Saturday, December 20, 2014

In the Beginning, Feminism Declared War on Men

In the beginning, feminism declared war on men. This war had consequences - not only for men, but for the entire social ecology. How can you declare war on half the human race without the fallout raining down on everybody, irrespectively? In other words, how can you poison only half of a well?

Hence, by reason of its consequences, feminism's war against men became a war against the world at large.

But even though feminism makes war against the world at large, the brunt of the attack still falls upon men. They are living at ground zero.

When the consequences of  feminism's war become evident, the feminist response is to lay blame at the doorstep of men and maleness.  This is central to the feminist project - to blame men wherever possible, and to exonerate women. When this happens, the war goes through another cycle of escalation, leading to more consequences which, true to form, are blamed upon men and maleness. It happens every time.

Resistance to feminism, and the eventual overthrow of it, must be mapped according to the description we have given.

First: given the nature of the case, only men have the necessary understanding to take the lead against feminism. Being the primary target of feminist aggression, men are expert in the nature of that aggression and as such, uniquely qualified to direct the resistance. Women, with all due respect, cannot match the motivation and competence that men naturally possess in this realm. Accordingly, they must play an auxiliary role.

Second: we must understand that male disposability and gynocentrism, in the culture at large, will not go away any time soon. Hence, to place "men's rights" rhetoric at front and center, will gain only limited traction. So it is necessary to "talk up" the idea that feminism commits aggression against humanity at large, and that we are all in this together against feminism.

As a subset to that line of talk, it is useful to emphasize that feminism "hurts women too." Overall, the gynocentric tendency in society must be "tricked" or "gamed" in some manner, so as to serve a pro-male end.

Third: we must understand that although feminism is monolithic, the resistance to it is quite otherwise. The resistance is in fact a variety of movements, co-movements, sub-movements and projects that may be slotted into a coordinating meta-template - called the counter-feminist project.  

So, having understood that the resistance is not monolithic, we must train the general public to stop understanding it in monolithic terms. Accordingly, each sub-movement or project must develop an individuated "brand" that will stand out clearly in the public eye. This will force the public to see the parts individually and, by such constant exercise, develop ambient understanding of a complex reality which breaks the feminist narrative.

In the end, male-friendly interest will be served by creating a male inner sanctum within the resistance as a whole, by redirecting or blind-siding gynocentrism in calculated ways, and by sabotaging the feminist power structure in ways both foreseen and yet to be conceived. When the pro-male interest is served, the feminist war against men will be blocked and feminism will be at an end. This will be for the good of all.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Don't "Speak as a Woman". Just speak!

Feminists: Are they Compulsive Liars, or just Mentally Lazy?

I recently had the following exchange on Twitter, with a Swedish feminist:

I think it speaks for itself. (Click to view the graphic at full size.)

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Academic Study from UCLA -- Indicates High Sexual Victimization Among Males

Here is the abstract from the study. The study itself is available for online purchase:
"We assessed 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently in 2010 through 2012. We used these data to examine the prevailing assumption that men rarely experience sexual victimization. We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men."

Read More:

Saturday, December 13, 2014

MGTOW: An Impersonal Force of History

In recent times, a cultural schism has appeared between two prominent lobes of the non-feminist revolution: on the one side the Men Going Their Own Way sector, and on the other, the sector loosely grouped around A Voice for Men. The tension between these sectors has grown steadily for two or three years, but seems to have escalated sharply in the past several months.

I don't want to say either too much or too little, but I'd like to be as impartial as I can while hopefully adding something original. Yes, many of the ideas sketched here will be uniquely my own, but hey...why not?

The bone of contention seems to be a fear, within the MGTOW sector, that the AVFM sector is yielding to something called "traditionalism". So to break this down further: what is traditionalism? I will base my talk on what people appear to mean by that word.

Firstly: many in the MGTOW sector have a settled conviction that married men cannot belong to what they consider their "movement". So stubborn is their conviction, that to question it borders on heresy. Despite this, the leading lights of the AVFM sector do make bold to be heretical, contending that married men can indeed partake of MGTOW. 

