Purely as spectator bloodsport, I'll be cheering on the anti-feminist camp (It's preferable to a vicious shrieking mujahideen of harpies wishing painful death on everything with a dick).
My maim concern as a reader is that the quality of the discourse stays entertaining, as it mostly has until this point. If Substack is submerged in endless back-and-forth slinging of dull 10,000-word articles ('Rethinking Feminazism - An Intersectional Approach To Perpetual Sentence & Paragraph Elongation) we'll all have to suffer
Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, I ask you, oh Creator Spirit, fill the hearts of your people such that a 10k word article called "Rethinking Feminazism - An Intersectional Approach To Perpetual Sentence & Paragraph Elongation" does indeed get written. Amen.
They quoted an entire chapter of Mein Kampf, swapped out all the ‘bolsheviks & jews’ parts with feminist bullshit, renamed it ‘Our Struggle Is Your Struggle’ & the university gleefully accepted it
I've never heard of this. That sounds ABSOLUTELY amazing, and am looking it up now, even though I'm in the midst of a pretty cool article.... Can you write another piece on not getting easily distracted after the Feminazism article?
Only when I finish my novel 'Sinead and the Horn of Africa'.
It's about a high-powered Irish NGO Queen, author of 'Re-Imagining Ireland: Dismantling The Toxic Misogynist Racist Lie That Is Ireland In A Globalised World' and several chick-lit bestsellers.
She is also very heavily involved in Human Trafficking for Soros's 'open society' networks.
By night, she keeps a posse of captured African slaves in her shed & feeds them nothing but Viagra.
Sinead is modelled on the armies of NGO Hellbitches who have spent a decade running Ireland like a Soros colony/ideological Woke Zero experiment
I love your article. But your header image is uninspiring leading to lower conversion rate. If you want I can invite you to my image channel that I use to image bait normies into reading my articles.
What you wrote about reminded me of Turchin's thesis on overproduction of elites competing for limited resources leading to the emergence of counter elites and eventually being a contributor to system collapse.
The 40-minutes of BS conversation for etiquette before exiting a party is a good analogy. It reminds me of regular conversations about feminism with women not well versed in the academic vernacular, who will list out endless slogans they've heard and believe to be established facts (like wages, patriarchy, etc) and where it's impossibile to actually take any issue, isolate it, look at the nuances and lived realities, historically contextualize it, etc. This is not to say there aren't legitimate grievances, just your description of men trying to say "stop" got my cracking up in a fit of laughter.
The sad truth is most of the gender-slop, which is a part of the bigger bulging social sciences slop, is a consequence of the rotten foundation of our Western societies. If you ever get a chance, unless you already know the story, read up on the history of Harvard university, when it went from a college to a university (it was a social club for elites, who were too lazy to apply themselves to STEM disciplines), and Radcliffe college (the annex for ladies; progressives have deep roots: founded in the 1870s or thereabouts). My point is all these credentialed elites need something to do and to justify their position by playing games of prestige. Btw this feeds into the whole BS jobs narrative. No one wants to accept their irrelevance to humanity.
This morning when I opened substack I was hit by Pandey's repost in this hegemonic war of position you were writing about. It kinda made me think I needed more coffee. Instantly I was reminded of a movie scene (office space, 1999), whose dialogue I'll post below. Don't blame me for only having two neurons is all I'm saying.
"Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money."
I agree with basically all parts of your article--there is, indeed an oversupply of feminist argument and some women were going to find new areas by defecting to the less-oversupplied side.
So I pose the question: What *can* we do to fight feminism?
I’m trying to think of a real answer that isn’t totally expected or totally cringe. Maybe I’ll try to do a long form post on this.
But my cringe/obvious one is to be an example of positive masculinity. Be reliable, physically capable, desirable, and find women who want to be around you.
Most women are drawing their opinions of men based off of mood affiliation and so having even a short list of high quality women who will vouch that you have it going on and are not a scumbag is enough. It will keep you personally out of trouble and give lie to the idea that men are bad. The mob has no good answer for good women sticking up for good men.
