Shining a Torch Beam on Feminism's Diseased Underbelly

The non-feminist revolution has eyes and ears everywhere -- especially in enemy territory -- and there is no telling what we will turn up next! In keeping with this, one of our people has recently done stellar work in opening the rotten core of the female supremacist hate movement to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze. Our man behind the scene goes by the name Agent Orange. He has seen much indeed, behind the scene, and his summary of the scenery gets to the point: "When you see what feminism really is, you cannot unsee."

As you might recall, AVfM recently ran some articles exposing a radical feminist writer, Vliet Tiptree, and a very disturbing post which she published on a radical feminist blog called Radfem Hub. In her blog post, Vliet Tiptree muses elliptically upon the worthlessness and ultimate disposability of the male sex, and seems to insinuate that male genocide, or at least a radical eugenic engineering program, might be in the cards.

Various pro-male partisans then conducted a search of the public record, and found out that "Vliet Tiptree" was in fact Pamela O'Shaughnessy, a prominent California lawyer and bestselling novelist who has been published by Simon & Schuster and reviewed by the New York Times. Yes -- a person living a double life; a public figure with a valuable reputation to lose!

Pamela O., being a lawyer by profession, knows very well how to choose her words. And in her article she lays out her theme in such circumspect language that we cannot pin her down conclusively as recommending male genocide. Still, it seems clear that she wants to plant this idea, in the minds of her readers, as something worth thinking about. In the comment thread that follows the article, readers are quick to oblige, and their manner of expression is considerably less guarded.

All of this is old news, but it sets the stage for our present story. Briefly, the story is this, that the enterprising Agent Orange has accessed a members-only discussion forum attached to the Radfem Hub website. (Yes, this is a war, and in war, espionnage happens. Deal!) The name of the forum is "Women's Lives Matter/Women's Life Matters", and it is populated by the most extreme radical lesbian separatists you can imagine. We shall abbreviate the cumbersome title as WLM. Agent Orange, in his investigation, has read the forum encyclopedically from end to end, made notation of significant matters, and downloaded the entire content for the perusal of other pro-male partisans -- including myself.

Agent Orange has made available, so far, 245 megabytes of computer files from the WLM forum. And in the near future, this material will be posted on the internet so that anybody on earth can download it, study it, and discover at first hand what kind of people radical feminists are. Pamela O. enters into this, as you may have surmised, and in due course I will address that. But first things first.

The soon-to-be-revealed material is what you get when you boil down feminism to its dark, unadulterated essence. It is the hard, sticky, ill-smelling residue at the bottom of the pan. Contrary to what so many feminists will tell you, it is indeed "really" feminism -- as real as feminism gets, as real as you will ever find anywhere. And whoever informs you otherwise, is redirecting your attention away from "the little womyn behind the curtain."

All right. What we have here is a group of women who hate men so intensely that they must talk in secret amongst themselves -- they cannot let the outside world hear. Even other feminists, who perhaps hate men only one half or one quarter as much as these ones do, cannot be admitted to the inner sanctum.

Huddled in a self-referential intellectual masturbation circle, out of the sight of non-feminist men and women, their sickness is plainly apparent. They go through life looking for validation, seeing only what they need to see, ignoring all evidence or dismissing all theories that might guide their understanding toward a different conclusion. In sum, they are blocking, filtering, maneuvering and cherry-picking, or in a word, rationalizing. And why? Because they do not wish to learn the truth about themselves.

Their frustration is that of spoiled children who cannot always get their way. The world -- or as these radfems would say, the patriarchy -- somehow always outmaneuvers and defeats the poor little brats. And why wouldn't it? The world is so much bigger than they are. In the end, that word "patriarchy" seems little else than a placeholder for "anything of a plausibly male origin which frustrates me".

