Maybe you are peeved at my picture. It serves an important point – if all we are to do in this community is sit around and endlessly talk to one another about the same issues, we will never accomplish anything useful. We are living in interesting times, to be sure. Information technologies have progressed to the point where we could infinitely process information about feminism and just how bad it is ad infinitum. We will never be able to completely finish talking about just how bad feminism is. In fact, we run the danger of falling into the trap that John Bagot Glubb describes as “intellectualism,” whereby a society is condemned to ruin because its best minds are engaged in endless debate while poison slowly eats away at it. At some point, if we want this “movement” to do anything, we must come to consensus and say “enough is enough!” We must select certain articles as the best for articulating and explaining the situation, shortening the amount of time it takes to convince a skeptic of our position. It’s like we’re all stuck talking in circles – the majority of this community agrees that things are messed up, so what’s the point in sitting around and continuing to agree that things are messed up without doing anything else? I’m not saying we should stop talking about the issues. Rather, I’m saying we should start talking about them with new people. But read on to see what I mean – this will be a long post.
I feel as though this is the most important thing I have written so far in my life. It may not end up being the most important thing I ever write, but I digress. I say this not to gloat or be boastful, but to try to convey the gravity of the situation I am attempting to describe to you. I am asking you to take me seriously and to try your best to understand what I am writing – I am not asking you to see things my way, in the sense that if you do not see them my way you end up as my enemy. This is not an appeal to the “my way or the highway” mentality. Either you are with me or you are not – but casting your chips with another does not make you my enemy. In fact, the only way I will ever perceive you as my enemy is if you cast your lot with feminism; even then, every true warrior throughout the ages has known that enemies are only relative and bound to time and context. If you are a feminist, we may be enemies now yet best friends ten years from now. To any feminist “enemies” who may be reading this: things change, and I do not need to kill or otherwise destroy you in order to defeat feminism. Furthermore, defeating feminism does not mean I have defeated you – if anything, I have liberated you from a parasitic cancer which poisons your thinking and constrains your thoughts. (It goes without saying, of course, that if someone literally tries to assault me and take my life through physical force, aka murder, I may be required to use lethal force to prevail in that situation – but that’s neither here nor there.)
Agitation has been building in our community for a while that basically amounts to a call for action. This post represents one way to take action, so if you have been feeling the itch to do something about the problems we’ve all identified, then read on. If you are content to merely continue discussing the problems, stop reading right now; this post is not for you. This is not a comprehensive outline towards a final solution to the problems – but it is an important, fundamental first step that I earnestly believe, to the bottom of my very being, must be taken if we are to seriously confront the problem before us.
For a long time – far too long, in fact, as this has been true my entire life – I have allowed the ideology of feminism to shame me into silence, and worse, cause me to disbelieve in myself. I have always felt that I have had great and important ideas, but the influence of our ideologically-fueled society compelled me into silence if I wanted to “succeed.” However, my conception of success was limited in that it was dependent upon my acceptance of a system I knew was broken. Now that I have rejected the system – and feel that I have nothing to lose – I have gained the confidence to assert myself. I am a little man no longer.
I have, as Kierkegaard recommended long ago, found an idea for which I can live, and more importantly, for which I can die. I have found the thing which motivates to me sacrifice all other things, and as such, I will not be shaken from my beliefs. I do not write for recognition, ego, traffic, fame, credit, or any other similar reason. I write because I believe and I am compelled to act on that belief. Again, either you are with me or you are not – I extend an alliance to all who are willing. Being my enemy is a choice you freely make by advocating or defending feminism; and as I have already mentioned, our opposition will certainly only be temporary.
Enough proselytizing. Let’s get down to the details – as we all know, that’s where the devil’s at!
2. Re-framing the Challenge, or, This is War
Feminism is our enemy, and, as has been established many times over, hurts both men and women (more simply and quite literally all human beings). But what is feminism? Feminism is an idea. Feminism is not any specific person or group of people. This is extremely important to keep in mind, because it is extremely easy to forget. No one person or one group of people is feminism. What does this means? It means that you cannot get rid of feminism by getting rid of that person or group of people which you perceive to be the source of feminism. One of the most common logical mistakes in our community is to equate feminism with women, and attempt to hold all women accountable for feminism. I will not spend time here spelling out exactly why I understand people do this; you will have to take me at face value when I tell you that I can empathize. Let me say that if we want to hold anyone accountable for feminism, we must hold everyone accountable, because as we’ve discussed throughout this community, ultimately men are the ones who enforce concepts such as morality or “rights.” However, holding people accountable is ultimately inconsequential – it may provide some sense of catharsis but I can’t see it providing anything else. As such, I suggest we look at more productive things to do.