Regarding the Clinton quote on war: she was on point. Just look at the realistic scenes of D-Day in something like "Saving Private Ryan" and the anguish and trauma of all the women there is life changing.
This is all palpably true, especially if you’ve spent time reading some of these people.
Zero sum games are obviously real, and why humanity always becomes hierarchical. The perspective that you shouldn’t have zero sum games is pure postmodern leftist power theory informed by pseudo-Christian morality, where all consequential games can be deleted from human society by telling everyone to just start their own games and play with themselves. Obviously this doesn’t work when creating the games is a game itself, and consequences are the only thing that makes them worth playing.
Reeves and Galloway have been obviously feminist for so long that I’ve been wondering if they explicitly told the womyn they could round up others to toil in their underground sugar caves from the beginning, and the video just hasn’t surfaced yet.
But I’m also no fan of the Pandey/Andrews anti-feminist women set. With Pandey, it’s personal, I argued with her amiably (I thought) and she responded horribly to it, so to avoid excess emotion I won’t use that example. With Andrews, I feel like she started a discussion that’s going to inevitably come down to “feminism needs to take some tips from masculine culture” but that can be easily divorced from actually having men around because it’s all just cultural learned behavior. These women are annoyed by other women, but that doesn’t mean they really respect or understand men except in small ways that affect them professionally.
The common denominator is that they don’t care about men any more than leftists care about racial minorities. And men can’t accept being a moral lodestar for feminism’s cultural project. They’ve been trying that for years, saying men will benefit from feminism, and it was just a sideshow which never made sense. The more light that shines on it, the more idiotic it looks.
This is a power struggle. Admit it, at least internally, and let it guide your friend-enemy distinction.
What's a tragedy is the redpill stuff has been in constant decline. We went from Karen Straughan to Helen Andrews. Same goes for PUA's. Roosh was great, but he fucked off. Everyone good fucks off, and then we are left with dadguys and feminists who can stay discussing these topics forever because they resent the people involved.
I think they fuck off because it’s a largely pointless endeavor. You are not going to convince anyone that wasn’t already convinced. I suspect most of the men ending up on RedPill, gets there by looking for something that validates their experience. It only needs to exist because the truth about women has been suppressed by feminists. But the truth was always there, it has been written about by many philosophers, you just have to look for it.
In the end, once a group/society has been infiltrated by women it’s basically game over. They hold too much power this way because the sexes have asymmetrical powers to begin with. Which is why smart men decided to exclude women from public affairs before.
So you can talk about RedPill stuff all day, it doesn’t matter. It’s actually more useful to not give a shit and for men to focus on building something new while excluding women.
Nailed it. Women are in an eternal war with each other. From that perspective, men are simply other players to be negotiated with, fought with, and manipulated to their own ends.
You don't seem that different from Reeves to me. Neither does Archwinger. Both of you are married guys who write with that fatalistic tone where young guys like me are just totally fucked and its "low key hilarious". It's weird to predict "antifeminism" becoming a thing women talk about while promoting Indian woman rehashing basic redpill points. Is it a prediction or you just telling us what you're gonna do? Every married man is on Team Woman it seems. Even when they think they are not. Probably that's the whole 'point' of marriage even.
You can only help by closing your substack and donating to mine.
But seriously, I don't think it's possible to do anything for us when you have the mentality that it ultimately is on 'men' to prove themselves by making it anyways, no matter how much society only wants us to play a subordinate, slavelike role. I assume that at the end of the day you think all rhetoricking or discussions against feminism are simply moot and just make the guys saying them look bad and weak and accomplish nothing else in the process. So it just seems to me feminism literally will never be beaten and guys like me will die out, and it's almost basically eugenics. I don't know why my position is considered weak when this is obviously a position that implies full submission to feminism.