Secondly: many in the MGTOW sector have voiced unease at a percieved traditionalism in certain members of the AVFM sector. In their view, this foreshadows a return to old-school gynocentric marriage along with old-fangled sex roles -- and that is a prospect which repels them.

The foregoing has spotlighted the exact "traditionalism" which MGTOW sectarians believe is creeping into the AVFM community. It is what they generally mean when they toss that word around.

That said, why should MGTOW sectarians even give a toot if AVFM happens to turn "traditional"? Because: AVFM still purports to have an interest in and obligation to" the greater MGTOW enterprise, and so long as it does, the question of who "owns" MGTOW will remain unsettled. In other words, the question of MGTOW identity will remain unsettled. ("Identity" in this case equates to ownership).

The MGTOW sectarians see MGTOW as a social refuge. They fear that if they admit married men to their fellowship, a camel's nose effect will drive them out of their own tent. That is why control of MGTOW identity (ownership) is important to them: to keep the gynocentric traditionalist camel out of their tent.  

There you have it: the two sides are battling for the MGTOW identity like two parties contesting for a wishbone. I am aware, however, that AVFM never wished for such a battle - it just came to them.

So has it occurred to anybody that nobody really owns the MGTOW identity at all, and never will? Come to that, has it occurred to anybody to wonder if there even IS a MGTOW identity?

I leave those questions open, but I'll get back to them later. For now, I pose a singular query: "What is MGTOW?" -- and until we have sorted that one out, we needn't hope to sort out the tangled mess we've talked about so far.

All right, so what is MGTOW?

MGTOW is an acronym that stands for "men going their own way". That phrase evokes men walking down a road they have freely chosen -- literally, "their own way".

In the context of history, MGTOW signifies the objective political reality where men, as a class, currently find themselves. Under the system of feminist innovation which now predominates, men are second-class citizens. Moreover, this reality is not static: it promises to get worse when feminist innovation develops further.

I say all of this with the understanding that my target audience already knows why men are second-class citizens. They have covered that ground as thoroughly as I have, so I needn't waste time explaining it to them. 

Returning to our theme: under such conditions, the system of social obligation which formerly bound men either to women or to society as a whole, is voided of moral authority. Hence it may, at individual discretion, be nullifed.

Briefly then, MGTOW signifies the death of the social contract and the liberation of all males into a system of individual agency where they may form ad hoc social contracts as they see fit. Such is the objective reality of history -- one might wish it otherwise, but that is how things are. 

Note however, that MGTOW signifies merely freedom, leaving open the question of what should be done with it. Accordingly, we use "MGTOW" in a political or world-historic way, and would stipulate that the realm of personal relations does not fall within its purview. That is to say, there is no MGTOW manual to specify how any man should govern that aspect of his life.

So MGTOW is rooted in the political, not the personal -- although it certainly has implications for the personal. 

In itself, MGTOW is not a clique, club, cult, coterie or tribe of any sort -- and nothing in the present statement should be taken to imply this. So it is incorrect to attach the indefinite article and speak of the individual as "a" MGTOW, since that implies club membership.

Similarly, MGTOW is not a personal identity dog-tag -- so again, to call yourself "a" MGTOW,  is not a very MGTOW move at all. The phrase "a MGTOW" is a flawed grammatical construction because "MGTOW" is an abstract noun, and no man is identical with an abstract noun. You could, of course, style yourself more verbosely as a man "who goes his own way", but that is rather a natural descriptor than an appellative tag. Also, nobody, and no group, has any patent on such a phrase.

In the end, MGTOW is no more than 1.) a principle or force of history, and 2.) a high-altitude situation map of the male condition.

What we have sketched here is the MGTOW core minimum. Anything less would insufficiently describe MGTOW, and anything more would be bells and whistles. So I turn again to the question of MGTOW identity or ownership. Now that we have inventoried what makes MGTOW fundamentally MGTOW, we may interrogate this more to the purpose.

Since MGTOW is a demographic phenomenon, nobody owns it. It simply "is". So ultimately, the MGTOW principle itself "goes its own way". It springs from the reality of history, and you either tap into it or you don't. It is like an ocean wave that beckons you to "hang ten" and be powerfully carried along, but it does not belong to you. It paradoxically serves but will not be commanded, and you cannot understand it otherwise. 