A useful and timely analogy for describing the mechanisms of feminism in the context of what it has done to western society is to compare it to an insurgency. Insurgencies are, at bottom, conflicts about ideologies. To better understand what an insurgency is all about, I recommend you read The Counterinsurgency Field Manual. In case you didn’t read my link comparing feminism to insurgencies, one of the take-away points is this: in any ideologically fueled conflict (such as an insurgency), you will generally see what I call a 10-80-10 split. 10% of people involved in the conflict will be what you can call “die-hard believers” on one end of the spectrum, with 10% being the polar opposite. In the middle – and this is what the conflict is really about – is a vast and undecided (or skeptical) middle ground, approximating 80% of total people impacted by the conflict. Allow me to now carry on the analogy developed originally in the aforementioned link.
As has been detailed elsewhere and generally acknowledged by anyone who values reason, the main driving force behind the feminist movement lacks a grass roots constituency. Feminism is, essentially, an extremist minority ideology propagated and actively promoted by a very small minority of people (men and women both). Their lack of numbers, however, does not mean that they are without power. This is a key point that many people – the average people, the “90 percenters” or the real objective in this conflict – seem to miss whenever criticism of the feminist leadership is brought up. (Try talking to an otherwise reasonable woman, for instance, and quote the feminist leadership, or show them NiceGuy’s handy article on the subject, and they will, while recognizing the downright wrongness of the doctrine being voiced, comfort themselves by thinking “oh, this is just a minority of people” and “they can’t be having as much of an effect as you claim!“)
In any ideological conflict, there is also an active minority diametrically opposed to the other minority. In the context of understanding feminism as an insurgency, this would be places like The Spearhead and the so-called “MRA community” at large. Here you have a dedicated user base that’s writing articles to expose the flaws in feminist philosophy; ferret out the truth in issues like false rape accusations, unfair divorce laws, men’s health issues, domestic violence, and any other number of related concerns; and attempting to bring more people “into the light,” as it were.
(Un)fortunately, the vast majority of people in any insurgent situation will always be in the middle between the two extremes – usually relatively undecided on the matter. In fact, the insurgency is not over until the undecided majority has, for lack of more eloquent phraseology, decided en masse. The true battle in any insurgency is over these people who are in the middle. Generally, whichever side can get more support and/or commitment from the middle wins. An important caveat, however, is this (to quote from the manual): “…a passive populace may be all that is necessary for a well-supported insurgency to seize political power.” Feminists have made so much ground and been able to seize and wield so much political power precisely because they’ve instituted a system where they thrive on a passive populace. They don’t need the vast majority of people to actually believe in all of their bullshit – all they need is tacit acceptance. Any time criticism is levied and rational debate sought, they have developed powerful tools (like shaming tactics) that can even bring down people we once perceived having power – politicians, professors, etc, you name it. But the power of these tactics is not absolute; in fact, they only have power over you if you allow them to. (This is the dirty secret feminists don’t want you to know, and perhaps in a future post, I will expand upon this – the “answer” has a lot to do with certain aspects of Stoicism.) In any case, the power of these tactics is on the decline, and the time to “strike,” as it were, is now – feminists were only successful in seizing political power for a temporary period, but they were not successful in committing the middle majority of people and therefore they have not won the war.
As I wrap this section up, allow me to recap my basic argument. In fact, allow me to strip it down to its logical skeleton – you will rarely see the truth presented so nakedly, nor will you see it presented so irrefutably. I have nothing to hide and I am not trying to manipulate anyone. I will present the above as a syllogism in seven words, 2 numbers, and 6 other characters. This syllogism is known as the AAA-1 syllogism:
1) Ideology = feminism
2) Insurgency = ideology
THEREFORE, feminism = insurgency
3. Turning the Tide, or, Waging a War of Ideas
If we understand that feminism is an ideology/insurgency, then logically we understand we cannot end feminism by getting rid of those people who believe in it. The solution may not be obvious, but there is a way to combat ideas, and this section will outline how.