In classic feminist form, they cannot separate the personal from the political. Men have hurt them?? My goodness, haven't they figured out yet that people hurt each other all the time in this hurtful world? They must learn to deal with this -- it's called GROWING UP. Yes, it is true that men have hurt women. It is also true that women have hurt men. Oh, and men have hurt other men, and women have hurt other women. So the traffic runs in four different channels. As I say, people hurt each other all the time -- they do this every which-way from Friday. So if the radfems are hell bent upon revenge, why don't they just hunt down all the men who have hurt them -- one at a time! -- and hurt them right back? That seems like the way to do it, if you want my opinion. But I should be very, very careful of what I say here, or they will be hunting for me too! Poor dears.

These feminists make no bones about stating that "men are the problem". They are not bashful upon that subject; they lay it on the line just as pretty as you please:

Mangetout says:
" Males are the problem. They refuse to see
that they are the problem."
　
Maggie H. says:
"Womyn, having to put up with men's shit, place the onus onto themselves to
stop a bad situation from happening, while it is men who need a thorough
discipline forced upon them."
　
White Tiger says:
"..men have the same designation, in my view, of annoying rodents."
　
Journey Mistress says:". .men are assholes. That last part bears repeating; men are assholes."
　
rjeenah says:
". . men are self-centered assholes who expect you to cater to their every whim . ."
　
Dawnsister says:
"I'll take any revolution I can get. Any revolution that removes most of the males will do just fine."

I could go on and on with these samples, but you get the idea. And no, putting them back in their context will not improve them. They are every bit as bad as they sound, and the people who wrote them are ten times worse. For it is a mark of narcissism when you cannot admit that you are wrong at least some of the time. And it is a mark of female narcissism in particular, when you cannot admit that women are wrong at least some of the time. And the people cited above are guilty on both counts. How quickly the personal becomes the political, yes?

My own observation has been, that the stereotypically destructive qualities which certain folklore ascribes to women in general, clustermore thickly around feminist women. For indeed there is a stratum of women which has always given the female population a bad name, and these people have been called different things at different times. In recent times, they've gotten politically organized, and yes, "feminism" is the name they have given to their gig.

The hatred of men and all things male, so patently displayed in the WLM forum, is also seen among mainstream feminists when they converse or otherwise express themselves. However, you will not often find it so concentrated; normally, the misandry will appear in subtle flashes and fleeting innuendos. It will be heavily watered down, as a pervading moral undertow, seeping through the culture like tainted outflow from a sewage treatment plant. Almost never is it so crudely vitriolic and sustained as what we are now revealing to the world. Here, we learn what feminists say to each other when they think the world isn't listening.

We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only "fringe radicals" or "extremists", and that we mustn't judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn't we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the milder feminists really amount to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by grooviness and mellowness -- by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?

Well? Do you reckon the earnest feminists with their philanthropic "gynergy" got this big thing rolling fifty years ago, and have been the central driving force ever since? And do you suppose that a few disaffected souls gravitated after the fact to this upbeat, positive social movement, and decided to lurk around the fringe just to confuse us about the truly wholesome nature of it all?

Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don't make history. And which is more, I've got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: "Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem."

The complexly braided radfem "story" about men, patriarchy, and all the rest, is the core of the entire feminist narrative. As such, it is the core of the entire feminist enterprise. And these radicals represent the frontier toward which feminism as a whole, by the law of its nature, is forever trending. True, these ones are ahead of the curve -- and yet they point the way. The future of liberal feminism is always radical, and if it is not, then it has no future at all.

Speaking of the future, the WLM feminists are forthcoming about how they'd like to address the man problem, and have floated a number of lively proposals:

Daughter of the Stars says:
"Actually, they [men] should be put on a leash, put in a cage, or put to sleep, just like they do to any animal which causes them any problem."
　
yba wife says:"...we have a [similar idiot] group here in the UK Fathers for Justice . . . who love nothing better that telling womon they 'have too much power' and they have had enough . . . . even swift bullets are too good for this wankering lot."
　
Maggie H. says:
"Men can all fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned."
　
WhiteTiger says:
"I think it's a great idea to produce sperm in a la-BOR-a-tory. That way, men will be completely redundant." 　 