So you are free to form all the MGTOW clubs you wish, with membership rules as you see fit. But keep in mind that "MGTOW" doesn't belong to your club alone. You are not, in or of yourselves, "MGTOW". You are not identical with that abstract noun. You are simply a group of people surfing on the wave of history, organized around the MGTOW principle in a manner that suits you. And that is fine. That is good. That is your right. But never forget that the MGTOW principle is something far bigger than you, and bigger than all of us.

Even so, I think there is an over-arching philosophical mandate to all of this, and I have tried to catch a glimmer of it here.

I should add that I roundly applaud the marriage strike both as a strategy for male survival and as a political leveraging tool to extort proper treatment of the male population.

However, the point where I go my own way is the idea that the marriage strike makes the principal focus for MGTOW-related thought, rhetoric or action. No, I see the marriage strike as merely a subplot, or rather, one of many projects that could manifest the MGTOW principle as a force in history.

Here's a related point that I don't want to omit:  male solidarity should be grounded in the political and world-historic side of things. It should NOT be centered on personal frustrations about women and relationships. The latter, if voiced within earshot of the general public, sets you up to be the butt of mockery. What's more, it sounds like a form of gynocentrism . . doesn't it?

Very well. So . . . if a married man would express SOLIDARITY with MGTOW, who's to tell him that he mustn't do that?

Furthermore, if by personal genius or luck-of-the-draw he finds the perfect mate and succeeds wildly at self-realization despite her presence, then is he not well and truly "going his own way"? Can you plausibly argue otherwise? Certainly such a man has found his own path. So how if he literally calls himself "a MGTOW", and starts a "MGTOW" website, and a "MGTOW" publishing company, and paints a giant MGTOW logo on his house -- what of that? Would you send the One True MGTOW Posse to burn that pretender down? I think not.

So who are you to tell this man he doesn't pertain to "MGTOW"? On what authority do you speak? Yours, apparently. But what about his? You reckon he gives one cold spit about your presumed authority, and what you think? And why should he?

In the end, all that matters is that a man can make the MGTOW principle work for him in his own life according to his innovative genius. After all, a man going his own way goes his OWN way, does he not?

And does such a man make social arrangements with other men, for the sake of mutual benefit?

You bet he does!

In fact, oddly enough, even men who only wish to be left alone, can "stick together".

But none of that in itself is MGTOW. It is only a manifestation of MGTOW -- a way of harnessing the MGTOW principle and putting it to work.

So I renounce the indefinite article. I am not "a" MGTOW,  nor do I belong to any club bearing that name. I am simply a respecter of the MGTOW principle as a force in history.

To summarize: "MGTOW" is not an identity, but merely a fact.

Meanwhile, the MGTOW sectarians are facing a boundary crisis. They are worried about their little tent, while forgetting that MGTOW is a big tent. Their fears are groundless, for they can always pitch any little tent they want to pitch, and decide who gets in or who doesn't. But they must understand that there is plenty of MGTOW to go around, and that for heaven's sake, nobody wants to steal their piece of the action!

So, hey maaaan! Like...don't bogart that MGTOW, man! Pass it around!

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Fidelbogen Weighs "MGTOW" and finds Parts of it Lacking

Here is that notorious speech of mine which kicked over such a beehive in MGTOW land. It continues to do so. . 

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Feminist Opinions are not Facts

Please retweet this if you feel so inclined.

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Useful Idiots for Feminism

OK, I am Back!

This is Episode No. 28 of the Vanguard Report.

Friday, November 07, 2014

What is "MGTOW"?

What is MGTOW?

MGTOW is an acronym that stands for "men going their own way". As the phrase might suggest, it signifies men travelling in a way they have freely chosen -- literally, "their own way".

In the context of history, MGTOW signifies the objective political reality where men, as a class, are currently situated. Under the system of feminist innovation which now predominates, men are effectively second-class citizens. Furthermore, the situation is not static, and what is presently so promises to become more so as the state of feminist innovation continues to evolve.

