sites purpose is not to make an enemy of womanhood, but a friend of justice. I ask your help with that in all you say here.

      • Dr. F


        We are better than at and can push back differently. If we mimic do exactly what they do to us we all arrive at exactly the same place we are right now… nowhere.

        • Fidelbogen

          “We are better than at and can push back differently. If we mimic do exactly what they do to us we all arrive at exactly the same place we are right now… nowhere.”

          That is why we should mimic them in-exactly, mirroring about 2/3 of what they do to us, yet breaking symmetry with the remaining third. Even though they (the feminists) theoretically ‘license’ us to throw ALL the same tricks straight back at them, we can only rise above their level if we inject some element of originality into the mix. Otherwise, we shall go ’round and ’round in the same old mud and never break the cycle.

          • Dr. F

            Two thirds… yes, that sounds about right.

            Good call.

      • keyster

        It sucks, but we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

        The victim class groups control the narrative. There will be no “stereotyping”. “generalizing” or subjective criticism and analysis of them as a group, unless of course you’re one of them, and even then it gets dicey.

        So in the face of all the blatant public shaming, ridicule and disparagement men are subjugated to on a daily basis, we can’t do it back. We have to be smarter, more cunning and elusive. We’re fighting the “system” of misandry and bias, not the other gender. Because as soon as you start to get specific to women, THE WOMAN, you’re a spiteful hater, a misogynist pig, etc.

        It’s the way they set it up to shut down debate and censor dissenting opinion, and everytime one of us does it, we fall right into that clever little trap. I don’t like it, but we have to operate within the confines of it or national exposure and mainstream inroads can never be made.

        So the next time you say something, bear in mind we’re no longer just talking amongst ourselves.
        All those media outlets getting these press releases from Register-Her are bound to peer in to see just how credible (professional) an organization we appear to be. I know it sucks, but it’s the way it is. Censor yourselves, for the good of the movement.

        Learn to say what you mean, without coming right out and saying it.

        • Dan Moore (Factory)

          …”So in the face of all the blatant public shaming, ridicule and disparagement men are subjugated to on a daily basis, we can’t do it back. We have to be smarter, more cunning and elusive.”

          We can’t (and shouldn’t) do it back, but we most certainly CAN point to their very own ‘beliefs’ and point out the hypocrisy when the “That’s Different”‘s start rolling out.

          Also Keyster, it’s easier to avoid that trap if you openly don’t give a shit about it. There’s a lot of power behind the statement “I don’t give a fuck if it kills me, I’m not putting up with your shit for one minute longer!” It’s the relatively large (and growing) core of the MRM that feels this way that *really* scares people.

          But when you say this:

          “Learn to say what you mean, without coming right out and saying it.”

          I totally agree, for the Authors of articles. I could definitely use a little more rhetorical discipline myself. But in comments, I see nothing wrong with blatant accusations at all. In fact, if we were all coy all the time, no one would be 100% sure of what we were driving at.

          The shock factor is not repelling people anywhere NEAR as much as many hope us to believe. We have caused a LOT of discussion on mens issues in a relatively short time *by being angry, interesting, and provocative*, not by being ‘reasoned’ in a New Yorker sort of way.

          Register Her might…MIGHT…become a Wiki like database used for factual searches. But far more likely, it will be a ‘novelty’ search for kicks…which then leads to some discoveries. ‘Legitimacy’ in the official sense only comes with being essentially Government, or well funded org.

          We are neither.

      • Peter CH.

        I have been guilty of that myself in the past. You learn as you go – not least about yourself. One little rule I now rigidly apply to myself, here and elsewhere (particularly on the blogs of the mainstream media) is to never comment whilst the blood pressure is riding high.

        If you end up looking back at something you posted, after the smoke has cleared, with a bowed red face holding the top of your nose between your thumb and forefinger – God knows how it is being interpreted by people for whom even reservedly questioning or challenging feminism is new territory.

        I’ve been there.

  • andybob

    “But “the MRA” as an archetypal construct, is largely a figment of the feminist imagination.”

    Mr Fidelbogen articulates two very prominent strategies used by feminists when they feel cornered in a debate. Only recently, I was confronted by a feminist who attempted to employ these fallacies when I challenged some left-feild comment had she made about women and their precious glass ceiling. Coming face to face with a true believer was once a daunting experience. Now, I welcome opportunities to see feminists operate in all of their unwavering predictability.

    I have stated this before, but articles such as these enable me to anticipate the methods that feminists use to control, deride or shut down opponents. This particular feminist was very flustered when I pointed out that she was confusing equality of outcomes with equality of opportunities. Her response was to instantly try to demonise me and trot out the old Women’s Studies stats – I managed to finish her stats for her (thanks again AVFM) before explaining why they were bogus (and again).