MGO says: "That is how we
will win. Not birthing males. Convincing vast numbers of females not to birth males. We have the absolute power over reproduction (and teh menz know it). So that is our weapon."
　
Bonobobabe says:
"Actually, now that I think about it, a better source of animal glue (and leather, for that matter) would be from the bodies of men who have committed any crime against a woman. They should be put to death, skinned, and then their carcasses can be boiled for glue."

Bonobobabe continues:
"Although, I think we would be overrun and probably wouldn't have
the resources to deal with all the bodies."
　
Luckynkl says:
"A 12" cast iron skillet to the back of the head speaks far louder than words and allows him to take your point with crystal clarity. Men don't
want women taking up their valuable time, so clarity is appreciated."
　
Mangetout says:"....kill off all the alpha-males, all the aggressive males, and retrain the
remaining more compliant males."
　
Bonobobabe says:
Ah, Lorena Bobbitt. That takes me back. I remember the reactions were distinctly split by sex. ...and even if the women expressed sympathy for Mr. Bobbitt. . . when they were in mixed company, as soon as no men were around, the women admitted they thought it was cool what she did.

　 　
Radfem "attitude" is a spiritual aquifer that feminist-leaning women can dip into whenever the mood strikes them. We too have lowered a bucket into this deep, dark well -- and behold the sample we have hauled up. We do this because we wish to show what is hidden from the world's gaze. Certain women haul this spirit up because they wish to fortify themselves.

And that goes double for the radical feminists. Whoever carries this radfem ideology as a mental backdrop can go almost anywhere and arbitrarily stir up trouble. They will be equipped with a bag of tricks and a way of working, and can work their game independently of right or wrong, of true or false. For almost any human scenario has a grain of ambiguity somewhere about it, and a skilled manipulator can make this grow and turn it to unethical advantage. In the end, feminism is all about stirring up trouble in this way and blaming it on others, especially if those others are male.

Let me be very, very clear. I do not doubt that many of these radfem women have endured genuinely bad, even traumatic experience at the hands of one man or another, and that these male actors were indeed the malefactors. But I believe that such experience, in many cases, warped their keels so that these women could no longer navigate correctly, and that subsequent experience suffered from this warpage, which in turn compounded it. The warpage is what concerns me -- I don't want it to spread to the rest of the world. But the radfem project, seemingly, is to make that very thing happen.

Radical feminism -- and especially the brand we see here -- is a kind of think-tank or test laboratory for ideas that will be gradually drip-fed into the general culture. Almost everything you hear such womyn talking about eventually percolates into the collective mind, melds with the zeitgeist, and makes itself familiar. However, you will sense only the broad flavor of it, as it ripples around the buzz-o-sphere. It will have no evident point-source; it will seem to precipitate from everywhere like a fog and you will not be able to nail it down. Another way of expressing this would be to say, that pieces of a conceptual jigsaw puzzle had been strewn randomly into the world, each transmitting its particular message and resonating uncannily with the others. In time, people would naturally fit the pieces together and draw the ordained conclusion, likely believing that they had thought of it themselves, and unaware that their understanding had been primed and seeded. And in this way, the world at large crystallizes more and more along a feminist pattern.

Consider a mainstream feminist such as Jessica Valenti. I doubt if she would fit in with the WLM crew and its "way-out" ideas. Jessica markets herself mainly to teenaged girls and hip, twenty-something yupsters, and she once admitted having no interest in "herstory" and suchlike concepts. And yet, Jessica Valenti harbors a seething core of hateful anti-male bigotry which her glossy, pop-feminist personna only barely holds in check -- and not always. She sees nothing wrong about informing the world, on no particular authority, that Gerald Loughner's murderous rampage was a problem stemming from masculinity. Yes, you heard that right: Gerald Loughner was "expressing masculinity". But wait, it gets worse. On another occasion, Jessica Valenti strongly implied that men accused of rape should forfeit the presumption of innocence and bear the burden of proof when they go on trial. In other words, Jessica does not believe in equal protection of the law for men. As far as Jessica Valenti is concerned, all men are second-class citizens and innocent men can jolly well get their lives destroyed and suck it up. Jessica figures that's okay. That's the kind of history she wants to be making.