Under such conditions, the system of social-contractual obligation which formerly bound men to either women or society as a whole, is devoid of moral authority and may at discretion be nullifed.

Briefly stated, MGTOW signifies the death of the social contract and the liberation of all males into a system of individual agency where they are free to form ad hoc contracts on an individual basis.

MGTOW signifies merely freedom, leaving open the question of what should be done with it. Hence we use this term in a political or world-historic way, and would stipulate that the realm of personal relations does not fall within its purview.

MGTOW, as such, is not a cult, club, coterie or tribe of any sort -- and nothing in the present writing should be taken to imply this. Thus it is incorrect to attach the indefinite pronoun and speak of the individual as "a" MGTOW, since this implies club membership. In the end, MGTOW is no more than 1.) a principle or force of history, and 2.) a primitive situation map of the male condition.

What we have sketched here may be understod as the MGTOW core minimum. Anything less would insufficiently describe MGTOW, and anything more would be bells and whistles.

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

The Truth about Whiteribbon91

There is nothing even arguably untrue about the following tweet. Whiteribbon91 indeed IS a feminist organization, indeed DOES promote feminist ideology, and indeed does NOT work to end violence:

Friday, October 31, 2014

Jessica Valenti: Racist. . . Sexist. . . Feminist!

The trouble with being a "public figure", is that you are always standing in a pulpit that could turn into a pillory at a moment's notice.

So the lesson is, that if you are a public figure, it behooves you not to be a public asshole, lest you get pilloried.

Jessica Valenti, being a feminist, is naturally a strong, empowered woman. So I'm sure she understands this.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

It's Official: All Feminists ARE 'Like That'!

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Feminism is Morally Bankrupt

Saturday, October 25, 2014

One More Time: Feminism IS What We Say it Is

Friday, October 24, 2014

Nicht-Feminist, Berlin Chapter - November Meeting

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

The War for Inner Space

Please retweet, If you've a mind to do so.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The Vanguard Report -- Episode No. 22

Episode No. 22 of the Vanguard Report, with Nick Reading and Fidelbogen.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Hatred of Men is Feminism's Operative Core Principle

 Judging by the number of retweets in the last 24 hours, this item has struck a sweet spot in the zeitgeist.  Apparently, it's what a lot of people are avid to hear right now. So you can keep the ball rolling by hitting that button too!

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Lake Washington

Here is a photograph I took today. (Click to enlarge.) I am sharing because. . . well, just because! Enjoy.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Feminist Lying Deconstructed -- Again!!

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Feminism is What We Say it Is -- and Here's Why

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Feminist Subjectivism

Friday, September 26, 2014

Worth-Based Entitlement - A Repost

Here is a blog post from a couple of years ago, which I found worthy of a dust-off and second run:

find no good reason to believe that women are uniquely "oppressed", or that their sufferings in life transcend the common lot of humanity. And more, I can see a strong case that men have it worse in many ways.

But feminist theory maintains that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group, and specifically names women as a "political sex class". Moreover, feminist preaching for many years has openly incited women to see themselves in such terms. Such is the sisterhood trope. Furthermore, the last half-century has witnessed a mushrooming growth of women's advocacy groups, lobbying groups, government bureaux, and all manner of special services for women both public and private.

But it doesn't end with blind favoritism toward women. No. The state of matters takes a malignant turn when you consider that female citizens presently enjoy disproportionate power to compromise the well-being of male citizens. As simply as we can put it, women have the power to lie about men with impunity, in a way that seriously harms them. And that power, being vested in laws and institutions, becomes a political power and makes women a political class.

To put this another way, it is not women, but MEN who are "oppressed". Oppression, as feminist theory informs us, is structural. It is rooted not in the power of individuals, but in the power of institutions made disproportionately available to some groups and not others. And when the disfavored group feels the institutionally-based power of the favored group like a boot on its neck, only then may we correctly say that "oppression" is taking place. So that is why men (not women) are the oppressed group in today's civilization -- because the power of women to harm men is embodied in laws and institutions. In other words, structurally. If we are to hold the feminists to the letter of their own law, we must insist that they acknowledge this.