It will obviously be beaten. It's mathematical certainty. Feminists reproduce at much lower rates than required to keep the population stable. That's a direct consequence of rejecting the traditional motherhood role. Therefore, they will be replaced by cultures that aren't feminist. This is most obviously happening in Europe and especially the UK where Muslims raise massively more children than the feminist natives, and of course have zero interest in women's rights. You don't even need them to reach a majority of the population, just a small but vocal minority combined with weak government is enough for them to take over and impose their own moral code.
So the real question is not will feminism disappear, because the answer is yes. The question is how quickly, and whether it's possible to get rid of feminism in a better way than the world becoming Muslim.
I don’t think men are worth anything just for being alive, that’s just a women/feminist discourse alteration of the world.
No life is worth anything in itself, it has to be earned, this is true at every level of living.
The reason feminist always point at men to work for being worth something is because they feel like they have an inbuilt worth for their reproductive capacity.
Where it becomes problematic is that most feminists don’t actually have kids and when they do they barely take care of them (if at all) which entirely defeat their position.
Women can only have superior intrinsic value if they use their reproductive capacity and care for the children as well.
But at best they reproduce and hand over the responsibility of caring for the kids to society at large.
For this reason they cannot require from men to be worth something and in fact if we where to evaluate relative worth, most women who don’t have children are worth much less to society than your average men.
In fact much of society’s modern problems come from have to dedicate way too much ressources for women doing useless bullshit jobs, that not only don’t create value but actually hampers actual work going on.
I think you're right about a lot of that, but that there's also the matter of target audience. At some points, certain writers seem more like they're carefully floating an idea to an angry mob rather than saying everything they think upfront.
Purely as spectator bloodsport, I'll be cheering on the anti-feminist camp (It's preferable to a vicious shrieking mujahideen of harpies wishing painful death on everything with a dick).
My maim concern as a reader is that the quality of the discourse stays entertaining, as it mostly has until this point. If Substack is submerged in endless back-and-forth slinging of dull 10,000-word articles ('Rethinking Feminazism - An Intersectional Approach To Perpetual Sentence & Paragraph Elongation) we'll all have to suffer
Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, I ask you, oh Creator Spirit, fill the hearts of your people such that a 10k word article called "Rethinking Feminazism - An Intersectional Approach To Perpetual Sentence & Paragraph Elongation" does indeed get written. Amen.
I'll start it now
Can't wait
Do you remember the Sokal stunt?
They quoted an entire chapter of Mein Kampf, swapped out all the ‘bolsheviks & jews’ parts with feminist bullshit, renamed it ‘Our Struggle Is Your Struggle’ & the university gleefully accepted it
That was more to showcase the problems of academia and uselessness of peer review than an attack on feminism.
But of course academia is all fucked because it has been overrun by women, mostly feminists, and their male allies, mostly feminists as well.
I think that he failed to properly highlight that the problem isn’t not really any specific ideology but just women in general.
Even if you patch the abuses of feminism, they’ll come up with some other bullshit that is guaranteed to create issues…
I've never heard of this. That sounds ABSOLUTELY amazing, and am looking it up now, even though I'm in the midst of a pretty cool article.... Can you write another piece on not getting easily distracted after the Feminazism article?
Only when I finish my novel 'Sinead and the Horn of Africa'.
It's about a high-powered Irish NGO Queen, author of 'Re-Imagining Ireland: Dismantling The Toxic Misogynist Racist Lie That Is Ireland In A Globalised World' and several chick-lit bestsellers.
She is also very heavily involved in Human Trafficking for Soros's 'open society' networks.
By night, she keeps a posse of captured African slaves in her shed & feeds them nothing but Viagra.
Sinead is modelled on the armies of NGO Hellbitches who have spent a decade running Ireland like a Soros colony/ideological Woke Zero experiment
I love your article. But your header image is uninspiring leading to lower conversion rate. If you want I can invite you to my image channel that I use to image bait normies into reading my articles.
Love you and your work.
I absolutely hate all group channels etc but if you want to send me one, maybe you can convince me
Great essay!