So who the hell is Jessica Valenti anyway, and what the hell gives her the moral license to say such unspeakably vile, vulgar, filthy things? And why the hell is Jessica Valenti not getting morally bitch-slapped, within an inch of her psychological life, from every press room and pulpit in the land? Eh? Bonobobabe, Luckynkl, and all that crowd are a bit worse than Jessica Valenti . . but only a bit. So Jessica Valenti, consider yourself bitch-slapped, Fidelbogen style! Yes, you DO deserve this.

Next consider Amanda Marcotte, another mainstream feminist who is Jessica Valenti's spiritual twin sister. I constantly get those two mixed up; I can hardly tell them apart. Amanda shares Jessica's hatred of men as reflected in her stance toward false rape allegation. She has made it clear that she doesn't think women lie about rape, and she will brook no disagreement on this subject. Consider the following:



Think about what Amanda Marcotte is saying here. She is saying that if you are a man who cares about the lives of innocent men and cares about living in a just and free world, then you are motivated by a desire to commit rape. Yes, that is truly what Amanda Marcotte appears to be saying. I took Amanda severely to task for this, here. Some time afterward, as I was informed, Amanda's commment (which I had preserved in the screen capture) disappeared from the comment thread in question. Too late Amanda, it will haunt you forever!

In a separate incident, Amanda Marcotte made it clear that, in her opinion, people who defend falsely rape-accused men are "rape-loving scum." Those are Amanda Marcotte's very words. If you think there is something horribly wrong about accusing innocent men of rape, then according to Amanda Marcotte you are "rape-loving scum." I wish I was making this up.

So who the hell is Amanda Marcotte anyway, and what the hell gives her the moral license to say such unspeakably vile, vulgar, filthy things? And why the hell is Amanda Marcotte not getting morally bitch-slapped, within an inch of her psychological life, from every press room and pulpit in the land? Eh? Bonobobabe, Luckynkl, and all that crowd are a bit worse than Amanda Marcotte . . but only a bit. So Amanda Marcotte, consider yourself bitch-slapped, Fidelbogen style! Yes, you DO deserve this.

Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte are both popular feminist morons, and they haven't got the name of being radfems at all. In fact, they are considered cute, sassy, classy, photogenic and perfectly respectable. Heaven help us all, but people like Jessica and Amanda can walk around and talk their vulgar trash in broad daylight, and get handsomely paid for it. Dear God, what the hell is this world coming to, anyway?

The radfems at WLM are simply impatient. The full-blown future they wish for isn't happening fast enough for them, and they are champing at the bit. Yet they ought to be dancing a victory jig in their private forum, since the world as a whole is drifting steadily along a path which ought to delight them. The progress of anti-male legislation has been dramatic. Men are being undermined on many fronts. Man-hating is a persistent underlying theme which surfaces everywhere, in more forms than I can begin to describe. Why, the cult of Valerie Solanas is certainly a hardy perennial, with Valerie's fan club going strong nearly a quarter-century after her death. Yes, the Solanas cult is a powerful organ in the worldwide feminist body -- let none tell you otherwise! Still, most of the misandry is subtle, understated, and not always recognized as such either by the people who spread it, or the people who hear it.

All right, I will speak once more of Pamela O'Shaughnessy, or Vliet Tiptree as she calls herself when she wants to be incognito. I said I would come back to this, didn't I?

Pamela O. is a true feminist in that she occupies her mind very deeply on the thought that "men are the problem". This maxim is central to feminism in every way, so much that whoever would allow that men are only HALF the problem cannot possibly be a feminist at all. Mainstream feminists will play word games, and talk around it or past it, but if you "torture-test" their worldview, you will find it consistent with no other precept but that men or maleness are to blame for nearly all of what's wrong with the world. Well isn't it great when the assholes identify themselves forthrightly? I am talking about the WLM crowd here, and although they think they are conversing in secret, they at least admit their true opinion to themselves and to each other -- which is more than some people do.