What we have related here tilts the political board against men as a group. In light of this, we feel no hesitation in stating that men, as a group, have no political obligation to go to bat for women as a group. Under the circumstances, why should they? Rationally speaking, men would do best to look out for themselves as individuals and to form contracts of mutual assistance in order to multiply the benefit. No consideration, either moral or utilitarian, can inspire me with any sense of duty toward women as a group. This would be true even in the best of times, but is doubly true at present, when men are an oppressed class.

Therefore any individual woman I meet will get special consideration from me only as an individual, and only if she proves herself worthy. And clearly, some will prove themselves worthier than others. This way of thinking entails no "misogyny" because it entails no opinion, either good or ill, about women as a group.

Now, misogyny means disaffection toward women irrespectively. Hence, even if you were to form a bad opinion about every female person on earth, it would not entail misogyny if you had weighed each case on its merits. You would merely harbor a bad opinion about this woman, that woman, and the next woman -- but not about women.

I am far from having evaluated every woman on earth, and I know my life is too short to do that. So I am content to say that I harbor no opinion either good or ill about the huge majority of women, but that as I make their acquaintances I will evaluate them one at a time. Then, according to the case, I will form a social contract binding myself to specific behaviors. Upon that base alone, I will decide what, if anything, I "owe" to the individual in question. In this, I do just as I would do with any man -- I am entirely even-handed.

Yes. Characterization by merit is a first principle, and it frames my conduct toward everyone I meet. Nobody, man or woman, is "entitled" to anything save what I, by my good pleasure, bountifully proffer -- and calculation of merit weighs considerably in that dispensation. In short, I study the manifested qualities of other people in living form, and work from there.

But prudential considerations are always uppermost in my thinking, with an eye to rational self-preservation grounded in a prescience of natural consequences. My policy, then, entails a strategizing sense of  the Kantian hypothetical imperative: "If you want the world to be X, you must do Y and Z." The reason is, that if you fail to do Y and Z, then by natural consequence the world will not be X.

So in the end, although my conduct is governed purely by a moral law within myself, that moral law is framed by the considerations which I have sketched above. I should add that it never hurts to get on my good side. Deal squarely and rightly with me, and I shall be the truest friend you could ask for. Otherwise, things might get sticky.

Feminism views women as an entitled class, and fails to hold them accountable as individuals. I find this both pernicious and unworkable, and for that reason (among many others) I reject feminism as a movement and as an ideology. I disavow it. I disclaim ownership in it.  I repudiate the cultural narrative which it imposes and I wash my hands of any project predicated on any aspect of  that narrative.

Briefly then, I am not a feminist and no power in the universe will force me to become one.

Finally, no woman I shall ever meet may exercise any claim upon me in the name of feminism, or under color of feminism in any form. She is entitled to nothing until she proves to me that she is worth something.

Such is worth-based entitlement.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Diplomatic Protocol that Every Feminist Must Follow

It doesn't matter how many non-feminists might waive this rule in practice. It is still the rule, and any feminist who won't abide by it may be disregarded and dismissed.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Damning Definition of a 'White Knight'

The best definition of a "white knight" ever given, bar none! And I wrote it.

If you agree, please retweet this.

Friday, September 19, 2014

They Must Walk Their Talk

Long Comment at KSU Sentinel

I have left the following reader comment at the Kennesaw State University Sentinel, in regard to article about the KSUM organization. The comment is of sufficient heft to make a decent blog post, so. . . why not?

I commend Ashli Howell for respecting protocol, by forthrightly disclosing her position as "feminist", and by doing so right at the beginning of her article. Many feminists try to be shifty about this, so it is good to see that Ms. Howell is an exception. 

I will disclose my own position. I am non-feminist. 

The purpose of KSUM, is to establish a non-feminist social and intellectual oasis (or "safe space", as some might call it). Ms. Howell clearly objects to  such a thing at Kennesaw, so I can only assume that she'd rather silence non-feminist voices in academia, and maintain the feminist hegemony. 