    Why did I bother? Fence-sitters were watching and people like Mr Fidelbogen have provided me with a practical education on what to expect from feminists. The more light you shine on feminist myths and hypocrisies, the tighter they batten the hatches, forbidding dissent and reasoned enquiries. It seems that most feminists exist entirely within the confines of their imaginations – atrophied from lack of healthy interaction with the real world. As for my femfoe, she remained recalcitrant, burrowed deep inside her fantasy world – but thanks to sites like this, I already knew that she was unreachable.

    Brilliant and illuminating article, sir. Greatly appreciated.

    • Dr. F

      Mr A. Bob when you said this bit, “Why did I bother? Fence-sitters were watching.. ” I whooped in agreement. Well not really, but I did inside and that bloody well counts.

      I never bother with the femfoes ( I like that) if they are alone, but will do so if there are others about.

      Trying to enlighten a femfoe is like bargaining with lightning or being able to draw a mustache on a shark. It will just never be.

      What the femfoe needs in place for a turn-around is something close to them, their kid, partner or themselves being treated poorly. I know, as I used to be one in my youth and if the hardest of us here were to have sat me down for a chat my ears would have folded shut faster than an anemone snapping at an angel fish.

      Perhaps it’s better to leave them be and let the fence sitters drop by when they hear the clarity of the siren of reason and real truth.

      This is our work.

  • Stu

    Yes, you don’t debate feminists to convert them, that is nearly imjpossible. You debate them for the sake of the audience, to make them expose themselves for what they really are, and destroyt them in the audiences eyes.

    • Dr. F

      Ah Stu, I see your comment here. I am a hundred percent with you.

    • Fidelbogen

      You have articulated the distinction between arguing with and arguing against.

      I believe that the mainstay of our strategy should be “arguing against” — i.e. informing the great middle mass about feminism, the ones who are “organically” non-feminist in the first place and need only the sound of well-crafted words and explanations falling upon their eardrums in order to awaken them.

      Heck, we don’t even need to be at our “best” when communicating with the middle mass. We don’t need to be anywhere near the top of our game. Generally, commonplace stuff (like citing the usual stats, feminist quotes, showing them the Redstockings (or SCUM) Manifesto, etc, will suffice to break the ice and open the channels).

      So we should be talking over the heads of the feminists and addressing the middle mass directly. It will be as if we are talking about the feminists “behind their backs”. Did you ever talk about somebody “behind their back” knowing and not caring that they would hear you? Well, basically that’s the trick to use.

      At the same time that we are offering up the basics, we should also be slotting in our own narrative and counter-theory, building this up bit-by-bit. I call it ‘taking control of the frame.’

      Also, at some point in the process, Tim Legere’s ‘Vimy Ridge thesis’ would be a good thing to take on board, IMO.

  • keyster

    As both an intellectual and writer, you make me feel unworthy.

  • Peter CH.

    Over time the biggest threats to feminism are simply the siamese twins of time and truth. In truth the word ‘threat’ is, in itself, feeble.

    Feminism, like every strain of crackpot extremism since the dawn of human civilization, is irrevocably doomed by this inseperable duo since it first reared its grotesque head.

    Similarly MRA’s have old Father Time and his mate as our invincible ally – in the long term.

  • backslash

    couldn’t think of where else to post this so I’ll just do it here. someone on another board someplace posted a link to and began the histrionics about how 12% of the men at this college were rapists. It occurred to me that other colleges routinely gather statistics about their students and manipulate them to conjure up rape epidemics on the campus and get more funding for rape crisis centers and womens studies departments. And I began to wonder, why doesn’t this give bad press to the college? why doesn’t this scare people out of enrolling?

    So hypothetically speaking, why not compile data from different colleges and start ranking them based on their safety? Why not use this feminist scaremongering against them? Reframe the statistics to make it a problem with the COLLEGE instead of with men? How much bad press would it take before enrollments dropped and colleges had to disavow or turn on their feminist activists?

    hypothetically speaking, the deeper the feminist entrenchment, the more ridiculous the statistics will be and the worse the college will look.

    • Paul Elam

      Great minds think alike. I have also been recently considering a small website that is marketed to parents with college age daughters. We could provide them a list of “The Ten Colleges Where Your Daughter is Most Likely to be Raped”

      Wanna bet we could get some traffic to that one pretty easily?

      • Just1X

        Might one expect to find many links to false rape society and register-her?

        I LOVE this idea, using their own lies and causing a backlash against rape hysteria stats and their jobs, potentially.

      • Dan Moore (Factory)

        Even better…make up a “College Rankings Issue” done once a year, in this manner. And rank each one based on their scaremonger stats. Backslash, you’re a genius.