Thank You For Smoking, aside from being hilarious, is actually very instructive as to how this is done. Many men fall into the trap while debating feminists (and to a lesser extent, women) that the objective is to convince the feminist that s/he is wrong. This is a logical objective. The problem is, as great as logic is, it only has power over people who buy into its rules. Those who have been poisoned by the ideology of feminism no longer believe in logic, as one of the (stated!) objectives of feminism has been the destruction of logic. To save time explaining this truism, I’ll quote an earlier post I made, based on Christina Hoff Sommer’s book, Who Stole Feminism (both of which have already been linked to once before in this post):
The very construct of knowledge – of schools, of math, of science – is a male construct, designed to oppress women! Elizabeth Fee articulates this belief: “Knowledge was created as an act of aggression—a passive nature had to be interrogated, unclothed, penetrated, and compelled by man to reveal her secrets” (qtd. in Sommers 66) while Catharine MacKinnon claims that, for men, “to know has meant to fuck” (qtd. in Sommers 66). “In a similar mood, Sandra Harding suggests that Newton’s Principles of Mechanics could just as aptly be called “Newton’s Rape Manual.” (Sommers 66).
Feminists equated knowledge – and by extension, logic – literally with rape. As we have come to learn in this community, the concept of rape is an extremely potent force for feminists, even if it has been expanded to include essentially anything feminists want it to. But a great majority of the power of this idea extends from the fact that very few people are willing to publicly challenge it in a logical, dispassionate manner. We literally live in a culture of fear where people have very real reasons to be afraid of sticking their neck out – so I’ll stick my neck out for everyone. Chop my head off. At least I will die for believing in my heart what I know to be true!
A further point to take home from the quote above is that we will never, ever be able to convince a “true-believer” of feminism that they are wrong – this is impossible. Therefore, any time we engage in a logical debate with a feminist, we should not make it our goal to “defeat” the feminist specifically, or attempt to persuade the feminist that they are incorrect. Every reasonable attempt should be made to identify whether the person you are corresponding with is a skeptic or a feminist; if a skeptic, continue debating logically and attempt to persuade him or her. If a feminist – start playing to the crowd. I will be elaborating on the tactics involved in doing this later on in the post; for now, allow me to finish talking about strategy.
One highly critical thing to take into account about making a spectacle of any debate with a feminist – consciously appealing to the crowd and attempting to win the crowd over with reason, rather than trying to dissuade your perceived opposition from their logically untenable position – is the concept of groupthink and specifically the bystander effect/diffusion of responsibilty. The seminal case to consider when evaluating the validity of groupthink is the case of Kitty Genovese. To summarize very briefly Kittty’s tragic fate, she was assaulted and stabbed by an assailant multiple times, screaming for help, while virtually no one aided her. The kicker? She was in a public area with a diverse group of observers – failure on the part of the observers to help couldn’t be pinned on straw-men concepts like gender, race, age, religious creed, and whatever else you might think to use as a scapegoat.
The reality of the situation says a lot about the human condition. Virtually all of the observers recognized the attack was occurring and that it was wrong. However, and quite importantly, they also all registered that the attack was occurring in a highly visible public area with countless other observers not unlike themselves. What did this mean? This meant that responsibility was diffused among the group – literally every observer independently concluded that because there were so many other observers, someone else must have already taken the necessary action to remedy the situation. In reality, no observer took the action necessary because of this belief! How does this tie into playing the crowd when it comes to debating feminists?
It is not illogical to assume that every person “in the crowd,” observing your debate with a feminist, believes in the power of logic. It may even be possible that, somewhere deep inside those anonymous observers, they burn to tell the feminist that the feminist is wrong and illogical. However, each person in that crowd certainly recognizes there are many other people in the crowd, diffusing the responsibility to directly challenge the feminist. (Furthermore, the feminist’s perceived power and implied ability to harm dissenters, as discussed above, is another motivating factor for people to remain silent.) Moreover, the observers may doubt the validity of their truest, innermost feelings when no one rises to the occasion to debate a feminist. Worse still and yet more poisonous to the cause is when someone does stand up to a feminist, but is clobbered back into silence by illogical persuasive techniques such as shaming tactics or appeals to stay silent since, after all, “not everyone believes in that crazy stuff” or whatever other excuse people offer up to maintain the status quo. Nobody wants to rock the boat, since it’s dangerous. Let me be clear: if we want to combat feminism, we will need to rock the boat. Additionally, all it may take is one person to break the spell of diffusion of responsibility and bystander apathy – especially if that one person takes charge of the situation and directs the actions of the crowd.
Martin Luther King Jr. hit the nail on the head when he observed, inside a prison cell, that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” (Political correctness joke: Let no one say The Spearhead has forgotten Black History Month!)