Ms. Howell's stance, as revealed in the article, is clearly that of feminist subjectivism. To merely call oneself a "feminist" bestows no authority to tell others what is or is not feminism. We all live in the same world and have access to the same information, hence we are all entitled to draw conclusions as we see fit and discuss these accordingly. That is especially true in academia, where the free exchange of ideas ought to be held in high esteem.  
So if the non-feminist group KSUM wishes to "critique feminism for the damage it has caused due to its inherent hatred of males," then I say "full speed ahead". Those sound like pretty serious matters, yet I get the impression that Ms. Howell doesn't want them to be talked about at all. But surely, feminism OUGHT to be critiqued for its inherent hatred of males, and for the damage this has caused. To me, that sounds like an urgent issue, and I can't help wondering why Ashli Howell would want to sweep it under the rug. 
Ashli Howell devotes a long paragraph to discussing AVFM, but apparently doesn't notice that AVFM is not KSUM. These are separate organizations. Nor is there really such a thing as "the men's rights movement" -- apart from the phrase itself, there is no monolithic entity or point source that one may properly assign that title to. As the saying goes, "there is no 'there' there."

Moving along . . .  I have a problem with the following statement: 

"The final problem I have is that the men’s rights movement really misses the mark. They believe that because you are pro-woman, you must be anti-man."

Ms. Howell misses the mark here, for reasons explained above, namely, that there is  no "men's rights movement" in a concretely identifiable sense.  As such, it is simply misleading to suggest that  "they (who is "they"?) believe that because you are pro-woman, you must be anti-man." That generalization has no warrant, and does no credit to the author.

The bottom line is, that if there is to be any meaningful discussion of feminism, and its implication in men's problems, and its coexistence with the non-feminist community at KSU or anywhere on Earth, then "the hate has got to stop" -- and that means from all directions. "Extremist" feminists are not the issue here. All of feminism is the issue here, because all of feminism is implicated. 

It is simply not possible to discuss men's issues in isolation from a broader critique of feminism. Certain conversations must (and will) take place, and academia has always been the venue of choice for such talk. 

KSU, by providing a space for such discourse, can make itself a shining example to schools everywhere, and to the world at large.
The article to which this was attached, may be viewed here. Hopefully it will not get moderated:

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Feminism is What We Say It Is

Kindly retweet this ^^, if you've a mind to do so.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

That's Right: We Just Want to Attack Feminism!

The following brief statement was posted by somebody, somewhere on the internet. I share it here because, in my opinion, it neatly summarizes what needs to be summarized:

"Why work to end feminism instead of men's human rights violations? The former engenders those violations and organizes to frustrate our efforts to end them."

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Watch this Video!

I reckon they lay out a pretty sensible philosophy here . . . don't you think so? ;)

Friday, September 12, 2014

A Minor Skirmish on the Twitter Front

I offer the following brief vignette by way of example, to show how men and women (in this case, myself and Kristal Garcia the Honey Badger!) can work together to open a can of whoopass (metaphorically speaking) on feminism:

This ^^ is small stuff, on a small scale, but the underlying principle of operation is the important thing here.

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Thought for the Moment: On MGTOW

I acknowledge and respect the MGTOW principle in its world-historic aspect. 

By "MGTOW principle", I mean the morally justified prioritization of male self-interest as against the anti-male zeitgeist of the feminist regime.

However, I disavow any human group, clique or club which sticks the label "MGTOW" to itself. 

Hopefully, that clears things up. ;)

A Lot of People Don't Want to Talk About Feminism

A "conspiracy theorist" recently twitted the above ^^ at me.

So why am I presenting this? What is the takeaway point here? What is the object lesson?

It is this: that a lot of people want to steer the conversation away from feminism. Some of these people are feminists, others are not, and their motives will vary.

And yet, they all want to steer the conversation away from feminism.

Sort of makes you go "hmmm", doesn't it?

Well. . . counter-feminist analysis holds that we must keep feminism, as a topic, front and center.

But if I were to reply to "EqualB4Law", I would start by granting, just for the sake of argument, that the Illuminati are real. Then I would define "feminism" as a tool of the illuminati, and would quickly suggest that we ought to wreck their tools.

Yes, I am a strong believer in fighting the power by wrecking their tools.

Hey, you never know, the Illuminati might just turn out to be real. But whichever way it rolls we've got our bases covered, and we are reclaiming power in a very real way.