What you wrote about reminded me of Turchin's thesis on overproduction of elites competing for limited resources leading to the emergence of counter elites and eventually being a contributor to system collapse.
The 40-minutes of BS conversation for etiquette before exiting a party is a good analogy. It reminds me of regular conversations about feminism with women not well versed in the academic vernacular, who will list out endless slogans they've heard and believe to be established facts (like wages, patriarchy, etc) and where it's impossibile to actually take any issue, isolate it, look at the nuances and lived realities, historically contextualize it, etc. This is not to say there aren't legitimate grievances, just your description of men trying to say "stop" got my cracking up in a fit of laughter.
The sad truth is most of the gender-slop, which is a part of the bigger bulging social sciences slop, is a consequence of the rotten foundation of our Western societies. If you ever get a chance, unless you already know the story, read up on the history of Harvard university, when it went from a college to a university (it was a social club for elites, who were too lazy to apply themselves to STEM disciplines), and Radcliffe college (the annex for ladies; progressives have deep roots: founded in the 1870s or thereabouts). My point is all these credentialed elites need something to do and to justify their position by playing games of prestige. Btw this feeds into the whole BS jobs narrative. No one wants to accept their irrelevance to humanity.
This morning when I opened substack I was hit by Pandey's repost in this hegemonic war of position you were writing about. It kinda made me think I needed more coffee. Instantly I was reminded of a movie scene (office space, 1999), whose dialogue I'll post below. Don't blame me for only having two neurons is all I'm saying.
"Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money."
I agree with basically all parts of your article--there is, indeed an oversupply of feminist argument and some women were going to find new areas by defecting to the less-oversupplied side.
So I pose the question: What *can* we do to fight feminism?
I’m trying to think of a real answer that isn’t totally expected or totally cringe. Maybe I’ll try to do a long form post on this.
But my cringe/obvious one is to be an example of positive masculinity. Be reliable, physically capable, desirable, and find women who want to be around you.
Most women are drawing their opinions of men based off of mood affiliation and so having even a short list of high quality women who will vouch that you have it going on and are not a scumbag is enough. It will keep you personally out of trouble and give lie to the idea that men are bad. The mob has no good answer for good women sticking up for good men.
Regarding the Clinton quote on war: she was on point. Just look at the realistic scenes of D-Day in something like "Saving Private Ryan" and the anguish and trauma of all the women there is life changing.
This is all palpably true, especially if you’ve spent time reading some of these people.
Zero sum games are obviously real, and why humanity always becomes hierarchical. The perspective that you shouldn’t have zero sum games is pure postmodern leftist power theory informed by pseudo-Christian morality, where all consequential games can be deleted from human society by telling everyone to just start their own games and play with themselves. Obviously this doesn’t work when creating the games is a game itself, and consequences are the only thing that makes them worth playing.
Reeves and Galloway have been obviously feminist for so long that I’ve been wondering if they explicitly told the womyn they could round up others to toil in their underground sugar caves from the beginning, and the video just hasn’t surfaced yet.
But I’m also no fan of the Pandey/Andrews anti-feminist women set. With Pandey, it’s personal, I argued with her amiably (I thought) and she responded horribly to it, so to avoid excess emotion I won’t use that example. With Andrews, I feel like she started a discussion that’s going to inevitably come down to “feminism needs to take some tips from masculine culture” but that can be easily divorced from actually having men around because it’s all just cultural learned behavior. These women are annoyed by other women, but that doesn’t mean they really respect or understand men except in small ways that affect them professionally.
The common denominator is that they don’t care about men any more than leftists care about racial minorities. And men can’t accept being a moral lodestar for feminism’s cultural project. They’ve been trying that for years, saying men will benefit from feminism, and it was just a sideshow which never made sense. The more light that shines on it, the more idiotic it looks.
This is a power struggle. Admit it, at least internally, and let it guide your friend-enemy distinction.