In order to be successful, we must strive to control the debate and moreover control the rules of the debate. This is the same mechanism by which feminists have been successful, but I reject their methodology. Their methodology involves mass deception and literally billions of dollars of dishonest statistics and lies. I advocate complete transparency and absolute adherence to the dictates of logic; we cannot be swayed by ad hominem assaults, appeals to pathos or any other illogical non-sense (literally, lack of sense!). We will control the debate by refusing to engage an opponent who refuses to adhere to the very same rules; if the opponent refuses to adhere to these rules, it is not manipulative or deceptive to expose them for failing to adhere to logic. This is more or less what we do when play to the crowd – we expose feminists for failing to adhere to logic, “like the rest of us.” This builds commonality and has the side-effect of isolating and rendering impotent the feminist. We are not banishing the feminist forever; merely, we are telling him or her that if he or she would like the privilege of participating in conversation with civilized society, he or she must adhere to the rules of discourse governing civilized adults. Freedom of speech is a useful legal reality, but it does not guarantee anyone the right that they will be listened to – it only guarantees you the right (more or less) that you will not be persecuted by the state for running at the mouth. Being heard is a privilege, and we must refuse to hear feminists on any other terms than logical or otherwise well-reasoned (and honest!) ones.
Not only shall the truth set you free, but it shall be presented to you free of charge. You do not have to “buy-in” to my worldview or system of truth – I hold my truths to be self-evident. There is no cover charge on “free thinking,” and if you do nothing else after reading this article, I urge you to try thinking freely from here on out. Once, long ago, our nation also believed in something referred to as “self-evident truths.” I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from any enemy – foreign and domestic – and I intend to make good on that oath; feminism is an idea that can create both kinds of enemies, and as such, poses a threat I am obligated to confront. But I would confront it even without such obligation – I would confront it because it is the right thing to do.
4. Tactics For Our Re-conceptualized Struggle; An Object Lesson in “Waging the War” From the Frontlines
I am not asking to be your leader, or even a leader. I am not asking to be called a visionary. Some may inevitably call me both of those things – but a leader can not lead without followers, and a visionary’s vision is only great if other people can see the vision too. I will accept the mantle of leadership if I must but it is something I accept tacitly and for unselfish reasons; a leader is no more and no less important than his or her followers – neither is better and both are necessary to achieve the desired (and often synergistic) effect. But as a leader, I would not ask any follower to do something I would not – and thus, I give you my object lesson in “waging the war” from the front-lines of the conflict. This will be a tactical analysis that demonstrates many or all of the grand strategy concepts I have outlined above. I would have you learn, if you desire to.
The seed for this post was planted when I honesty attempted to engage Lady Raine in an intellectual conversation. She has been picked apart by our community for various reasons, but I refuse to accept the conclusions of others without investigating things for myself. (If I accepted the conclusions of others without investigating for myself, I would still be a feminist – as I once was – and would have never enlisted in the Marine Corps. I am living proof that people can change, even stubborn people.) I did not pursue this conversation, as I may now be accused of, because I wanted to make a grander point. In the moment, I earnestly and honestly wanted to engage her in direct and intelligent conversation, in part so I could come to my own conclusions about her and determine whether she was really as unreasonable as other people made her out to be.
(Preliminary note to Lady Raine – I have already archived all relevant statements you have made and, in the event you decide to delete your comments in an attempt to erase the record, I will gladly disclose the entirety of our discourse for the reading public. After all, the public deserves to know, do they not? I would ask you kindly to not delete your comments – as any upstanding adult and citizen should either be able to stand behind their statements or apologize for their mistakes – but the choice to delete those comments is not in my power to make.)
In fact, as can be evidenced and documented on our forums, I originally did not intend to write a Spearhead post about Lady Raine. I found her initial response to my attempt at conversation highly amusing and nothing more – I sought to share my amusement with other like-minded people. My day ended shortly thereafter (as I, in case you were unawares, am currently in Okinawa, I live on a different time zone than most of the readership of The Spearhead/Lady Raine/etc).
I woke up and started my Marine Corps day (not so bright) and (extremely) early, as all Marine Corps days begin. I notice that in the short five or six hours I was sleeping, Lady Raine has already found my desolate and inconsequential blog (which, really, only close friends care about, and I have more or less abandoned to pursue content for the Spearhead). I find this situation even more humorous, make the requisite posts in our forum and the requisite snide comment to Lady Raine that perhaps the irony of suggesting she act her age would be lost upon her, which, much to my delight, she proves by editing my post to read “LR EDIT: My age is 29, you halfwit.” During work, I converse with one of my supervisors about the matter and we share a laugh. At this point, the issue is still only of entertainment value to me.