So we know that Pamela O., in her Radfem Hub article, has tiptoed lead-footedly around the subject of male genocide. Certainly, to reduce male numbers or genetically engineer the evil out of men, would strike the root of the Man Problem very radically indeed, yes?. Pamela O. was keen to talk about this, and sought an audience, and for that reason broached the subject on the affiliated WLM forum where she was certain of a receptive public.

On 2 April, 2011, Pamela O., under the username "Karma", nailed her thesis to the door:
"First, the ground of the Problem (that is, male oppression and coercion of women) is male aggression. And second, male aggression is not limited to human beings. It is biologically-based and not particularly subject to eradication by social engineering. . . . .That seems to lead inescapably to an answer to the Problem: male oppression must be clearly defined and understood to be pathological (one writer calls its manifestations in humans an "encapsulated psychosis"). It needs to be recognized as a deviation from the norm (the aggression levels of females) that may be correctly called a mental illness. Call it the "Y Syndrome", maybe. Then, it must be cured, and we are very close to having the cure: a genetic modification that will cure the deficiencies of the Y Syndrome which lead to over-expression of male hormones (putting it very simplistically ATM). Which leads to the primary objection: there's no way to administer such a cure. Such a cure will never be voluntary, just as treating other severely mentally ill people cannot always be voluntary. People who are dangerous to themselves and others have little insight into their condition and may have to be restrained and treated without their consent in many cases. It is impossible for male humans to have the needed insight.My thought in response to that objection is: due to the historic circumstances, the cure will have to be administered".

Sure enough, other forum members took the bait with gusto -- Pamela knew her public, all right! So. . the talk went on for a while, Pamela pondered this and that, and six months later -- on 4 Oct, 2011 -- she published her now infamous guest post on Radfem Hub. And you know the rest of the story.

Now, I would not have you think there is anything new about the ideology Pamela O. has laid out. This is classic radfem fare which we've known in various shapes for many years -- although it is indeed, if you will, the most radical of radicalisms! But still, stuff like this is not generally known, and to find such a great sample all bunched up in one place is a mighty windfall. In fact, it is a golden opportunity for those (such as the present writer) who want to make the world see what feminism really amounts to at its rotten core.

There is furthermore, the disquieting hint that these radical wimmin are not merely TALKING about these things. That is, they are not just speculating in their armchairs. The passionate seriousness of their tone is not to be mistaken: Pamela O. herself hints at global groups and networks, and our own investigations (spearheaded by Agent Orange) have uncovered an intriguing web of connections -- an international rabbit hole that goes deeper and deeper, with passageways reaching into sites of power and influence that would surprise you.

The release of the Agent Orange files in the near future will throw a shaft of sunlight into places little known, and permit people to form their conclusions.

But I will speak no more of this, since I know that my colleagues will have much to share in the days ahead. It remains to ask, whether I think the implied scenarios ever would or could become real? My answer is, no, probably not. It is seriously to be doubted that radfem male-genocidalists will ever get the future they dream of, or anything close to it. So my present motivation is twofold: firstly, to have a care about the havoc these people might wreak in merely trying to get their way, and secondly, to awaken the general public to the presence of such people on the same planet with themselves, and to make that same public ponder the implications of such a thing.

What is perverse and dangerous about these people -- and really, all feminists -- is that they consider themselves literally more infallible than the patriarchal Pope of Rome himself! What monstrously swollen egos they have! Men are mentally ill, cannot grasp objective reality, and must therefore be engaged by methods of deceit. They know for a lead-pipe fact, at least in their own minds, that they are dead right and the rest of the world is dead wrong. That is disturbing to think about, but if you think carefully, it is a tremendous gift which greatly simplifies our lives. In a nutshell, it means that they will never engage us in good faith, and by not doing so, they release us from any obligation to engage THEM in good faith. That's a head-spinner, don't you think so? It means this is naught but realpolitik, a pure game of power and nothing more. But for some of us, that's old news. We've known it for years.