What's a tragedy is the redpill stuff has been in constant decline. We went from Karen Straughan to Helen Andrews. Same goes for PUA's. Roosh was great, but he fucked off. Everyone good fucks off, and then we are left with dadguys and feminists who can stay discussing these topics forever because they resent the people involved.
I think they fuck off because it’s a largely pointless endeavor. You are not going to convince anyone that wasn’t already convinced. I suspect most of the men ending up on RedPill, gets there by looking for something that validates their experience. It only needs to exist because the truth about women has been suppressed by feminists. But the truth was always there, it has been written about by many philosophers, you just have to look for it.
In the end, once a group/society has been infiltrated by women it’s basically game over. They hold too much power this way because the sexes have asymmetrical powers to begin with. Which is why smart men decided to exclude women from public affairs before.
So you can talk about RedPill stuff all day, it doesn’t matter. It’s actually more useful to not give a shit and for men to focus on building something new while excluding women.
It's not pointless. Everything that gets popular gets dumbed down. Integral part of keep everyone at the level of goylem.
Nailed it. Women are in an eternal war with each other. From that perspective, men are simply other players to be negotiated with, fought with, and manipulated to their own ends.
You don't seem that different from Reeves to me. Neither does Archwinger. Both of you are married guys who write with that fatalistic tone where young guys like me are just totally fucked and its "low key hilarious". It's weird to predict "antifeminism" becoming a thing women talk about while promoting Indian woman rehashing basic redpill points. Is it a prediction or you just telling us what you're gonna do? Every married man is on Team Woman it seems. Even when they think they are not. Probably that's the whole 'point' of marriage even.
I want you to personally despair.
Everyone does.
Lmk what article you want me to write and I’ll make sure to tailor one special for you.
You can only help by closing your substack and donating to mine.
But seriously, I don't think it's possible to do anything for us when you have the mentality that it ultimately is on 'men' to prove themselves by making it anyways, no matter how much society only wants us to play a subordinate, slavelike role. I assume that at the end of the day you think all rhetoricking or discussions against feminism are simply moot and just make the guys saying them look bad and weak and accomplish nothing else in the process. So it just seems to me feminism literally will never be beaten and guys like me will die out, and it's almost basically eugenics. I don't know why my position is considered weak when this is obviously a position that implies full submission to feminism.
It will obviously be beaten. It's mathematical certainty. Feminists reproduce at much lower rates than required to keep the population stable. That's a direct consequence of rejecting the traditional motherhood role. Therefore, they will be replaced by cultures that aren't feminist. This is most obviously happening in Europe and especially the UK where Muslims raise massively more children than the feminist natives, and of course have zero interest in women's rights. You don't even need them to reach a majority of the population, just a small but vocal minority combined with weak government is enough for them to take over and impose their own moral code.
So the real question is not will feminism disappear, because the answer is yes. The question is how quickly, and whether it's possible to get rid of feminism in a better way than the world becoming Muslim.
I don’t think men are worth anything just for being alive, that’s just a women/feminist discourse alteration of the world.
No life is worth anything in itself, it has to be earned, this is true at every level of living.
The reason feminist always point at men to work for being worth something is because they feel like they have an inbuilt worth for their reproductive capacity.
Where it becomes problematic is that most feminists don’t actually have kids and when they do they barely take care of them (if at all) which entirely defeat their position.
Women can only have superior intrinsic value if they use their reproductive capacity and care for the children as well.
But at best they reproduce and hand over the responsibility of caring for the kids to society at large.
For this reason they cannot require from men to be worth something and in fact if we where to evaluate relative worth, most women who don’t have children are worth much less to society than your average men.
In fact much of society’s modern problems come from have to dedicate way too much ressources for women doing useless bullshit jobs, that not only don’t create value but actually hampers actual work going on.
I think you're right about a lot of that, but that there's also the matter of target audience. At some points, certain writers seem more like they're carefully floating an idea to an angry mob rather than saying everything they think upfront.