As I think more about the situation, I ponder at the nuances. Lady Raine is a self-proclaimed 29 year-old mother and wife, yet she can find nothing better to do than scour the internet and devote her time to shaming and defaming an otherwise inconsequential blogger. She even admits (and I agree whole-heartedly) I am an inconsequential and minor force when it comes to the blogosphere – so why devote the effort to attempting to “fight” me at all? Doesn’t she have a husband and children to love, a home to brighten and make more sacred, a family to devote herself to? During my lunch break, I share my musings with Ferdinand Bardamu, who had taken the time to weigh in on the matter (much thanks for the solidarity, brother). In another group in which I am much more established (and perhaps therefore a little more confident and assertive), I muse at what (some) women have become.
At some point during my lunch break, I also notice that Lady Raine has taken the liberty to accuse me of absolute falsities, at which point I realize I can seize upon this opportunity to Turn the Tide. She accuses me of being a rapist (because I write for the Spearhead) and I take absolute ownership of this – you’re right Lady Raine! As a man who has never had sex, I am certainly a rapist for writing on The Spearhead. The only thing more nonsensical than her statement would be my acquiescence to it; and yet acquiescing to it drains it of any power it could have had. Nothing I have ever done in my life has ever even approximated the highly expanded legal definitions of rape, so anyone can call me a rapist all they want. In a court of law, where the idea is a man is innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof rests with the accuser. I challenge anyone to find proof I’ve “raped” a woman – because no such proof exists.
The rest of my work day is spent split between outlining this post and learning the nuances of a completely new and mind-blowing way for the Marine Corps to conduct logistics. It was a busy mental afternoon.
I come home and am dismayed to see tolerance for injustice even among my aforementioned trusted friends, but I am not afraid to voice my dismay. Someone suggests that they may have previously misunderstood me and I agree that such an event is entirely possible. People urge me to quit focusing on only “men’s rights,” which is a straw-man of my position, and I urge them (and even provide the mechanisms) to correct their ignorance. Eventually they more or less give up and assume debate tactics that smack highly of the ones feminists use, which I absolutely refuse to agree to or abide by.
Perhaps what they say is true – no one is a prophet in his own land. This does not ease the sting of disappointment I feel; if I could save anyone, free anyone, I would most like to free those people I grew up with and have fond memories of. Rather than give up and accept my supposed fate – the inability to share truth with those from whom I originated – I am more resolved than ever to redouble my efforts and free them from the parasite that is feminism. The parasite that prevents them from thinking free thoughts.
Every step of the way, I stuck to my guns, adhered to logic, did not let emotion sway me. Furthermore, I held my opposition accountable for their lack of logical integrity. I make every attempt to explain I am not seeking to defame their character or make value judgments about their worth as human beings (even if they are doing these things to me). Additionally, this post serves as an example as to how one can play the crowd. These tactics can be studied and emulated. They can be expanded upon. Some of my arguments can even be copied verbatim – they apply in a variety of situations. I do not seek credit or status; only an end to the incessant chaos and chronic pain that knows no divisions among humans – a hurt that hurts us all.
5. Rebuttal to Potential Counterarguments Against My Position and Advocacies
It is impossible for me to predict all of the ways in which people will try to reject my position. Some will accuse me of being intellectually dishonest and talking to people only to publicly shame them. Some will accuse me of being unduly manipulative by advocating a methodology that appeals to the crowd. Others will tell me that they themselves cannot walk in the path I have laid out because they are simply incapable. Still others will reject and criticize my position for any other number of reasons – some valid but many I predict will be invalid (i.e., based on logical fallacies such as the straw man, red herring, ad hominem or otherwise unreasonable).
Still, allow me to mitigate some of the criticism I am sure will be directed my way. I will respond to the three major criticisms identified above via means of a bulleted list, since those things look svelte:
- COUNTERARGUMENT THE FIRST: DISHONESTY – I never engage in conversation with people merely because I wish to publicly humiliate them or for any other perceived ulterior motive I could be accused of. I always approach another human being for conversation because I am genuinely motivated to engage in honest intellectual discourse with any and everyone who is interested in doing the same with me (as time permits, of course). If people end up publicly shamed by engaging in a public discourse with me, that is a consequence of their freely chosen decision to engage in a public discourse with me. Furthermore, I am generally the first person who will de-escalate the situation either by refusing to continue the conversation (notice how little I responded to Lady Raine?) or suggesting that, since commonality cannot be reached, conversation should cease. In fact, I am often harassed into conversation by persistent and unceasing attempts at veritable trolls, forced to endure countless slanders and insults either for what I have said or for failing to respond to earlier slanders and insults (see again: Lady Raine’s responses to me). Isn’t harassment a crime?
