Via Bitch Lab, a shiny bouncy crumply thing dangling just so at the end of the string, just -asking- for it: some terribly earnest dude Explains It All For You. Feminism, that is.
Disaffection with the male sex is distributed along a continuum that we will call the misandric axis. This axis ranges all the way from white-hot animosity at one end, to mild dissatisfaction (barely worth a mention ) at the other. Between the two lies every shade you can imagine. The Misandric Axis should not be visualized as a line; the term “axis” is conceptual only, meant to suggest a transitional spectrum.
Misandric axis refers strictly to disaffection with men, of whatever degree. That and nothing else. It has no reference to any other phenomenon that might be arrayed on a continuum.
In our present system, we make concession to the popular understanding of “radical”. When most people say “radical feminist”, they are talking about a hateful, extreme person who is “way out there”. We shall adopt the identical meaning in our own analysis, even though feminists themselves adhere to a different usage.
However, while sanctioning the common manner of speech, we also employ the etymological sense of “radical” as denoting root - in this case, the root of feminism itself. The exoteric meaning of “radical” just happens to coincide with the esoteric truth about feminism, and we shall make use of this happy conjunction.
Radical feminism, then, means exactly the same as thing “man-hating feminism”. Man-hating is the quintessential core, or root, of feminism. A radical feminist, being “of the root”, is ipso facto a man-hating feminist. And the more man-hating she is, the more radical she is...
(more ganked at BL's).
Etymology! Ipso facto! He's usin' Latin! Dude, he -must- be serious.
no, wait, though, actually, "radical" derives from "radish," which he doesn't mention; this is why so many feminists are vegetarians. I can't believe he doesn't know this. I question his methodology. I suspect, in fact, that he may not be who he says he is. In fact...
Ann Bartow, is that you?! I KNEW it!!!...
Seriously (folks), this reminds me: you know, I never really did tackle the curious phenomenon of MRA's (Mens' Rights Activist, not Meals Ready to ...um, Assmunch? no, that's MRE. and MRI is the head-scan thing. never mind) much, did I? Maybe a little, obliquely, but not a lot, and not for a long while. You'd think I would, wouldn't you? i mean, at least as much as the wackier feminists out there i love to hate on, i mean if i -really- cared about Women, right? (hey, maybe i -am- one of Them after all!) But I don't. Usually.
There are a couple of reasons for this. Mostly it has to do with, unlike (with) the feminists in question, i just never figured i had anything remotely in common with these d00dz in the first place. Therefore, fascinating in an anthropological and repellent sort of way, sometimes, but doesn't really get me -angry- per se so much. Or, well, most of the time--obviously if someone's being directly hurtful and i happen to be reading it it's another story. viz: mullet-boy the horrible transphobe who was being talked about at feministe a while back. and of course, occasionally people whom i -do- actually read unearth and put before us a piece of steaming garbage about how I don't know the Duke lacrosse team victim (yeah, i haven't been writing on that much lately either: reason: it's too fucking depressing) basically abjured all her rights and humanity when she decided to become a stripper (supposedly it was because she wanted herself and her kid to, like, eat, but -we know better, don't we-), and REVERSE RACISM, and those poor persecuted Bret Easton Ellis-worshipping, Glen Ridge-esque, entitlement monsters who might actually have to break out in a cold sweat a few times as they wait for the whole thing to be dismissed without a backward glance, -and- of course the lacrosse season went all to hell, and so on, ad nauseum (literally)...yeah, okay. The ones who think there's no such thing as "date rape," maybe even rape, period, not really; the ones who think men are the biggest victims out there; the ones who think all American women are castrating bitches and delicate little Oriental flowers are so much better for -real- men, really; the ones who think child custody is all about their rights as a Father and their need to defend themselves against the ev0l women who only want to bleed them dry...Those people. Those men. Yeah, they're out there, and they suck.
but i can't make a steady diet out of seeking out and reading -those- people without, like, wanting to go all Hothead Paisan or Sylvia Plath; and frankly, neither one is so hot for my health, you know.
But mostly, though, it'll be more like, I'll wander over to Hugo Schwyzer, and he'll be trying to seriously engage these angry dudes, and simultaneously trying to placate the angry women who just want to get over there and smack the hell out of them; or I'll go over to The Countess or Red State Feminist and they'll have whacked a nest of 'em at Stand Your Ground or something, and they'll be going all Thunderdome, and i'll just be like...*blink* *blink* *blink.* I mean, I just want to poke them with a stick or something. I dungeddit. Maybe I should.
but so like THIS* guy particularly is entertaining me because, unlike the majority of the rootin'-tootin' MRA types (that i know of, at least; admittedly, as i've said, not my field of expertise), he seems to be openly advocating the mirror-image of the "political lesbian"-separatist solution:
Once more, men must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.
Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default. To pursue rather than invite pursuit assigns (again by default) a superior bargaining power to the pursued. Every little no constitutes a little victory; a bigger no constitutes a bigger victory. Every such victory augments bargaining power, both individually and collectively, and this elevates value. By playing hard to get, you create scarcity, which drives the price up. Gold is scarce, therefore it is valuable. If they seek gold -- in other words, if they seek what is genuinely valuable -- they may dig for it. Or in the vernacular, they may learn to "dig" it. Remember, you are the standard-bearer of value. You are the alchemist who decides what "gold" really means, so make your transvaluations wisely....
I shall clarify once more what I made clear above, since it can hardly be clarified too much: Sexual activity, in hetero-normative male society, would become purely optional. Celibacy, virginity, or relative inactivity of any degree, would constitute no bar to full acceptance in male society.
That's right, my brothers: in this brave new world, the Pope might actually finally get some power. Sounds crazy, but -it just might work.-
No, no, he's right, he's right. Ask the experts:
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
(ed.--yes, that last bit is from Dr. Strangelove)
of course, unlike the political lesbians, this dude (that i am seeing at the moment, at least, in a quick skim) does not suggest that (uh-oh) sex with -each other- might be another (entirely optional, of course) solution to the eternal gender war. You'd think he would; after all, men get the URGE. but you know: brotherly bonding in this culture is much more vulnerable to the dangers of homoeroticism (which is as we know FEMINIZING) than is the sisterly equivalent.
well, thank god for radical solutions, eh? Now all we have to do is put this guy and Sheila Jeffreys and a bunch of the loopier folks from the Margins and Genderberg and Stand Your Ground on a Very Special edition of "Survivor." between the feminist intranecine battles and the mens' homophoic paranoia -and- of course the Hatfield/McCoy thing, i figure give 'em a week, tops.
and any survivors we can safely leave to their own devices, with each other, even; because lord knows the -last- thing they'd do is -breed.- Right? I mean, there's no erotic charge to this eternal hatefest, of course. Nonono.
*link is here; cut -n- paste. Be vewy, vewy quiet. Heheheheheheh.