      • dalriada

        A while back I saw a video by pinegrove33 about a mangina that toured colleges giving anti-male lectures to the students. The mangina helpfully had a list of institutions he had been to on his website. I commented that a ranked list of the most misandric colleges would be useful to young men. But the idea of using feminist lies to scare away women is just deliciously wicked, and more achievable, as it is easier to quantify. 😛

    • UKMan

      @backlash Your idea, I have to say, is a brilliant piece of lateral thinking.

      • Fidelbogen

        Lateral thinking indeed.

        With a bit of brainstorming, it should be possible to come up with many interesting projects of this sort, involving online activism but eventually branching into the “real world” as well.

        Of course, these projects could not ALL fly under the aegis of AVFM, but that is good — we want to see independent groups and nodes propagating in all directions, each under its own distinct brand (to thwart stereotypification of the movement as a whole) but linked to each other and sharing resources.

        The projects would generate spinoffs, and the spinoffs would spin off, and on it would go.

        As more and more people are drawn into the non-feminist revolutionary vortex, it will include people with resources, connections and savvy, who know just who to pull off such things.

  • Malestrom

    Great post Fidelbogen, I thought your point about the crosshairs fallacy was especially insightful. It is perfectly true; feminists genuinely seem to believe that if only MRAs would shut up (or could be made to shut up) that all this growing hostility and resistance to feminism, which I have no doubt to them seems to have appeared all of a sudden and from nowhere, would all go away. They honestly think we are responsible for it all, in a way they give us far, far too much credit.

  • Tom

    “…And so the feminists cannot see the world as it exists in itself, but only as it appears through the lens of feminist theory…. ”

    Cannot? More like Choose Not! Most of these feminist creatures are MORE THAN CAPABLE of apprehending the overwhelming preponderance of observable evidence and see “the world as it exists in itself.” They simply choose not to do so for a variety of reasons. We can even provide them proof beyond a reasonable doubt and these types of feminists, like some incurable alcoholic or drug addict, will not change their views or behaviors. We didn’t cause their entrenched belief systems; we can’t cure them of their ignorance and insanity; and we can’t control their actions. But we can continue to evolve and expand on what we’re doing here at AVFM and related sites. Great article and comments!

    • Rocco

      I don’t think they can. It’s a sort of a choice but once people decide something it’s hard to change their minds. A feminist will likely die a feminist and we mra’s.

      It’s a weakness we are trying to use against them.

  • Rocco

    In reading a peace on marriage and divorce in the Huff Po today i saw what remains of our feminists bravado. They’re still at it.

    One poster intimated that women were as imperfect as men are, the feminists, forever married to one upsmaship responded that women are less imperfect than men.

    It may be that we should use nicer language, I don’t think we’re there yet and I’m an older MRA from the days of Stand Your Ground which has a policy of not even allowing creative generalizations.

    It did teach men to argue with restraint.

    Since the mrm has become more verbally aggressive, I think the public likes us better, we appear human and the pain we have suffered is more real to an audience when they here the correct emotion, anger attached.

    I frequently think about the civil rights movement of blacks. To this day, their leaders have not lost their colorful rhetoric.

  • D-Man66

    In a nutshell, Feminazis see MRA’s & MGTOW as the abusive evil men of the patriarchy resisting their “revolution”. Disagree or argue with them in any way an you just get labeled Loser/Women Hater/Evil man/Rapist/Homo/Creepy.

    I do not argue or negotiate with terrorists, kill them, throw them in jail, whatever, they want our Freedom, come an get it!

  • KatieCaliente

    Ah well, I quickly found dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of men to have sex with as a one is good enough for these feminists.

    I think if they merely figure out that the dirty looks they give people and other behaviors drive men away, they probably could just act normal again.

  • http://none universe

    I’m a little late in commenting about the lead piece in this thread.
    Very good writing.
    For my time and understanding this entire tome will be condensed into these few points:

    …these new items are fallacious simply because they are mistaken; because they initialize thinking upon a foundation of error and trigger downstream error in conjoined regions of understanding.

    – So, if the initial premise is flawed then the rest that follows follows the initial flawed premise.

    But what a feminist cannot hope to fathom without ceasing to be a feminist, is that these things originate from a source in the objective world which the feminist narrative is not competent to explain.

    – These, among other, things being: “MRAs” (or even life as it were that, or) who offer a counter view of the feminist worldview.

    …the Gospel verse which advises plucking the beam out of thine own eye before thou pluckest the mote out of thy neighbor’s eye!


    Coercive falsification is therefore a cardinal sin upon feminism’s doorstep; it is first imposed, reacted against by an aggrieved world, and imposed once more in rejoinder to that aggrieved reaction – which to the feminist mind is deemed a transgression. …..imposed by feminists and for feminists, upon the rest of the world.

    – It appears that engaging in such circularities with feminist arrogance is rather vexing to the spirit and could be avoided entirely by dropping fact bombs on them.
    Appreciate the good writing FB. We’re getting that much closer to aerial maneuverings from your reconnaissance works.