- COUNTERARGUMENT THE SECOND: MANIPULATION – It is not manipulation to appeal to a crowd when one is already engaged in a public debate. One of the basic assumptions about public conversation is that the conversation will be public – that means either there will be multiple interlocutors or there will be multiple observers to the conversation. Furthermore, openly confronting a feminist can be personally dangerous (as has been well-established). Was Kitty Genovese being manipulative when she appealed to her crowd by screaming at the top of her lungs? Absolutely not – she was trying to survive a perilous and life-threatening situation. Make no mistake, debating with a feminist can literally be similar, depending on the context.
- COUNTERARGUMENT THE THIRD: I CAN’T DO WHAT YOU HAVE DONE – This may or may not be true. I would encourage the person who thinks this to study the Pygmalion Effect, which, in brief, is sound scientific evidence for the existence of the so-called “self-fulfilling prophecy.” In no uncertain terms, human expectations mold and influence events. Therefore, if you or the people around you have negative expectations, events are significantly more likely to have a negative outcome. Conversely, if you or the people around you have positive expectations, events are significantly more likely to have a positive outcome. There is a corresponding phenomenon known as the Galatea Effect, which is essentially the same thing but is focused upon only internal expectations (ie, expectations that exist within yourself). If you expect yourself to succeed, odds are more likely you will; if you expect yourself to fail, odds are more likely you will. Google this.
If you agree with what I have outlined in this post, then you should feel compelled to act. You may be uncertain how to do so or what your first step to take should be. I’ll suggest a first step for you: viral-bomb the shit out of this post. Share it with everyone you know. Talk about it at work and then e-mail it to coworkers. Share it on Facebook. Post it in comment threads on blogs and share it on forums. Do not spam, but do what it takes.
If you don’t like that shotgun approach, then try the Pay It Forward approach. If you haven’t seen the movie, here’s what you do – exhaust your list of close friends and trusted allies and attempt to share this post with them in the best way that you can. This is a legitimate attempt at having them “see the light.” If you can get three people to “see the light,” you are halfway there to “paying it forward.” The other half is ensuring that those three people you’ve enlightened each enlighten three people of their own. Is this overly utopian or impossible? Hardly. It’ll take some work on your part, and it’ll also require you to check up on your friends and hold them accountable to their end of the bargain, but it is not outside the realm of possibility whatsoever. And the exponential exposure this post will receive as a result (with the tangential side benefit of increased traffic to all of the links in this post as well as The Spearhead in general) will be measurably appreciable to our efforts. This is something any reader – I repeat, any reader – of The Spearhead can do, and it will contribute to combating feminism. There is no rule limiting you to the rule of three when it comes to paying it forward, either – go all out. This is war, after all.
As I mentioned in my most recent post, irony is the name of the day. How ironic is it that, by refusing to “give up” in her assault on me and defamation of my character, Lady Raine may have unknowingly provoked the massive counter-stroke that deals feminism a decisive blow? Wouldn’t that be a delicious irony? It is out of my hands to deliver that irony – the ball is now in your court, dear reader.
Do whatever you feel is right (even if that means rejecting this post and calling me an idiot). I stand to make no personal profit from your seeing things my way – so it stands to reason that I am also unconcerned and unhurt if you refuse to.
Feminism, in a way, proves the age old adage that perception is reality. In this case, a sick and twisted perception that men are vile enemies who enforce unspeakable oppression upon women as a result of their biological nature (which is immutable, inevitable, universal and unchanging) has persisted despite all sound logic, scientific evidence and empirical observation. How do we remedy this situation? By changing perceptions. But first, we must start with our own. We must perceive that feminism is a problem that can be solved; otherwise, we will never be able to solve it.
7. Parting Wisdom
“The shot heard round the world” is a phrase that has come to represent several historical incidents throughout world history. One such incident marked the American Revolutionary War – a war which patriots fought for what they hoped to be endearing, noble, universal and transcendent ideals that we all recognize have been perverted by feminism. It is in your power to make this post another “shot heard round the world,” the first in a myriad of offensives aimed at reclaiming those noble ideas before it is too late, and before America is just another page in the history books.
When it comes to feminism, always remember what Voltaire said – “Those who can make you believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities.”